Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Folks, you're missing the point about Donald Sterling | Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com

Folks, you're missing the point about Donald Sterling | Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com

Folks, you’re missing the point about Donald Sterling

donald-sterling
“Upon further review, the ruling on the field (court)…” These are the words stated by referees after they’ve gone to the reply booth (monitor) in order to clarify a controversial call. Often, the reason for the review is because of a coach’s challenge. Therefore, in the same light, let us review the case of LA Clippers owner, Donald Sterling.
There can be no debate that the words of Mr. Sterling were reprehensible and disgusting. But how and why did these words come to light now, when his points of view were apparently well-known for many years?
It seems his “girlfriend,” Ms. Stiviano, decided to tape a private conversation between the two. Apparently, Ms. Stiviano had recently been sued by the estranged wife of Mr. Sterling, so there is some potential nefarious motive involved. Furthermore, the taping of a conversation without consent of the other party is illegal under California statute. There is some question as to whether he knew he was being recorded. Let’s assume for the moment he didn’t.
The national outrage against Mr. Sterling has come from an act that could be illegal and inadmissible in a court of law. Nevertheless, the court of public opinion has tried and convicted Mr. Sterling of being a jerk.
But have we come to a point in America where being a jerk is grounds for confiscation of a private property? It was Englishman John Locke who first proposed that individual rights as granted under natural law were life, liberty, and property. It was Thomas Jefferson who in the American Declaration of Independence used that paradigm to propose our unalienable rights from our Creator being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sterling’s comments were repulsive, but they were stated in the privacy of his own home — at least he thought it was private.
So where do we go from here?
Have we come to the point that private conversations can be taped and released in the public domain in order to ruin the livelihood –pursuit of happiness — of private citizens? Ms. Stiviano, or whomever, knew exactly what they wanted the end result to be as they released this tape to TMZ.
Is this the “new normal?” Is this a violation of our privacy rights? Ok, so what types of conversations occur in the privacy of the NBA locker rooms, or the homes of the players? Yes, this is indeed a slippery slope as Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban asserted.
Fox News host and commentator Greg Gutfeld applauded this moment because of the consensus outrage being displayed. But I believe this outrage misplaced, or more accurately, mis-prioritized. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said Sterling’s behavior was “dangerous to the NBA.”
Where is the cultural, public outrage over a behind closed door comment such as referring to the State of Israel as an “apartheid state?” Probably most of America doesn’t know who said it or even what “aparteid” means.
Or how about the outrage that should have come when our own president leaned over to then-Russian President Medvedev sayng, “Tell Putin that after my reelection I will have more flexibility” and of course Medvedev said, “I will tell Vladimir.” And now we know what that “flexibility” has allowed.
Aren’t those “private” chats reflective of behavior that is dangerous for the United States?
Or how about the lies and deceit of President Obama on healthcare and of course Benghazi, which we now know a video had nothing to do with.
Has our culture devolved to the point that the private statements of an NBA owner draws more outrage than the lies and deceit of the President of the United States?
Donald Sterling’s behavior is despicable, but so is that of President Barack Hussein Obama — and whose abhorrent behavior has more impact on our country?
The difference is that the media lead us along like sheep to the slaughter, turning us into reactionary, shallow thinking, low information voters along the way. We know more about Sterling than Benghazi — or the IRS scandal.
Sterling is a jerk, an unlikeable fella, but is he guilty of a crime that demands his property be confiscated? Uh, no.
We’re told however that Obama is a likable fella –regardless of the incessant lies, deceit and abject failures. What is happening to American culture and values?
I don’t like jerks, but I really don’t like jerks who are liars, do you?

Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/04/folks-youre-missing-point-donald-sterling/#kkFtkZ2Jji64DpJA.99

Folks, you’re missing the point about Donald Sterling

Written by Allen West on April 30, 2014 

“Upon further review, the ruling on the field (court)…” These are the words stated by referees after they’ve gone to the reply booth (monitor) in order to clarify a controversial call. Often, the reason for the review is because of a coach’s challenge. Therefore, in the same light, let us review the case of LA Clippers owner, Donald Sterling.
There can be no debate that the words of Mr. Sterling were reprehensible and disgusting. But how and why did these words come to light now, when his points of view were apparently well-known for many years?
It seems his “girlfriend,” Ms. Stiviano, decided to tape a private conversation between the two. Apparently, Ms. Stiviano had recently been sued by the estranged wife of Mr. Sterling, so there is some potential nefarious motive involved. Furthermore, the taping of a conversation without consent of the other party is illegal under California statute. There is some question as to whether he knew he was being recorded. Let’s assume for the moment he didn’t.
The national outrage against Mr. Sterling has come from an act that could be illegal and inadmissible in a court of law. Nevertheless, the court of public opinion has tried and convicted Mr. Sterling of being a jerk.
But have we come to a point in America where being a jerk is grounds for confiscation of a private property? It was Englishman John Locke who first proposed that individual rights as granted under natural law were life, liberty, and property. It was Thomas Jefferson who in the American Declaration of Independence used that paradigm to propose our unalienable rights from our Creator being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sterling’s comments were repulsive, but they were stated in the privacy of his own home — at least he thought it was private.
So where do we go from here?
Have we come to the point that private conversations can be taped and released in the public domain in order to ruin the livelihood –pursuit of happiness — of private citizens? Ms. Stiviano, or whomever, knew exactly what they wanted the end result to be as they released this tape to TMZ.
Is this the “new normal?” Is this a violation of our privacy rights? Ok, so what types of conversations occur in the privacy of the NBA locker rooms, or the homes of the players? Yes, this is indeed a slippery slope as Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban asserted.
Fox News host and commentator Greg Gutfeld applauded this moment because of the consensus outrage being displayed. But I believe this outrage misplaced, or more accurately, mis-prioritized. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said Sterling’s behavior was “dangerous to the NBA.”
Where is the cultural, public outrage over a behind closed door comment such as referring to the State of Israel as an “apartheid state?” Probably most of America doesn’t know who said it or even what “aparteid” means.
Or how about the outrage that should have come when our own president leaned over to then-Russian President Medvedev sayng, “Tell Putin that after my reelection I will have more flexibility” and of course Medvedev said, “I will tell Vladimir.” And now we know what that “flexibility” has allowed.
Aren’t those “private” chats reflective of behavior that is dangerous for the United States?
Or how about the lies and deceit of President Obama on healthcare and of course Benghazi, which we now know a video had nothing to do with.
Has our culture devolved to the point that the private statements of an NBA owner draws more outrage than the lies and deceit of the President of the United States?
Donald Sterling’s behavior is despicable, but so is that of President Barack Hussein Obama — and whose abhorrent behavior has more impact on our country?
The difference is that the media lead us along like sheep to the slaughter, turning us into reactionary, shallow thinking, low information voters along the way. We know more about Sterling than Benghazi — or the IRS scandal.
Sterling is a jerk, an unlikeable fella, but is he guilty of a crime that demands his property be confiscated? Uh, no.
We’re told however that Obama is a likable fella –regardless of the incessant lies, deceit and abject failures. What is happening to American culture and values?
I don’t like jerks, but I really don’t like jerks who are liars, do you?

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Breaking: White House Benghazi Cover-up

Breaking: White House Benghazi Cover-up

Breaking: White House Benghazi Cover-up

white house benghazi cover upBombshell from Washington Free Beacon:
Previously unreleased internal Obama administration emails show that a coordinated effort was made in the days following the Benghazi terror attacks to portray the incident as “rooted in [an] Internet video, and not [in] a broader failure or policy.”
Emails sent by senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes to other top administration officials reveal an effort to insulate President Barack Obama from the attacks that killed four Americans.
Rhodes sent this email to top White House officials such as David Plouffe and Jay Carney just a day before National Security Adviser Susan Rice made her infamous Sunday news show appearances to discuss the attack.
The “goal,” according to these emails, was “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”
Rice came under fierce criticism following her appearances on television after she adhered to these talking points and blamed the attack on a little-watched Internet video.
The newly released internal White House e-mails show that Rice’s orders came from top Obama administration communications officials.
This is a huge deal. This is basically stealing the election.  Obama couldn’t have won the election if he was held accountable for what happened in Benghazi.  If he didn’t have Candy Crowley saving him in the debate, and if didn’t have a YouTube video as a scapegoat, it’s very easy to imagine 2012 going a different way.
“[W]e’ve made our views on this video crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it,” Rhodes wrote in the email, which was released on Tuesday by the advocacy group Judicial Watch.
“We reject its message and its contents,” he wrote. “We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence. And we are working to make sure that people around the globe hear that message.”
Rhodes also suggested that Rice tout Obama’s reputation as “steady and statesmanlike.”
“I think that people have come to trust that President Obama provides leadership that is steady and statesmanlike,” he wrote. “There are always going to be challenges that emerge around the world, and time and again, he has shown that we can meet them.”
Also contained in the 41 pages of documents obtained by Judicial Watch is a Sep. 12, 2012 email from Payton Knopf, the former deputy spokesman at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.
In this communication, Knopf informs Rice that senior officials had already dubbed the Benghazi attack as “complex” and planned in advance. Despite this information, Rice still insisted that attacks were “spontaneous.”
The newly released cache of emails also appear to confirm that the CIA altered its original talking points on the attacks in the following days.
Then-CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell is identified as the person who heavily edited the critical fact sheet.

Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2014/04/breaking-white-house-benghazi-cover/#gPhW2KXbSjMReFrM.99

BREAKING: Benghazi emails show White House effort to protect Obama…



Bombshell from Washington Free Beacon:
Previously unreleased internal Obama administration emails show that a coordinated effort was made in the days following the Benghazi terror attacks to portray the incident as “rooted in [an] Internet video, and not [in] a broader failure or policy.”
Emails sent by senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes to other top administration officials reveal an effort to insulate President Barack Obama from the attacks that killed four Americans.
Rhodes sent this email to top White House officials such as David Plouffe and Jay Carney just a day before National Security Adviser Susan Rice made her infamous Sunday news show appearances to discuss the attack.
The “goal,” according to these emails, was “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”
Rice came under fierce criticism following her appearances on television after she adhered to these talking points and blamed the attack on a little-watched Internet video.
The newly released internal White House e-mails show that Rice’s orders came from top Obama administration communications officials.
This is a huge deal. This is basically stealing the election.  Obama couldn’t have won the election if he was held accountable for what happened in Benghazi.  If he didn’t have Candy Crowley saving him in the debate, and if didn’t have a YouTube video as a scapegoat, it’s very easy to imagine 2012 going a different way.
“[W]e’ve made our views on this video crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it,” Rhodes wrote in the email, which was released on Tuesday by the advocacy group Judicial Watch.
“We reject its message and its contents,” he wrote. “We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence. And we are working to make sure that people around the globe hear that message.”
Rhodes also suggested that Rice tout Obama’s reputation as “steady and statesmanlike.”
“I think that people have come to trust that President Obama provides leadership that is steady and statesmanlike,” he wrote. “There are always going to be challenges that emerge around the world, and time and again, he has shown that we can meet them.”
Also contained in the 41 pages of documents obtained by Judicial Watch is a Sep. 12, 2012 email from Payton Knopf, the former deputy spokesman at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.
In this communication, Knopf informs Rice that senior officials had already dubbed the Benghazi attack as “complex” and planned in advance. Despite this information, Rice still insisted that attacks were “spontaneous.”
The newly released cache of emails also appear to confirm that the CIA altered its original talking points on the attacks in the following days.
Then-CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell is identified as the person who heavily edited the critical fact sheet.
“The first draft apparently seemed unsuitable … because they seemed to encourage the reader to infer incorrectly that the CIA had warned about a specific attack on our embassy,” states one email. “Morell noted that these points were not good and he had taken a heavy hand to editing them. He noted that he would be happy to work with [then deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton] Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to develop appropriate talking points.”
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said that the emails show the White House was most concerned with insulating Obama.
“Now we know the Obama White House’s chief concern about the Benghazi attack was making sure that President Obama looked good,” Fitton said in a statement. “And these documents undermine the Obama administration’s narrative that it thought the Benghazi attack had something to do with protests or an Internet video.”
“Given the explosive material in these documents, it is no surprise that we had to go to federal court to pry them loose from the Obama State Department,” Fitton said.

Wait Til You Hear What The UN Says You Need to Give Up to Stop ‘Global Warming’

Wait Til You Hear What The UN Says You Need to Give Up to Stop ‘Global Warming’

Wait Til You Hear What The UN Says You Need to Give Up to Stop ‘Global Warming’

0,,17207758_303,00
The United Nations has delivered it latest report on climate change and, as to be expected, it paints a grim picture. Moreover, the report spells out specific steps we must take immediately if we are to save the planet from mankind. (Hint: less cheeseburgers)
Recommendations of Working Group III of the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (whew!):
  • More regulation from “experts”, technocrats and bureaucrats at supranational organizations, such as the one whose initials begin with U and end with N
  • More taxpayer subsidies for expensive, inefficient renewable energy
  • More nuclear power (with shale gas used as a transitional fuel to replace coal)
  • The abandonment of fossil fuels
  • Less meat consumption
  • A single, globally-regulated price for carbon dioxide
  • More local-government-enforced walking, cycling and public transportation
  • More back-door wealth redistribution from the West to the developing world in the name of “sustainability”
All at a cost to the global economy of up to 3.7 per cent of GDP by 2030, provided we “act now,” mind you.
The report notes that almost half of the rise in post-industrial anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 levels since 1750 occurred during the last forty years. Therefore, it argues, a dramatic decarbonization of the world economy – including more renewable energy and less fossil fuel – must begin immediately if global warming is to be kept below 2 degrees C by the end of the century.
Can someone please explain to me what man-made anything produced CO2 in 1750?
Once again, the hysterical hand-wringing of the UN over “global warming” flies in the face of NASA scientists, who found that 95% of climate models used since 1979 are flat-out wrong. Additionally, recent studies prove that not only did the earth stop “warming” 17 years ago – it is not projected to warm again until at least the 2030s.
Still, you better eat that last steak while you can; there’s no telling when the feds (or the Blue Helmets) will show up at your door to grab your beef.
Oh, and they’ll be walking, cycling or using public transportation, of course.

Benghazi Documents Point to WH on Misleading Talking Points

Benghazi Documents Point to WH on Misleading Talking Points

President Obama and Hillary Clinton announcing the deaths of Benghazi personell
While this is not surprising news, it’s the first time we’ve had confirmation of this!

Via Judicial Watch:
Judicial Watch announced today that on April 18, 2014, it obtained 41 new Benghazi-related State Department documents. They include a newly declassified email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.” Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” a possible kidnap attempt.
The documents were released Friday as result of a June 21, 2013, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the Department of State (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-00951)) to gain access to documents about the controversial talking points used by then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice for a series of appearances on television Sunday news programs on September 16, 2012. Judicial Watch had been seeking these documents since October 18, 2012.
The Rhodes email was sent on sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 8:09 p.m. with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” The documents show that the “prep” was for Amb. Rice’s Sunday news show appearances to discuss the Benghazi attack.
The document lists as a “Goal”: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in and Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”
Rhodes returns to the “Internet video” scenario later in the email, the first point in a section labeled “Top-lines”:
[W]e’ve made our views on this video crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence. And we are working to make sure that people around the globe hear that message.
Among the top administration PR personnel who received the Rhodes memo were White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Deputy Press Secretary Joshua Earnest, then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, then-White House Deputy Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, then-National Security Council Director of Communications Erin Pelton, Special Assistant to the Press Secretary Howli Ledbetter, and then-White House Senior Advisor and political strategist Davie Plouffe.
The Rhodes communications strategy email also instructs recipients to portray Obama as “steady and statesmanlike” throughout the crisis. Another of the “Goals” of the PR offensive, Rhodes says, is “[T]o reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.” He later includes as a PR “Top-line” talking point:
I think that people have come to trust that President Obama provides leadership that is steady and statesmanlike. There are always going to be challenges that emerge around the world, and time and again, he has shown that we can meet them.
The documents Judicial Watch obtained also include a September 12, 2012, email from former DeputySpokesman at U.S. Mission to the United Nations Payton Knopf to Susan Rice, noting that at a press briefing earlier that day, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland explicitly stated that the attack on the consulate had been well planned. The email sent by Knopf to Rice at 5:42 pm said:
Responding to a question about whether it was an organized terror attack, Toria said that she couldn’t speak to the identity of the perpetrators but that it was clearly a complex attack.
In the days following the Knopf email, Rice appeared on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News and CNN still claiming the assaults occurred “spontaneously” in response to the “hateful video.” On Sunday, September 16 Rice told CBS’s “Face the Nation:”
But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy–sparked by this hateful video.
The Judicial Watch documents confirm that CIA talking points, that were prepared for Congress and may have been used by Rice on “Face the Nation” and four additional Sunday talk shows on September 16, had been heavily edited by then-CIA deputy director Mike Morell.

The Day I Stopped Asking God For “Clarity” « Forte E Bello

The Day I Stopped Asking God For “Clarity” « Forte E Bello

The Day I Stopped Asking God For “Clarity”

Beautiful woman watching sunsetI held my tongue as I listened. It seemed like ages that I waited and then…. nothing came. I stared longer over the cliff, and down at the ocean waves, across the deep, dark, ever-stretching expanse of water. An expanse that has always intrigued me since the first day I dipped my toes into it….Since the first time I walked beside it under the moonlight listening to the waves and thinking about the God who made them.
But here I am 10 years later sitting above the same expanse wondering why the God who made it in all of its enormity couldn’t give me, His beloved daughter, the direction and answers that I feel like I need in one of the most pivotal seasons of my life. If He cares why doesn’t He give me clear direction and certainty? I continued to pray and alternate my words with silence, listening to the waves and praying for a “sign”. Preferably in the form of big flashing lights telling me exactly the direction I need to take. None came. And eventually after all of my talking I began to assume I was speaking to silence and nothing more. Why pray if He isn’t going to answer? I’ve heard people say my whole life, “just ask God for clarity”. As if the “just” belongs in that sentence and it is all “just” that easy. As if I can ask Him and then in a split second He whispers in my ear the exact steps to take.
As my prayers turned to doubt I finally felt like I heard Him whisper something to me. “Trust me.” That’s it. “Trust”?… What does that even mean?
…After a few moments sitting and pondering that word I remembered a story I had read years before in the book Ruthless Trust by Brennan Manning that challenged my perspective of God immensely. Instead of attempting to paraphrase, here is the exact excerpt that I was reminded of in that moment.
“When the brilliant ethicist John Kavanaugh went to work for three months at “the house of the dying” in Calcutta, he was seeking a clear answer as to how best to spend the rest of his life.  
On the first morning there he met Mother Teresa.  She asked, “And what can I do for you?” Kavanaugh asked her to pray for him.“What do you want me to pray for?” she asked.  He voiced the request that he had borne thousands of miles from the United States: “Pray that I have clarity.” She said firmly, “No, I will not do that.”    When he asked her why, she said, “Clarity is the last thing you are clinging to and must let go of.”  
When Kavanaugh commented that she always seemed to have the clarity he longed for, she laughed and said, “I have never had clarity; what I have always had is trust.  So I will pray that you trust God.”
TRUST. That is God’s answer. And in that moment I realized just how beautiful and perfect that answer is. I realized exactly why He hadn’t given me the clarity I had so desired. Because of His enormous love for me and because it is the last thing I actually needed in that moment. Every deep, intimate relationship is rooted in Trust. Of course Love is at the core of the relationship but without trust you can’t have love. I realized God is about relationship. He is about love ultimately. He wants to go on the journey WITH me. 
In that moment a weight lifted. And I felt so much freedom because I didn’t feel the weight of having to “make the right decision” anymore. It made me realize God is all about the process exactly because that is the part that draws me closer to Him. And for the first time I was able to exhale and learn to simply enjoy the process and the experience of real life giving trust. I realized that clarity will come eventually but not without first walking the path of trust. Furthermore I realized that God doesn’t require that I always have perfect trust or perfect faith. All He asks is that I simply be faithful. And it is in that revelation that I have gained freedom. Freedom to love and live fully. Freedom in making trust the aim and enjoying the beautiful and sometimes even painful process it takes to get there.

EPA chief will go after Republicans who question agency | The Daily Caller

EPA chief will go after Republicans who question agency | The Daily Caller

EPA Chief Promises To Go After Republicans Who Question Agency Science

Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy has issued a warning to Republicans who continue to question the integrity of the agency’s scientific data: we’re coming for you.
McCarthy told an audience at the National Academy of Sciences on Monday morning the agency will go after a “small but vocal group of critics” who are arguing the EPA is using “secret science” to push costly clean air regulations.
“Those critics conjure up claims of EPA secret science — but it’s not really about EPA science or secrets. It’s about challenging the credibility of world renowned scientists and institutions like Harvard University and the American Cancer Society,” McCarthy said, according to Politico.
“It’s about claiming that research is secret if researchers protect confidential personal health data from those who are not qualified to analyze it — and won’t agree to protect it,” she added. “If EPA is being accused of secret science because we rely on real scientists to conduct research, and independent scientists to peer review it, and scientists who’ve spent a lifetime studying the science to reproduce it — then so be it.”
Republicans Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana and Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas have led the charge on pressing the EPA to make publicly available the scientific data behind its clean air regulations. McCarthy promised she would make such data publicly available during her confirmation process last year. Now her refusal to cough up the data has angered Republicans.
“EPA’s leadership is willfully ignoring the big picture and defending EPA’s practices of using science that is, in fact, secret due to the refusal of the agency to share the underlying data with Congress and the American public,” said Vitter.
“We’re not asking, and we’ve never asked, for personal health information, and it is inexcusable for EPA to justify billions of dollars of economically significant regulations on science that is kept hidden from independent reanalysis and congressional oversight,” Vitter added.
The EPA has used non-public data to justify 85 percent of $2 trillion worth of Clean Air Act regulation benefits from 1990 to 2020. The agency also uses such datasets to assert that Clean Air Act regulation benefits exceed the costs by a 30:1 ratio originates from the secret data sets.
House Republicans have backed a bill that would block the EPA from crafting regulations based on “secret” data. Republicans argue that such data was used to craft onerous regulations, like one promulgated in late 2012 to reduce soot levels.
That soot rule is supposed to yield $4 billion to $9 billion in benefits per year, while costing from $50 million to $350 million, but the data backing that claim up is not publicly available.
“For far too long, the EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country with no public evidence to justify their actions,” said Arizona Republican Rep. David Schweikert, who introduced the bill.
“Virtually every regulation proposed by the Obama administration has been justified by nontransparent data and unverifiable claims,” said Smith, who cosponsored the bill. “The American people foot the bill for EPA’s costly regulations, and they have a right to see the underlying science. Costly environmental regulations should be based on publicly available data so that independent scientists can verify the EPA’s claims.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/28/epa-chief-promises-to-go-after-republicans-who-question-agency-science/#ixzz30ICjhIBH

Holder Announces Nationwide Study Of Race-Based Arrests |

Holder Announces Nationwide Study Of Race-Based Arrests |


Holder Announces Nationwide Study Of Race-Based Arrests

2014-04-25T144928Z_1_CBREA3O156I00_RTROPTP_4_USA-FISCAL-e1398707543452
by Caroline May
The Justice Department will begin collecting racial data about stops, searches, and arrests as part of an effort to reduce racial bias in the criminal justice system, Attorney General Eric Holder announced Monday.
According to Holder, a recent study found half of African-American men had been arrested at least once by the age of 23. Further, he said, in 2012 black men were 6 times and Latino men 2.5 times more likely to end up in prison than white men.
“This overrepresentation of young men of color in our criminal justice system is a problem we must confront — not only as an issue of individual responsibility but also as one of fundamental fairness, and as an issue of effective law enforcement,” Holder said in a video message. “Racial disparities contribute to tension in our nation generally and within communities of color specifically, and tend to breed resentment towards law enforcement that is counterproductive to the goal of reducing crime.”
Holder said the effort stems from President Obama’s call last summer, following the verdict in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, to seek ways to build more trust in communities.
“We are heeding the President’s call,” he said. “This month, the Justice Department is launching a new initiative – the National Center for Building Community Trust and Justice – to analyze and reduce the effect of racial bias within the criminal justice system.”
The efforts, Holder announced, will be funded with grants totalling $4.75 million.. The grant recipients are set to be named later in the year.
“Of course, to be successful in reducing both the experience and the perception of bias, we must have verifiable data about the problem,” Holder said. “As a key part of this initiative, we will work with grant recipients and local law enforcement to collect data about stops and searches, arrests, and case outcomes in order to help assess the impact of possible bias.
“We will conduct this research while simultaneously implementing strategies in five initial pilot sites with the goal of reducing the role of bias and building confidence in the justice system among young people of color,” he added. “This work will likely include anti-gang and mentoring projects intended to empower young African-American and Latino males and break the vicious cycle of poverty, incarceration, and crime that destroys too many promising futures each and every day.”

Confounded Interest | Recovery? Lower-wage Workers Replace Higher-pay Since The Recession (Bad News For Housing)

Confounded Interest | Recovery? Lower-wage Workers Replace Higher-pay Since The Recession (Bad News For Housing)

Recovery? Lower-wage Workers Replace Higher-pay Since The Recession (Bad News For Housing)

Logan Mohtashami and I have been discussing the lack of qualified mortgage borrowers thanks to eroding household income and insufficient assets for a while. We already knew that Average Hourly Earnings for American workers dropped like a rock in 2009.
nfphourl
Now comes a new study conforming what I have been saying: It is The Low Wage Recovery.
According to the report, there are nearly two million fewer jobs in mid- and higher-wage industries than there were before the recession took hold.
Lower-wage industries accounted for only 22 percent of job losses during the downturn, but 44
percent of jobs gained over the past four years.

Mid-wage industries accounted for 37 percent of job losses, but only 26 percent of job gains.
Higher-wage industries accounted for 41 percent of job losses, but only 30 percent of job gains.
parttimereco
It is difficult to have a middle class housing recovery when you have a non-recovery in jobs, even if the debt bubble has burst.
m2vrminchouse
Then again, it is good news for investors who can benefit from The Fed’s zero-interest rate policy and QE. Not so much for borrowers with part-time jobs when house prices are rising.
omgjobs
Yes, it is hard to have a middle-class housing recovery when part-time jobs are replacing full-time jobs at lower wages.
jobpay777
Particularly when you have to say “Cheeburger, Cheeburger, Pepsi, cheeps.”
belushicheeburger
Actually, SNL’s Olympia Restaurant is the Billy Goat Tavern in Chicago near University of Chicago Gleacher Center (downtown), 430 N. Michigan Ave at Lower Level.

BOOM: 38 Senators File Lawsuit Against Obamacare

BOOM: 38 Senators File Lawsuit Against Obamacare

BOOM: 38 Senators File Lawsuit Against Obamacare

Despite the Supreme Court upholding Obamacare already, it is still being challenged in court on numerous fronts.
Hobby Lobby is leading the charge on the religious liberty front, challenging the provision mandating the inclusion of abortion inducing medications in employer sponsored health insurance plans.
The law is also being challenged over some of President Obama’s unilateral changes to the law, such as exempting members of Congress and their staffs from parts of the law and providing them with subsidies, despite their above-average salaries.
Senator Ron Johnson from Wisconsin filed a lawsuit against Obamacare in January, saying Obama exceeded his authority by exempting Congress from the law.  Sen. Johnson has now been joined by 38 other Senators in support of his lawsuit, according to the Washington Times.
The lawmakers have signed onto a legal brief in support of a lawsuit filed by Sen. Ron Johnson, the Wisconsin Republican who is asking a federal court to overturn Obamacare’s special treatment for members of Congress and their staffs.
“The unlawful executive action at issue in this case is not an isolated incident,” the brief states. “Rather, it is part of an ongoing campaign by the executive branch to rewrite the Affordable Care Act on a wholesale basis.”
The brief contends that, if left unchecked, the administration’s campaign “threatens to subvert the most basic precept of our system of government.”
“The president of the United States is constitutionally obligated to take care that the law be faithfully executed; he does not have the power to modify or ignore laws that have been duly enacted by Congress and that he believes are constitutional,” the friend-of-the-court brief states.
The lawsuit is challenging the administration’s authority to give exemptions and subsidies to members of Congress and their staffs, who are able to pay for coverage themselves without a subsidy.  The lawsuit also challenges the mandates that force people to do things they may consider illegal, unethical or immoral.
The amicus brief offers several examples in which Mr. Obama used “non-existent authority” to rewrite the Affordable Care Act, including the revision of the individual mandate, the suspension and revision of the employer mandate, the revision and suspension of the law regulating insurance plans, the unauthorized expansion of federal subsidies, and the suspension of the Medicaid maintenance-of-effort provision.
Senator Johnson wrote an op-ed recently detailing how Democrats came up with the idea of an exemption once they “realized how harmful Obamacare actually was.”
“Relief came in the form of a special tax treatment available only to them, granted in a manner that exceeded the president’s legal and constitutional authority,” Mr. Johnson said.
“Under a rule issued by the president’s Office of Personnel Management, unlike millions of their countrymen who have lost coverage and must now purchase insurance through an exchange, members and their staffs will now receive an employer contribution to help pay for their new plans,” the senator from Wisconsin wrote.
The President certainly doesn’t have the authority to rewrite the law in order to help his friends and allies, or to provide special favors for his benefactors.  For a President that always talks about equality, this exemption of Congress from certain Obamacare mandates is the height of unfairness.
Congress should not be exempt from any portion of Obamacare.  In fact, Congress should not be exempt from any law that they write that would affect the American people.  To wit, Senator Rand Paul has introduced a constitutional amendment that would ban Congress from creating laws that don’t apply equally to them as well as the American people.
More Senators, and Representatives from the House, need to sign on and join this lawsuit.  The President can’t change laws without Congress, and Congress should no longer allow him to do it without consequence.

Matt Ridley: Let’s Shatter These Five Myths About Fracking | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

Matt Ridley: Let’s Shatter These Five Myths About Fracking | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

Shale gas does not cause earthquakes, pollute water or use toxic chemicals. Wind turbines do far more damage.

It was the US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who once said: “You are entitled to your opinions, but not to your own facts.” In the debate over shale gas — I refuse to call it the fracking debate, as fracking has been happening in this country for decades — the opponents do seem to be astonishingly cavalier with the facts.
Here are five things they keep saying that are simply false. First, that shale gas production has polluted aquifers in America. Second, that it releases more methane than other forms of gas production. Third, that it uses a worryingly large amount of water. Fourth, that it uses hundreds of toxic chemicals. Fifth, that it causes damaging earthquakes. None is true.
Let’s start with the aquifers claim. The total number that has been found to be polluted by either fracking fluid or methane gas as a result of fracking in the United States is zero. Allegation after allegation has been found to be untrue. The Environmental Protection Agency closed its investigation at Dimock, Pennsylvania, concluding there was no evidence of contamination; abandoned its claim that drilling in Parker County, Texas, had caused methane gas to come out of people’s taps; and withdrew its allegations of water contamination at Pavilion, Wyoming, for lack of evidence. Two recent peer-reviewed studies concluded that groundwater contamination from fracking is “not physically plausible”.
The movie Gasland showed a case of entirely natural gas contamination of water and the director knew it, but still pretended it might have been caused by fracking. Ernest Moniz, the US Energy Secretary, said this month: “I still have not seen any evidence of fracking per se contaminating groundwater.” Tens of thousands of wells drilled, two million fracking operations completed and not a single proven case of groundwater contamination. It may happen one day, of course, but few industries can claim a pollution record that good.
Next comes the claim that shale gas production results in more methane being released to the atmosphere than coal. (Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but stays in the atmosphere for a shorter time and its concentration is not currently rising fast.) This claim originated with a Cornell biology professor with an axe to grind. Study after study has refuted it. As a team from Massachusetts Institute of Technology put it: “It is incorrect to suggest that shale gas-related hydraulic fracturing has substantially altered the overall [greenhouse gas] intensity of natural gas production.”
Third comes the claim that fracking uses too much water. The Guardian carried a report this week implying that a town in Texas is running dry because of water used for fracking. Yet in Texas 1 per cent of water use is for fracking; in the US as a whole it is 0.3 per cent — less than is used by golf courses. If parts of Texas run out, blame farming, by far the biggest user.
Fourth, the ever-so-neutral BBC — in a background briefing — has described fracking as releasing “hundreds of chemicals” into the rock. Out by an order of magnitude, Auntie. Fracking fluid is 99.51 per cent water and sand. In the remaining 0.49 per cent there are 13 chemicals, all of which can be found in your kitchen, garage or bathroom: citric acid (lemon juice), hydrochloric acid (swimming pools), glutaraldehyde (disinfectant), guar (ice cream), dimethylformamide (plastics), isopropanol (deodorant), borate (hand soap); ammonium persulphate (hair dye); potassium chloride (intravenous drips), sodium carbonate (detergent), ethylene glycol (de-icer), ammonium bisulphite (cosmetics) and petroleum distillate (cosmetics).
As for earthquakes, Durham University’s definitive survey of all induced earthquakes over many decades concluded that “almost all of the resultant seismic activity [from fracking] was on such a small scale that only geoscientists would be able to detect it” and that mining, geothermal activity or reservoir water storage causes more and bigger tremors.
The media has done a poor job of challenging the Frack Off rent-a-celeb mob with factual rebuttals. So the debate is not between two sincerely held but opposite arguments; it is an unequal contest between truth and lies. No wonder honest folk such as the residents of Balcombe are frightened.
Now it appears that the Diocese of Blackburn has circulated a leaflet about how fracking “has lured landowners to sign leases to drill on their land” and that it could cause lasting harm to “God’s glorious Creation”. Hang on, bishop. Did you say the same about wind power? Let’s run a quick comparison.
Luring landowners with money: wind farms pay up to £100,000 per turbine to landowners and most of that comes from additions to ordinary people’s electricity bills. What has the Church to say about that?
Spoiling God’s glorious creation: as Clive Hambler, of Oxford University, has documented, each year between 6 million and 18 million birds and bats are killed in Spain alone by wind turbines, including rare griffon vultures, 400 of which were killed in a year, and even rarer Egyptian vultures. In Tasmania wedge-tailed eagles are in danger of extinction because of wind turbines. Norwegian wind farms kill ten white-tailed eagles each year. German turbines kill 200,000 bats a year, many of which have migrated hundreds of miles.
The wind industry, which is immune from prosecution for wildlife crime, counters that far more birds are killed by cars and cats, and likes to point to a spurious calculation that if the climate gets very warm and habitats change then the oil industry could one day be said to have killed off many birds. But when was the last time your cat brought home an imperial eagle or needle-tailed swift?
Wind turbines are not only far more conspicuous than gas drilling rigs, they cover vastly more area. Only ten hectares (25 acres) of oil or gas drilling pads can produce more energy than the entire British wind industry. Which does the greatest harm to God’s glorious creation, bishop?

Critics wants Thompson Divide Coalition to expand reach, get more aggressive | AspenTimes.com

Critics wants Thompson Divide Coalition to expand reach, get more aggressive | AspenTimes.com

Critics wants Thompson Divide Coalition to expand reach, get more aggressive


An environmental group that’s leading the effort to prevent natural-gas drilling in Thompson Divide has come under fire by other activists for not being aggressive or inclusive enough.
Activist Anita Sherman, of Glenwood Springs, claimed that the Thompson Divide Coalition has a flawed strategy of trying to save a relatively small portion of the White River National Forest without looking at the big picture of what’s happening in western Garfield County.
The coalition is focused on the fate of 221,500 acres of national forest that stretches from Sunlight Mountain Resort outside of Glenwood Springs to McClure Pass outside of Redstone. About 88,100 acres of that land is in Pitkin County, west of Carbondale.
Sherman said she first pressed Thompson Divide officials in 2012 on whether they would help prevent oil and gas development elsewhere in the national forest, in areas around New Castle, Silt, Rifle and elsewhere.
“I started expressing my concerns that Thompson Divide Coalition was sending mixed messages downvalley with people thinking Unified for the Divide would save their communities,” Sherman said. “Unified for the Thompson Divide shouldn’t include sacrificing other locations that no one on TDC or the legislators they were lobbying seemed open to talk about.”
Concerns boils to criticism
Her concerns boiled over to an all-out criticism of Thompson Divide Coalition earlier this month. She wrote an article for the website “From the Styx” that pulled no punches in criticizing the coalition’s strategy. The website is an exchange of information among opponents of oil and gas development in western Garfield County.
“Will someone from the Thompson Divide Coalition answer this question: What good is your strategy when the areas around the Thompson Divide wilderness area are drilled, spilled, fracked, and attacked?” Sherman wrote. The article was titled, “A ‘Unified’ whomp upside TDC’s head.”
The searing article came out on the eve of hearings held by the Bureau of Land Management in Glenwood Springs, Carbondale and Aspen to take public comment on the fate of 65 parcels in the national forest that were leased to gas companies between 1995 and 2004. A federal board found the environmental review process connected to the leases was flawed. The BLM is now engaging in an environmental study.
While only 25 of the 65 gas leases are in Thompson Divide, many of the comments delivered to the BLM focused on protecting that area. Thompson Divide Coalition was among groups that rallied members to the hearings.
Carbondale-based Wilderness Workshop is also heavily invested in preventing drilling in Thompson Divide, though it has fought gas development throughout the White River National Forest.
Focused on a special place
Thompson Divide Coalition Executive Director Zane Kessler said he wouldn’t engage in a battle of words with Sherman in a newspaper article. However, he provided statements from himself and from Dorothea Farris, a member of Thompson Divide Coalition board of directors, that made it clear the coalition will keep its focus on one special place. It will continue to work with gas companies and Colorado’s Congressional delegation to try to end leasing of public lands in Thompson Divide and retire existing leases.
“We’re humbled by the overwhelming support — at the local, state and national levels — for our ongoing efforts. TDC will continue to work with all stakeholders to find common-sense solutions that protect this area for the enjoyment of generations to come.”
Thompson Divide Coalition is following a two-pronged strategy to try to prevent gas production in the area. It worked with U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet to get legislation introduced that would limit future leasing in Thompson Divide. U.S. Sen. Mark Udall later signed on as a co-sponsor with his fellow Colorado Democrat.
Meanwhile, Thompson Divide is negotiating with gas companies Ursa and SG Interests to try to buy and retire their existing leases.
The coalition’s staff and board of directors typically avoid criticism of the gas companies in any public forum. However, the group tried to apply not-so-subtle pressure by producing a third-party economic study that questioned if an economically feasible production of natural gas was possible in Thompson Divide. Pitkin County commissioned an independent study that reached the same conclusion.
The part of the coalition’s strategy that particularly rankles fellow activists is the claim that gas drilling is appropriate in some placed, but not Thompson Divide.
Pushing for tougher regs
Sherman is part of a faction that claims oil and gas opponents must take direct action in local and state politics to regulate the gas industry on all public and private lands. They claim that legislators on the local, state and national level cannot be trusted because they are under the influence of Big Oil.
“Our families, friends, businesses and properties throughout Garfield, Mesa, Gunnison, Pitkin, and Delta Counties — outside the Divide’s borders — are under legislative attack by the same toxic-trespasser-lovin’ legislators the TDC’s strategists want to trust,” Sherman wrote in her April 15 article.
Sherman does more than talk tough. She is a plaintiff in a planned class-action lawsuit that will challenge the constitutionality of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. She and other plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to sue in the U.S. District Court of Colorado.
Sherman also is involved in resident initiatives that will attempt to beef up regulations on the gas industry by asking voters to approve amendments to the Colorado Constitution.
In addition, she heads the Garfield Transparency Initiative, a watchdog group that monitors local government actions related to the gas industry.
When asked how many people share her perspectives, Sherman responded, “Based on local, state, national and global concerns, I’d say there are many people who share my belief that there are no appropriate places to poison people for profit.”
Her views are shared with others in Colorado. The Denver Business Journal recently reported “more than a dozen ballot proposals dealing with the oil and gas industry have been filed at the Colorado Secretary of State’s office for possible placement on the November election ballot.”
Well-intentioned but misplaced
Aaron Milton, a former gas-patch worker who is now an activist against drilling in western Garfield County, said he agrees with the view that Thompson Divide cannot be viewed as an island. His particular area of interest and expertise is air quality. Milton, a Glenwood Springs resident, contends that gas production throughout the Western Slope will pump hydrocarbons into the air — including in the Roaring Fork Valley. Focusing on prevention of drilling in Thompson Divide addresses only a small part of the problem, he said.
“They’re going to gas the entire valley. That’s what people don’t understand,” Milton said.
Milton shares Sherman’s view that Thompson Divide Coalition is wasting its time by trying to buy out the leases and not being aggressive enough in the political arena, but he isn’t as critical with his critique.
“I tried to work with the Thompson Divide Coalition from the get-go,” he said. “They didn’t really want to take a political stance on it.”
The money that Thompson Divide Coalition is collecting to potentially buy leases could be better-spent rallying residents all over the West Slope and pursuing regulatory action, he said. He would like to see the money used to establish baseline data on air and water quality — for a broader region, not just in and around the Divide.
Milton said its his opinion that the BLM illegally sold the 65 leases in the White River National Forest, so it’s the agency’s responsibility to address them. “All of those illegal leases should be voided and they should give them their money back,” he said.

Remote habitat in Grand Junction region identified

Remote habitat in Grand Junction region identified

Remote habitat in Grand Junction region identified

April 27, 2014 12:00 am  • 
GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. — Take to the air on a flight path leading from Grand Junction toward Gateway, and one thing becomes apparent.
Humans are mostly just visitors to the landscape that lies below.
"This is some wild country back here," Bruce Gordon, president and executive director of the Aspen-based EcoFlight conservation group, said while piloting a recent overflight of land primarily administered by the Bureau of Land Management.
Such lands are drawing attention in the agency's ongoing revision of its resource management plan.
The agency's preferred alternative in its draft plan identifies 11 proposed "wildlife emphasis areas" where the agency seeks to put a priority on habitat protection across 170,500 total acres. The goal is to protect animals including sage grouse, cutthroat trout, pronghorn, mule deer, elk, bighorn sheep, prairie dogs and kit fox.
No such areas exist under the existing management plan, although the agency has been identifying and protecting wildlife in the past in certain areas through the imposition of stipulations on activities, said BLM spokesman David Boyd. Lands such as ones it has designated as areas of critical environmental concern, or is managing to protect wilderness characteristics, also may have important protected habitat.
The concept of specifically identifying areas for wildlife protection is gaining steam within the region, and Boyd said it helps land managers and the public focus on habitat where the agency is proposing protective measures, and see how those proposed protections vary by alternatives being considered.
These are not formal designations, and they have been described in different ways in different plans. The 1999 plan for what's now the Colorado River Valley Field Office, headquartered in Silt, identified wildlife seclusion areas. The BLM Kremmling Field Office's final management plan proposal refers to wildlife core areas.
David Ludlam, executive director of the West Slope Colorado Oil and Gas Association, said that however the BLM chooses to refer to areas where it wants to protect habitat in its plans, the industry is less concerned about the semantics and more concerned about the specific rules that might be attached.
He said he thinks that by and large, energy companies have shown through various big-game studies they have been involved in that their work to protect sage grouse and others means that they have an interest in protecting wildlife.
Where they would be concerned is when stipulations are subjective, anecdotal, not based on science, and cost-prohibitive, he said.
The BLM has said its authority is based on a 2008 Interior Board of Land Appeals ruling in a Wyoming case involving post-lease restrictions including increased buffer zones to protect greater sage-grouse.
The BLM is relying on the authority in its proposed White River Field Office plan because it would impose seasonal timing limits on surface disturbances on all lands, including leased acreage not already subject to those limits. That would set up the ability to waive the timing limits when companies agree to restrictions on how much acreage they disturb at a given time.