No doubt some of the stories found through the links (lifted from Drudge) will contain some distortions. The question should be, is the totality of the evidence (if any) credible. There may not be enough information to determine the depth of deception and/or desertion on the part of the Obama Administration or that of Bergdahl.
Whatever the full investigation finds, Obama has made another nest of snakes.
OBAMA SAVED A RAT?
VIDEO: Bergdahl's release...
Qatar allowing released Taliban men to move freely in country...
Reintegration: Military hides Bergdahl from public view...
FLASHBACK: 'Converted to Islam And Taught Captors Bomb Making Skills'...
NYT: Left note explaining desertion before going AWOL...
REPORT: Wanted to Renounce Citizenship...
Team Leader: 'A lot more to story than soldier walking away'...
Death sentence 'in the realm of possibilities'...
Pentagon knew whereabouts but didn't risk rescue...
14 SOLDIERS WERE LOST Searching for Bergdahl...
Never Officially Listed as POW...
White House apologizes for 'oversight' in notification failure...
FATHER: 'I am still working to free all Guantanamo prisoners'...
MAG: White House Overrode Internal Objections To Terrorist Release...
'Suck it up and salute'...
DESPAIR: My Son Died 'Looking For A Traitor?'
Rubio: Obama 'Believes He's Become Monarch Or Emperor'...
LAW PROF: The President That Richard Nixon Always Wanted To Be...
Senate Dems desert...
REPORT: Had been made to look ill...
Afghan Villagers: Soldier deliberately headed for Taliban strongholds...
3 More Members Of Bergdahl's Platoon Speak Out...
We Were Told 'To Keep Quiet'...
Who wrote Rice's talking points this time?
Bergdahl hometown cancels plans for celebration...
Marita pulls truth from Obama’s nonsense.
Last night we saw Denver’s disappointing performance. Last week President Obama had much the same experience. Even his fans have been critical. In my column this week, Obama’s SOTU: Where are the opportunities? (attached and pasted-in-below), I dissect the SOTU looking at the energy implications and add in relevant data and observations. As I am fond of doing, I used the SOTU to connect some dots and introduce some information of which most people are unaware. I think it is a good piece—though it’s response on Townhall has been dismal. For those of you who post my work, I hope it does better for you.
Thanks for posting, passing on and/or personally enjoying Obama’s SOTU: Where are the opportunities?
Marita Noon, Executive Director
PO Box 52103, Albuquerque, NM 87181
For immediate release: February 3, 2014
Commentary by Marita Noon
Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great Inc.
Contact: 505.239.8998, email@example.com
Obama’s SOTU: Where are the opportunities?
The State of The Union Address (SOTU) reminded me of the idiom, “on one hand, on the other hand.”
On one hand, President Obama extoled efforts to increase fuel efficiency to “help America wean itself off foreign oil.” He touted the new reality of “more oil produced at home than we buy from the rest of the world, the first time that’s happened in nearly twenty years.” On the other hand, he promised to use his “authority to protect more of our pristine federal lands for future generations”—which is code for more national monuments and endangered species designations that will lock up federal lands from productive use.
Electricity and extreme poverty
Concern was expressed for Americans who “are working more than ever just to get by.” He wants to help Africans “double access to electricity and help end extreme poverty.” But his policies are limiting access to electricity in America and raising the cost (20% in the past 6 years). Higher-cost energy is the most punitive to those struggling “just to get by.”
The “Energy Cost Impacts on American Families, 2001-2013” report found: “Lower-income families are more vulnerable to energy costs than higher-income families because energy represents a larger portion of their household budgets, reducing the amount of income that can be spent on food, housing, health care, and other necessities. Nearly one-third of U.S. households had gross annual incomes less than $30,000 in 2011. Energy costs accounted for an average of 27% of their family budgets, before taking into account any energy assistance.” The report shows the 27% is an 11% increase over the 2001 energy cost impact. For households with an after-tax income higher than $50,000, the 2001 percentage was 5 and the 2013: 9—a 4% increase. For low- and middle-income families, energy costs are now consuming a portion of after-tax household income comparable to that traditionally spent on major categories such as housing, food, and health care—with black, Hispanic and senior households being hit especially hard.
All of the above
President Obama took credit for his “‘all of the above’ energy strategy” which, he claims has “moved America closer to energy independence than we have been in decades.” And, regarding natural gas, he says that he’ll “cut red tape to help states get those factories built and put folks to work.” POTUS proclaimed: “I’ll act on my own to slash bureaucracy and streamline the permitting process for key projects, so we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible.” The Department of Energy has dozens of permits for liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities languishing on some bureaucrat’s desk. One of the few approved terminals: Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass LNG Terminal Project in Cameron Parish Louisiana, created more than 2000 jobs in 2013 and looks to create another 2000 jobs in 2014. President Obama, please act on your own here. Cut the red tape and slash the bureaucracy. Let’s get those permits issued.
A January 16, 2013, letter sent to the White House from 18 environmental groups, whose opinions seem to be held in such high regard by the Obama administration, challenged the president’s approach—calling “all of the above” a “compromise that future generations can’t afford.” The letter states: “We believe that continued reliance on an ‘all of the above’ energy strategy would be fundamentally at odds with your goal of cutting carbon pollution and would undermine our nation’s capacity to respond to the threat of climate disruption.” They claim: “an ‘all of the above’ approach that places virtually no limits on whether, when, where or how fossil fuels are extracted ignores the impacts of carbon-intense fuels and is wrong for America’s future.” The groups see it as a threat to “our most sensitive lands.” Despite an abundance of evidence to the contrary, they posit: “clean energy and solutions that have already begun to replace fossil fuels” save Americans money. The letter concludes: “We believe that a climate impact lens should be applied to all decisions regarding new fossil fuel development, and urge that a ‘carbon-reducing clean energy’ strategy rather than an ‘all of the above’ strategy become the operative paradigm for your administration’s energy decisions.”
As if an executive decree could make it so, he announced: “the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.” True, climate change is a fact—the climate changes, always has, always will. But the debate as to what causes it or what should be done about it is far from “settled.” “We have to act with more urgency because a changing climate is already harming western communities struggling with drought and coastal cities dealing with floods,” he announced. However, droughts and floods have been going on throughout history when CO2 emissions (which he calls “carbon pollution”) were much lower than today. His solution? “The shift to a cleaner economy,” which gobbles up taxpayer dollars in crony corruption (more than 30 such projects have gone bust since the 2009 stimulus bill released nearly $100 billion for “clean energy”).
A story in the January 25, 2013, Economist titled “European climate policy: worse than useless” starts: “Since climate change was identified as a serious threat to the planet, Europe has been in the vanguard of the effort to mitigate it.” Europe has been the global leader in climate change policies that are, according to The Economist: “dysfunctional.” The “worse than useless” piece states: “Had Europe’s policies worked better, other countries might have been more inclined to emulate the leaders in the field.” It points out that Europe’s “largest source of renewable energy” is wood.
A companion article in the same issue of The Economist, “Europe’s energy woes,” states: “Europeans are more concerned with the cost of climate-change policies than with their benefits. European industries pay three to four times more for gas, and over twice as much for electricity, as American ones.” Calling the EU “a lone front-runner without followers,” the article points out: “it is hard to sell the idea of higher energy prices, particularly when the rest of the world is doing too little to cut greenhouse gases.” Rather than learning from Europe, like a lemming, President Obama apparently wants to lead America off the same “useless” cliff.
He believes that the minimum wage needs to be increased to $10.10 an hour. He wants to “Give America a raise.” Yet, in North Dakota’s boom economy, workers at Walmart and McDonalds are paid in the teens—without government meddling. The best wages are paid with a fully employed workforce. The Keystone XL pipeline would provide thousands of good paying (often union) jobs, but, it was never mentioned in the 2014 SOTU. (By the way, the long-awaited report on Keystone was released on Friday. It found that “the project would have a minimal impact on the environment.” Politico calls the report: “a major disappointment to climate activists.”)
President Obama, you are correct when you say, “opportunity is who we are,” but your policies hurt the poor and block job creation. My question for you echoes what you asked early in the SOTU address: “The question for everyone in this chamber, running through every decision we make this year, is whether we are going to help or hinder this progress.” Are you going to help Americans or hinder our opportunities? This question should run through every decision you make in 2014.
On one hand, you say you want to help. On the other hand, everything you do hinders.
The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.
When it involves what Obama has said about keeping your insurance if you like it, you have to decide to believe his falsifying lips or your wide-open ears. Either way your president continues to lie about his statements on the subject.
He has been recorded at least 29 times saying the statement attributed to him and it is about time his progressive groupies start calling him out for having the audacity to stand before this nation and give fake information when serious questions are put to him, or in the alternative, he just decides to have another lie fest.
Here is an excerpt from one of the articles from The Daily Caller circulating around the world:
President Barack Obama told his enthusiastic supporters Monday night that he never promised what video recordings show him promising at least 29 times.
The videos show Obama promising 300 million Americans that “if you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan, period.”
But that’s not what he really said, Obama announced Monday in a speech to about 200 Organizing for Action supporters, gathered at the St. Regis hotel in D.C.
“What we said was you could keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law was passed,” he told Obamacare’s political beneficiaries and contractors.
That claim is not supported by his videotaped statements, which don’t include any mention of his new “if it hasn’t changed” exception.
But the newly-revealed exception is justified by a higher-priority promise in Obamacare, Obama declared.
“If we had allowed these old plans [to continue]… then we would have broken an even more important promise — making sure that Americans gain access to health care that doesn’t leave them one illness away from financial ruin,” he announced.
“So the bottom line is, is that we are making the insurance market better for everybody,” he declared, prompting loud applause by supporters eager to ignore his three years of fraudulent statements.
If you follow the link just below you can read the rest of the articles and see some really boring lies from the automaton of lies.
- Liar-in-Chief: Obama Denies Videotaped “You Can Keep it” Promise
- Obama denies ‘you can keep it’ videotaped promises
- Obama Denies ‘You Can Keep It’ Videotaped Promises
- Audacity – Obama denies ‘you can keep it’ remarks
- 36 Times Obama Said You Can Keep Your Health Plan
- Obama: Budget tightening could widen income gap
- Obama faces a tough sell with House GOP freshmen
- Obama Denies He Ever Said, “If you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan, period”
- VIDEO – Obama’s Lying About His Lies Now
- Obama Changed His Story… Again
The letter shown below was recently published in two local area newspapers. The letter was in response to letters in both newspapers submitted by Ann Ruhnka.
Here is a link to Ann Ruhnka’s letter which appeared in one area newspaper:
Blame Democrats on Shutdown
Well Ann Ruhnka finally got one thing right, that the government shutdown was grossly irresponsible. However, the fault lies solely at the feet of the Democrats and Obama, who refused to negotiate, who are so fiscally irresponsible (outrageously unresponsible) who put their ill conceived policies before the country and the American people (her words), that they refused to even consider a number of proposals that would have kept the government running. You see, these words blaming the Republicans must clearly be redirected to the Democrats instead.
Fiscally irresponsible defines the party who supports the Affordable (ha!) Health Care Act that was conceived at a lower amount, and then increased to a mere trillion dollars. The true cost is now $3 trillion (with a T) according to the OMB. The House of Representatives is responsible for appropriation of funding for government programs. The House Republicans simply did their job, as they did not believe that such an irresponsible program should be funded. The Heritage Foundation states it is beyond dispute that Congress can use its power of the purse to defund Obamacare—both its mandatory and discretionary spending—in appropriations legislation this fall.
The truth is Obama plans to raise everybody’s taxes in order to pay for Obamacare. He needs to tell the truth and start accounting for what he is paying out this money for…where is it going, who is getting it (e.g. Michelle’s classmate was awarded the no-bid CGI contract that developed the failed website for Obamacare). The stories of major increases in premiums and deductibles, reductions of full to part time jobs, the lost coverage with terminations of plans in the millions, and at least 18 new taxes, are just the tip of the iceberg for this repulsive plan. Not only will it represent a take over of one-sixth of the economy by an incompetent, wasteful government who can’t even get the start-up right, it will be enforced by a corrupt internal revenue service. Who in their right mind would support such a program? Thank God the few Republicans in the House stood their ground…for now.
How many of us were really harmed, or even noticed the shutdown? (There could be a few legitimate cases of harm in New Mexico which has more government workers than most.) The furloughed workers are promised to receive all of their back pay. The real harm in the shut down was caused by barricading the WW II memorial, “revealing the mentality of a tin-pot dictator” according to columnist George Will. He further states, “The same punish-the-people attitude led to shutdowns of other parks and historic sites that get no federal funding. “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting,” a Park Service ranger told The Washington Times. I’ve been saying for a while that there is no bottom to Obama. He’s not just ruthless. He’s without scruples and honor.”
With regard to the new Obamacare act being considered law, it is disgraceful that it was passed in the dark of night, having not even been read, by law-makers who were coerced into submission. The scandal continued with the Supreme Court re-writing the law and making it a tax, instead of performing their job of interpreting the law and applying Constitutional principles. According to the Heritage Foundation, while the Supreme Court has ruled on the individual mandate provision of Obamacare, dozens of lawsuits remain pending on various other aspects of the law. How can we accept it as law when it keeps changing without Congressional approval, with Obama’s exemptions to favored cronies and labor unions, the revisions in certain implementation provisions, and the audacity to say this law of the land does not apply to Congress and their employees? These changes were not part of the original law. Obama does not have the authority to just change the law at his whim.
Lastly, closing of the government and refusing to increase the debt limit will not cause default any more than not increasing your credit limit means you can’t pay your monthly credit card bill. (Increasing the debt limit will, however, foolishly allow the increase in debt.) The money coming into the government at any time will be enough to cover our debts. This is another dishonest sham being propagated by Obama and the Democrats, another lie to create another crisis with the next budget and debt-limit deadline. Just to be clear, next November voters must remember that Obama’s shutdown and reckless-spending partners in Congress were all Democrats.
Susan Hill is an Edgewood resident and a member of the Sandia Tea Party
Networks blamed shutdown on GOP in 41 stories — 0 for Dems
Republicans never expected to get a fair shake in the Big Three networks’ coverage of the 16-day government shutdown, but the final tally of stories blaming the GOP is stunning: 41 stories blamed Republicans and zero blamed Democrats.
Obama’s way of showing his … What?
Use your imagination.