Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Environmental groups: White House throwing EPA under bus on fracking | Mobile Washington Examiner

Environmental groups: White House throwing EPA under bus on fracking | Mobile Washington Examiner

Environmental groups: White House throwing EPA under bus on fracking

BY: Zack Colman December 27, 2013 | 1:30 pm
 
 
This Dec. 6, 2012 aerial photo shows a natural gas well, right, drilled by Range Resources, but now operated by another company, near homes in rural Parker County near Granbury, Texas. Environmental groups say the White House is siding with the natural gas industry over its own Environmental Protection Agency following a report this week from the EPA's internal watchdog about an investigation of potential groundwater contamination in Parker County from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. (AP Photo/LM Otero)
Environmental groups say the White House is siding with the natural gas industry over its own Environmental Protection Agency following a report this week from the EPA's internal watchdog about an investigation of potential groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
EPA's inspector general said the agency was within bounds when it withdrew an emergency order protecting residents from contaminated drinking water in Parker County, Texas, but said that "issues remain," noting that the "overall risk faced by current and future area residents has not been determined."
That, combined with the EPA walking away from two other high-profile water pollution cases, has left some environmental groups believing that President Obama is quashing the EPA probes to serve other policy goals to which fracking-spurred development of natural gas is central, such as climate change and manufacturing.
"I think [the EPA has] been bludgeoned with a sledgehammer. The EPA, by all indications, wanted to do their job," said Sharon Wilson, a Texas-based activist with Earthworks, an environmental group focused on energy development.
The dissatisfaction from environmental groups underscores a complicated relationship with the Obama administration. Although largely supportive of the president's climate change goals, some organizations reject the president's reliance on switching from coal to natural gas to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Shale gas accounted for 10.3 trillion cubic feet of production in 2012, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, jumping from about 2.9 trillion cubic feet in 2008 — the year associated with the start of the shale boom. The U.S. consumed roughly 25.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in 2012.
Although natural gas has half the carbon intensity of coal, environmentalists are concerned about the effect that leaks of potent, heat-trapping methane from fracking has on global warming. They also say the Obama administration has turned a blind eye to the potential pollution problem.
"It seems that Obama has been eager to support natural gas without having all the questions answered first," Wilson said.
Fracking is a drilling method that involves injecting a cocktail of water, sand and chemicals into tight rock formations to access hard-to-reach hydrocarbons. It is credited with driving the domestic energy boom. The oil and gas industry say it's safe, but environmental and public health groups fear it contaminates groundwater.
The inspector general report said the EPA was justified in issuing a 2010 emergency order to natural gas firm Range Resources after it found elevated levels of methane and benzene, a carcinogen, in residential water. The EPA's regional office concluded through testing that Range Resources' natural gas well was the most likely cause of contamination, and that Justice Department and EPA officials had "enough evidence and support to enforce the order."
The EPA, however, withdrew the order after an agreement with Range Resources.
The report comes after the EPA dropped two high-profile cases in Pavillion, Wyo., which in 2011 was the first time a federal agency acknowledged a potential link between fracking and groundwater pollution, and Dimock, Pa., made famous in the Oscar-nominated documentary "Gasland."
Amy Mall, senior policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that amounted to an unsettling "pattern."
"If the staff in the region, career staff, thinks these are cases that warrant investigations and the EPA is pulling back, I think the question needs to be asked" about whether the White House is pushing aside investigations, Mall said.
EPA spokeswoman Alisha Johnson noted that the report concluded that both the issuance of the emergency order and its withdrawal were valid.
"The report also finds that EPA’s exercise of discretion to resolve the matter – including an agreement that Range conduct sampling in the area – was consistent with all applicable rules and policies. EPA agrees with these conclusions," she said. "EPA will continue to share any additional sampling data and relevant information provided by Range and other parties with the Texas Railroad Commission, which is the lead state agency charged with overseeing oil and gas-related activities in Texas."
Mall said, however, that the inspector general report "makes us wonder whether [the administration is] 100 percent committed to the science and committed to ensuring the integrity of the science."
The EPA, which is conducting a long-term study on the potential link between fracking and water pollution, said it withdrew the Texas order to shift from a focus on legal issues to science. The agency will not issue another emergency order for the well site, it said.
The inspector general report focused largely on why the EPA withdrew its emergency order against Range Resources.
It said the EPA did so because of concerns about the legal costs and noted that EPA felt the contamination threat was reduced because the affected residents had begun buying water from another source. On top of that, Range Resources agreed to conduct its own testing and provide samples.
But the inspector general found the driller's attempts inadequate and recommended the EPA re-evaluate the data, to which the agency agreed.
Some Republicans, however, say the inspector general report didn't go far enough, as it didn't assess the conduct of EPA staff who handled the Parker County case.
The inquiry, requested by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., came after agency emails showed former regional administrator Al Armendariz, who now works with the Sierra Club, had emailed anti-fracking activists about the investigation. Armendariz resigned in April 2012 amid GOP pressure following later comments that he would "crucify" companies that run afoul of environmental laws.
Referring to Armendariz, a Senate GOP aide said EPA's internal watchdog should have investigated whether "ideologues" are pulling the strings at regional offices.
"We feel like this report didn't cover that sufficiently," the aide said.

Monday, December 30, 2013

I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on .. By Heather Linebaugh | Save America Foundation

I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on .. By Heather Linebaugh | Save America Foundation

I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on .. By Heather Linebaugh

Whenever I read comments by politicians defending the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Predator and Reaper program – aka drones – I wish I could ask them some questions. I’d start with: “How many women and children have you seen incinerated by a Hellfire missile?” And: “How many men have you seen crawl across a field, trying to make it to the nearest compound for help while bleeding out from severed legs?” Or even more pointedly: “How many soldiers have you seen die on the side of a road in Afghanistan because our ever-so-accurate UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicle] were unable to detect an IED [improvised explosive device] that awaited their convoy?”
Few of these politicians who so brazenly proclaim the benefits of drones have a real clue of what actually goes on. I, on the other hand, have seen these awful sights first hand.
I knew the names of some of the young soldiers I saw bleed to death on the side of a road. I watched dozens of military-aged males die in Afghanistan, in empty fields, along riversides, and some right outside the compound where their family was waiting for them to return home from mosque.
The US and British militaries insist that this is such an expert program, but it’s curious that they feel the need to deliver faulty information, few or no statistics about civilian deaths and twisted technology reports on the capabilities of our UAVs. These specific incidents are not isolated, and the civilian casualty rate has not changed, despite what our defense representatives might like to tell us.
What the public needs to understand is that the video provided by a drone is a far cry from clear enough to detect someone carrying a weapon, even on a crystal-clear day with limited clouds and perfect light. This makes it incredibly difficult for the best analysts to identify if someone has weapons for sure. One example comes to mind: “The feed is so pixelated, what if it’s a shovel, and not a weapon?” I felt this confusion constantly, as did my fellow UAV analysts. We always wonder if we killed the right people, if we endangered the wrong people, if we destroyed an innocent civilian’s life all because of a bad image or angle.
It’s also important for the public to grasp that there are human beings operating and analysing intelligence these UAVs. I know because I was one of them, and nothing can prepare you for an almost daily routine of flying combat aerial surveillance missions over a war zone. UAV proponents claim that troops who do this kind of work are not affected by observing this combat because they are never directly in danger physically.
But here’s the thing: I may not have been on the ground in Afghanistan, but I watched parts of the conflict in great detail on a screen for days on end. I know the feeling you experience when you see someone die. Horrifying barely covers it. And when you are exposed to it over and over again it becomes like a small video, embedded in your head, forever on repeat, causing psychological pain and suffering that many people will hopefully never experience. UAV troops are victim to not only the haunting memories of this work that they carry with them, but also the guilt of always being a little unsure of how accurate their confirmations of weapons or identification of hostile individuals were.
Of course, we are trained to not experience these feelings, and we fight it, and become bitter. Some troops seek help in mental health clinics provided by the military, but we are limited on who we can talk to and where, because of the secrecy of our missions. I find it interesting that the suicide statistics in this career field aren’t reported, nor are the data on how many troops working in UAV positions are heavily medicated for depression, sleep disorders and anxiety.
Recently, the Guardian ran a commentary by Britain’s secretary of state for defence Philip Hammond. I wish I could talk to him about the two friends and colleagues I lost, within one year leaving the military, to suicide. I am sure he has not been notified of that little bit of the secret UAV program, or he would surely take a closer look at the full scope of the program before defending it again.
The UAV’s in the Middle East are used as a weapon, not as protection, and as long as our public remains ignorant to this, this serious threat to the sanctity of human life – at home and abroad – will continue.

Dems’ ‘don’t impeach Obama’ email backfires

Dems’ ‘don’t impeach Obama’ email backfires

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
A long-time strategy of the political left has been to take its most threatening opponents – and those enemies’ most damaging arguments – and mock them, as though they’re ludicrous to even consider.
Usually, the bullying technique results in marginalizing the opponent and silencing his or her arguments.
But sometimes, it backfires.
A recent Democratic National Committee email to supporters, for example, attempted to blackball four Republican congressmen for daring to suggest President Obama could be impeached for repeated violations of the Constitution.
“Republicans are actually excited about the idea,” the email scoffed. “Show these Republicans they are way, way off-base.”
But the email may have gotten more attention than the DNC intended.
Highlighted by WND, the Daily Caller, Fox News and the Drudge Report, the email has now been seen by tens of millions of Americans.
It was also noticed by Aaron Klein, WND senior staff reporter, radio host and New York Times bestselling author of “Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama from Office.”
“The White House and progressive machine clearly have failed in their attempt to paint the impeachment movement as fringe and out of touch with reality,” Klein told WND. “The general American public views with increasing concern Obama’s illicit extension of executive authority, his repeated bypassing of Congress and the many serious scandals that have plagued this administration from Fast and Furious through Benghazi through the IRS fiasco and now Obamacare.
“The time has come,” Klein said, “for the country and our elected representatives to have a serious discussion about the constitutional ramifications of Obama’s highly questionable actions.
DNC email, divided into two segments, side by side
Read the definitive case for removing Barack Obama from office in “Impeachable Offenses” by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.
WND has reported previously on several members of Congress also noticing the time may be coming to discuss impeachment.
Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, even handed out copies of Klein’s book, described by its authors as the “articles of impeachment” for Barack Obama. Stockman suggested that special investigations, and possibly prosecutions, are needed in response to Fast and Furious, Benghazi and other Obama scandals.
Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, was speaking at a town hall meeting when he considered the idea. A video of his comments was posted at the Western Center for Journalism.
“I’ve looked at the president. I think he’s violated the Constitution. I think he’s violated the Bill of Rights,” he said.
He said at some point a decision must be made.
“I think if the House had an impeachment vote it would probably impeach the president.”
But he noted there are only 46 members of the GOP in the U.S. Senate, where an impeached president would be put on trial.
To obtain a conviction, the prosecuting team must have 67 votes, and he wasn’t sure that even all of the GOP members would vote to convict.
Other members of Congress who have made comments about impeachment include Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich.; Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas; Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah; Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.; Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.; R-Texas; Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fla.; Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa; and Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla.
“I think he”s breaking the law if he strikes without congressional approval,” Hunter told the Washington Times regarding Obama’s plan to bomb Syria. “And if he proceeds without Congress providing that authority, it should be considered an impeachable offense.”
WND previously reported Coburn’s statement that Obama is “perilously close” to qualifying for impeachment.
Speaking at the Muskogee Civic Center in Oklahoma, the senator said, “What you have to do is you have to establish the criteria that would qualify for proceedings against the president, and that’s called impeachment.”
Coburn said it’s “not something you take lightly, and you have to use a historical precedent of what that means.”
“I think there’s some intended violation of the law in this administration, but I also think there’s a ton of incompetence, of people who are making decisions,” he said.
A constituent then responded, “Even if there is incompetence, the IRS forces me to abide by the law.”
Coburn said he agreed.
“Those are serious things, but we’re in a serious time,” he said. “I don’t have the legal background to know if that rises to high crimes and misdemeanor, but I think they’re getting perilously close.”
Visit WND’s online Impeachment Store to see all the products related to ousting Obama.
Days earlier, Bentivolio said it would be a “dream come true” to impeach Obama.
Bentivolio told the Birmingham Bloomfield Republican Club Meeting, “You know, if I could write that bill and submit it, it would be a dream come true.”
He told constituents: “I feel your pain and I know. I stood 12 feet away from that guy and listened to him, and I couldn’t stand being there. But because he is president I have to respect the office. That’s my job as a congressman. I respect the office.”
Bentivolio said his experience with the president caused him to consult with attorneys about what it would take to remove Obama from office.
Cruz responded to a question about impeachment after a speech.
“It’s a good question,” Cruz said. “And I’ll tell you the simplest answer: To successfully impeach a president you need the votes in the U.S. Senate.”
Farenthold, who thinks there are enough votes in the House to impeach Obama, said he often is asked why Congress doesn’t take action.
He said he answers, “[I]f we were to impeach the president tomorrow, we would probably get the votes in the House of Representatives to do it.”
But, like others, Farenthold sees the lack of votes in the Senate as a roadblock.
The congressman also worries about what would happen if they tried to impeach Obama and failed. He believes the unsuccessful attempt to impeach President Clinton hurt the country.
In May, Inhofe suggested Obama could be impeached over a White House cover-up after the attack in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.
He told listeners of “The Rusty Humphries Show”: “Of all the great cover-ups in history – the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them – this … is going to go down as the most egregious cover-up in American history.”
But even with that searing indictment, Inhofe, too, stopped short of calling for impeachment.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, has offered tentative support for impeachment.
“I’m not willing to take it off the table, but that’s certainly not what we’re striving for,” he told CNN.
One Republican actually has come out and called for the impeachment of Obama, and he did it more than two years ago, before he became a congressman.
Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., posted on his website in June 2011 a list of reasons for impeachment.
Other figures who have discussed impeachment include Glenn Beck, Watergate investigative reporter Bob Woodward, WND columnist Nat Hentoff and a panel of top constitutional experts.
Stockman recently distributed copies of the book, “Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama From Office,” to the other 434 members of the House of Representatives to bolster his case for a special investigation of the president.
The bestselling “Impeachable Offenses” presents an indictment that goes well beyond today’s headlines.
The Daily Mail of London has called “Impeachable Offenses” “explosive,” reporting that the book contains a “systematic connect-the-dots exercise that the president’s defenders will find troublesome.”
“Consider this work to be the articles of impeachment against Barack Obama,” stated Klein.
“Every American, whether conservative or liberal, Democrat, Republican or independent, should be concerned about the nearly limitless seizure of power, the abuses of authority, the cronyism, corruption, lies and cover-ups documented in this news-making book,” Klein said.
The authors stress the book is not a collection of generalized gripes concerning Obama and his administration. Rather, it is a well-documented indictment based on major alleged violations.
Among the offenses enumerated in the book:
  • Obamacare not only is unconstitutional but illegally bypasses Congress, infringes on states’ rights and marking an unprecedented and unauthorized expansion of IRS power.
  • Sidestepping Congress, Obama already has granted largely unreported de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens using illicit interagency directives and executive orders.
  • The Obama administration recklessly endangered the public by releasing from prison criminal illegal aliens at a rate far beyond what is publicly known.
  • The president’s personal role in the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack, with new evidence regarding what was transpiring at the U.S. mission prior to the assault – arguably impeachable activities in and of themselves.
  • Illicit edicts on gun control in addition to the deadly “Fast and Furious” gun-running operation intended, the book shows, to collect fraudulent gun data.
  • From “fusion centers” to data mining to drones to alarming Department of Homeland Security power grabs, how U.S. citizens are fast arriving at the stage of living under a virtual surveillance regime.
  • New evidence of rank corruption, cronyism and impeachable offenses related to Obama’s first-term “green” funding adventures.
  • The illegality of leading a U.S.-NATO military campaign without congressional approval.
  • Obama has weakened America both domestically and abroad by emboldening enemies, tacitly supporting a Muslim Brotherhood revolution, spurning allies and minimizing the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/dems-dont-impeach-obama-email-backfires/#wryOgRvAAHezmZQC.99


Dems' 'don't impeach Obama' email backfires

Suddenly, millions of Americans talking about ousting president

Drew Zahn is a WND news editor who cut his journalist teeth as a member of the award-winning staff of Leadership, Christianity Today's professional journal for church leaders. A former pastor, he is the editor of seven books, including Movie-Based Illustrations for Preaching & Teaching, which sparked his ongoing love affair with film and his weekly WND column, "Popcorn and a (world)view."

A long-time strategy of the political left has been to take its most threatening opponents – and those enemies’ most damaging arguments – and mock them, as though they’re ludicrous to even consider.
Usually, the bullying technique results in marginalizing the opponent and silencing his or her arguments.
But sometimes, it backfires.
A recent Democratic National Committee email to supporters, for example, attempted to blackball four Republican congressmen for daring to suggest President Obama could be impeached for repeated violations of the Constitution.
“Republicans are actually excited about the idea,” the email scoffed. “Show these Republicans they are way, way off-base.”
But the email may have gotten more attention than the DNC intended.
Highlighted by WND, the Daily Caller, Fox News and the Drudge Report, the email has now been seen by tens of millions of Americans.
It was also noticed by Aaron Klein, WND senior staff reporter, radio host and New York Times bestselling author of “Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama from Office.”
“The White House and progressive machine clearly have failed in their attempt to paint the impeachment movement as fringe and out of touch with reality,” Klein told WND. “The general American public views with increasing concern Obama’s illicit extension of executive authority, his repeated bypassing of Congress and the many serious scandals that have plagued this administration from Fast and Furious through Benghazi through the IRS fiasco and now Obamacare.
“The time has come,” Klein said, “for the country and our elected representatives to have a serious discussion about the constitutional ramifications of Obama’s highly questionable actions.
DNC email, divided into two segments, side by side.
WND has reported previously on several members of Congress also noticing the time may be coming to discuss impeachment.
Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, even handed out copies of Klein’s book, described by its authors as the “articles of impeachment” for Barack Obama. Stockman suggested that special investigations, and possibly prosecutions, are needed in response to Fast and Furious, Benghazi and other Obama scandals.
Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, was speaking at a town hall meeting when he considered the idea. A video of his comments was posted at the Western Center for Journalism.
“I’ve looked at the president. I think he’s violated the Constitution. I think he’s violated the Bill of Rights,” he said.
He said at some point a decision must be made.
“I think if the House had an impeachment vote it would probably impeach the president.”
But he noted there are only 46 members of the GOP in the U.S. Senate, where an impeached president would be put on trial.
To obtain a conviction, the prosecuting team must have 67 votes, and he wasn’t sure that even all of the GOP members would vote to convict.
Other members of Congress who have made comments about impeachment include Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich.; Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas; Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah; Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.; Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.; R-Texas; Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fla.; Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa; and Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla.
“I think he”s breaking the law if he strikes without congressional approval,” Hunter told the Washington Times regarding Obama’s plan to bomb Syria. “And if he proceeds without Congress providing that authority, it should be considered an impeachable offense.”
WND previously reported Coburn’s statement that Obama is “perilously close” to qualifying for impeachment.
Speaking at the Muskogee Civic Center in Oklahoma, the senator said, “What you have to do is you have to establish the criteria that would qualify for proceedings against the president, and that’s called impeachment.”
Coburn said it’s “not something you take lightly, and you have to use a historical precedent of what that means.”
“I think there’s some intended violation of the law in this administration, but I also think there’s a ton of incompetence, of people who are making decisions,” he said.
A constituent then responded, “Even if there is incompetence, the IRS forces me to abide by the law.”
Coburn said he agreed.
“Those are serious things, but we’re in a serious time,” he said. “I don’t have the legal background to know if that rises to high crimes and misdemeanor, but I think they’re getting perilously close.”
Days earlier, Bentivolio said it would be a “dream come true” to impeach Obama.
Bentivolio told the Birmingham Bloomfield Republican Club Meeting, “You know, if I could write that bill and submit it, it would be a dream come true.”
He told constituents: “I feel your pain and I know. I stood 12 feet away from that guy and listened to him, and I couldn’t stand being there. But because he is president I have to respect the office. That’s my job as a congressman. I respect the office.”
Bentivolio said his experience with the president caused him to consult with attorneys about what it would take to remove Obama from office.
Cruz responded to a question about impeachment after a speech.
“It’s a good question,” Cruz said. “And I’ll tell you the simplest answer: To successfully impeach a president you need the votes in the U.S. Senate.”
Farenthold, who thinks there are enough votes in the House to impeach Obama, said he often is asked why Congress doesn’t take action.
He said he answers, “[I]f we were to impeach the president tomorrow, we would probably get the votes in the House of Representatives to do it.”
But, like others, Farenthold sees the lack of votes in the Senate as a roadblock.
The congressman also worries about what would happen if they tried to impeach Obama and failed. He believes the unsuccessful attempt to impeach President Clinton hurt the country.
In May, Inhofe suggested Obama could be impeached over a White House cover-up after the attack in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.
He told listeners of “The Rusty Humphries Show”: “Of all the great cover-ups in history – the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them – this … is going to go down as the most egregious cover-up in American history.”
But even with that searing indictment, Inhofe, too, stopped short of calling for impeachment.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, has offered tentative support for impeachment.
“I’m not willing to take it off the table, but that’s certainly not what we’re striving for,” he told CNN.
One Republican actually has come out and called for the impeachment of Obama, and he did it more than two years ago, before he became a congressman.
Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., posted on his website in June 2011 a list of reasons for impeachment.
Other figures who have discussed impeachment include Glenn Beck, Watergate investigative reporter Bob Woodward, WND columnist Nat Hentoff and a panel of top constitutional experts.
Stockman recently distributed copies of the book, “Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama From Office,” to the other 434 members of the House of Representatives to bolster his case for a special investigation of the president.
The bestselling “Impeachable Offenses” presents an indictment that goes well beyond today’s headlines.
The Daily Mail of London has called “Impeachable Offenses” “explosive,” reporting that the book contains a “systematic connect-the-dots exercise that the president’s defenders will find troublesome.”
“Consider this work to be the articles of impeachment against Barack Obama,” stated Klein.
“Every American, whether conservative or liberal, Democrat, Republican or independent, should be concerned about the nearly limitless seizure of power, the abuses of authority, the cronyism, corruption, lies and cover-ups documented in this news-making book,” Klein said.
The authors stress the book is not a collection of generalized gripes concerning Obama and his administration. Rather, it is a well-documented indictment based on major alleged violations.
Among the offenses enumerated in the book:
  • Obamacare not only is unconstitutional but illegally bypasses Congress, infringes on states’ rights and marking an unprecedented and unauthorized expansion of IRS power.
  • Sidestepping Congress, Obama already has granted largely unreported de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens using illicit interagency directives and executive orders.
  • The Obama administration recklessly endangered the public by releasing from prison criminal illegal aliens at a rate far beyond what is publicly known.
  • The president’s personal role in the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack, with new evidence regarding what was transpiring at the U.S. mission prior to the assault – arguably impeachable activities in and of themselves.
  • Illicit edicts on gun control in addition to the deadly “Fast and Furious” gun-running operation intended, the book shows, to collect fraudulent gun data.
  • From “fusion centers” to data mining to drones to alarming Department of Homeland Security power grabs, how U.S. citizens are fast arriving at the stage of living under a virtual surveillance regime.
  • New evidence of rank corruption, cronyism and impeachable offenses related to Obama’s first-term “green” funding adventures.
  • The illegality of leading a U.S.-NATO military campaign without congressional approval.
  • Obama has weakened America both domestically and abroad by emboldening enemies, tacitly supporting a Muslim Brotherhood revolution, spurning allies and minimizing the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.

A Large New Tax on Small Business - WSJ.com

A Large New Tax on Small Business - WSJ.com

A Large New Tax on Small Business

The latest ObamaCare levy takes effect Jan. 1.

Dec. 29, 2013 6:27 p.m. ET
ObamaCare includes so many taxes that it's hard to keep track, but one of the worst takes effect on Jan. 1. This beaut is a levy on health insurance premiums that targets the small business and individual markets.
At $8 billion in 2014 and $101 billion over the next decade, the insurance tax is larger than ObamaCare's taxes on medical devices and prescription drugs combined. The Internal Revenue Service classifies the tax as a "fee" but it functions like an excise tax on premiums. The IRS collects an annual flat amount specified by the Affordable Care Act to be allocated among the insurers according to market share.

But not all markets. IRS regulations published in November excluded "any entity that is a self-insured employer to the extent that such employer self-insures its employees' health risks." Since about four of five employers with more than 500 workers and most union-negotiated health plans are self-insured, they are spared from the tax. So is insurance on behalf of "government entities," such as original Medicare (but not privately run Medicare Advantage).
This political selectivity means the most gold-plated public, private and labor plans are exempt and the tax burden falls on the saps who work for small businesses, the self-employed and individuals—i.e., the people who can least afford it.
The White House tells business that the tab will be picked up by deep-pocketed insurers, which is good for a laugh. The Congressional Budget Office reports the tax will be "largely passed through to consumers in the form of higher premiums" and "would ultimately raise insurance premiums by a corresponding amount." The Joint Tax Committee and private economists, such as former CBO director Doug Holtz-Eakin, say the tax will boost insurance costs about 2% to 2.5%. The consultant Oliver Wyman estimates the take will rise to as much as $500 per covered worker by decade's end.
Associated Press
Wasn't the Affordable Care Act supposed to be about expanding coverage in part by lowering premiums, not slapping on more overhead? By this liberal logic taxing cigarettes should create more smokers.
Oh, and to salt the wound, this "fee" is not deductible for corporate income tax purposes. In other words, health plans pay the tax and then federal and state taxes on the taxed amount. Mr. Holtz-Eakin estimates this unusual taxes-on-taxes rule means that the effect on premiums is 54% larger than the dollar amount of the tax itself.
The research arm of the National Federation of Independent Business calculates that the higher insurance costs will shrink hiring by 146,000 to 262,000 jobs over the next decade, with 59% of those losses hitting small business. They'll also be further encouraged to dump coverage and send their workers to the mercies of the ObamaCare exchanges. The latter was probably a main liberal purpose from the start.
Louisiana Republican Charles Boustany and Utah Democrat Jim Matheson's repeal bill already has 229 cosponsors, or a House majority, including some dozen Democrats. The White House naturally promises a veto. Happy New Year.

DHS Ammo Purchase Is A Violation Of Your Constitutional Rights

DHS Ammo Purchase Is A Violation Of Your Constitutional Rights

DHS Ammo Purchase Is A Violation Of Your Constitutional Rights

August 12, 2013 11:50 am0 commentsViews: 22024
DHS Ammo Purchase is Unconstitutional
The Department Of Homeland Security purchased 1.6 Billion hollow-point rounds in the last year alone. This unprecedented buy-out crippled the ammunition supply of our country and violated the 2nd Amendment, which states our rights to bear arms.
The DHS is funded by Congress so if they buy all the ammo on the market then there is none left for you and I, which by default is a direct violation your constitutional rights by your own government.
This violation is so egregious that on June 5th, the House Of Representatives voted to limit the amount of ammo the DHS can purchase and stockpile and is forcing them to submit a detailed report of their purchasing history.
Why would a non-military government agency such as the DHS put themselves at risk of intense scrutiny and oversight such as this? Wouldn’t it be wiser to just keep things smooth and not rock the boat like they have?
Since the DHS is not a military entity they do not follow the international military law set out during the Geneva Convention and many other international agreements, which is why they could purchase hollow-point rounds which are illegal for military use.
A non-military entity with unlimited funding and enough ammo and weapons to wage ware on US soil for decades reminds me of one thing.
The last time the World saw a force like the DHS brandishing their power was during World War II, and it was called the Gestapo…
A massive private police force with unlimited power that can exercise its will with abandon on US citizens, if that’s not a violation of your constitutional rights I don’t know what is.
When you see fully armored personal standing on the corner of your hometown with a big DHS printed on their backs you’ll know I was right and you’d better bust your butt to get out of Dodge as quickly as possible.
If you’d like to find out exactly how to not only prepare for this, but also recognize the signs of it’s coming you must check out the report survivalist Frank Mitchell made for you.
He’s one of the top military and survival experts in the country and can show you how to ensure the safety and security of you and your entire family during any disaster. He created a great presentation called Family Survival System and you can watch it right now. It’s loaded with everything you could ever need.

Gullible Green sailors trapped in the Arctic


Gullible Green sailors trapped in the Arctic

Should they sue Sierra Club Canada for predicting an ice-free Arctic in 2013?


by , 46 Comments
·                                                                                                      
·                                                                  
Churchville, VA—The naïve advice of ardent activists can kill. Last spring, Paul Beckwith of Sierra Club Canada predicted that the Arctic seas would be ice-free ice this summer. (So did Britain’s BBC network.)  This exciting adventure opportunity attracted a variety of yachts, sailboats, rowboats, and kayaks owners to try sailing the fabled Northwest Passage.
As a former sailboat owner I can understand their excitement, but my heart aches for the agonies they now face. The Arctic sea ice suddenly expanded 60% this fall, after the coldest summer in the modern Alaska temperature record. The passage is now impassable. More than a dozen of the boats are trapped, apparently even including a group of tiny American jet-ski “personal watercraft” that were attempting to cross from the east coast of Russia to the North Atlantic.  Arctic observers are now warning that even Canadian icebreakers might not be able to rescue them.
The Northwest Passage blog reminds us that fall super storms are a potentially deadly fact in Alaska. “It is only a matter time. . . . Give Mother Nature her due time and she will move billions of tons of sea ice and push it up against the Alaska Arctic coast—effectively closing the door to exit the Arctic ice from western Canada. . . . No icebreakers are going to be able to offer any assistance. Mother Nature is mightier than all the icebreakers put together.”  Note that the Atlantic exit is already problematic.
Helicopter rescues on Arctic ice are incredibly expensive, involving hundreds of miles of flying by copters and crews expensively maintained in that icy and sparsely populated region. Additionally, all the lovely boats become write-offs.
The boaters ignored major warning signs. The planet has not warmed appreciably in at least 15 years. NASA told us in 2007 that the Pacific Ocean had shifted into the cool phase of its 60-year cycle and that fact predicted cooler winters until 2030.
Most concerning of all is that the costs of an Arctic sailing mistake are horrendous. Wonderfully preserved hulks of sunken explorers’ ships litter the sea-bottom around the Northwest Passage. Some of the vessels that survived the ice were trapped for as long as three winters. At least one sailboat recently froze into the ice near Svalbard. The captain and his boat were buried under the heavy snow, 100 miles from human habitation. (He actually survived to write a book.)
The risks run by the Arctic boaters are obvious. Modern society is running less obvious risks based on the same sort of naïve advice coming from the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a host of like-minded “saviors of the planet.” What about the poor and elderly Britons and Germans who have frozen to death in their homes because they couldn’t afford the higher costs of gas and electricity imposed by “renewable fuels”?
What about the millions of Third World mothers and children who die of lung diseases every year as it is politically incorrect to give them access to tiny amounts of kerosene for heating and cooking. The alternative is burning dung and charcoal in indoor, poorly ventilated fires.
Closer to home, what about the millions of young Americans who can’t get jobs in an economy stalled by overpriced “Green” energy and investor uncertainty over the War on Coal?  Inevitably, being gullible carries a price tag. We are just beginning to realize how expensive the naïveté of the environmental movement has become.
- See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2013/09/19/gullible-green-sailors-trapped-in-the-arctic/#sthash.trvchjnr.dpuf

Gullible Green sailors trapped in the Arctic

Should they sue Sierra Club Canada for predicting an ice-free Arctic in 2013?



  • sailing vessel northwest passage


  • 9967
    Share

Churchville, VA—The naïve advice of ardent activists can kill. Last spring, Paul Beckwith of Sierra Club Canada predicted that the Arctic seas would be ice-free ice this summer. (So did Britain’s BBC network.)  This exciting adventure opportunity attracted a variety of yachts, sailboats, rowboats, and kayaks owners to try sailing the fabled Northwest Passage.
As a former sailboat owner I can understand their excitement, but my heart aches for the agonies they now face. The Arctic sea ice suddenly expanded 60% this fall, after the coldest summer in the modern Alaska temperature record. The passage is now impassable. More than a dozen of the boats are trapped, apparently even including a group of tiny American jet-ski “personal watercraft” that were attempting to cross from the east coast of Russia to the North Atlantic.  Arctic observers are now warning that even Canadian icebreakers might not be able to rescue them.
USCG HealyThe Northwest Passage blog reminds us that fall super storms are a potentially deadly fact in Alaska. “It is only a matter time. . . . Give Mother Nature her due time and she will move billions of tons of sea ice and push it up against the Alaska Arctic coast—effectively closing the door to exit the Arctic ice from western Canada. . . . No icebreakers are going to be able to offer any assistance. Mother Nature is mightier than all the icebreakers put together.”  Note that the Atlantic exit is already problematic.
Helicopter rescues on Arctic ice are incredibly expensive, involving hundreds of miles of flying by copters and crews expensively maintained in that icy and sparsely populated region. Additionally, all the lovely boats become write-offs.
6830234478_4a8ed3e99e_oThe boaters ignored major warning signs. The planet has not warmed appreciably in at least 15 years. NASA told us in 2007 that the Pacific Ocean had shifted into the cool phase of its 60-year cycle and that fact predicted cooler winters until 2030.
Most concerning of all is that the costs of an Arctic sailing mistake are horrendous. Wonderfully preserved hulks of sunken explorers’ ships litter the sea-bottom around the Northwest Passage. Some of the vessels that survived the ice were trapped for as long as three winters. At least one sailboat recently froze into the ice near Svalbard. The captain and his boat were buried under the heavy snow, 100 miles from human habitation. (He actually survived to write a book.)
The risks run by the Arctic boaters are obvious. Modern society is running less obvious risks based on the same sort of naïve advice coming from the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a host of like-minded “saviors of the planet.” What about the poor and elderly Britons and Germans who have frozen to death in their homes because they couldn’t afford the higher costs of gas and electricity imposed by “renewable fuels”?
What about the millions of Third World mothers and children who die of lung seaicediseases every year as it is politically incorrect to give them access to tiny amounts of kerosene for heating and cooking. The alternative is burning dung and charcoal in indoor, poorly ventilated fires.
Closer to home, what about the millions of young Americans who can’t get jobs in an economy stalled by overpriced “Green” energy and investor uncertainty over the War on Coal?  Inevitably, being gullible carries a price tag. We are just beginning to realize how expensive the naïveté of the environmental movement has become.
- See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2013/09/19/gullible-green-sailors-trapped-in-the-arctic/#sthash.trvchjnr.dpuf

Observations Now Inconsistent with Climate Model Predictions for 25 (going on 35) Years

Current Wisdom: Observations Now Inconsistent with Climate Model Predictions for 25 (going on 35) Years

Tuesday, November 5, 2013 9:31
 
Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels
The Current Wisdom is a series of monthly articles in which Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger, from Cato’s Center for the Study of Science, review interesting items on global warming in the scientific literature that may not have received the media attention that they deserved, or have been misinterpreted in the popular press.
Question: How long will the fantasy that climate models are reliable indicators of the earth’s climate evolution persist in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
Answer: Probably for as long as there is a crusade against fossil fuels.
Without the exaggerated alarm conjured from overly pessimistic climate model projections of climate change from carbon dioxide emissions, fossil fuels—coal, oil, gas—would regain their image as the celebrated agents of  prosperity that they are, rather than being labeled as pernicious agents of our destruction.
Just how credible are these climate models?
In two words, “they’re not.”
Everyone has read that over the past 10-15 years, most climate models’ forecasts of the rate of global warming have been wrong. Most predicted a hefty warming of the earth’s average surface temperature to have taken place, while there was no significant change in the real world.
But very few  people know that the same situation has persisted for 25, going on 35 years, or that over the past 50-60 years (since the middle of the 20th century), the same models expected about 33 percent more warming to have taken place than was observed.
We can blame the lack of public awareness of this scientific farce squarely  on the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In the Summary for Policymakers, the most-read section of its brand new Fifth Assessment Report (released back in late September), the IPCC had this to say about climate model performance:
Climate models have improved since the [Fourth Assessment Report published in 2007]. Models reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence).
Followed immediately by this:
The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012).
All in all, a rather glowing assessment.
Glowing, but not so hot.
We’ve calculated the trend in the global average surface temperature simulated to have occurred starting in every year since 1950 and ending in 2012 for every* run of every climate model used in the new IPCC report. In Figure 1, we compare the average (and spread) of these 106 model runs with the observed trend during each of the same periods.
In every single case, the observed trend lies below the model average trend. For the trends of length 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 27 years, the observed trend lies outside (below) the range which includes 95 percent of all model runs (indicated by red in Figure 1). In statistics, this means that the observed trend is inconsistent with the collection of model trends. For trends of length 10, 11, 12, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 years, the observed trend lies outside (below) the range encompassing 90 percent of all model trends (indicated in yellow in Figure 1). We call this marginally inconsistent with the models. For trends of length 13, 14, 15, and all lengths greater than 34 years, the observed trend is consistent with the collection of model trends (indicated by green in Figure 1), although it lies pretty far out in the low end of model projections in every case.
For what it’s worth, this same IPCC report has verbal descriptors of their published probability figures. When they say something has a 90 percent probability, it is “virtually likely” (whatever the heck that means!), and a 95 percent probability is “extremely likely.” So, analogously, one could apply those same words to our 90 and 95 percent probabilities of model failure over certain lengths of time. But because English is our primary language, we’re stating that the models are “marginally inconsistent” and “clearly inconsistent” with reality in these periods.
This hardly seems to fit the IPCC description that “[m]odels reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades” or is grounds for having “very high confidence” that the “model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend.”
And things aren’t going to get better anytime soon (if ever). In fact, they are about to get much worse.
That’s because the longer global temperatures just sort of plod along without rising much (new research suggests that such a period may extend for another 20 years or so), the more established (and entrenched) the observed/model mismatch becomes.
In Figure 1, below, our analysis ended with the last full year of available data, 2012. With three-quarters of 2013 already in the books, we can make a pretty good guess as to what the global average temperature anomaly is going to be at years’ end, and perform the same analysis we described above, but ending in the year 2013 instead of 2012.  By the looks of things, 2013 is going to continue the string of years (going on 17 now) during which there has been virtually no change in the global average temperature and thus making the model performance even worse.




















Figure 2, right, gives the updated result.
Figure 2. Same as Figure 1, except the end year for the trend calculations is 2013.
For data ending in the year 2013, the category of marginal inconsistency extends out to 37 years and is now flirting with lengths exceeding 50 years, and trends of lengths 11-28, 31, 33, and 34 (!) are clearly inconsistent with the climate model simulations.
In other words, over the past third of a century—the period with the greatest amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions—the behavior of the real world (i.e., reality) falls far below the average expectation of climate models and, in fact, is clearly inconsistent with the range of model results. Less than 2.5 percent of model runs show that global warming is really global luke warming to the degree that real-world observations indicate.
Basically, the models don’t work.
This reality ought to be enough to stop the anti-fossil fuel (via carbon dioxide emission restrictions) crusaders in their tracks.
But thus far, it hasn’t, aided in part by the obfuscations of the United Nations (through the IPCC reports) and our own federal government (via reports such as the National Assessment of Climate Change).
If the people currently in charge of these organizations can’t face reality, then it is high time to replace them with others who can.
 ………………………………….
* We should say, every run that was available through the Climate Explorer website. Climate Explorer had 106 individual model runs, while the IPCC states it has 113 (we have been unable to identify the other 7 runs). The difference should have minimal impacts on our analysis.

General calls for massive march on Washington - Tea Party

General calls for massive march on Washington - Tea Party

General calls for massive march on Washington

Tea Party Rally


  • 2044

    118

    1354
It’s time to confront Obama’s tyranny and recall the power of the people 
(Tea Party) – The retired American military commander who earlier said that Americans need to confront Barack Obama’s tyranny now is recommending the Egyptian model through which to do that.
The Egyptian model, Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely explained on a podcast of an Internet radio show, was that 33 million people stood up to their government and told officials no.
His call for a massive march on Washington came recently on the WBTM (We Become The Media) show.
FAX BLAST SPECIAL: Impeach Obama NOW!
Click here if program doesn’t play – RADIO SHOW
The Politics Conservative Radio at Blog Talk Radio with WBTM Internet Radio on BlogTalkRadio with WBTM Internet Radio on BlogTalkRadio
Saving our nation from the out-of-control tyranny cast upon our citizens by Obama could be settled by a vote of “no confidence,” according to the founder of Stand Up America, an organization providing leaders with education resources that are based on the principles of our Founding Fathers.
With the credibility of our nation’s leadership evaporated, the lying, finger-pointing and excuses gone horribly awry, confidence has certainly been shattered. Vallely makes a good point, “What else is our nation to do now that the ‘rule-of-law’ has been thrown out the window by the Obama administration? How are we to trust our government anymore, now that lying and fraud are acceptable practices?”
Vallely points out that the list of blatant lies and broken promises is long:.
  • LIE: He promised no lobbyists would work in his administration.
  • LIE: He committed to slash earmarks.
  • LIE: He promised to be the most transparent presidency in history.
  • LIE: He promised to put an end to “phony accounting.”
  • LIE: He promised to restore trust in government.
  • LIE: He pledged to seek public financing in the general election.
  • LIE: He promised to treat super-PACS as a “threat to democracy.”
  • LIE: He pledged to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent.
  • LIE: He promised to create five million new energy jobs alone. (Note: The total number of jobs created in Obama’s first term was roughly one-tenth that figure.)
  • LIE: He promised to create “shovel-ready’ jobs.
  • LIE: He promised to lift two million Americans from poverty. (Note: A record 46 million Americans are now living in poverty during the Obama era.)
  • LIE: He promised to slash health care premiums by $2,500 for the typical family … allow Americans to keep their health care coverage if they liked it … refuse to fund abortion via the Affordable Care Act … respect religious liberties … and insisted that the mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was not a tax.
  • LIE: He pledged to stop the rise of oceans.
  • LIE: He promised to “remake the world” and “heal the planet.”
  • LIE: He promised to punish Syria if it crossed the “red line” of using chemical weapons
  • LIE: He assured us that as president “I don’t bluff.”
  • LIE: He trumpeted the Russian reset. (Note: Tensions between Russia and the US are increasing and examples of Russia undermining U.S. interests are multiplying.)
  • LIE: He promised to bring us together (Note: He is the most polarizing president in the history of the Gallup poll.)
  • LIE: He promised to put an end to politics that “breeds division and conflict and cynicism.”
  • LIE: He counseled us to “resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.”
Americans can no longer have confidence in this American president when virtually everything that flows forth from his mouth is a lie or a contorted truth, selfishly shaped to fit a hidden agenda.
There is one thing that we are certain of though, says Vallely, “It is time to recall the reprobates and reclaim the power of the people. We need to start with the White House and all of Obama’s appointees, especially Eric Holder.  Then it’s onto Harry Reid and Nancy Peolsi—the architects who shoved Obamacare down our throats. We cannot forget John Boehner and company who castigated the Tea Party caucus, which are only doing that which they campaigned on.”
“It is true that not all who ply the halls of power fit under that broad brush, but most of them are guilty of many egregious acts and we say it is time to hold a vote of no confidence. It’s time for a recall,” insists Vallely.
Perhaps it was commentator Andrew C. McCarthy who best summed it up by saying, “Absent the political will to remove the president, he will remain president no matter how many high crimes and misdemeanors he stacks up…and absent the removal of the president, the United States will be fundamentally transformed.”
President Obama ran on the platform of “fundamentally transforming America.” One cannot help but wonder if this is truly the fundamental change Americans were expecting or do the majority see that they’ve been conned, oppressed and systematically stripped of their liberties.
Be forewarned: we must watch for tyrannical centralized rule without action. Even though America may gain ground in the 2014 elections, the fact remains that Obama is still president and his cabinet still in power. Lawmakers may change but we can be certain of what will not change until something is done: “Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect. His track record show us that no matter what the makeup of Congress is, he will twist his way around it with a pen and secure even more power reminiscent of a dictator,” says Vallely.
What happens when that does not work? He will most assuredly manipulate the courts and law enforcement will be run via authoritative decree by the man who will by then be a dictator.
Currently, Congress is addressing charges that Obama violated the Constitution. There is substantial concern that Obama’s power grab has reached unacceptable levels. Rep. Trey Gowdy, (R-S.C.) agrees, saying that Obama’s actions have reached “an unprecedented level and we’ve got to do something about it.”
Gowdy likens this to voter ID. If a statute says you have to provide two forms of ID, can Obama require one—or even three?  Or maybe he can suspend all requirements, Gowdy wonders. “If you can turn off certain categories of law, do you not also have the power to turn off all categories of law?”
Obama has show the greatest disrespect for our Constitution and that of the Oval Office. He has ignored immigration laws despite Congress not approving the changes. There have been multiple arbitrary changes to the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare) and recess appointments of judges even when the U.S. Senate was clearly not in recess.
Gowdy is proposing taking the White House to court through a resolution proposed by Rep. Tom Rice (R-GA). This resolution would grant the House permission to sue the Obama administration. Already the resolution has 30 cosponsors. Legal action is at long last being taken to stop Obama’s clear overreach.
Fear is growing that Obama could refuse to enforce election laws effectively securing him the presidency for years to come.  Says Gowdy, “If you can turn off immigration laws, if you can turn off the mandatory minimum in our drug statues, if you can turn off the so-called Affordable Care Act—why not election laws?”
It is hard to argue with that reasoning unless you are an unfailing Obama supporter ’til death do us part. Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley agrees and adds that Obama is a danger to the Constitution. Turley was recently asked during a House Judiciary Committee hearing how Obama’s unilateral modification of act[s] of Congress affect the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty of the American people. His response was “The danger is quite severe. He is becoming the very danger Congress was designed to avoid. That is a concentration of power.”
He goes on to say, “There are two trends going which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress. One is that we have had the radical expansion of powers under President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction.”
Turley has handled many high-profile, precedent-setting cases, including the successfully defending Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. In 1998, Turley was appointed to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has consulted for homeland security and his articles have appeared in the New York Times and USA Today.
At that same House Judiciary Committee hearing, Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies for the Cato Institute suggested, “There is one last thing people can resort to if the government does not respect the restraints that the Constitution places on government.” He is referring to our revolutionary right to overthrow it.  “That is certainly something no one wants to contemplate. If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws, then they will conclude that neither are they.”  Cannon acknowledged that it is very dangerous for the president to ignore laws.
By all measures a “no confidence” vote would send a powerful message around the world: America recognizes the mess Obama and this administration have created, the destruction and havoc they have wreaked upon America and its allies, and we unequivocally do not support his actions. Without that action, Vallely says, “Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect.”
- See more at: http://m.teaparty.org/general-calls-massive-march-washington-32476/#sthash.pJefjuCc.MhWcTZnX.dpuf



General calls for massive march on Washington


It’s time to confront Obama’s tyranny and recall the power of the people 
(Tea Party) – The retired American military commander who earlier said that Americans need to confront Barack Obama’s tyranny now is recommending the Egyptian model through which to do that.
The Egyptian model, Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely explained on a podcast of an Internet radio show, was that 33 million people stood up to their government and told officials no.
His call for a massive march on Washington came recently on the WBTM (We Become The Media) show.
FAX BLAST SPECIAL: Impeach Obama NOW!
Click here if program doesn’t play – RADIO SHOW
The Politics Conservative Radio at Blog Talk Radio with WBTM Internet Radio on BlogTalkRadio with WBTM Internet Radio on BlogTalkRadio
Saving our nation from the out-of-control tyranny cast upon our citizens by Obama could be settled by a vote of “no confidence,” according to the founder of Stand Up America, an organization providing leaders with education resources that are based on the principles of our Founding Fathers.
With the credibility of our nation’s leadership evaporated, the lying, finger-pointing and excuses gone horribly awry, confidence has certainly been shattered. Vallely makes a good point, “What else is our nation to do now that the ‘rule-of-law’ has been thrown out the window by the Obama administration? How are we to trust our government anymore, now that lying and fraud are acceptable practices?”
Vallely points out that the list of blatant lies and broken promises is long:.
  • LIE: He promised no lobbyists would work in his administration.
  • LIE: He committed to slash earmarks.
  • LIE: He promised to be the most transparent presidency in history.
  • LIE: He promised to put an end to “phony accounting.”
  • LIE: He promised to restore trust in government.
  • LIE: He pledged to seek public financing in the general election.
  • LIE: He promised to treat super-PACS as a “threat to democracy.”
  • LIE: He pledged to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent.
  • LIE: He promised to create five million new energy jobs alone. (Note: The total number of jobs created in Obama’s first term was roughly one-tenth that figure.)
  • LIE: He promised to create “shovel-ready’ jobs.
  • LIE: He promised to lift two million Americans from poverty. (Note: A record 46 million Americans are now living in poverty during the Obama era.)
  • LIE: He promised to slash health care premiums by $2,500 for the typical family … allow Americans to keep their health care coverage if they liked it … refuse to fund abortion via the Affordable Care Act … respect religious liberties … and insisted that the mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was not a tax.
  • LIE: He pledged to stop the rise of oceans.
  • LIE: He promised to “remake the world” and “heal the planet.”
  • LIE: He promised to punish Syria if it crossed the “red line” of using chemical weapons
  • LIE: He assured us that as president “I don’t bluff.”
  • LIE: He trumpeted the Russian reset. (Note: Tensions between Russia and the US are increasing and examples of Russia undermining U.S. interests are multiplying.)
  • LIE: He promised to bring us together (Note: He is the most polarizing president in the history of the Gallup poll.)
  • LIE: He promised to put an end to politics that “breeds division and conflict and cynicism.”
  • LIE: He counseled us to “resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.”
Americans can no longer have confidence in this American president when virtually everything that flows forth from his mouth is a lie or a contorted truth, selfishly shaped to fit a hidden agenda.
There is one thing that we are certain of though, says Vallely, “It is time to recall the reprobates and reclaim the power of the people. We need to start with the White House and all of Obama’s appointees, especially Eric Holder.  Then it’s onto Harry Reid and Nancy Peolsi—the architects who shoved Obamacare down our throats. We cannot forget John Boehner and company who castigated the Tea Party caucus, which are only doing that which they campaigned on.”
“It is true that not all who ply the halls of power fit under that broad brush, but most of them are guilty of many egregious acts and we say it is time to hold a vote of no confidence. It’s time for a recall,” insists Vallely.
Perhaps it was commentator Andrew C. McCarthy who best summed it up by saying, “Absent the political will to remove the president, he will remain president no matter how many high crimes and misdemeanors he stacks up…and absent the removal of the president, the United States will be fundamentally transformed.”
President Obama ran on the platform of “fundamentally transforming America.” One cannot help but wonder if this is truly the fundamental change Americans were expecting or do the majority see that they’ve been conned, oppressed and systematically stripped of their liberties.
Be forewarned: we must watch for tyrannical centralized rule without action. Even though America may gain ground in the 2014 elections, the fact remains that Obama is still president and his cabinet still in power. Lawmakers may change but we can be certain of what will not change until something is done: “Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect. His track record show us that no matter what the makeup of Congress is, he will twist his way around it with a pen and secure even more power reminiscent of a dictator,” says Vallely.
What happens when that does not work? He will most assuredly manipulate the courts and law enforcement will be run via authoritative decree by the man who will by then be a dictator.
Currently, Congress is addressing charges that Obama violated the Constitution. There is substantial concern that Obama’s power grab has reached unacceptable levels. Rep. Trey Gowdy, (R-S.C.) agrees, saying that Obama’s actions have reached “an unprecedented level and we’ve got to do something about it.”
Gowdy likens this to voter ID. If a statute says you have to provide two forms of ID, can Obama require one—or even three?  Or maybe he can suspend all requirements, Gowdy wonders. “If you can turn off certain categories of law, do you not also have the power to turn off all categories of law?”
Obama has show the greatest disrespect for our Constitution and that of the Oval Office. He has ignored immigration laws despite Congress not approving the changes. There have been multiple arbitrary changes to the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare) and recess appointments of judges even when the U.S. Senate was clearly not in recess.
Gowdy is proposing taking the White House to court through a resolution proposed by Rep. Tom Rice (R-GA). This resolution would grant the House permission to sue the Obama administration. Already the resolution has 30 cosponsors. Legal action is at long last being taken to stop Obama’s clear overreach.
Fear is growing that Obama could refuse to enforce election laws effectively securing him the presidency for years to come.  Says Gowdy, “If you can turn off immigration laws, if you can turn off the mandatory minimum in our drug statues, if you can turn off the so-called Affordable Care Act—why not election laws?”
It is hard to argue with that reasoning unless you are an unfailing Obama supporter ’til death do us part. Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley agrees and adds that Obama is a danger to the Constitution. Turley was recently asked during a House Judiciary Committee hearing how Obama’s unilateral modification of act[s] of Congress affect the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty of the American people. His response was “The danger is quite severe. He is becoming the very danger Congress was designed to avoid. That is a concentration of power.”
He goes on to say, “There are two trends going which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress. One is that we have had the radical expansion of powers under President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction.”
Turley has handled many high-profile, precedent-setting cases, including the successfully defending Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. In 1998, Turley was appointed to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has consulted for homeland security and his articles have appeared in the New York Times and USA Today.
At that same House Judiciary Committee hearing, Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies for the Cato Institute suggested, “There is one last thing people can resort to if the government does not respect the restraints that the Constitution places on government.” He is referring to our revolutionary right to overthrow it.  “That is certainly something no one wants to contemplate. If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws, then they will conclude that neither are they.”  Cannon acknowledged that it is very dangerous for the president to ignore laws.
By all measures a “no confidence” vote would send a powerful message around the world: America recognizes the mess Obama and this administration have created, the destruction and havoc they have wreaked upon America and its allies, and we unequivocally do not support his actions. Without that action, Vallely says, “Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect.”

- See more at: http://m.teaparty.org/general-calls-massive-march-washington-32476/#sthash.pJefjuCc.MhWcTZnX.dpuf