Marita Noon: Welcome to the “no pee” section of the swimming pool

Poster note: There are references in Ms. Noon’s articles about quotes some have made about the mindless fellow who occupies the Oval Office when he is not on Air Force One.  The quotes address his legacy.  Maybe they mean his lack of legacy? Chuck Ring

 

 

This morning, President Obama is scheduled to announce the EPA’s new C02 standards for existing power plants. Last week I attended (via telephone) a press conference the US Chamber of Commerce held announcing its new report regarding the impacts of the new regulations—which are, in essence, cap-and-trade by executive order. That became the launching point for this week’s column: Welcome to the “no pee” section of the swimming pool (attached and pasted-in-below).

 

As you will discover when you read it, in doing my writing preparation, I’ve read extensively on the topic. In Welcome to the “no pee” section of the swimming pool I address some angles and issues not covered elsewhere. (I always figure, if I don’t have something fresh to say on a topic, I don’t need to write on it.)

 

As the announcement is now just a couple hours away, I hope those of you who post my work can get Welcome to the “no pee” section of the swimming pool posted ASAP—before the announcement. Please pass it on, too! Thanks!

 

Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great, inc.

PO Box 52103, Albuquerque, NM 87181

505.239.8998

 

 

For immediate release: June 2, 2014

Commentary by Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great Inc.

Contact: 505.239.8998, marita@responsiblenergy.org

Welcome to the “no pee” section of the swimming pool

America is poised to become the “no pee” section of the global swimming pool and the useless actions will cost us a bundle—raising energy costs, adding new taxes, and crippling the economy. Even some environmentalists agree. Yet, for President Obama, it’s all about legacy.

 

On Monday, June 2, 2014, the EPA will release its new rules for CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electricity generating plants—which the New York Times (NYT) states: “could eventually shut down hundreds of coal-fueled power plants across the country.” (Regulations for new plants: the New Source Performance Standard rule, requiring carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) that buries emissions in the ground to meet the emissions limits, were released September 20, 2013. The 2013 regulations virtually ensure that no new coal-fueled power plants will be built. Bloomberg Businessweek reports: “Considering the one carbon-capture plant being built in the U.S. is massively over budget and widely considered not ready for commercial use, it seems likely that the new rules will significantly erode coal’s share of power generation down the road.” Politifact says CCS is: “new and expensive.”)

 

These new rules, reportedly 3000 pages long (300 pages longer than the healthcare bill), are so important, it is believed that the President will make the announcement himself.

 

Supporters seem gleeful. USA Today cites the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress’ Daniel J. Weiss as saying: “No president has ever proposed a climate pollution clean up this big.” In the Washington Post (WP), advocacy group Clean Air Watch’s director, Frank O’Donnell is quoted as saying: “This is a magic moment for the president—a chance to write his name in the record books.” The NYT claims the plans, “the strongest action ever taken by an American president to tackle climate change,” could: “become one of the defining elements of Mr. Obama’s legacy.” And, Peter Shattuck, director of market initiatives at ENE, a Boston-based climate advocacy and research organization, believes: “This EPA regulation will breathe life into state-level cap-and-trade programs.”

 

While the actual EPA plan has not been released at the time of this writing, it is widely believed that it will follow a March 2013 regulatory proposal put forth by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) which projects 35-40 percent cuts in CO2 emissions over 2012 levels by 2025. Once again, as with endangered species listings and the Keystone pipeline, we see environmental groups driving this administration’s policies.

 

Using the NRDC’s policy framework, on May 28—before the EPA released its new rules—the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy released a major study done by the highly respected energy analytics firm IHS: Assessing the Impact of Potential New Carbon Regulations in the United States. It concludes that the EPA’s plans to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants will cost America’s economy over $50 billion a year between now and 2030.

 

A press release about the 71-page report predicts the EPA’s potential new carbon regulations would:

  • Lower U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $51 billion on average every year through 2030,
  • Lead to 224,000 fewer U.S. jobs on average every year through 2030,
  • Force U.S. consumers to pay $289 billion more for electricity through 2030, and
  • Lower total disposable income for U.S. households by $586 billion through 2030.

 

Addressing the Chamber’s assessment, the Institute’s president and CEO, Karen Harbert, said: “Americans deserve to have an accurate picture of the costs and benefits associated with the Administration’s plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through unprecedented and aggressive EPA regulations. Our analysis shows that Americans will pay significantly more for electricity, see slower economic growth and fewer jobs, and have less disposable income, while a slight reduction in carbon emissions will be overwhelmed by global increases.”

 

Not surprisingly, the EPA quickly tried to debunk the Chamber’s claims. Tom Reynolds, the EPA’s associate administrator for external affairs, called the report: “Nothing more than irresponsible speculation based on guesses of what our draft proposal will be.” Reynolds continued: “Just to be clear—it’s not out yet. I strongly suggest that folks read the proposal before they cry the sky is falling.”

 

However, the WP states: “While several key aspects of the proposal are still under discussion, according to several people briefed on the matter … the EPA plan resembles proposals made by the Natural Resources Defense Council.” In Grist.com, which calls itself “a source of intelligent, irreverent environmental news and commentary,” Ben Adler, who “covers environmental policy and politics for Grist, with a focus on climate change, energy, and cities,” cites a “video chat” he apparently had with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. In his column: “Here’s what to expect from Obama’s big new climate rules,” Adler states: “The agency’s proposed rules will probably roughly follow the model proposed by the Natural Resources Defense Council in a March 2013 report.”

 

It is likely that the Chamber’s report is spot on. If, after the regulations are revealed, they are different, the Chamber says it will rerun the models using the new data.

 

Describing the NRDC-based plan, the NYT states: “President Obama will use his executive authority to cut carbon emissions from the nation’s coal-fired power plants by up to 20 percent.” It continues: “People familiar with the rule say that it will set a national limit on carbon pollution from coal plants, but that it will allow each state to come up with its own plan to cut emissions based on a menu of options that include adding wind and solar power, energy-efficiency technology and creating or joining state cap-and-trade programs. Cap-and-trade programs are effectively carbon taxes that place a limit on carbon pollution and create markets for buying and selling government-issued pollution permits.” Note: even the NYT calls cap and trade a carbon tax.

 

The NYT story points to cap-and-trade programs in California and the northeast, which have some of the highest electricity rates in the country. It cites officials of the northeastern regional program who claim: “it has proved fairly effective.” Between 2005 and 2012, the program dropped power-plant pollution by 40 percent, “even as the states raised $1.6 billion in new revenue.” Where did that “new revenue” come from? Higher rates paid by consumers—essentially a tax. Realize that power companies don’t really care about how much the new regulations cost, as they simply pass them on to the end users. In the NYT story, John McManus, vice president of environmental services at American Electric Power, is quoted as saying: “We view cap and trade as having a lot of benefits. … There are a lot of advantages.”

 

Adler explains the cap-and-trade aspect of the new regulations this way: “States could set up their own emissions-trading programs, under which solar and wind facilities would receive credits for each megawatt-hour of energy produced with less than the allowable amount of CO2 and sell those credits to coal plants.” He continues: “economically—and therefore politically and legally—such an approach would carry major risks. A dramatic spike in electricity prices could cause a recession and significant hardship for lower-income families. That, in turn, would likely create a political backlash that would spur Congress to try to revoke the EPA’s authority to regulate CO2. It could even splinter the left, pitting unions, consumer groups, and anti-poverty advocates against the environmental movement. The GOP-controlled House has already voted numerous times to revoke the EPA’s authority, and much higher energy prices might cause some Democrats to join the Republicans.”

 

Bloomberg calls the new rule “politically painful” for Democrats from coal-producing regions “as it forces power-plant closures and threatens to increase electricity rates for consumers.”

 

In response to the Daily Kos reporting on the new EPA regulations, a reader, John in Cleveland, commented: “if the regulations are enough to get a good number of coal plants shut down we had better brace for impact because people’s heating/electric bills are going to increase. … People are going to be pissed when their bills go up, and they will go up.”

 

The Kos reports: “Obama has said he wants the existing plant rule in place by the time a new president takes the oath of office in January 2017”—though many in Congress, including coal-state Democrats, are asking that the 60-day comment period be extended to 120 and, as the WP points out, lawsuits are likely.

 

The Kos reader rightly points out: “As long as China and India are allowed to spew as much carbon as they want into the air it is going to be near impossible to rally this country behind anything that means higher prices that doesn’t do anything to solve the problem.”

 

The Chamber reports that global emissions are expected to rise by 31 percent between 2011 and 2030, yet, all the pain—economic and political—the new regulations will inflict “would only reduce overall emissions levels by just 1.8 percentage points.”

 

Defending the NRDC plan, David Hawkins, director of climate programs, is quoted in Grist: “Power plants don’t operate in a vacuum. The energy they produce is fungible.” The same is true for the emissions. The U.S. can adopt these draconian regulations, but the U.S. doesn’t operate in a vacuum. The emissions are fungible.

 

Bloomberg states: “The administration and its Democratic allies are bracing for a political fight over the rule, which is critical to Obama’s legacy on climate and his efforts to coax other nations to agree.” USA Today cites David Doniger, NRDC’s policy director and senior attorney for NRDC’s climate and clean air program in Washington, DC: “the EPA rules will show the United States is ‘in the game’ and will help nudge other countries to make reductions.”

 

Should we be “in the game” when the other major developed countries have quit playing? Australia has already walked away from its previous administration’s stringent climate policies due to economic pain and public backlash. Germany is becoming more dependent on coal-fueled electricity. Wood is the number one renewable fuel in Europe. Following what has already taken place in England and much of Europe, on May 31, it was announced that Spain is cutting back on its green energy programs. China and India have repeatedly refused to cripple their growing economies by cutting back on their fossil fuel-based energy usage.

 

The U.S. may be “in the game” alone. All the regulations the administration may impose will not “nudge” the rest of the world to follow. Just because we declare that we won’t pee in the pool, won’t stop the others. And, just like the water in the pool, CO2 emissions are fungible.

 

We’ll be stuck in our little no-pee section with a crippled economy while the rest of the world will be frolicking in unfettered growth. As chlorine, filters and other processes make public pools safe for swimming, scrubbers and other pollution controls have already dramatically cleaned up the air in America. But Obama needs his legacy—and that will be, as House Speaker John Boehner said: “every proposal that comes out of this administration to deal with climate change involves hurting our economy and killing American jobs.”

 

 

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

Does the NSA Tap That? What We Still Don’t Know About the Agency’s Internet Surveillance

As the reader can see, ProPublica is the original publisher of this article. It is posted here with permission from them.

The idea that the NSA is sweeping up vast data streams via cables and other infrastructure — often described as the “backbone of the Internet” — is not new. In late 2005, the New York Times first described the tapping, which began after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. More details emerged in early 2006 when an AT&T whistleblower came forward.

But like other aspects of NSA surveillance, virtually everything about this kind of NSA surveillance is highly secret and we’re left with far from a full picture.

Is the NSA really sucking up everything?

It’s not clear.

The most detailed, though now dated, information on the topic comes from Mark Klein. He’s the former AT&T technician who went public in 2006 describing the installation in 2002-03 of a secret room in an AT&T building in San Francisco. The equipment, detailed in technical documents, allowed the NSA to conduct what Klein described as “vacuum-cleaner surveillance of all the data crossing the internet — whether that be peoples’ e-mail, web surfing or any other data.”

Klein said he was told there was similar equipment installed at AT&T facilities in San Diego, Seattle, and San Jose.

There is also evidence that the vacuuming has continued in some form right up to the present.

A draft NSA inspector’s general report from 2009, recently published by the Washington Post, refers to access via two companies “to large volumes of foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the United States through fiberoptic cables, gateway switches, and data networks.”

Recent stories by the Associated Press and the Washington Post also described the NSA’s cable-tapping, but neither included details on the scope of this surveillance.

Upstream slide (<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-nsa-slide-you-havent-seen/2013/07/10/32801426-e8e6-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html' _cke_saved_href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-nsa-slide-you-havent-seen/2013/07/10/32801426-e8e6-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html' _cke_saved_href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-nsa-slide-you-havent-seen/2013/07/10/32801426-e8e6-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html' _cke_saved_href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-nsa-slide-you-havent-seen/2013/07/10/32801426-e8e6-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html' _cke_saved_href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-nsa-slide-you-havent-seen/2013/07/10/32801426-e8e6-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html' _cke_saved_href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-nsa-slide-you-havent-seen/2013/07/10/32801426-e8e6-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html' _cke_saved_href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-nsa-slide-you-havent-seen/2013/07/10/32801426-e8e6-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html' _cke_saved_href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-nsa-slide-you-havent-seen/2013/07/10/32801426-e8e6-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html' _cke_saved_href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-nsa-slide-you-havent-seen/2013/07/10/32801426-e8e6-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html' _cke_saved_href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-nsa-slide-you-havent-seen/2013/07/10/32801426-e8e6-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html' _cke_saved_href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-nsa-slide-you-havent-seen/2013/07/10/32801426-e8e6-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html' _cke_saved_href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-nsa-slide-you-havent-seen/2013/07/10/32801426-e8e6-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html' _cke_saved_href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-nsa-slide-you-havent-seen/2013/07/10/32801426-e8e6-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html' _cke_saved_href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-nsa-slide-you-havent-seen/2013/07/10/32801426-e8e6-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html' _cke_saved_href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-nsa-slide-you-havent-seen/2013/07/10/32801426-e8e6-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html' _cke_saved_href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-nsa-slide-you-havent-seen/2013/07/10/32801426-e8e6-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html' _cke_saved_href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-nsa-slide-you-havent-seen/2013/07/10/32801426-e8e6-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html' _cke_saved_href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-nsa-slide-you-havent-seen/2013/07/10/32801426-e8e6-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html' _cke_saved_href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-nsa-slide-you-havent-seen/2013/07/10/32801426-e8e6-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html' _cke_saved_href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-nsa-slide-you-havent-seen/2013/07/10/32801426-e8e6-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html' _cke_saved_href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-nsa-slide-you-havent-seen/2013/07/10/32801426-e8e6-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html'>Washington Post)</a>

Upstream slide (Washington Post)

A recently published NSA slide, dated April 2013, refers to so-called “Upstream” “collection” of “communications on fiber cables and infrastructure as data flows past.”

These cables carry vast quantities of information, including 99 percent of international phone and Internet data, according to research firm TeleGeography.

This upstream surveillance is in contrast to another method of NSA snooping, Prism, in which the NSA isn’t tapping anything. Instead, the agency gets users’ data with the cooperation of tech companies like Facebook and Google.

Other documents leaked by Edward Snowden to the Guardian provide much more detail about the upstream surveillance by the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the NSA’s U.K. counterpart.

GCHQ taps cables where they land in the United Kingdom carrying Internet and, phone data. According to the Guardian, unnamed companies serve as “intercept partners” in the effort.

The NSA is listening in on those taps too. By May 2012, 250 NSA analysts along with 300 GCHQ analysts were sifting through the data from the British taps.

Is purely domestic communication being swept up in the NSA’s upstream surveillance?

It’s not at all clear.

Going back to the revelations of former AT&T technician Mark Klein — which, again, date back a decade — a detailed expert analysis concluded that the secret NSA equipment installed at an AT&T building was capable of collecting information “not only for communications to overseas locations, but for purely domestic communications as well.”

On the other hand, the 2009 NSA inspector general report refers specifically to collecting “foreign-to-foreign communications” that are “transiting the United States through fiber-optic cables, gateway switches, and data networks”

But even if the NSA is tapping only international fiber optic cables, it could still pick up communications between Americans in the U.S.

That’s because data flowing over the Internet does not always take the most efficient geographic route to its destination.

Instead, says Tim Stronge of the telecom consulting firm TeleGeography, data takes “the least congested route that is available to their providers.”

“If you’re sending an email from New York to Washington, it could go over international links,” Stronge says, “but it’s pretty unlikely.”

That’s because the United States has a robust domestic network. (That’s not true for some other areas of the world, which can have their in-country Internet traffic routed through another country’s more robust network.)

But there are other scenarios under which Americans’ purely domestic communication might pass over the international cables. Google, for example, maintains a network of data centers around the world.

Google spokeswoman Nadja Blagojevic told ProPublica that, “Rather than storing each user’s data on a single machine or set of machines, we distribute all data — including our own — across many computers in different locations.”

We asked Blagojevic whether Google stores copies of Americans’ data abroad, for example users’ Gmail accounts.  She declined to answer.

Are companies still cooperating with the NSA’s Internet tapping?

We don’t know.

The Washington Post had a story earlier this month about agreements the government has struck with telecoms, but lots of details are still unclear, including what the government is getting, and how many companies are cooperating.

The Post pointed to a 2003 “Network Security Agreement” between the U.S. government and the fiber optic network operator Global Crossing, which at the time was being sold to a foreign firm.

That agreement, which the Post says became a model for similar deals with other companies, did not authorize surveillance. Rather, the newspaper reported, citing unnamed sources, it ensured “that when U.S. government agencies seek access to the massive amounts of data flowing through their networks, the companies have systems in place to provide it securely.”

Global Crossing was later sold to Colorado-based Level 3 Communications, which owns many international fiber optic cables, and the 2003 agreement was replaced in 2011.

Level 3 released a statement in response to the Post story saying that neither agreement requires Level 3 “to cooperate in unauthorized surveillance on U.S. or foreign soil.”

The agreement does, however, explicitly require the company to cooperate with “lawful” surveillance.

More evidence, though somewhat dated, of corporate cooperation with NSA upstream surveillance comes from the 2009 inspector general report.

“Two of the most productive [signals intelligence] collection partnerships that NSA has with the private sector are with COMPANY A and COMPANY B,” the report says. “These two relationships enable NSA to access large volumes of foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the United States through fiber-optic cables, gateway switches, and data networks.”

There’s circumstantial evidence that those companies may be AT&T and Verizon.

It’s also worth noting that the NSA might not need corporate cooperation in all cases. In 2005, the AP reported on the outfitting of the submarine Jimmy Carter to place taps on undersea fiber-optic cables in case “stations that receive and transmit the communications along the lines are on foreign soil or otherwise inaccessible.”

What legal authority is the NSA using for upstream surveillance?

It’s unclear, though it may be a 2008 law that expanded the government’s surveillance powers.

The only evidence that speaks directly to this issue is the leaked slide on upstream surveillance, and in particular the document’s heading: “FAA702 Operations.” That’s a reference to Section 702 of the 2008 FISA Amendments Act. That legislation amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1970s law that governs government surveillance in the United States.

Under Section 702, the attorney general and director of national intelligence issue one-year blanket authorizations to for surveillance of non-citizens who are “reasonably believed” to be outside the U.S. These authorizations don’t have to name individuals, but rather allow for targeting of broad categories of people.

The government has so-called minimization procedures that are supposed to limit the surveillance of American citizens or people in the U.S. Those procedures are subject to review by the FISA court.

Despite the procedures, there is evidence that in practice American communications are swept up by surveillance under this section.

In the case of Prism, for example, which is authorized under the same part of the law, the Washington Post reported that the NSA uses a standard of “51 percent confidence” in a target’s foreignness.

And according to minimization procedures dating from 2009 published by the Guardian, there are also exceptions when it comes to holding on to American communications. For example, encrypted communications — which, given the routine use of digital encryption, might include vast amounts of material — can be kept indefinitely.

The government also has the authority to order communications companies to assist in the surveillance, and to do so in secret.

How much Internet traffic is the NSA storing?

We don’t know, but experts speculate it’s a lot.

“I think that there’s evidence that they’re starting to move toward a model where they just store everything,” says Dan Auerbach, a staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “The Utah data center is a big indicator of this because the sheer storage capacity has just rocketed up.”

We know more details about how the GCHQ operates in Britain, again thanks to the Guardian’s reporting. A breakthrough in 2011 allowed GCHQ to store metadata from its cable taps for 30 days and content for three days. The paper reported on how the spy agency — with some input from the NSA — then filters what it’s getting:

The processing centres apply a series of sophisticated computer programmes in order to filter the material through what is known as MVR – massive volume reduction. The first filter immediately rejects high-volume, low-value traffic, such as peer-to-peer downloads, which reduces the volume by about 30%. Others pull out packets of information relating to “selectors” – search terms including subjects, phone numbers and email addresses of interest. Some 40,000 of these were chosen by GCHQ and 31,000 by the NSA.

How does the NSA do filtering of the data it gets off cables in the United States?

“I think that’s the trillion dollar question that I’m sure the NSA is working really hard at all the time,” Auerbach, the EFF expert. “I think it’s an incredibly difficult problem.”

Weiner: Another Snuggle Bug

, member of the United States House of Represe...

, member of the United States House of Representatives. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If the sheer stupidity of Weiner, et al wasn’t representative of what progressives, liberals and demos have come to eagerly tolerate, then I probably wouldn’t post this piece from The American Spectator..

In a warped and twisted way we are made to realize this is not our fathers’ and mothers’ nation.  No, it is only a tiny bit of what nations used to honor as a nation, the citizens of which, were blessed with at least one eye and half-sense.

Adults and pre-twenty year old girls and boys have lost their way and shoot for the false pleasure of sexual promiscuity, easy designer drugs, and dislike (even hate) of their country.  Unfortunately, Obama and his bunch have made sure their personal mammon is easy to come by.

The New Abnormal

Posted: 31 Jul 2013 03:10 AM PDT

Sydney Leathers was a girlfriend for hire and any old creep with a thousand bucks to spare could have had the pleasure of her companionship, such as it was. The news that Anthony Weiner’s former sexting partner sold her services via so-called “sugar daddy” Internet sites was not exactly shocking to anyone who has paid attention to the mores and manners of American youth in the past couple of decades.

Popular culture has been so corrupt for so long that many young people are incapable of making any distinction between vice and virtue, categories that sophisticated people are expected to reject as old-fashioned, if not altogether obsolete or, indeed, hatefully oppressive. As for the attitudes of adults, well, they are supposed to strive for eternal youth, to conform both their appearance and their appetites to the fashionable standards prevailing among the most shamelessly adventurous adolescents. Anyone who cares to examine the explicit exchanges between Sydney Leathers and Anthony Weiner will find it difficult to determine which of them was more immature — or more deviant.

“Deviant” is a word we don’t hear much anymore, for the simple reason that its meaning has become invalid or irrelevant or, as any Democrat would say, an expression of hate. America has in recent years gradually lost its vocabulary of moral judgment. “Deviant,” “abnormal,” “perverse,” “immoral” — each of these terms for sexual behavior that is wrong and bad implies the existence of an antonym for what is right and good. Anyone who cares to research the etymology of “deviant” and “perverse,” for example, will find that both of these words suggest a turning away from something. But from what have perverts like Anthony Weiner and deviants like Sydney Leathers turned away? We simply aren’t allowed to say it. Politically correctness forbids us to assert that any form of sexual behavior is more wholesome or more normal than any other. And no one in American public life dares use the word “sin” nowadays.

During the Freudian heyday of the mid-20th century, psychiatry replaced religion as the regnant authority among America’s elite. Once we were taught to think of ourselves as sinners in the hands of an angry God. That was before the Supreme Court and Time magazine vanquished the Lord. God is dead, the journalists told us, and the deceased Deity cannot even be mentioned in public schools. What was formerly called “sin” was redefined as sickness, and condemnation of moral depravity was replaced by a therapeutic sympathy for the helpless sufferers of various psychological “syndromes.” The habitually promiscuous woman, for example, was said to be afflicted with nymphomania. The evocative significance of that term inspired much frustration among young fellows who — eager to provide the supply for the nymphomaniac’s abnormal demand, as an economist might say — discovered such shamelessly insatiable females to be quite rare.

In the decades since the therapeutic sensibility replaced old-fashioned morality, however, shamelessness has apparently become quite commonplace. Sydney Leathers now speaks of her disgust for her erstwhile online boyfriend Anthony Weiner, without expressing any remorse or embarrassment about her own sordid behavior. Our cultural elite expect us to celebrate this degradation as progress, in a society that has entirely abandoned any sense of judgment, decency, or shame.

Nobody cares about “social issues” anymore, we have been told. Democrats have become the Pervert Party, as I observed last week, and Republicans are now the Party That Dare Not Disagree. Morality is no longer a matter of the divine “thou shalt not” that Jehovah declared to the Israelites at Mount Sinai. Nowadays, moral authority is determined by Hollywood, Harvard University and the New York Times. In post-Christian America, we have reverted to a sort of neo-heathenism, depending on guidance from secular wizards and a priestly caste of experts who gaze at poll numbers the way ancient astrologers looked for omens in the stars.

Poll: 78 Percent of Young Women Approve of Weiner” — well, that headline seemed like a blazing comet, a portent of impending doom. Surely we have not become so corrupt that so many of America’s young women approve of a middle-aged married man sending explicit messages to a girl less than half his age. And thank God, we have not. Click the headline and you learn that this survey was taken by a “sugar daddy” dating site, and the Weiner-approving respondents were the site’s “female clients aged 18-16.” Still, some 18,000 women are reportedly offering their companionship through that site and, if Sydney Leathers is typical of such “clients,” my advice to would-be sugar daddies is caveat emptor.

Sydney bragged to one of her friends, in Facebook messages reported by the London Daily Mail, that one of her sugar daddies paid $1,000 for the privilege of … well, pleasuring her, or at least attempting to do so. She laughed that it was the “easiest job ever,” because she didn’t “have to do anything except pretend I like it.” Of course, she was good at faking it: Sydney Leathers is a Democrat who says she worked as a field organizer for President Obama’s re-election campaign. She is a high-school dropout with multiple tattoos and a marijuana habit who last year had a creditor garnish her wages at an Indiana tanning salon where she worked.

The Obama administration would undoubtedly classify as “tech-sector growth” Sydney Leathers’ employment as an Internet floozy. These are the kind of jobs that make up the economic recovery the White House keeps telling us about, and as for her wages — well, let’s not talk about “the wages of sin,” eh? The New York Times would not approve, and quoting the Bible is now regarded as infringing the civil rights of atheists and perverts. Distinguishing between sin and righteousness is judgmental, intolerant, and oppressive. It might be symptomatic of certain kinds of phobia or possibly even a hate crime

If we can’t call sin by its right name, neither can we be permitted to say it is immoral or deviant for girls to smoke marijuana, cover themselves with tattoos, and sell sex on the Internet to “sugar daddies.” Ask Rush Limbaugh what happens if you describe a typical Democrat girl with old-fashioned words like “slut” or “whore.” Even to say that the behavior of Sydney Leathers and Anthony Weiner was indecent is to imply the existence of some clear standard of decency. Start talking like that, and liberals will denounce you as a puritanical fanatic: You’re crazy, Anthony Weiner is perfectly sane, and don’t dare say a sexist word about Sydney Leathers, you haters!

Welcome to America in 2013. Welcome to the New Abnormal.

 

Talking About More Taxes … Again

Never mind that is something he consistently talks about when he gets a round tuit and he has a round tuit in his pocket at all times.

There is no figuring out this man who seemingly rode in from nowhere, doesn’t know sic ’em from whoa, and changes his mind like most people change socks.  It won’t take you long to read the story below … just long enough to know you don’t , er still don’t, like his so-called solutions.

The following comes from The Weekly Standard

The Blog

Obama: Top Tax Rate Should Be 28% for Corporations, 40% for Small Business

2:37 PM, Jul 30, 2013 • By JOHN MCCORMACK
Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

The New York Times reports that President Obama is reviving an old proposal to lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent (and 25 percent for manufacturers). Obama’s push to lower the corporate tax rate to 28 percent comes less than a year after he raised the top individual income tax rate, paid by many small businesses, to 39.6 percent.

Official portrait of Barack Obama

In a speech delivered Tuesday afternoon, Obama did not explain why he thinks it’s a sound economic idea to raise the top marginal tax rate on small businesses but lower it for corporations.

“Right now, our tax code is so riddled with wasteful loopholes that many companies doing the right thing and investing in America pay 35%, while the corporations with the best accountants stash their money abroad and pay little or nothing at all,” Obama said, according to a the text of his prepared remarks. “I’m willing to simplify our tax code in a way that closes those loopholes, ends incentives to ship jobs overseas, and lowers rates for businesses that create jobs right here in America.”

Neither Obama’s Tuesday speech nor his February 2012 corporate tax reform plan explained in detail which loopholes would be closed. During the 2012 presidential campaign, the Obama campaign hammered Mitt Romney for not saying which loopholes he would close to pay for a proposed reduction in individual income tax rates.

Progressives & Race Baiters Will Follow

While Al Sharpton and other hideous people invest their time twisting facts and making fairy tales come alive with powerful embellishments. Some readers will not remember the Tawana Brawley fiasco and the role Al Sharpton played in subterfuge resulting in the waste of time, money and the tarnishing of reputations as the irreverent Reverend Sharpton tried to mold truth from a stack of lies.

Now, the once loudmouthed chubby little self-appointed personage is still a loudmouth, albeit a skinny one.  He now plies his trade on radio talk shows and his propensity for constructing outrage from tall tales still exists.

For those not familiar with the Tawana Brawley story and Al Sharpton’s role in the outrageous conduct he displayed in the story (still displaying) you can see the story at the link just below.  Please don’t forget to follow any related links.

Al Sharpton Is Like A Bad Penny — Just Keeps Coming Back

New York Times Can’t Cut The Cord

The connective tissue between progressives and the New York Times (a progressive mouthpiece) will forever remain secure, never mind the truth of any tale benefiting the conservative agenda. The Isley Brother’s version of “Twist & Shout©,” routines are common operational technique with the “Times,” and their sister prostituted media.

Twist & Shout (album)

Twist & Shout (album) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Their gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands will forever be the trademark of manufactured excuses placed at the feet of their progressive masters. They will never grasp the truth, or if they do, their lack of conscience and honesty will not allow them to tell it.

The American Spectator offers some perfect examples of the progressive way of reporting imperfectly in the cribs of the publishing houses of ill repute.

The Left-Wing News Bubble

Posted: 29 May 2013 12:59 PM PDT

Kaylin is absolutely right about the recent New York Times article on the IRS scandal. The piece alleges that certain groups applying for tax-exempt status deserved to be scrutinized, and that may be true. But it also ignores two weeks of developments in the scandal, including that conservative applications were blocked entirely for 27 months; that the scope of the audits went far beyond 501(c)(4)s; that the harassment wasn’t just carried out by the IRS, but also the Department of Labor, the ATF, the FBI, and OSHA; and that several applications were inappropriately leaked by the IRS to left-wing news outlet ProPublica.

Now the Times’s myopic article is metastasizing across the left. Here’s Steve Benen:

Given this, it’s simply absurd to assume that every conservative group subjected to lengthy IRS examination is a victim of an out-of-control agency acting on partisan motivations. If our tax laws are going to have any meaning, groups like these should be subjected to detailed IRS scrutiny. These aren’t examples of the agency going too far; they’re examples of the agency doing its job.

And Jamelle Bouie:

None of this is to say an investigation of the IRS’s process is unnecessary. There are documented instances when the agency stepped beyond the lines of acceptability. What this shows, however, is that there’s still no substance behind the idea that it was engaged in political or ideological targeting.

And Think Progress:

Under the law, 501(c)(4)s cannot be “primarily engaged” in electioneering activity. Though the guidelines for acceptable levels of political activity are unclear, organizations with such designations operate under the understanding that they are prohibited from spending more than 49 percent of their funds or time on political advocacy.

The IRS wasn’t engaged in political targeting…when it stalled all Tea Party applications for more than two years while waving through liberal ones? The groups were violating election law…and that’s why the DoL was sent in to audit a Romney donor? It may very well be true that 501(c)(4) status is abused and that several conservative groups should have been more closely examined. But that information must be placed in the greater context of this story.

And for the most part, that greater context has been ignored by left-wing pundits. We’ve sat through a lot of supercilious back-patting over the past few years about how conservatives, unlike liberals, are stuck in a bubble where they only communicate with each other in between painful flare-ups of epistemic closure. But what happens when a real story, amounting to an authentic and widespread abuse of power, is discussed almost exclusively within that conservative bubble? It means that those who don’t follow right-wing media end up gazing at the spectacle through a keyhole, discussing that tiny view with those of like minds while missing out on the lion’s share of the story.

Come to think of it, that sounds a bit like a bubble doesn’t it?

 

New York Times Behind the Times on IRS Scandal

Posted: 29 May 2013 10:27 AM PDT

Over the weekend, the New York Times published an article asserting that some conservative groups targeted by the IRS deserved it.

The headline, “Groups Targeted by I.R.S. Tested Rules on Politics” makes it sound like the only groups that were targeted were breaking the rules. Then they go on to cite several examples of groups that may have been engaging in too much political activity to be considered a 501(c)(4).

It says:

After the tax agency was denounced in recent weeks by President Obama, lawmakers and critics for what they described as improper scrutiny of at least 100 groups seeking I.R.S. recognition, The New York Times examined more than a dozen of the organizations.

This explanation is incredibly limited. In the past few weeks, the true depth of the scandal has been exposed. It wasn’t limited to a few lower-level employees in the Cincinnati office, which was the original story. It wasn’t even limited to the IRS. Conservative groups have said they were targeted by the Labor Department, the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and even the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

And it certainly wasn’t limited to groups applying for 501(c)(4) status. Romney donors, conservative columnists, and a 34-year-old conservative training organization were harassed too.

The idea that this targeting was limited to 100 groups and that many of them deserved it is outrageous. Did some groups participate in activities that should have disqualified them from 501(c)(4) status? Probably. And I’m sure the same abuses could be found with some liberal groups, too.

But the extent of the targeting is not reflected in the article. It makes it sound like these groups just had their applications pulled aside, which is absolutely false. No conservative organizations applying for 501(c)(4) status had their applications approved for 27 months—not one—while progressive groups participating in similar types of activities had their applications approved without trouble.

Liberals love to complain about a right-wing noise machine that adds no substance to the conversation. It’s clear from this article, though, that the New York Times needs to pay more attention to the reporting coming out of that “noise machine,” because it’s way behind on the facts.

You Can Call, Email Or Blog The Apology

One of our earnest, or was it actually Ernest detractors, excoriated us for a series of posts on Pigfod I and Pigford II.  His criticisms were tiring and uninteresting at the time and we left him to argue with himself.  The articles we posted contained video and audio verifying and/or supporting the accusations made about many of the fraudulent claims and other actions by some of the Pigford claimants, their attorneys and perhaps government employees.  While we had no problem with the sources, our detractor did, choosing to call Andrew Breitbart and his employees less than honest and grabbing everything Media Matters for America, a progressive site supported by rich progressives, had to say against Breitbart., After which, it was piled it up as the epitome of righteousness.

Now a member of the mainphelm media has finally posted their own investigation and they have indicated Breitbart was correct and not a dishonest journalist as our detractor has indicated as he and others carry water for the Pigford claimants. It is reported Media Matters has deigned to place their apology at the feet of Mr. Breitbart’s successors and former co-workers.

We don’t expect an apology from our detractor, but our personal email address and  cellphone number are still the same.  Oh, did we mention not one single person ever stepped forward to claim the $100,000 smackers reward Andrew Breitbart offered for proof the “N,” word was hurled at federal legislators as they walked back after signing the bill known as ObamaCare.  But, actually the story of those allegations is another story altogether.

So here we are down to linking to the New Your Times and their reporter/reporters work. We hope everyone … we do mean everyone, sees fit to read it and the related articles below:

 Piggy I & Piggy II

The above link will take you to the Breitbart site which will link to the NY Times work.

Imagine: This Or That

Democrats: Many of their own are accusing someone in the White House of leaking secrets and other sensitive material which serves to make Obama look good. The video just below shows one such accusation and the related articles show more distrust of the Obama administration.

English: United States President Barack Obama ...

English: United States President Barack Obama signs into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 as Vice President Joe Biden looks on. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles

Blowing Away Common Sense With Puffery

Cries of racist; loud yells to pay back a “White” Hispanic; posters and signs which present the message to take someone dead or alive for a cash prize.  Driven by ignorant people in the main scream media and politicians who should know better.

Now comes Walter E. Williams with a little (a lot?) of common-sense to put the ignoramuses down where they belong.  From his blog and CNS News:

When NBC’s “Today” show played the audio of George Zimmerman’s call to a Sanford, Fla., police dispatcher about Trayvon Martin, the editors made him appear to be a racist who says: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.” What Zimmerman actually said was: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining, and he’s just walking around, looking about.” The 911 officer responded by asking, “OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?” Zimmerman replied, “He looks black.”

NBC says it’s investigating the doctoring of the audio, but there’s nothing to investigate; its objective was to inflame passions.

In his Associated Press article titled “Old photos may be deceptive in Fla. shooting case,” Matt Sedensky pointed out that the photos carried by the major media were several years old and showed Zimmerman looking fat and mean and Martin looking like a sweet young kid.

We expected and we got Jesse Jackson spewing his scat from a mouth which never misses a chance to exhibit demagogic traits   Of course, our dear leader could not miss his chance to twist and shout for votes:

Jesse Jackson told the Los Angeles Times that “blacks are under attack” and that “targeting, arresting, convicting blacks and ultimately killing us is big business,” adding that Martin is “a martyr.” President Barack Obama chimed in by saying, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

Some non-news cases which should have been news and would have been had the races of the victim and perpetrators been reversed:

Let’s look at some non-news cases. On March 14 in Tulsa, Okla., a white couple suffered a home invasion by Tyrone Woodfork, a 20-year-old black man. Ninety-year-old Bob Strait suffered a broken jaw and broken ribs in the attack. His 85-year-old wife, Nancy, was sexually assaulted and battered to death, ending their 65-year marriage.

On March 4, two black Kansas City, Mo., youths doused a 13-year-old boy in gasoline and set him on fire, telling him, “You get what you deserve, white boy.” Last summer, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel ordered an emergency shutdown of the beaches in Chicago because mobs of blacks were terrorizing white families.

Several years ago, in Knoxville, Tenn., a young white couple was kidnapped by four blacks.
The girl was forced to witness her boyfriend’s rape, torture and subsequent murder before she was raped, tortured and murdered. Before disposing of her body, the three men and one woman poured bleach or some other cleaning agent down her throat in an effort to destroy DNA evidence. A jury found the four guilty, and they were sentenced, but because of the judge’s drug use, a retrial is being considered.

The main scream media … would they play with the news?  Well yes, they certainly would and do so often when it comes to black on white crime and even black on black crime

None of those black-on-white atrocities made anywhere near the news that the Trayvon Martin case made, and it’s deliberate. Editors for the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune admitted to deliberately censoring information about black crime for political reasons, in an effort to “guard against subjecting an entire group of people to suspicion.”

We’ve left the rest of Mr. Williams’ article for you to access at CNS News.  Don’t miss it. Click here.

Related articles