Done and done

Three of my most unfavorite (is unfavorite a word)  I guess not, given the visual racket my installed editor is and has made since I typed, “unfavorite.”

No worry though, I believe conservative readers can figure it out.  Their (the three) names are Barack Obama, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.  With Hillary, we get a bonus because she pulls Bill’s ear and he tags along until he can escape to some exotic place full of tarts and other delights.

The cost of maintaining these three (add Obama’s family) is almost incalculable but in the Obamas’ case their lovely vacations to Hawaii and foreign destinations is estimated to have cost we American suckers in the area of eighty million  dollars. We can add the cost of investigating Obama for various crimes.  Can you say, IRS and allowing his minions to run away with our freedoms?  How about “Fast and Furious,” and the deaths and disruption we can lay on that little trick. Obama knew about that operation and has remained almost mute all these years since it was first revealed to the world. If, as President Truman enjoyed remarking, “The buck stops here,” (referring to  the presidential desktop) then there was a pile of dollar bills on Obama’s desk before he left.  We can leave Obama to history, although he will be around stirring the pot that all progressives stir.  Would anyone care to bet that he will be spending George Soros’ money?

John Kerry.  What can we say about John Kerry except he followed in his boss’s footsteps when it came to favoring Palestinian pursuits and anything which placed Iranian interests in  front of those of the  United States.  We will definitely find His and Obama’s actions have guaranteed we will fight a war (perhaps a nuclear war) with this Islāmic Terrorist country. Perhaps he, of the three, will settle down and help the former Ms Heinz spend her millions.

Finally to Hillary; if there is any finality to her story.  Perhaps the FBI and others will make a final determination in her and Bill’s foundation tricks and treasures. Maybe she will finally be charged or cleared of the Benghazi sorry mistakes and manipulations she is alleged to have  made in that tragic destruction of life and the sorry lies told by her and her minions.  If she is not charged and found guilty, Hillary will be back to try to claim that elusive prize in the of being the first female President of the United States.  Wait for it …or not.

Done.  I am free of the three!

Marita: Thinks maybe some members of congress will atone for their Iran approval vote

I hope Marita is right, but I just can’t believe the majority of congress (Jewish, Gentile or Muslim) is in tune to atone:

Greetings!

I have been writing about the ban on exporting U.S. oil for months. I believe I first addressed it in November in my column: Six energy policy changes to expect from GOP Congress. Since then, I’ve brought it up again when the news warranted. Looking back, all that seems to have been a building up to a time such as this. The unpopular Iran deal, a new study on where U.S. oil would likely flow if the ban was lifted, and Congress’ schedule have aligned. As I like to do, I’ve uniquely connected the dots. Later this week, the  House Energy and Commerce Committee will address lifting the oil export ban. Currently, it looks like I will be in DC for the full committee mark-up of HR 702 and other meetings on the matter.

This week’s column:  Lifting oil export ban: Atonement for Congressional members who support Iran deal (attached and pasted-in-below) will help set the stage for the discussion as Democrats are needed to help with the heavy lifting (pun intended). Interestingly, almost all of the Jewish Members are Democrats. If each of them were in support of lifting the ban—we’d be there. With this in mind, I wrote Lifting oil export ban: Atonement for Congressional members who support Iran deal.

 

Please follow me on Facebook and/or Twitter to stay informed on my activities this week—and every week. And, be sure to contact your legislators and tell them you stand with Israel: “lift the export ban.”

Thanks for posting, passing on, and/or personally enjoying Lifting oil export ban: Atonement for Congressional members who support Iran deal.

Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great, inc.

PO Box 52103, Albuquerque, NM 87181

505.239.8998

Marita Noon 2015 Turquiose

Commentary by Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great Inc.

Contact: 505.239.8998, marita@responsiblenergy.org

Words: 1241

 

Lifting oil export ban: Atonement for Congressional members who support Iran deal

“Whether you support this deal or not, we can all agree that America’s commitment to Israel remains unshakeable. And we will continue—Democrats and Republicans united—to stand with Israel,” says a statement from Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI). Yet, despite widespread opposition from Israel and pro-Israel groups, Schatz, and almost all his fellow Jewish Senators and Representatives, supported the Iran nuclear deal that appears to be done.

Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), on September 10, announced: “There’s no doubt whatsoever that the Congress of the United States will allow this agreement to go forward.”

Despite “a nearly $30 million advertising and lobbying effort to kill the accord,” the New York Times (NYT) reports, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee—known as Aipac—suffered a “stinging defeat.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes the deal will fuel Iran’s efforts to destroy Israel, calling it: “A stunning historic mistake.” Addressing Israel’s “diplomatic failure,” the NYT states: “Polls show that large majorities of Israeli Jews agree with him [Netanyahu] on Iran and deeply distrust President Obama.”

Polling within the U.S. reflects similar attitudes here at home: “The American people overwhelmingly oppose this agreement.” Republican pollster John McLaughlin, and Pat Caddell, a Democratic pollster, have conducted four national surveys on the Iran deal and charted the rising opposition to it. Their most recent, conducted on September 2 and 3, reveals the public’s animosity toward the deal: 78 percent wanted Congress to oppose it. The Hill reports: “65 percent say that it is so important that Congress votes on the Iran deal that if their senators voted to stop a vote in the Senate that they would never vote for them again. Only 24 percent say that it is unnecessary to vote. A plurality of Democrats (45 percent) say that it is important that there be a vote.” Yet Democrats, like Schatz, prevented a vote—leaving them in need of atonement.

Now, it is time to, according to NYT, “repair a troubled relationship between the United States and Israel badly frayed over the nuclear agreement with Iran.” In a planned November meeting between Netanyahu and Obama, the White House will offer “more military aid designed to bolster Israel’s defenses.”

Schatz claims: “we must find new ways to enhance our joint efforts to counter threats that endanger Israel every day.”

Israel does face threats “every day.” We know that Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has boldly proclaimed: “There will be no such thing as Israel in 25 years”—which CNN says: makes “a contentious deal pricklier.” We also know that Russia has offered to sell arms to Iran and is partnering with Iran in support of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. Earlier this year, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah reportedly said: “A rich and strong Iran … will be able to stand by its allies and friends, and the peoples of the region, especially the resistance in Palestine, more than in any time in the past.”

A brief refresher in the region’s history makes clear why the above statements are important.

In October 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel in what is known as the Yom Kippur war. With the help of a U.S. airlift of arms, and other military assistance from the Netherlands and Denmark, Israel began beating back the Arab gains. Because the three countries supported Israel, the “peoples of the region” stood together to use oil price increases as a weapon against Israel and its allies. The result? A total oil embargo was imposed on the United States, the Netherlands, and Denmark. The price of oil quadrupled, causing gas shortages and rationing.

Today, the U.S. has an abundance of oil and that oil could be used “to counter threats that endanger Israel every day”—if the oil export ban is lifted.

Hidden within the pages of a new study, released September 8, on the likely destinations of U.S. crude oil exports, is an explanation of how and why U.S. oil could “bolster Israel’s defenses.”

Engineers at Turner, Mason & Company, which focuses on petroleum refining, marketing, and transportation, did the study. It analyzed the match between U.S. crude and where it will likely flow if the export ban is lifted. Using “a variety of fundamental and commercial factors,” the study concludes: “the large majority of crude exported from the U.S. in an open market environment would stay in the Atlantic basin, flowing to refineries in Europe and other Western Hemisphere markets.” The rationale revolves around the type of crude oil needed for refineries. U.S. “light tight oil” is a good fit for refineries that depend on declining supplies from the North Sea and the increasingly volatile Russian source. Surprisingly, Israel is one of the Russian-oil-dependent countries.

On page 27, the study states:

“World oil markets do not always operate in a pure economic fashion, and there are many other factors that influence crude trade flows. Much of this owes to the fact that national oil companies and cartels (OPEC) are major players in crude markets, and often prioritize political, foreign relation or national security goals above economics. As evidenced by the current U.S. export restrictions, government policy can have major impacts on crude flows even in countries where the oil industry is not nationally controlled. As a result, geopolitical factors and events (i.e., conflicts, sanctions) have historically had a great impact on crude oil supply and demand and have greatly impacted crude flows for years, and this will continue to be the case in the future.”

Later, it adds: “Russia has not been hesitant in the past to use energy as a geopolitical weapon.”

Iran wants to end Israel. Russia is partnering with Iran and Syria. Syria attacked Israel in 1973. These are all widely known facts. But, you may not have known, Russia is a leading supplier of crude oil to Israel.

The study points out the geopolitics: “Most Middle East producers (with the exception of semi-autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan) refuse to provide crude to Israel.” Israel currently satisfies its demand, approximately 250,000 barrels per day, with Russian oil.

It is not hard to imagine a world where, in cooperation with Iran and Syria, Russia, which has been pivoting toward Asia for its crude oil sales, would cut off crude oil supplies to Israel. The U.S. has emergency accommodations in place should that happen, but it would be so much better if the supply lines were already in place, removing the Iran/Russia/Syria partnership’s ability to use oil as a weapon. It is for this reason, the study, on page 29, states: “The opportunity to obtain crude oil supply from the U.S. would be a major benefit for Israel’s security of supply and provide further strengthening of the economic ties between the two countries.”

Rather than falling victim to geopolitics, with the confidence of U.S. oil, Israel can remain strong while surrounded by enemies.

If the White House—and Senators like Schatz—really wants to find new ways to help Israel, lifting the 40-year-old oil export ban should be a no-brainer. Yom Kippur—the “day of atonement” on the Jewish calendar—is September 23. It would be a perfect day for Democrats and Republicans to be united in standing with Israel by lifting the export ban and giving Israel the security of supply and strengthen the frayed ties between two long-time allies.

Action on this issue is expected this week. Call your legislators and tell them you stand with Israel: “lift the export ban.”

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). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column. Follow her @EnergyRabbit.

Related articles

Marita: Oil and gas exports—one policy change, many benefits

Greetings!

As is often the case, this week I had to decide between three different story ideas for my column. Al Gore and his suggestion that climate change skeptics be punished certainly had appeal—but many others were addressing that, giving it plenty of coverage. The Obama administration’s federal-lands fracking announcement was also considered—but it made headlines and garnered the ire of Speaker Boehner and therefore didn’t need me to draw attention to the issue. I settled on the under-reported topic that allowed me to tie several stories together as I am fond of doing: Oil and gas exports—one policy change, many benefits (attached and pasted-in-below). I used Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritizker’s WSJ op-ed as my launching point and tied it throughout Oil and gas exports—one policy change, many benefits.

I am pleased with how Oil and gas exports—one policy change, many benefits penciled out (or keyed out). I hope you are too! Please post, pass on, and/or personally enjoy!
Thanks for your interest!

Marita Noon
Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great, inc.
PO Box 52103, Albuquerque, NM 8718

Marita: Oil and gas exports—one policy change, many benefits
“Businesses that sell to foreign markets put more people to work in high-quality jobs, offering more Americans the chance to earn a decent wage,” claimed the Obama administration’s Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker in a March 18 Wall Street Journal (WSJ) opinion piece.

She makes a strong case for U.S. exports: “jobs in export-intensive industries pay up to 18% more than jobs not related to exports.” Her premise is: “The U.S. economy ended 2014 on the uptick, and exports added to the momentum.” Noticeably absent is any mention of the potential for “high-quality jobs” and economic “uptick” that would come from the export of America’s abundant oil-and-natural gas resources—something an executive order could expedite; something her office could champion.

Pritzker states: “From large enterprises and multinational corporations to small startups and local manufacturers, an increasing number of businesses are realizing that their customer base is no longer around the corner, but around the world. They understand that 95% of the world’s customers live outside the U.S., and to succeed in the 21st century, they must find a way to reach consumers in ever-expanding markets.” Penny, this is especially true for American energy!

Due to the modern technologies of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing—developed and refined within our borders—the U.S. is producing more oil and natural gas than in decades. So much that we are nearly out of places to store it. We know how to produce it safely and cheaply. But, unlike the airplanes Pritkzer’s co-author Jim McNerney, CEO of Boeing Co., builds, the oil-and-gas industry is prevented from sending its abundance to “foreign markets”—including our allies in Europe who are dependent on energy from a source that uses it as a weapon against them.

The same day WSJ published Pritzker’s piece, it featured a news story announcing: “some of the world’s biggest oil companies are starting to give up” on “hydraulic fracturing wildcatting in Europe, Russia and China.” This, despite the fact: “Eastern European officials who were eager to wean their nations off of Russian gas welcomed the explorers.” It explains: “Wells in Poland and China can cost up to $25 million each, while American wells on average cost about $5 million”—resulting in overseas costs to produce a barrel of shale oil that are higher than what it can be sold for with the current world-wide low prices.

In trade negotiations, the U.S., according to the New York Times (NYT), “typically argues that countries with excess supplies should export them.” We have excess supplies of both crude oil and natural gas that has driven down prices—resulting in “trouble for an industry that has done much to keep the national economy afloat in recent years.” We “should export them”—but we aren’t.

“Why can’t we export crude oil and natural gas?” you might ask—especially when the U.S. can export refined petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. The NYT explains: “In 2011, the country pivoted from being the world’s largest importer of petroleum products to becoming one of the leading exporters.” At that point, for the first time in 21 years, refined petroleum became our number one export product—though Pritzker never mentioned that.

The “energy world changed.” But, as NYT points out, exports could soak up the excess production, “but there are still political hurdles.”

For crude oil, the problem is energy policy enacted before the “energy world changed.” Signed into law in 1975, after the 1973 Arab oil embargo shook the U.S. with high oil prices, the goal of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, according to the International Business Times, was “to stifle the impact of future oil embargos by foreign oil producing countries.” The result was a ban on most U.S. oil exports—though some exceptions can be made and the Commerce Department has recently given export licenses to two companies for particular types of oil. The WSJ reports: “Ten companies have applied for similar ruling to export oil.”

For natural gas exports, the problem is two-fold. Exporting natural gas is not prohibited, but it is not encouraged or made easy. In order to export natural gas, it must be converted into Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)—which is done at multibillion-dollar facilities with long lead times for permitting and construction that require purchase contracts to back up financing. Many potential customers for U.S. LNG are non-Free Trade Agreement (FTA) countries. Currently, Breaking Energy (BE) reports, “the Department of Energy (DOE) has issued five final and four conditional approvals for LNG export to non-FTA countries.” The Financial Times says about two dozen U.S. LNG export facilities have been proposed with four “already under construction, which have contracts to back up their financing.” Last month, according to Reuters, looking to reduce dependence on supplies from Russia, Lithuania signed an agreement to purchase LNG from the U.S.’s first export terminal: Cheniere Energy Inc.’s Sabine Pass, which is expected to send its first cargoes by the end of this year.

Fortunately, as I predicted in November, there are fixes in the works that, as energy historian Daniel Yergin said, symbolize “a new era in U.S. energy and U.S. energy relations with the rest of the world.”

In January, Senators John Barrasso (R-WY) and Martin Heinrich (D-NM) introduced the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act to expedite DOE decisions on LNG export applications. It specifically requires a decision on any LNG export application within 45 days after the environmental review document for the project is published. Currently, applications to export natural gas to non-FTA countries require the Secretary of Energy to make a public interest determination which includes a public comment period. Not surprisingly, “environmental groups are lobbying the Obama Administration to veto the bill.” BE states: “The bipartisan bill could garner enough votes to gain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.”

A month later, Representative Joe Barton (R-TX), along with 14 co-sponsors, introduced a bill to end the crude oil export ban: HR 702. On March 25, the House Foreign Affairs Committee will meet to debate and vote on the bill—though its passage is not as optimistic as the LNG bill. Bloomberg sees that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are weary, fearing “that they’d be blamed if gasoline prices climb after the ban is lifted.” Oil producers support lifting the ban, while refiners oppose it.

In October, David Goldwyn, the State Department’s coordinator for international energy affairs in the first Obama administration, said: “The politics are hard.” He added: “When the economics become overwhelming the politics will shift.” The NYT stated: The telltale sign of a glut will be a collapse in the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) price, the principal American oil benchmark, which is currently [October 2014] about $3 below the world Brent price.” It continues, “If the spread cracks open, the economic arguments for free export of domestic crude will probably win the day.”

That day may have come. On March 13, the WSJ editorial board announced: “WTI now trades 20% below the world market price.” Holman Jenkins, who writes the Business World column for the WSJ, says: “Oil producers are already being denied a premium of $12 a barrel by not being allowed to export this oil.” Thomas Tunstall, research director at the University of Texas at San Antonio’s Institute for Economic Development, reported: “Before the rapid increase in U.S. oil and gas production, WTI historically sold at a slight premium to Brent, typically about $1-$3 per barrel.”

“U.S. pump prices are mainly tied to the price of Brent crude, which is freely traded on the world market and is higher than it might otherwise be because of the ban on U.S. exports,” explains the WSJ. “If U.S. producers were allowed to compete globally, prices of Brent and WTI would converge over time, and U.S. gasoline prices would come down, all things being equal.”

Now, the “industry that has done much to keep the national economy afloat” is in trouble. There have been some 74,000 layoffs in the U.S. oil patch since November.

If Congress could muster up the political will to lift the arcane oil export ban, the U.S. could emerge as a major world exporter, which according to the NYT, would result in the “return to a status that helped make the country a great power in the first half of the 20th century.” Yergin adds: “Economically, it means that money that was flowing out of the United States into sovereign wealth funds and treasuries around the world will now stay in the U.S. and be invested in the U.S., creating jobs. It doesn’t change everything, but it certainly provides a new dimension to U.S. influence in the world.”

Pritzker brags that the Commerce Department has “worked with the private sector to help businesses reach customers overseas; … to open new markets for U.S. goods and services; to reform the export-control process; and to overcome barriers to entry.” For U.S. oil-and-gas producers the biggest barrier to reaching customers overseas and opening up new markets is our own energy policy—something the administration and Congress have taken steps to fix. According to Bloomberg, if they knew the public was with them, lawmakers could easily save American jobs and investment, lower gasoline prices, help balance our trade deficit, aid our allies, and increase U.S. influence in the world.

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). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column.

Leery Of Keery

It pains me to see representatives of the US make fools of themselves, but Obama’s administration has packed-in more Silly Sallies than its share.  John Kerry as Secretary of State has busted the harness (if there ever was one) broken the reins of diplomacy and demonstrated how weak he truly is. Weak, except for promises to deliver bucks and armaments to potential enemies, i.e. Egypt for one, in the middle-east and surrounding area.

Believe it or not, it looks like some members of Obama’s administration are catching up to his wild and wily ways. Read the excerpt of a CBS report and then follow the link after the excerpt to understand the consternation.

WASHINGTON (AP) — In four months as secretary of state, John Kerry has certainly promised great things. Now he has to deliver.

In the Middle East, he has raised hopes his solo diplomatic effort can produce a historic breakthrough ending six decades of Arab-Israeli conflict.

He has pledged to bring Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government to heel and to work with Russia to end Syria’s civil war.

He has suggested rolling back U.S. missile defense in the Pacific if China can help rid North Korea of nuclear weapons. He has hinted at possible one-on-one talks between the U.S. and the reclusive North Korean leader Kim Jong Un if it would help.

Since succeeding Hillary Rodham Clinton as America’s top diplomat, Kerry has issued several as yet undelivered — and perhaps undeliverable — pledges to allies and rivals alike, proving a source of concern for Obama’s policy team. It is trying to rein in Kerry somewhat, according to officials, which is difficult considering Kerry has spent almost half his tenure so far in the air or on the road, from where his most dissonant policy statements have come.

The White House quickly distanced itself from both Kerry’s North Korea remarks and has now, since President Barack Obama’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Northern Ireland this past week, seen up close the strength of Moscow’s resistance to Kerry’s Syria strategy.

All the officials interviewed for this story spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to evaluate Kerry’s performance publicly.

Reporting for work at the State Department in February, the former Democratic senator from Massachusetts quickly outlined his ambitions.

Clinton still harbored thoughts of a second potential presidential run when she arrived at the department. But aides say Kerry, a 69-year-old Vietnam veteran, is giving himself completely to a job that in many ways is the climax of his political career and the realization of a lifelong dream after years as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Now he wants to tackle head-on the world’s thorniest foreign policy conundrums.

 Eerily Leery Of Kerry

Before & After Hillary

ToothlessStateDept2WebCR-1_28_13

Visit:TerrellAfterMath

Hill On The Hill

Displaying The “Grand Maw” To The Right

Related articles

If You Haven’t Heard …

Then now would probably be an excellent time for you to hear about Hezbollah and the Mexican drug cartels. If you were never concerned about illegal migration and the potential for dirty dealing posed by illegal aliens and infiltration by terrorists, just read on  from ProPublica and Sebastian Rotella:

English: Cartoon of Hezbollah, Iran, Hamas, wi...

Image via Wikipedia,

U.S. authorities are building a politically explosive case that Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group, finances itself through a vast drug-smuggling network that links a Lebanese bank, a violent Mexican cartel and U.S. cocaine users.

Federal prosecutors Tuesday charged Ayman Joumaa, an accused Lebanese drug kingpin and Hezbollah financier, of smuggling tons of U.S.-bound cocaine and laundering hundreds of millions of dollars with the Zetas cartel of Mexico.

“Ayman Joumaa is one of top guys in the world at what he does: international drug trafficking and money laundering,” a U.S. anti-drug official said. “He has interaction with Hezbollah. There’s no indication that it’s ideological. It’s business.”

To those defending Hezbollah and its sister, Hamas, whether governments or groups like the codepink organization, there seems to be no need to chastise you as you’ve never paid attention to criticism, just as you’ve never paid attention to reason and truth.  But here’s some more in case you care to read:

Now a powerful partner in Lebanon’s government, Hezbollah presents itself as a legitimate political party and rejects allegations of terrorism. But Tuesday’s case reflects increasing concern that Hezbollah and its ally, Iran’s intelligence service, are expanding their presence in Latin America as conflict with the West intensifies over Iran’s nuclear program.

Hezbollah allegedly uses the cocaine trade to develop revenue and build foreign networks, according to U.S., European and Israeli officials. In October, the Justice Department charged an Iranian-American resident of Texas and two Iranian intelligence officers with plotting to hire Mexican cartel gunmen to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington.

Acting in February under the Patriot Act, the U.S. Treasury Department publicly identified the Lebanese Canadian National bank of Beirut, Lebanon’s eighth-largest bank, as a “financial institution of primary money laundering concern” linked to Hezbollah. Authorities alleged that the bank facilitated the financing of Hezbollah by Joumaa, a 47-year-old businessman who speaks excellent Spanish and resided many years in Colombia. About eleven years ago, he shifted his base to Lebanon because of law enforcement pressure, according to U.S. anti-drug officials.

We’ll paste more from the article just below, but be aware there has been denials from Hezbollah and other of the accused whether institutions or individuals.  We suugest you read the related articles which follow the next portion of the ProPublica article and the link to the rest of the article:

Joumaa allegedly coordinated the smuggling of at least 85 tons of Colombian cocaine through Central America and Mexico in partnership with the Zetas, the brutal Mexican cartel founded by former commandos, according to the indictment. Between 1997 and 2010, Joumaa’s mafia laundered hundreds of millions of dollars for the Zetas and their Colombian and Venezuelan suppliers, regularly picking up southbound bulk cash shipments of $2 million to $4 million in Mexico City, the indictment says.

“Ayman Joumaa is accused of facilitating the shipments of huge amounts of cocaine for the United States while laundering the proceeds all over the globe,” said DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart. “According to information from sources, his alleged drug and money laundering activities facilitated numerous global drug-trafficking organizations, including the criminal activities of the Los Zetas Mexican drug cartel.”

The indictment in Virginia results from a continuing investigation by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration targeting Hezbollah, which has a bloody history of terror attacks against the United States and Israel.

Here is the link to the rest of the story:

Rest of the story

Related articles

Ahmadinejad & Gaddafi — Chickens Staying Home To “Roast?”

President Gamal Abdal Nasser of Egypt (right) ...

Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 – 2011)

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

Mahmoud and Muammar,  two fine allies who do our work for us.  At least in a way.  Each has recently called for more demonstrations or massing on borders of another country.  Unfortunately, they were not referring to their county, but they are on the receiving end of some serious demonstrations or threats of acts against their governments.  Gaddafi has played with mischief before and many times it brought him misery after it purchased fame for him among some who support him.  Ahmadinejad has been another “fly” in the world’s ointment, and remains so today. While everyone waits for them to join together to drop the physical “N” bomb (nuclear) and not just talk about it in a virtual way;  both men are dangerous boys with economies and constituents lagging in serious ways.

Ahmadinejad faced challenges in the very recent past, when many of Iran’s citizens were unhappy with his alleged win for a second term as President of Iran.  Gaddafi has had a 42 year reign in Libya, which was surpassed by Castro, but no longer since “the Fidel” resigned and” the  Raul” assumed power.  The Wall Street Journal has reported that both of Iran and Libya face demonstrations and as stated above Iran’s has begun today.  The quote below is excerpted from WSJ (click here) :

And in Iran, opposition leaders planned a demonstration on Monday in solidarity with the Egyptian and Tunisian revolts. The streets of Tehran rocked to the chants of residents shouting “Death to the dictator” and “God is great” Sunday night, according to witnesses and videos posted on Youtube.

Activists are calling for protests in Libya on Thursday, testing whether Col. Moammar Gadhafi‘s 42-year regime will be forced to make political concessions.

Perhaps the world will see more despots and dictators fall as the next week or so travels on to witness more folks making a charge to freedom such as they aren’t accustomed to feeling or witnessing.  Here’s a short video recently posted to the web, and you can click on the video, and then the start triangle after the video plays to continue playing more related videos:

A flap of the cap to Wall Street Journal/Digital Network for this story (also cited above) and the reporters on the story, Margaret Coker, Matt Bradley and Tamer El-Ghobashy.

 

We trust you’ll follow other videos after you view the one above.  Also follow any links below for more information.