Epoxied To Politics — Tea Party Sticking To Its Principles

Is this good news from bad messengers?

The Gadsden flag

The Gadsden flag (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The following article comes from Brietbart’s Big Government.  Taken from the writings of a couple of progressive “misses,” the message seems to be good news for Tea Party sorts and regular conservatives, but perhaps not so much for liberals, progressives and main-stream or establishment Republicans.

Of course being progressives from Harvard, the originators of the supposition of a long-lived Tea Party movement had to insert their obligatory thoughts (opinions?) about radicalism and prejudice against minorities among the Tea Party members. We know by now that that old dog won’t hunt and never has.

Just below is the first part of the Brietbart piece followed by a link to the rest and links to related articles.

HARVARD PROF: TEA PARTY NOT GOING ANYWHERE, MORE LIKELY TO WIN

by TONY LEE 29 Dec 2013

A government and sociology professor at Harvard writes that the Tea Party is more likely than not to “win in the end” in an age when Americans are becoming more removed from Washington and distrusting the federal government and their elected officials.

“Tea Party forces will still win in the end,” Theda Skocpol writes, unless moderate Republicans can defeat them. Skocpol concedes that the Tea Party “will triumph just by hanging on long enough” as Americans are getting fed up by “our blatantly manipulated democracy and our permanently hobbled government.”

The article, “Why The Tea Party Isn’t Going Anywhere,” was first published in the journal Democracy, and later reprinted in The Atlantic.

Despite the fact that Democrats, the mainstream media, and the Republican establishment again were predicting the “demise of the Tea Party” immediately after the government shutdown ended, Skocpol doesn’t believe so.

“But we have heard all this before,” she writes. “The Tea Party’s hold on the GOP persists beyond each burial ceremony.”

Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson published a book in 2011 that “showed how bottom-up and top-down forces intersect to give the Tea Party both leverage over the Republican Party and the clout to push national politics sharply to the right.”

“At the grassroots, volunteer activists formed hundreds of local Tea Parties, meeting regularly to plot public protests against the Obama Administration and place steady pressure on GOP organizations and candidates at all levels,” they found. “At least half of all GOP voters sympathize with this Tea Party upsurge.”

Though Skokpol and Williamson have their typical biases and describe the Tea Party movement as a “radical” one that may not like minorities–without any evidence of that assertion–they acknowledge that “even though there is no one center of Tea Party authority—indeed, in some ways because there is no one organized center—the entire gaggle of grassroots” and outside groups that support the movement “wields money and primary votes to exert powerful pressure on Republican officeholders and candidates.”

You can finish this article by clicking here

Marita Noon Wonders Why Fracking Is Still An Explosive Issue

For immediate release: December 30, 2013

Commentary by Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great Inc.

Contact: 505.239.8998, marita@responsiblenergy.org

Words: 1608

Defusing the explosive conversation on fracking 

Hydraulic fracturing started out as an “exploding torpedo” back in 1865. Today, nearly 150 years later, the actual process has made giant technological strides, but now, it’s the topic that’s explosive. 

While the White House has been encouraging Christmas dinner table conversation to center around Obamacare, in my experience, it is fracking that came into the conversation—and when it did, the results had the potential to be as explosive as the early practice.

Over the holidays two young adults came home for Christmas. Somehow hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” came into the conversation. Dad, a reader of my column whose employment is also peripherally connected to the oil-and-gas industry, spoke up in support of the practice that has unleashed America’s natural resources and made us the world leader in energy production. His children, and their friends who had gathered in his home, were shocked and spouted the usual claims of water contamination, harsh chemicals, and flaming faucets. The topic became so explosive that his kids packed up and left before the festivities even began.

I was in California for Christmas. I visited a cousin in Napa Valley whose adult son is in the wine business. He was at her home when I arrived. She told him what I do and stated that he had many friends in the oil-and-gas business. I smiled and said: “I can talk oil, gas, coal, nuclear, fracking, whatever…” My cousin quickly interrupted and stated: “We probably don’t want to talk fracking.” I took the hint, and we moved on to another topic. Driving back to my brother’s house, I wondered: “When did fracking become an explosive topic.”

With the Christmas prime rib consumed, my family and friends were still gathered around the table. Once again fracking came up. I shared the previous two recent stories. One woman asserted that if her sister, who was arriving in a few days from Boulder, Colorado, was there and we talked fracking, the results would be explosive, too.

Because they are not in the industry, I found that the group gathered around our table had misconceptions about the process that they’d been fed by the media.

While I don’t have an exact date when the topic of fracking became explosive, I do know, from my speaking and writing on the topic, from radio interviews with listener call-ins, and private conversations, that the explosive reactions are due to a lack of understanding about the process—with the biggest concerns being about water, chemicals, and flaming faucets.

Water

As I’ve written previously, there are accusations that fracking is taking billions of gallons of water out of the hydrologic cycle. Especially in the southwest where water is scarce and drought conditions persist, this poses a problem.

The process of hydraulic fracturing has advanced from the first nitroglycerin “torpedo” that was shot down a well hole on April 25, 1865, and well acidizing that was used in the 1930s to enhance productivity, to the modern mix of high pressure, water, and chemicals began in 1947 in Grant County Kansas—and it continues to evolve and become more economical.

In a piece addressing water used in fracking, The Economist describes the process this way: “Water injected at high pressure into rock deep underground during the process of hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking,’ often returns to the surface as brine, having picked up a lot of salt on its journey. It is also contaminated with chemicals from the fracking process itself.”

Today, less and less freshwater is being used—especially in the arid southwest where water for drinking and agriculture is at a premium. A typical frack job can use as much as 5 million gallons of water and lasts about 3 days. The procedure can result in decades of oil or gas production.

With the development of new technologies, the fracking process can be done with brackish water that may be as much as ten times as salty as seawater. A recent report from Reuters, titled “Fracking without freshwater at a west Texas oil field,” documents some of the advancements. Billions of gallons of brackish water are located far below the fresh water aquifers. Producers in west Texas are fracking with the brackish water from the Santa Rosa aquifer. They are then recycling the produced water—a byproduct of oil and natural gas drilling, and the flowback water—the fluid pushed back out of the well during fracking. Both forms of wastewater have historically been trucked to underground disposal wells.

A couple of months ago, I participated in the Executive Oil Conference in Midland, Texas where a panel of water experts addressed the crowd of more than 800 attendees and discussed the new technologies.

Now, instead of trucking wastewater to a remote location, mobile systems can treat the water onsite and condition it to meet almost any specification the driller wants—resulting in a reduction of expensive truck traffic. The portable systems can treat 20,000-30,000 barrels of water per day. For bigger frack jobs, additional units can be added—making the system totally flexible.

These new water solutions can reduce the total dissolved solids in the water from as high as 200,000 to below 200. For reference, the Environmental Protection Agency’s standard for drinking water is 500. The same water can be recycled and used over and over again. Addressing the new technologies, James Welch, Global Business Development Manager, Water Solutions, with Halliburton, told the crowd: “Produced water is not a waste. It is an opportunity. It is an offset to freshwater usage.” Halliburton is able to fracture with water that’s 280,000 TDS.

The result of these new procedures is, according to The Economist: “Clean water …pure enough to be used for irrigation, or even drinking water. …Alternatively, it can be re-injected into the ground during the next frack.”

Rather than taking water out of the hydrologic cycle, the oil-and-gas industry is actually often taking formerly unusable water, using it in fracking and then cleaning it up to a level where it can be introduced into the cycle as either irrigation or drinking water.

Stan Weiner, Chairman and CEO at STW Resources, was one of the panelists. He summed up the new water solutions by saying: “Now we’ve figured out a way to clean it up economically. There’s no reason not to use it. Companies nationwide, worldwide, all want to do this. We get no resistance from them. They want to see it work. It’s a go.”

GE (as addressed in The Economist), Apache Corp. (as covered by Reuters), Halliburton, and STW Resources are just a handful of the many companies, which are developing revolutionary water treatment processes that neuter one of the biggest arguments against fracking.

Chemicals

In our Christmas conversation, someone asked: “Why do they need chemicals? Why don’t they just frack with water?” She’d heard stories.

I explained that the so-called chemicals are needed to provide lubrication for the tiny particles of sand that hold open microscopic cracks in the “fractured” rock that allow the oil or gas to escape. “As a woman, I am sure you’ve had your fingers swell. That makes it hard to get your rings off.” She nodded. “What do you do then?” I queried. “Soap my hands up,” she replied.

Bingo!

That is the role the chemicals play in the fracking process. But those chemicals are now mostly food-based and can be consumed with no ill effects—both Governor Hickenlooper (D-CO) and CNBC’s Jim Cramer have had a drink.

So, even if the chemicals did somehow defy geology and migrate several miles from the fracked well through the layers of sedimentary rock to the aquifer, they are not harmful.

To illustrate the point, I am in the process of organizing what I am calling “the great New Mexico fracktail party.” I have several state legislators lined up—and am looking for more. I need to find an operator who is willing to invite us onsite when a frack job is being done. The legislators, industry folks, and anyone else who wants to participate, will be invited to the location with cocktail glass in hand (umbrella, fruit, olive—whatever—included). With media cameras rolling we’ll pour the fracfluid from the tank to our glasses and toast to American energy freedom.

Flaming Faucets 

My sister-in-law asked: “What about the flaming faucets?” “Those are real,” I explained. “But they have nothing to do with fracking.” Natural gas, or methane, was found in water wells long before any fracking was done in the area. In fact, it was the gassy smell that often alerted explorers to the potential oil and gas in the region. Oil-and-gas drilling didn’t cause the flaming faucet phenomenon. Quite the contrary. The presence of gas near the surface brought about the “don’t smoke in the shower” adage. While the water is harmless to consume, a gas build up in the house could cause an explosion.

Lies about hydraulic fracturing are rampant. If fossil fuel opponents can spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about fracking—with the goal of causing a federal fracking ban, they can virtually stop oil-and-gas development in America, as it is estimated that 90 percent of producing wells have been fracked. Without American ingenuity and increasing production, gasoline prices and utility bills will skyrocket. Economic ruin will reign. America will, once again be beholden to increasingly hostile foreign sources.

A fracking conversation shouldn’t be explosive. Today’s hydraulic fracturing is really benign, American technology that is ecologically sound and economically advantageous. Keep these facts in mind. As my stories illustrate, not everyone will listen—but if more people, such as my brother and sister-in-law, know the truth they can help de-fuse the explosive conversation. 

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
 

How Do You Call A Duck

A 'geek' rubber duck - side view

A ‘geek’ rubber duck – side view (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

HERE DUCK!

Or louder if you wish.  But we came for the Dynasty.

 LionTamerGLAAD2WebCR-12_26_13

 VISIT: TerrellAfterMath

Related articles

ACLU: Will Appeal Federal Judge’s Decision On NSA

American Civil Liberties Union

American Civil Liberties Union (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

FAIR USE NOTICE

Thanks to AP and Brietbart Big Government

ACLU Will Appeal NY NSA Phone Surveillance Ruling


(AP) ACLU will appeal NY NSA phone surveillance ruling

By LARRY NEUMEISTER
Associated Press
NEW YORK
A civil rights lawyer says the American Civil Liberties Union is very disappointed that a New York judge has found that a government program that collects millions of Americans’ telephone records is legal.

Attorney Brett Max Kaufman said the ACLU will appeal Friday’s ruling by federal Judge William Pauley in Manhattan. The judge concluded that the program was legal and a valuable part of the nation’s efforts to combat the threat of terrorism. The judge said the phone collection program only works because it collects everything.

Kaufman said he hopes a federal appeals court in New York agrees with the reasoning of a Washington D.C. federal judge who concluded earlier this month that the program likely violates the Constitution.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

ACLU Says Will Appeal

ACLU urges NY judge to force release of documents

How Liberals Argue

Courtesy of thefederalistpapers.org

(VIDEO) How Liberals Argue

This short, 7 minute video is absolutely hilarious and if you’ve ever argued politics with a liberal you’ll recognize all of the tactics shown on this video, while you’re laughing out loud!

This scene is a microcosm of how liberals seek to silence the opposition by censorship and leveling personal attacks while avoiding the issues at hand. It further elucidates their ignorance of the issues, their bad habits of changing the subject during the debate, and their wild self-constructed fantasies of the world at large.

Before you read the related articles below, here is a link for a free book download:

The Life Of Thomas Jefferson

Repost From Christmas: Christmas & Vets

A big tip of the hat to Mel’s videos for making this possible and to the family whose home made this possible.  Thank you veterans and active service members!

Related articles

Its A Jack Russell Christmas … Somewhere

I love dogs and I especially love Chinese Pugs, Jack Russell Terriers, and Corgi/Jack Russell crosses. Perhaps it is because we have a Pug and a Cojack and never tire of  watching their antics … well, most of the time!  I posted a Jack Russell Christmas video last year and will post it again this year, along with a couple of others. I hope you enjoy the dogs and the message, however subtle:

The next one:

Here’s the final one.  Now go out to your nearest shelter and save a dog, or even a cat or kitten!

Here’s a link to an alert Cojack

Have a wonderful Christmas or if you celebrate some other religious holiday during this season, I pray your particular celebratory day or period will be rewarding.

Thanks to all the dogs, pups, owners and video artists who put together these wonderful presentations.  You have blessed us.

Related Articles

Ryan Incapable Of Getting It?

Could it be the man who ran for vice president in the last go-round for the position is really clueless as to how wrong his and Murray’s maladjustment to our veterans pensions really are.

Sure it can … really be, that is, and below is the proof.  Not only is it true, but their erroneous and unfeeling results are arrived at some sort inter-galactic math — out of this world altogether.  read for yourself:

From Breitbart

by Matthew Boyle 22 Dec 2013

House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has doubled down on his move to cut pensions for military veterans in a USA Today op-ed published Sunday.

In the op-ed, Ryan opens up by highlighting the CBO estimate that the deal he cut with Senate Budget Committee chairwoman Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) would result in at least $20 billion in deficit reduction. “The Bipartisan Budget Act that Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and I drafted will soon become law,” Ryan wrote. “We think it’s a small step toward fiscal discipline in Washington. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill will reduce the deficit over the next ten years by over $20 billion. And unlike current law, it will provide much-needed relief to our already strained defense budget.”

As Breitbart News has reported, Ryan’s and Murray’s budget deal does not reduce the deficit. In fact, the deal raises the deficit by at least $15.5 billion because of a series of gimmicks that Ryan and Murray employed in the accounting of the deal — namely, double counting of savings like the tactic which was employed in Obamacare, and the failure to include an estimate of the interest on the borrowed money for the first couple of years of increased spending. These are only a few among a series of other misleading statements Ryan has made about the deal.

The rest of the dynamic duo subterfuge and silliness can be found as the above article continues from the link just below:

Paul Ryan Doubles Down on Cutting Veteran Pensions

Murray-Ryan Budget Smells Like Austerity (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)
Related articles

Marriage Isn’t For You

Seth Adam Smith

Having been married only a year and a half, I’ve recently come to the conclusion that marriage isn’t for me.

Now before you start making assumptions, keep reading.

I met my wife in high school when we were 15 years old. We were friends for ten years until…until we decided no longer wanted to be just friends. 🙂 I strongly recommend that best friends fall in love. Good times will be had by all.

Nevertheless, falling in love with my best friend did not prevent me from having certain fears and anxieties about getting married. The nearer Kim and I approached the decision to marry, the more I was filled with a paralyzing fear. Was I ready? Was I making the right choice? Was Kim the right person to marry? Would she make me happy?

Then, one fateful night, I shared these thoughts and concerns with my dad.

Perhaps each…

View original post 594 more words