Most everything else has been tried … maybe this will work

From Neil Mammen,  author of:

Jesus Was Is Involved in Politics!

Why Aren’t You?

Why Isn’t Your Church?

The book is available from Amazon.com

It doesn’t matter if you are a veteran or not.  Please read and forward this to all your e-mail buddies.  Let it go viral.

The 2014 United States elections will be held on Tuesday, November 4, 2014. During this midterm election year, all 435 seats in the of Representatives and 33 of the 100 seats in the United States Senate will be contested in this election. Get out and VOTE!

 

A movement has started in our armed forces to get out the vote in 2014…They are organizing themselves, but this can be done by all of us.

The President, the Commander in Chief, has made the Rules of Engagement (ROE) so difficult that our troops are often killed before they can get permission to fight.

Nothing has been done to stop our troops from being murdered by the Afghanis they are training, either.

Now, the President wants the US to sign on to the UNs International Criminal Court (ICC), which would allow the UN’s ICC to arrest and try US troops for War Crimes, without the legal protections guaranteed under US Law, and from which there is no appeal. The President, with his Democratic control of the Senate, has nearly all the power.

 

If the Non-Establishment Republicans, and Conservatives, can take back the Senate in 2014, our troops can once again be protected from unnecessary danger. 

Please consider this, and send it on to your mailing lists.

Interestingly enough, when GWB was president you heard about the military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan almost daily. With Obama in the White House, the mainstream media has been strangely quiet.

More than 1,000 American soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan in the last 27 months. This is more than the combined total of the five years before that.

 

Many have died since August. During the last six month, over 50 additional NATO and US servicemen have been murdered, inside jobs by those who are hired to be a “force for good in Afghanistan .”

The commander in chief is AWOL. Not a peep, although he ordered the White House flag flown at half-staff for the Sikhs that were killed.

There is a deep disgust, a fury, growing in the ranks of the military against the indifferent incompetence of this president.

 

It has taken on a dangerous tone. No one knows what to do about him, but the anger runs deep as the deaths continue with no strategic end in sight to the idiocy of this war.

 

Obama has had 5 years to end this futile insanity, during which time he has vacationed, golfed, campaigned, and generally ignored the plight of our men and women in uniform.

 

There is now a movement afoot in the armed services to launch a massive “get out the vote” drive against this president’s party. Not just current active duty types, but the National Guard, Reserves, the retired, and all other prior service members.

 

This is no small special interest group, but many millions of veterans who can have an enormous impact on the outcome of the November 2014 mid-term election, if they all respond.

 

The one million military retirees in Florida alone could mean an overwhelming victory in that state if they all show up at the polls.

It might not keep another one hundred U.S. troops from dying between now and November, but a turnout to vote by the military against this heart breaking lack of leadership can make a powerful statement that hastens a change to the indifference of this shallow little man who just lets our soldiers die.

 

Veterans: Please forward to your lists.

 

__._,_.___

Posted by: Neil Mammen <neil@noblindfaith.com>

 

Marita Noon: Obama Hides Use Of Bad Science

Obama administration hides its use of bad science

Six years later, we know that President Obama’s pledge to run the most transparent administration in history was merely a campaign promise, a White House talking point, and not a statement of management style. We’ve seen a series of highly public scandals—Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS, NSA, and now, the VA—where Oversight Committees have fought to pry information out of the Obama White House only to receive stacks of redacted documents.

 

Most recently, we’ve seen court-ordered information provided to nonprofit government watchdog groups in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that have made it very clear why the Administration wanted to keep specific contents hidden. Emails that revealed direct White House involvement in the Benghazi scandal are behind the creation of the new Select Committee. IRS documents show the Tea Party targeting wasn’t a couple of rogue agents in Cincinnati, as the Obama administration claimed—instead, now we know it was orchestrated out of DC. Briefing materials point out that the Obama administration has known about problems with VA hospital wait times since 2009.

 

FOIA requests must be the bane of the “most transparent administration in history.”

 

As shameful as each of these scandals are, they directly impact only a comparative handful of people. We grieve the loss of life, but unless you are a family member or friend of the four brave men killed in Benghazi or of the dozens of veterans who risked their lives for our country only to die unnecessarily due to bad policy at the VA hospitals, your life goes on without consequence.

 

However, there are other cases that haven’t yet reached “scandal” status (and they may never because it is unlikely that anyone will die) where the Administration doesn’t want the public to know the rationale behind the policy that is universally having a negative impact on all Americans. These stories point to the administrations’ use of bad science to achieve its goal of growing government and controlling people through the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Clean Air Act. Together the practices restrict access to public and private lands for farming, ranching, and energy development, and reduce the availability of affordable electricity—making essential food and power costs ever-increasing.

 

In New Mexico, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Forest Service  are preventing cattle ranchers from accessing water to which two different court rulings have declared the ranchers’ have rights. According to a report in the Daily Caller: “New Mexico’s current conflict involves 23 acres along the Aqua Chiquita creek and natural springs, now fenced off for the benefit of the newly protected meadow jumping mouse. Cattle ranchers had naturally relied on access to this water since the area had been open to grazing permittees since 1957.”

 

Addressing the specific protections for the mouse, the report points out the “decades of scientific controversy over whether the meadow jumping mouse was a ‘valid subspecies’ or whether it really was vanishing.” It also cites current research from the University of New Mexico with recommendations that would lead to a re-evaluation of the listing.

 

The report states: “Yet scrutiny of EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] determinations and analysis of competing findings is foreclosed by sweetheart deals between environmental advocacy groups and the EPA in ‘sue and settle’ schemes.” It continues: “This collaboration between two friendly parties to co-opt the courts into bypassing constitutionally prescribed safeguards and protections denies local governments, harmed parties, and the public in general a seat at the table.”

 

While the Daily Caller piece doesn’t specifically reference the Information Quality Act (IQA), enacted by Congress in 2000, it is one of the safeguards and protections required for “influential scientific information” and/or “highly influential scientific assessments”—particularly if such scientific information may be used as the basis for regulatory action. The IQA requires “all federal bureaucrats to ‘prove up’ their claims and data so others in local government and land-use managers could rely on it to make wise and proper management decisions,” explains Dan Byfield, CEO of American Stewards of Liberty.

 

In a Ranch Magazine article titled “Verify the science,” Byfield showed how the IQA can be used to prevent environmental organizations from “manipulating our government and federal statutes to their benefit and the detriment of everyone else.” He worked successfully with eight counties in the Permian Basin to stop the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from listing the dunes sagebrush lizard as endangered. He states: “We prevented the listing and saved those two million acres by taking a hard look at the science. What we discovered became the ‘smoking gun!’” Byfield continues: “what we found was anything but credible science. …and this is true with almost every proposed listing.”

 

Taking the IQA a step further, earlier this year the Institute for Trade Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD) filed FOIA requests regarding the science underpinning the EPA’s 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment findings—identifying six greenhouse gasses as posing a risk of endangerment to public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act. The requests were filed with the EPA and the U.S. government’s lead climate science agency: the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

 

An ITSSD press release states: “The objective of the FOIA requests has been to secure disclosure of government records substantiating each agency’s compliance with the provisions of the U.S. Information Quality Act.” ITSSD asserts that, based on its research, the required “peer review science process has likely been compromised on conflict of interest, independence/bias, peer review panel balance, and transparency grounds.” Additionally, the ITSSD press release claims that peer review comments regarding scientific uncertainties were ignored.

 

ITSSD believes that The EPA’s endangerment ruling—which has triggered costly and burdensome greenhouse gas emissions control regulations and proposed performance standards that would restrict new fossil fuel-based energy generation facilities—is based on bad science and is seeking records regarding the climate science-related peer review processes.

 

Requests for information are being stonewalled, in part, by denying the customary fee waiver requests generally allowed for nonprofit organizations engaged in public education. (ITSSD is a 501(c)(3) organization with the mission of educating the public about the legal and economic consequences of environmental health and safety rules premised on the post-modern concept of sustainable development.)

 

In a Politico story on “President Obama’s muddy transparency record,” Katherine Meyer, a Washington lawyer who’s been filing FOIA cases since 1978, is quoted as saying: “Obama is the sixth administration that’s been in office since I’ve been doing Freedom of Information Act work. … It’s kind of shocking to me to say this, but of the six, this administration is the worst on FOIA issues. The worst. There’s just no question about it. This administration is raising one barrier after another. … It’s gotten to the point where I’m stunned—I’m really stunned.”

 

With knowledge of the way the most transparent administration in history operates, one can reasonably conclude that ITSSD’s FOIA requests are being slow walked because it has hit upon an area of vulnerability that the administration would rather keep hidden. The requested documents would likely require a reexamination of the EPA’s greenhouse gas endangerment findings that would render them invalid.

 

The closer one looks, the more clear it becomes. The only thing transparent about the Obama administration is its motives for hiding the truth. If everything it is covering up was exposed, myriad policies, mandates, and regulations would have to be reversed and the American people would be relieved.

 

Laws like the IQA were put into place to protect the public from a president who thinks he can rule by decree—with a pen and phone—rather than on sound science.

 

 

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.

Related articles

Enhanced by Zemanta

Marita Noon: Is This Any Way To Treat The Job Creators

Greetings!

Each week I work hard to produce a timely, thoughtful column. Every once in a while I run out of time and have to call good enough, good enough. Sometimes, due to my schedule, I do more opinion, less research. I have yet to find any kind of constancy in what gets a big response and what doesn’t.

This week’s column: Is this any way to treat the job creators? (attached and pasted-in-below) was a mix. I had plenty of time and started writing early on Friday. I finished it early on Saturday. I was pleased with it. It was an update on a story I know well—trigged by news. However, Is this any way to treat the job creators? has received one of the lowest quantity of responses of any of my columns! L However, it has garnered several very good and thoughtful comments. J

I hope the poor showing was due to the football games. I choose to believe people were distracted. With that in mind, I hope Is this any way to treat the job creators? will do well for you! Please post it, pass it on and/or personally enjoy Is this any way to treat the job creators?

Thanks! I am off to DC tomorrow.

Marita Noon, Executive Director

EnergyMakesAmericaGreat Inc.

PO Box 52103, Albuquerque, NM 87181

505.239.8998

 For immediate release: January 20, 2013

Commentary by Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great Inc.

Contact: 505.239.8998, marita@responsiblenergy.org

Words: 1554

Is this any way to treat the job creators?

It’s no wonder that, as the New York Times (NYT) headline declared: “Growth in jobs slows sharply to 3-year low.” Addressing the Labor Department’s disappointing December Jobs Report, CNNMoney’s headline states: “2013 ends with weakest job growth in years.” USA Today called it a “Big miss” and CNBC’s Jim Cramer sees the 74,000 gain in payrolls as “A disastrous unemployment number.”

USA Today surveyed 37 economists whose median forecast for the December jobs number was a gain of 205,000 jobs.

Not only did the report’s 74,000 jobs gain fall far short of the 205,000 jobs forecast, it is not the only number that portends a job market about which CNNMoney believes: “suddenly looks a lot weaker than economists had thought.” USA Today points out: “For the year, employers added 2.18 million jobs, slightly fewer than 2012’s total of 2.19 million.” It adds: “Payroll growth was weak across the board, with education and health services, a reliable source of job growth even through the recession, adding no jobs.”

The NYT coverage of the report opens: “Just when it seemed as if the economy was finally accelerating, the latest employment figures once again confounded expectation of better days ahead.” Nelson D. Schwartz states: “The one apparent bright spot in Friday’s report—a sharp drop in the unemployment rate to 6.7 percent from 7 percent—was tarnished because it largely resulted from people exiting the work force rather than because they landed jobs. The work force shrank by 347,000 in December, reversing a big gain from November, and returning the proportion of Americans in the labor force to its October level of 62.8 percent, the lowest in 35 years.” He points out: “Areas of the economy that had been healthy for most of 2013 reversed course as the year drew to a close, significantly cutting into overall job creation.” Schwartz concludes: “Employment is still about two million below where it was when the recession started.”

With even the friendlies firing shots at the “disastrous unemployment number,” the White House tried to get out in front of the story by holding a Tuesday, January 14, meeting with the Cabinet, where President Obama aimed to pick up “the pace of his jobs message.” According to the Associated Press (AP), White House senior advisor Dan Pfeiffer sent out an email Tuesday morning to the White House list of supporters claiming: “The president will use every tool he can to create jobs and opportunities for the middle class.” The AP article highlights Obama’s “determination to use the power of executive orders and administrative actions… to help advance his agenda.”

While I oppose this administration’s fondness for skirting Congress through the use of executive orders, here’s a case where an “executive order or administrative action” could really help “pick up the pace of the jobs message.”

If President Obama truly wanted to “create jobs and opportunities for the middle class,” he could tell the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to work with—instead of against—people and companies who are ready to risk their capital in the development of our natural resources and create jobs.

While I am sure my readers could cite many similar stories, this one involves mining and mules. I have addressed this specific case three times before—first, July 2010, when the USFS approved the “Plan of Operation” for the Finley Basin Exploration Project in Montana.

My first column on this provides thorough details and I encourage you to read it, as you will be appalled by how the USFS works—and now, three and a half years later, it has only gotten worse.

Back in the ‘70s Union Carbide drilled several exploration holes on the site, “which is rated as having moderate to high mineral potential for the majority of the area.” It is believed that there is a minimum of $250 million in tungsten—which we currently import from China—and that the site also has potential copper, silver, molybdenum, and gold.

At the time I originally addressed this project, an Australian company wanted to invest in America, bring outside dollars in, and create jobs by exploring and developing the Finley Claims. But the USFS was so difficult to work with, after spending more that $500,000 over two years, the company finally packed up and went home.

The June 10, 2010, “Decision Memo” states that in order to explore the previously drilled sites, miners will have to “use a team of mules” and that “hand tools will be used to level the drilling pad and clear rocks, debris and any small shrubs.” Additionally, “all disturbances would be reclaimed using hand tools.”

Reading the Decision Memo, one gets the feeling that the USFS would rather not approve the mining proposal, but there were no real grounds not to. While explaining the “rationale” for the decision, the memo states that the company has the “legal right to conduct exploration activities” and that “The role of the Forest Service is to ensure that mining activities minimize adverse environmental effects. Congress has not given the Forest Service authority to unreasonably circumscribe or prohibit reasonably necessary activities under the 1872 General Mining Law that are otherwise lawful.”

After the Australians left, the 276 claims were purchased by experienced miners. Together, the partners in Finley Mining Inc. have more than 80 years experience in mining—with one having expertise in permitting and exploration and the other in project development and products. Because the whole mule idea was unfeasible for the size and weight of the required equipment, the new owners submitted a revised Plan of Operations that allowed for use of the existing road Union Carbide built in the ‘70s. Despite the “Inventoried Roadless Area” designation, the old road is regularly used by off-highway vehicles for recreation. The road is totally usable and doesn’t require any construction. Yet, the USFS is treating the road as “new construction” and therefore denied the plan. The experienced partners have, in the past two-and-a-half years, now submitted five different plans of operation. Each time, the USFS comes back with some new ridiculous questions, such as: “In what order do you plan to drill the holes?”

The frequent excuse revolves around the various regulations—complying with the National Environmental Policy Act, Federal Land Management and Policy Act, and other Environmental Protection Agency rules and regulations. The USFS Specialists claim they are underfunded and understaffed and are unable to do the processes required before granting a permit.

Meanwhile, to hold the claims, these potential job creators, have to pay $40,000 a year to the Bureau of Land Management. They have spent more than $200,000 for applications, preparing the Plan of Operations, and on consultants and are no further along than they were three-plus years ago.

Since the USFS doesn’t have the staff or the budget to comply with the law, despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars they’ve already taken in on this one project, Finley Mining Inc. has offered to hire approved contractors who can do the needed surveys.

The Mining Act of 1872, as revised, lays out the rules and regulations in which exploration and production on federal lands can be conducted and does allow for mining activity within Inventoried Roadless Areas—as the original Decision Memo acknowledges. Access cannot be denied to someone who has a claim. Yet, access is denied.

This one project would employ 10 people in the initial exploration phase. Assuming the resource proves up, as the original drilling on these sites indicated, more drilling will take place and, in addition to the drill site workers, biologists, engineers, economists, and geologists will be needed for analysis. If all goes as expected, Finley Mining Inc. projects a minimum of 300 people would be hired for the construction and mining phases. The nearby Stillwater Mining has 1740 employees.

If the USFS encouraged expansion, rather than simply interpreting and enforcing regulations, and managed the forest for the multiple use their mission mandates, the 300 construction workers could now be receiving a paycheck and paying taxes. Instead, we have policy-induced poverty.

If President Obama is serious about using “every tool he can to create jobs and opportunities for the middle class,” instead of appointing a new commission or doing a study, he’d issue an administrative action telling the USFS to comply with the law, to process permits within the 30 days required, and sign off on the Plan of Operations when it meets the existing requirements.

 On Wednesday, January 15, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) spoke at a forum on U.S. energy policy. He addressed the Keystone pipeline, saying that the president’s “delay in deciding the pipelines fate” is making it “harder for a Democrat to defend some of the Washington Democrat’s agenda.” According to the Real Clear Politics report, He also “criticized Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for failing to call a vote on EPA regulation reforms” and is trying to “get Harry to look at the hard-rock mining.”

Yes, if Obama wants to use “every tool he can to create jobs and opportunities for the middle class,” he has plenty of them. The Finley Basin is an easy one. So is approving the Keystone pipeline.

Unfortunately for America’s un—and under—employed, reality tells us that the January 14 promise is just more hyperbole, more campaign-style platitudes. Is this any way to treat the job creators?

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.

Related articles

Enhanced by Zemanta

Marita Noon: Exposes Dingy Harry’s Pre-Knowledge

Another excellent article from Marita Noon.  The related articles posted at the bottom of Ms. Noon’s story were placed by myself.

Harry Reid saw the potential (dollars in green energy) before anyone else

We are weeks away from being fully immersed in the 2014 election cycle. Predictions abound, likening the 2014 cycle to 2010—when the House flipped from Democratic to Republican. Only this time, it is the Senate that has the potential to change. Twenty of the 33 seats up in 2014 are currently held by Democrats—more than half of whom are in trouble.

 

In 2010, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was up for reelection—for his fifth term—and he was facing “a ferocious challenge.” He was “in trouble.” Remember, 2010 was the year of Tea Party victory. In light of the mounting government debt, pork barrel spending was no longer vogue. But Senator Harry Reid, apparently, didn’t get the memo. “The 71-year-old one-time boxer touted his ability to bring federal money to his home state—no one could do more,” said the HuffPost coverage of his “surprise” win.

 

A May 2010 internal email addressing the need to expedite Department of Energy (DOE) green-energy loan approvals for projects in Reid’s district says: “Reid is constantly hit at home for not bringing in the federal dollars.” In the email, reported Obama bundler and former Clinton Administration staffer, Jonathan Silver, who was, at the time, the executive director of the Loan Programs Office, was to assure Reid that he anticipated “a good number of projects to be approved in the coming months.”

 

Reid saw the potential in green-energy dollars before anyone else. He laid the foundation to allow him to bring home the “federal dollars.”

 

The White House and DOE insiders helped Reid secure green-energy stimulus funds for his home state of Nevada—which he touted in his 2010 campaign. He is tied to more than $3 billion of taxpayer money—currency that created just over 200 permanent jobs.

 

The Washington Times reported: “Mr. Reid, a Nevada Democrat, who led passage of the $814 billion stimulus bill and worked to include the loan guarantee program to help finance clean-energy projects…” The 2009 stimulus package—the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)—was jammed-packed full of clean-energy provisions, about 10 percent (nearly $100 billion) of the monies were earmarked for renewable energy.

 

Having “worked to include the loan guarantee program,” Reid was frustrated when the federal dollars weren’t flowing into Nevada fast enough.

 

Seven months after the stimulus was signed into law, Reid, sent a letter, dated September 23, 2009, to President Obama, complaining about the “slow pace of implementation of the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee programs.” In it, Reid patted himself on the back for his role (via the stimulus bill) in helping to “appropriate an additional $6 billion for an expanded loan guarantee program.” Despite Reid’s acknowledgement of the “risks” involved, he proceeded to request that “obstacles be cleared away,” and basically demanded that the ARRA monies for the loan program be “rapidly” dispensed.

 

Reid had campaign donors anxiously waiting for the federal dollars. The Washington Free Beacon revealed that executives from three companies that received millions through the “fast-track” approvals all donated to Reid and other Democrats—Nevada Geothermal, Ormat Nevada, and SolarReserve—have contributed more than $58,000 since 2008. Additionally, the then-CEO of BrightSource energy—which ultimately received $1.6 billion in stimulus funds—hosted a fundraiser for Reid.

 

Each of these projects did receive the federal dollars—but not because they were such great projects. President Obama has declared that DOE decisions had “nothing to do with politics.” But, all four of the above, plus a transmission project originally known as Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP), were speculative—at best. Their ratings, along with the majority (22 out of 26 projects) of the stimulus-created 1705 Loan Guarantee Program, were rated as “junk” grade investments (“with a high likelihood of failure”), yet the taxpayer-backed loans were approved, with many of these projects also being awarded huge amounts of free taxpayer cash in the form of stimulus grants. Why? Politics.

 

Loan Program Office emails indicate that Reid’s projects were prioritized because they were “high profile,” “tied to larger events,” or because they had Reid’s support. Here’s a sampling from the hundreds of leaked emails relating to the various Reid projects:

•    December 5, 2009: “Reid may be desperate. WH might want to help. Short term considerations may be more important than longer term considerations and what’s a billion anyhow?”

•    December 20, 2009: “ANYTHING you guys would be willing to do with DOE would be deeply appreciated.”

•    April 14, 2010: “This is a very high profile transaction that has, within the past 2 weeks, become the subject of a ton of high level focus. It is a priority for Jonathan…”

•    October 13, 2010: “We (and OMB) have huge political pressure to get this deal done…”

•    March 7, 2011: “We need a commitment from the WH to quarterback loan closure between OMB and the DOE”

•    March 9, 2011: “…politically it’s better to do it next week and take a victory lap even BEFORE the cps are finalized.”

 

These five projects gave Reid bragging rights at a time when he most needed it.

 

Reid’s 2010 campaign included this slogan: “FIGHTING FOR CLEAN ENERGY JOBS IN NEVADA.” In a campaign document, he brags about his “efforts in passing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” and about pursuing “consistent federal incentives to develop clean renewable energy resources.”

 

The projects were used as campaign photo ops and talking points that helped the connected companies seeking the loans. Ormat Nevada, Inc.’s director of policy and business development, Paul Thomsen, was featured in a 2010 campaign ad where he states: “Harry Reid saw the potential for geothermal before just about anyone else.” It is important to note that Thomsen served as an aide to Reid from 2002-2005 and he also contributed to Reid’s campaign. Regarding SWIP, the Las Vegas Sun reported: Reid gets “an election-year trophy.”

 

Reid’s role in the green-energy, crony-corruption story is illustrative of the election scam that so often takes place in America. Once again, Obama lied. These loans were given for political reasons. They gave Harry Reid an election-year platform and victory.

 

The whole green-energy, crony-corruption story is convoluted and difficult to grasp—which, I believe, is part of the goal. It is so twisted and interconnected that the average person is unlikely to have the time to dig through the whole story. Only hard-core politicos care enough to follow the trail—which is why, for the past 18 months Christine Lakatos and I have covered the saga. Christine has done the in-depth research; I’ve presented the capsulized version. I hope this taste has tempted you to dig deeper.

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid knows how to work the system. He’s not up for reelection in 2014, but 20 of his friends are. Like Reid, they voted for the 2009 stimulus bill that launched the entire green-energy, crony-corruption scandal that took nearly $100 billion taxpayer dollars to pay off donors to Harry Reid, President Obama and other high-ranking Democrats. More than fifty of those stimulus-funded projects, coupled with additional clean-energy funds, have gone bankrupt—or are circling the drain—and have taken our money with them.

 

These five “junk-rated” stimulus loans were rushed so they could offer Reid election year trophies. Of the five, two are facing trouble. The other three, after years of receiving taxpayer money, are still incomplete. Plus, BrightSource Energy’s Ivanpah solar power project has been “executing birds.”

 

More than $3 billion went to Reid’s friends with the promise that the federal dollars would create “tens of thousands of green jobs.” A little more than 200 permanent jobs have actually been created.

 

Harry Reid saw the potential before anyone else all right. Green energy was a gold mine for him and his cronies.

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.

Related articles

Really Barack?

ExplainingToGod2WebCR-10_11_13

VISIT: Terrell After Math

RPNM: Senate Must Act, White House Must Stop Playing Games

RPNM Update

SENATE MUST ACT, WHITE HOUSE MUST STOP PLAYING GAMES

ALBUQUERQUE - As the government shutdown continues, the Obama administration says it won’t negotiate with Republicans. This weekend, the White House told The Wall Street Journal, “we are winning,” and that “it really doesn’t matter to us” how long the shutdown lasts. (See article here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303492504579113781436540284.html)
 
“President Obama’s stubborn political games are absurd, and as he refuses to negotiate for the good of Americans, the government remains shutdown,” said RPNM Chairman John Billingsley. “Republicans in the House of Representatives have shown a great willingness to find common ground and have continued to bring new proposals to the table; yet, Democrats are childishly refusing to negotiate at all.”
 
The House of Representatives passed multiple bills to avert a shutdown—all of which were refused by the Democrat-controlled Senate. The House has also passed numerous other measures over the last few days to fund critical services, including cancer research, veterans’ benefits, National Guard and Reserve paychecks, low-income women and children nutrition assistance, emergency and disaster recovery, reopening of national parks, and back-pay for furloughed employees.
 
“Despite the efforts, hard work and leadership of those in the House, Senate Democrats are blindly sticking to the failed leadership of President Obama,” continued Billingsley. “As Speaker of the House John Boehner said: ‘this isn’t some damn game.’ This is an issue of getting the U.S. government back up and running, and it is time for Democrats in the Senate and the White House to take this situation seriously, instead of refusing negotiations or joint conferences. The House is simply asking for a conference to sit down and have a discussion and to reopen the government. It all starts with simple discussions, and we commend the leaders in the House who are actively working for the good of all Americans.”

Paid for by the Republican Party of New Mexico
5150-A San Francisco N.E., Albuquerque, NM 87109
(505) 298-3662      |      www.gopnm.org
NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE’S COMMITTEE

Obama Continues To Mock Americans

He who hides the truth … tells A whopper: Chuck Ring
We know it has been lies and many whoppers time and again from the man from somewhere since he first snuck into the POTUS room in the White House. In some instances, he didn’t actually speak the lie, so much as he hid the truth. And he knew he was hiding the truth every time he ginned up that smile full of teeth which seem, like piano ivory keys, destined to play the deception he has used to great effect … If consistent lies can be counted as “great.”
Here below, you can find an interesting story of the hidden abortion stimulus fund wedded to ObamaDare:
A Flat Cap Flap To CNS & Craig Banister

Today, 72 congressmen sent a letter to House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) urging him to insert language ending abortion funding and religious discrimination in Obamacare into any funding or debt ceiling legislation.

“[T]he Obama administration has committed unprecedented attacks against the unborn and the religious freedom guaranteed in the Constitution, all under the guise of ‘access to health care,’” the letter tells Boehner.

The letter implores Boehner to “incorporate H.R. 940, the Health Care Conscience Rights Act, along with a cessation of federal dollars for abortions into the continuing resolution or on legislation addressing the debt ceiling.”

H.R. 940 says that nothing in the Obamacare law “shall require an individual to purchase individual health insurance coverage that includes coverage of an abortion or other item or service to which such individual has a moral or religious objection, or prevent an issuer from offering or issuing, to such individual, individual health insurance coverage that excludes such item or service.”

H.R. 940 also protects employers and health insurers from being forced to buy or provide coverage for things to which they have a “moral or religious objection.”

Americans morally opposed to funding abortion may unwittingly sign up for one that does due to Obamacare’s “secrecy clause,” the letter warns:

“[U]nder the secrecy clause, plans that cover abortion are only allowed to disclose the abortion surcharge ‘as a part of the summary of benefits and coverage explanation, at the time of enrollment.’ Many families may choose a plan that covers abortion without realizing it or because the plan is the only one that covers the critical care that their family needs.”

An abortion “slush fund” bankrolled by a separate “abortion fee” charged to enrollees should also be struck from Obamacare, the letter says:

“Anyone who enrolls in a federally-subsidized health care plan that covers elective abortions will pay a separate ‘abortion fee’ of at least $1 per month into an abortion slush fund to pay for abortion on demand.”

The Surveillance Reforms Obama Supported Before He was President

This article was originally posted by ProPublica. It is republished here with permission from them.  We note it is always easy to be against or for something when one is entirely stupid or blissfully ignorant.  Oh, did I say that?

by Kara Brandeisky
ProPublica, Aug. 7, 2013, 10:24 a.m.ins

When the House of Representatives recently considered an amendment that would have dismantled the NSA’s bulk phone records collection program, the White House swiftly condemned the measure. But only five years ago, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. was part of a group of legislators that supported substantial changes to NSA surveillance programs. Here are some of the proposals the president co-sponsored as a senator.

As a senator, Obama wanted to limit bulk records collection.

Obama co-sponsored a 2007 bill, introduced by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., that would have required the government to demonstrate, with “specific and articulable facts,” that it wanted records related to “a suspected agent of a foreign power” or the records of people with one degree of separation from a suspect. The bill died in committee. Following pressure from the Bush administration, lawmakers had abandoned a similar 2005 measure, which Obama also supported.

We now know the Obama administration has sought, and obtained, the phone records belonging to all Verizon Business Network Services subscribers (and reportedly, Sprint and AT&T subscribers, as well). Once the NSA has the database, analysts search through the phone records and look at people with two or three degrees of separation from suspected terrorists.

The measure Obama supported in 2007 is actually similar to the House amendment that the White House condemned earlier this month. That measure, introduced by Reps. Justin Amash, R-Mich., and John Conyers, D-Mich., would have ended bulk phone records collection but still allowed the NSA to collect records related to individual suspects without a warrant based on probable cause.

The 2007 measure is also similar to current proposals introduced by Conyers and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

As a senator, Obama wanted to require government analysts to get court approval before accessing incidentally collected American data.

In Feb. 2008, Obama co-sponsored an amendment, also introduced by Feingold, which would have further limited the ability of the government to collect any communications to or from people residing in the U.S.

The measure would have also required government analysts to segregate all incidentally collected American communications. If analysts wanted to access those communications, they would have needed to apply for individualized surveillance court approval.

The amendment failed 35-63. Obama later reversed his position and supported what became the law now known to authorize the PRISM program. That legislation — the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 — also granted immunity to telecoms that had cooperated with the government on surveillance.

The law ensured the government would not need a court order to collect data from foreigners residing outside the United States. According to the Washington Post, analysts are told that they can compel companies to turn over communications if they are 51 percent certain the data belongs to foreigners.

Powerpoint presentation slides published by the Guardian indicate that when analysts use XKeyscore — the software the NSA uses to sift through huge amounts of raw internet data — they must first justify why they have reason to believe communications are foreign. Analysts can select from rationales available in dropdown menus and then read the communications without court or supervisor approval.

Finally, analysts do not need court approval to look at previously-collected bulk metadata either, even domestic metadata. Instead, the NSA limits access to incidentally collected American data according to its own “minimization” procedures. A leaked 2009 document said that analysts only needed permission from their “shift coordinators” to access previously-collected phone records. Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., has introduced a bill that would require analysts to get special court approval to search through telephone metadata.

As a senator, Obama wanted the executive branch to report to Congress how many American communications had been swept up during surveillance.

Feingold’s 2008 amendment, which Obama supported, would have also required the Defense Department and Justice Department to complete a joint audit of all incidentally collected American communications and provide the report to congressional intelligence committees. The amendment failed 35-63.

The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community told Senators Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Mark Udall, D-Co. last year that it would be unfeasible to estimate how many American communications have been incidentally collected, and doing so would violate Americans’ privacy rights.

As a senator, Obama wanted to restrict the use of gag orders related to surveillance court orders.

Obama co-sponsored at least two measures that would have made it harder for the government to issue nondisclosure orders to businesses when compelling them to turn over customer data.

One 2007 bill would have required the government to demonstrate that disclosure could cause one of six specific harms: by either endangering someone, causing someone to avoid prosecution, encouraging the destruction of evidence, intimidating potential witnesses, interfering with diplomatic relations, or threatening national security. It would have also required the government to show that the gag order was “narrowly tailored” to address those specific dangers. Obama also supported a similar measure in 2005. Neither measure made it out of committee.

The Obama administration has thus far prevented companies from disclosing information about surveillance requests. Verizon’s surveillance court order included a gag order.

Meanwhile, Microsoft and Google have filed motions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court seeking permission to release aggregate data about directives they’ve received. Microsoft has said the Justice Department and the FBI had previously denied its requests to release more information. The Justice Department has asked for more time to consider lifting the gag orders.

As a senator, Obama wanted to give the accused a chance to challenge government surveillance.

Obama co-sponsored a 2007 measure that would have required the government to tell defendants before it used any evidence collected under the controversial section of the Patriot Act. (That section, known as 215, has served as the basis for the bulk phone records collection program.) Obama also supported an identical measure in 2005.

Both bills would have ensured that defendants had a chance to challenge the legalityof Patriot Act surveillance. The Supreme Court has since held that plaintiffs who cannot prove they have been monitored cannot challenge NSA surveillance programs.

Those particular bills did not make it out of committee. But another section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires that the government tell defendants before it uses evidence collected under that law.

Until recently, federal prosecutors would not tell defendants what kind of surveillance had been used.

The New York Times reported that in two separate bomb plot prosecutions, the government resisted efforts to reveal whether its surveillance relied on a traditional FISA order, or the 2008 law now known to authorize PRISM. As a result, defense attorneys had been unable to contest the legality of the surveillance. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., later said that in both cases, the government had relied on the 2008 law, though prosecutors now dispute that account.

On July 30, the Justice Department reversed its position in one bomb plot prosecution. The government disclosed that it had not gathered any evidence under the 2008 law now known to authorize sweeping surveillance.

But that’s not the only case in which the government has refused to detail its surveillance. When San Diego cab driver BasaalySaeedMoalin was charged with providing material support to terrorists based on surveillance evidence in Dec. 2010, his attorney, Joshua Dratel, tried to get the government’s wiretap application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The government refused, citing national security.

Dratel only learned that the government had used Moalin’s phone records as the basis for its wiretap application — collected under Section 215 of the Patriot Act — when FBI Deputy Director Sean Joyce cited the Moalin case as a success story for the bulk phone records collection program.

Reuters has also reported that a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit uses evidence from surveillance to investigate Americans for drug-related crimes, and then directs DEA agents to “recreate” the investigations to cover up the original tip, so defendants won’t know they’ve been monitored.

As a senator, Obama wanted the attorney general to submit a public report giving aggregate data about how many people had been targeted for searches.

Under current law, the attorney general gives congressional intelligence committees a semiannual report with aggregate data on how many people have been targeted for surveillance. Obama co-sponsored a 2005 bill that would have made that report public. The bill didn’t make it out of committee.

Despite requests from Microsoft and Google, the Justice Department has not yet given companies approval to disclose aggregate data about surveillance directives.

As a senator, Obama wanted the government to declassify significant surveillance court opinions.

Currently, the attorney general also gives congressional intelligence committees “significant” surveillance court opinions, decisions and orders and summaries of any significant legal interpretations. The 2005 bill that Obama co-sponsored would have released those opinions to the public, allowing redactions for sensitive national security information.

Before Edward Snowden’s disclosures, the Obama Justice Department had fought Freedom of Information Act lawsuits seeking surveillance court opinions. On July 31, the Director of National Intelligence released a heavily redacted version of the FISA court’s “primary order” compelling telecoms to turn over metadata.

In response to a request from Yahoo, the government also says it is going to declassify court documents showing how Yahoo challenged a government directive to turn over user data. The Director of National Intelligence is still reviewing if there are other surveillance court opinions and other significant documents that may be released. Meanwhile, there are severalbills in Congress that would compel the government to release secret surveillance court opinions.

Related articles

Out: We Need To Be Out Of Syria & Other Such Places

Enough is enough.  When this nation has switched fully into partnering with and arming militants consistently killing Christians and innocent children and women who were unarmed, then we need to hang our heads with the utmost humbleness and shame for what we have allowed this nation to come to.

In the past several weeks some Syrian rebels have beheaded several Christian men, killed women and children and chanted a well-known term used with clear glee and jubilation.  The “commander,” of one rebel unit sliced into a man’s chest until the heart was exposed;  he continued the slicing until the man’s liver was visible.  Not content with this mutilation, the commander removed the heart and liver.  While the commander placed the heart in his mouth and held it with his teeth and left hand, the liver was held in the right hand.

Syrian rebels are now armed with weapons supplied by the United States and it is likely this nation will become bogged down in the muck and mire of yet another nation, fighting the same sort of people we fought in Iraq, that we are fighting in Afghanistan, and in all probability in places about which we’ve not been informed.

While I generally do not trust or support the United Nations, they have stated:

It is impossible to choose unequivocally good guys among the groups of Syrian rebels and send weapons to them. This warning was voiced by chairman of the UN independent panel investigating possible violations of human rights in Syria Paulo Sergio Pinheiro on Friday.

Besides having a president and an administration, neither of which have never met a lie they would have trouble using, we have Senator John McCain (R-AZ) a hero of action in Vietnam, now believing he is right on immigration and Syria.  Sadly and unfortunately he is wrong on both issues.  Both issues will eventually cost many innocent American lives, but our ruptured government is clueless or deceptive … maybe both.

WARNING: You may follow the related articles below, but please know some of the images are atrocious and not suitable for youth to view without parental supervision.

 

The Democrats Are Eating Their Own

  By Bob Steiner

 Let’s face it folks,  Barak H. Obama, the President of these United States, has been having some more bad days!  “Obama scare”, his health plan, is proving too complicated to administer and too costly to fund. Even long-time party friends are looking for ways to stop what appears to be an out of control steam roller destroying everything good about health care in our nation. Our only hope is that the U.S. Congress will choose not to fund the program in its present form.

Official photographic portrait of US President...

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

   Everyone knows that Barak had very little work experience before he moved to the White House. I guess this is the real reason that he spends so much time away from Washington. Lacking expertise in administration, he hates being in an office where his knowledge in this area becomes far too eviden

Logo of the United States White House, especia...

Logo of the United States White House, especially in conjunction with offices like the Chief of Staff and Press Secretary. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

   Among the White House staff, he seems to be known for his ability to “evade” office duties and on very short notice, order his Air Force #1 crew to fly off to a far away state or nation to handle what turns out to be a problem that any state department clerk could have taken care of.  His flight crew must look forward to days when their airplane is scheduled for mandatory maintenance and won’t be flying.  Only then can they be reasonably sure  that they won’t be spending the night in some foreign capital, far from home.

Official portrait of Secretary of State Hillar...

Official portrait of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

   Well into his second term, he is starting to have problems with the press. They were so much friendlier during his first four years. Now since that”Benghazi 9-11 thing”, Eric Holder’s “Fast and Furious” adventure, and the “Clinton bottle blond’s” deserting him, things are really starting to get akward.  When all is said and done, Hillary was the person most responsible for the failure to provide adequate security at Bengazi, thus causing the deaths of the four Americans. She was the Secretary of State. As  she is the Democrat’s most probable presidential candidate for 2016, he had to let her leave.  He could not risk having her image damaged by the congressional investigations that will soon begin.  Things back in Chicago were never this complicated!

For damage control, they will find some State Department foreign service officer near retirement to take the blame for Benghazi.  While the person who really was responsible for the lack of response on the night of 9-11 is Barak, he will get off the hook once again.  After he had received an “early evening” phone report of the attack, he took no further action.  After all, he had an important speech in Las Vegas the next day and he had to get ready for that. It must not be easy being president? 

Now the hot news, his own party now wants to talk to the “Whistle Blowers” from Bengazi.   More to come?