Obazo's latest proclamations
Terrorism is Dead, I got Ossama Bin Ladin: 2010
ISIS Asking for daughters of Mosul for sex
LINK /
quote:
“We call upon the people of this county to bring their unmarried girls so they can fulfill their duty in sex jihad for their warrior brothers in the city and anyone who will not appear will feel the full force of the Shariah [Islamic law] upon him.”
quote:
“They came into the house. They were disgusting. They were armed and spoke among themselves in a language we did not recognize. We were afraid; I tried to save my sister, but one of them hit me with his weapon – on my body and then on my face – me and my sister. I blacked out and woke up to the sounds of the screaming of my neighbor while one of the jihadis was playing with my hair,” the girl said, according to the report.
The border Is secure: As he shoots pool, drinks a beer, and considers taking a hit.
Meanwhile young illegals are flooding the southern border.
Obazo's response
"Is congress prepared to get crisis fixed"
"It would be useful for my republican friends to rediscover the concept of negotiation...and compromise"
"If they agree to the supplemental 3.7 billion, I'll consider their ideas"
News Flash
Moderators: Pike Ridge Beagles, Aaron Bartlett
Re: News Flash
DOJ investigates Nebraska parade float critical of Obama
The Washington Times
Sunday, July 13, 2014
A float with the words "Obama Presidential Library" is seen during the Fourth of July parade in downtown Norfolk, Neb., Friday morning, July 4, 2014. The float has received criticism from a city councilman and the Nebraska Democratic Party, and others.
The U.S. Department of Justice has sent a member of its Community Relations Service team to investigate a Nebraska parade float that criticized President Obama.
A Fourth of July parade float featured at the annual Independence Day parade in Norfolk sparked criticism when it depicted a zombie-like figure resembling Mr. Obama standing outside an outhouse, which was labeled the “Obama Presidential Library.”
The Nebraska Democratic Party called the float one of the “worst shows of racism and disrespect for the office of the presidency that Nebraska has ever seen.”
The Omaha World-Herald reported Friday that the Department of Justice sent a CRS member who handles discrimination disputes to a Thursday meeting about the issue.
Also at the meeting were the NAACP, Norfolk mayor Sue Fuchtman and the Norfolk Odd Fellows, which coordinated the parade.
The float’s creator, Dale Remmich, has said the mannequin depicted himself, not President Obama. He said he is upset with the president’s handling of the Veterans Affairs Department, the World-Herald reported.
“Looking at the float, that message absolutely did not come through,” said NAACP chapter president Betty C. Andrews.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z37SPBWMkf
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Glad to see the Holder Dept of Justice is still in existence. Thought they might have all resigned since we have had no results of the investigations of Fast and Furious, Benghazi, and the IRS scandal.
The Washington Times
Sunday, July 13, 2014
A float with the words "Obama Presidential Library" is seen during the Fourth of July parade in downtown Norfolk, Neb., Friday morning, July 4, 2014. The float has received criticism from a city councilman and the Nebraska Democratic Party, and others.
The U.S. Department of Justice has sent a member of its Community Relations Service team to investigate a Nebraska parade float that criticized President Obama.
A Fourth of July parade float featured at the annual Independence Day parade in Norfolk sparked criticism when it depicted a zombie-like figure resembling Mr. Obama standing outside an outhouse, which was labeled the “Obama Presidential Library.”
The Nebraska Democratic Party called the float one of the “worst shows of racism and disrespect for the office of the presidency that Nebraska has ever seen.”
The Omaha World-Herald reported Friday that the Department of Justice sent a CRS member who handles discrimination disputes to a Thursday meeting about the issue.
Also at the meeting were the NAACP, Norfolk mayor Sue Fuchtman and the Norfolk Odd Fellows, which coordinated the parade.
The float’s creator, Dale Remmich, has said the mannequin depicted himself, not President Obama. He said he is upset with the president’s handling of the Veterans Affairs Department, the World-Herald reported.
“Looking at the float, that message absolutely did not come through,” said NAACP chapter president Betty C. Andrews.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z37SPBWMkf
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Glad to see the Holder Dept of Justice is still in existence. Thought they might have all resigned since we have had no results of the investigations of Fast and Furious, Benghazi, and the IRS scandal.
Re: News Flash
They left out the best part " Free Obabbler dolls inside"
Re: News Flash
Dems demand Issa withdraw subpoena
The ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee on Monday demanded that Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) withdraw a “misguided” subpoena of an official who is working to fix the federal ObamaCare website.
In a blistering letter, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) accused Issa of hurling “unfounded accusations” against Todd Park, the administration’s chief technology officer (CTO).
“The evidence before our Committee demonstrates that Mr. Park is an honest and exemplary public servant, and your unsubstantiated public attacks against his integrity are a deficient basis on which to justify a subpoena against him,” Cummings wrote with Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.).
Cummings said Issa’s subpoena was “diverting Mr. Park’s energies” from his work and could “seriously impair” the race to repair HealthCare.gov.
“Rather than denigrate Mr. Park’s reputation and impede his time-sensitive work, we request that the Committee accept his reasonable offer to testify before the Committee in December,” Cummings wrote. (December, After the Election?)
Issa subpoenaed Park last week, ordering him to testify Wednesday before the Oversight Committee.
The committee chairman said he offered a handful of opportunities for Park to speak in front of his committee but was continuously rebuffed by the White House, which said Park was too busy to appear.
Issa said Park’s “long history of involvement in the development and rollout of HealthCare.Gov” made his testimony crucial to ensuring the site gets fixed.
“Millions of Americans have lost their health insurance and are rapidly approaching a point where they must begin to prepare for the possibility of having no health insurance,” Issa wrote in his subpoena letter. “They deserve your sworn testimony before their elected representatives about what went wrong.”
Park’s office lashed out after the subpoena was issued.
Donna Pignatelli, the assistant director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), wrote a letter to Issa that said the agency had made numerous attempts to accommodate the chairman’s request for a briefing with Park.
“These efforts to accommodate your interest in hearing from Mr. Park were rebuffed and met instead with a subpoena threat in your letter yesterday,” Pignatelli wrote. “You explained that the Committee feels it has a duty to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch, but conspicuously absent from your letter was any statement or justification that would explain the legislative need to compel Mr. Park to appear next week as opposed to a few weeks from now.”
“OSTP is left to wonder why you would demand Mr. Park appear on November 13, knowing that doing so is more likely to hurt rather than help the goal of fixing the website as soon as possible,” she wrote.
Three technology experts with ties to the White House have created a website called “Let Todd Work” that argues Issa is wasting Park’s time at a critical juncture for HealthCare.gov.
The Obama administration is under intense pressure to fulfill its promise of fixing the broken website by the end of the month.
Cummings on Monday argued that the purported reasoning behind Issa’s subpoena was misleading, and accused him of selectively leaking and misrepresenting internal documents in an effort to score political points.
On Fox News last week, Issa accused Park of “engaging in a pattern of interference and false statements,” saying he had misrepresented website test results that showed how much capacity the site could handle ahead of its launch.
Cummings responded that the Oversight Committee “has obtained absolutely no evidence that Mr. Park has engaged in any pattern of interference during this investigation, and we certainly have identified no evidence that Mr. Park made any ‘false statements’ relating to Healthcare.gov or any other matter.”
Since the federal site went up on Nov. 1, Issa has leaked documents that show the government and contractors were scrambling to make last-minute repairs to the site just as it was going live.
Democrats say those disclosures are meant to embarrass the administration, but Issa and other Republicans say they are conducting legitimate oversight of problems that the White House is trying to hide.
Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/18 ... z37Yvf7BAA
How can you embarrass folks whose careers are based on lies? Both Parties!
The ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee on Monday demanded that Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) withdraw a “misguided” subpoena of an official who is working to fix the federal ObamaCare website.
In a blistering letter, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) accused Issa of hurling “unfounded accusations” against Todd Park, the administration’s chief technology officer (CTO).
“The evidence before our Committee demonstrates that Mr. Park is an honest and exemplary public servant, and your unsubstantiated public attacks against his integrity are a deficient basis on which to justify a subpoena against him,” Cummings wrote with Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.).
Cummings said Issa’s subpoena was “diverting Mr. Park’s energies” from his work and could “seriously impair” the race to repair HealthCare.gov.
“Rather than denigrate Mr. Park’s reputation and impede his time-sensitive work, we request that the Committee accept his reasonable offer to testify before the Committee in December,” Cummings wrote. (December, After the Election?)
Issa subpoenaed Park last week, ordering him to testify Wednesday before the Oversight Committee.
The committee chairman said he offered a handful of opportunities for Park to speak in front of his committee but was continuously rebuffed by the White House, which said Park was too busy to appear.
Issa said Park’s “long history of involvement in the development and rollout of HealthCare.Gov” made his testimony crucial to ensuring the site gets fixed.
“Millions of Americans have lost their health insurance and are rapidly approaching a point where they must begin to prepare for the possibility of having no health insurance,” Issa wrote in his subpoena letter. “They deserve your sworn testimony before their elected representatives about what went wrong.”
Park’s office lashed out after the subpoena was issued.
Donna Pignatelli, the assistant director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), wrote a letter to Issa that said the agency had made numerous attempts to accommodate the chairman’s request for a briefing with Park.
“These efforts to accommodate your interest in hearing from Mr. Park were rebuffed and met instead with a subpoena threat in your letter yesterday,” Pignatelli wrote. “You explained that the Committee feels it has a duty to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch, but conspicuously absent from your letter was any statement or justification that would explain the legislative need to compel Mr. Park to appear next week as opposed to a few weeks from now.”
“OSTP is left to wonder why you would demand Mr. Park appear on November 13, knowing that doing so is more likely to hurt rather than help the goal of fixing the website as soon as possible,” she wrote.
Three technology experts with ties to the White House have created a website called “Let Todd Work” that argues Issa is wasting Park’s time at a critical juncture for HealthCare.gov.
The Obama administration is under intense pressure to fulfill its promise of fixing the broken website by the end of the month.
Cummings on Monday argued that the purported reasoning behind Issa’s subpoena was misleading, and accused him of selectively leaking and misrepresenting internal documents in an effort to score political points.
On Fox News last week, Issa accused Park of “engaging in a pattern of interference and false statements,” saying he had misrepresented website test results that showed how much capacity the site could handle ahead of its launch.
Cummings responded that the Oversight Committee “has obtained absolutely no evidence that Mr. Park has engaged in any pattern of interference during this investigation, and we certainly have identified no evidence that Mr. Park made any ‘false statements’ relating to Healthcare.gov or any other matter.”
Since the federal site went up on Nov. 1, Issa has leaked documents that show the government and contractors were scrambling to make last-minute repairs to the site just as it was going live.
Democrats say those disclosures are meant to embarrass the administration, but Issa and other Republicans say they are conducting legitimate oversight of problems that the White House is trying to hide.
Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/18 ... z37Yvf7BAA
How can you embarrass folks whose careers are based on lies? Both Parties!
Re: News Flash
Halbig v. Burwell Would Free More Than 57 Million Americans From The ACA's Individual & Employer Mandates
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, often described as the second-highest court in the land, could rule on Halbig v. Burwell as early as tomorrow. Halbig is one of four lawsuits challenging the legality of the health-insurance subsidies the IRS is dispensing in the 36 states that did not establish a health-insurance Exchange under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or “ObamaCare,” and thus have Exchanges established by the federal government. Though the PPACA repeatedly states those subsidies are available only “through an Exchange established by the State,” and there are indications IRS officials knew they did not have the authority to issue subsidies through federal Exchanges, the IRS is dispensing billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies through federal Exchanges anyway. The Halbig plaintiffs are employers and individuals from six federal-Exchange states who are being injured by the IRS’s actions because those illegal subsidies trigger taxes against them under the PPACA’s employer and individual mandates. The plaintiffs want relief from those illegal taxes, and the only way to get it is to ask federal courts to put a stop to the illegal subsidies. Recent media coverage of Halbig, driven by one-sided blog posts from the consultant group Avalere Health and the left-leaning Urban Institute and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, has misrepresented the impact of a potential ruling for the plaintiffs by ignoring three crucial facts: (1) a victory for the Halbig plaintiffs would increase no one’s premiums, (2) if federal-Exchange enrollees lose subsidies, it is because those subsidies are, and always were, illegal, and (3) the winners under such a ruling would outnumber the losers by more than ten to one.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcann ... -mandates/
Freedom Wins, Maybe.
quote:
Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
In a potentially crippling blow to Obamacare, a top federal appeals court Friday said that billions of dollars worth of government subsidies that helped 4.7 million people buy insurance on HealthCare.gov are not legal under the Affordable Care Act.
In its decision, a three-judge panel said that such subsidies can be granted only to people who bought insurance in an Obamacare exchange run by an individual state or the District of Columbia — not on the federally run exchange HealthCare.gov. Plaintiffs in the case known as Halbig v. Burwell argued that the ACA, as written, only allows that often-significant financial aid to be issued to people who bought insurance on a marketplace set up a state.
The decision is certain to be challenged by the Obama Administration, and does not immediately have the effect of law. But if it is ultimately upheld, it would cause insurance rates for those people who lost the subsidies to dramatically rise.
HealthCare.gov serves residents of the 36 states that did not create their own health insurance marketplace. About 86 percent of its 5.45 million customers received a subsidy to offset the cost of their coverage this year because they had low or moderate incomes.
In a report issued Thursday, the consultancy Avalere Health said that if those subsidies were removed this year from the 4.7 million people who received them in HealthCare.gov states, their premiums would have been an average of 76 percent higher in price than what they are paying now.
Another report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute estimated that by 2016, about 7.3 million enrollees who would have qualified for financial assistance will be lose access to about $36.1 billion in subsidies if those court challenges succeed.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101819065
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, often described as the second-highest court in the land, could rule on Halbig v. Burwell as early as tomorrow. Halbig is one of four lawsuits challenging the legality of the health-insurance subsidies the IRS is dispensing in the 36 states that did not establish a health-insurance Exchange under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or “ObamaCare,” and thus have Exchanges established by the federal government. Though the PPACA repeatedly states those subsidies are available only “through an Exchange established by the State,” and there are indications IRS officials knew they did not have the authority to issue subsidies through federal Exchanges, the IRS is dispensing billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies through federal Exchanges anyway. The Halbig plaintiffs are employers and individuals from six federal-Exchange states who are being injured by the IRS’s actions because those illegal subsidies trigger taxes against them under the PPACA’s employer and individual mandates. The plaintiffs want relief from those illegal taxes, and the only way to get it is to ask federal courts to put a stop to the illegal subsidies. Recent media coverage of Halbig, driven by one-sided blog posts from the consultant group Avalere Health and the left-leaning Urban Institute and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, has misrepresented the impact of a potential ruling for the plaintiffs by ignoring three crucial facts: (1) a victory for the Halbig plaintiffs would increase no one’s premiums, (2) if federal-Exchange enrollees lose subsidies, it is because those subsidies are, and always were, illegal, and (3) the winners under such a ruling would outnumber the losers by more than ten to one.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcann ... -mandates/
Freedom Wins, Maybe.
quote:
Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
In a potentially crippling blow to Obamacare, a top federal appeals court Friday said that billions of dollars worth of government subsidies that helped 4.7 million people buy insurance on HealthCare.gov are not legal under the Affordable Care Act.
In its decision, a three-judge panel said that such subsidies can be granted only to people who bought insurance in an Obamacare exchange run by an individual state or the District of Columbia — not on the federally run exchange HealthCare.gov. Plaintiffs in the case known as Halbig v. Burwell argued that the ACA, as written, only allows that often-significant financial aid to be issued to people who bought insurance on a marketplace set up a state.
The decision is certain to be challenged by the Obama Administration, and does not immediately have the effect of law. But if it is ultimately upheld, it would cause insurance rates for those people who lost the subsidies to dramatically rise.
HealthCare.gov serves residents of the 36 states that did not create their own health insurance marketplace. About 86 percent of its 5.45 million customers received a subsidy to offset the cost of their coverage this year because they had low or moderate incomes.
In a report issued Thursday, the consultancy Avalere Health said that if those subsidies were removed this year from the 4.7 million people who received them in HealthCare.gov states, their premiums would have been an average of 76 percent higher in price than what they are paying now.
Another report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute estimated that by 2016, about 7.3 million enrollees who would have qualified for financial assistance will be lose access to about $36.1 billion in subsidies if those court challenges succeed.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101819065
Re: News Flash
Fight heats up over EPA sabotage of Alaska gold mine
The Environmental Protection Agency is under fire for a preemptive strike against a massive copper and gold mine in Alaska, where hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of jobs are at stake.
The controversy centers on Pebble Mine, located 200 miles southeast of Anchorage. It is the largest deposit of copper and gold in North America.
But environmental groups and fishermen, worried about the impact to the world’s most abundant salmon run in Bristol Bay, fought the mine from the beginning.
“It was people from Alaska that requested the EPA come in and take action,” said Tim Bristol, of Trout Unlimited in Anchorage. “We just don’t feel like we’re getting our concerns heard by the state of Alaska.”
The EPA did act, using the 1972 Clean Water Act for the first time ever to stop a mine before the owners even came out with a detailed plan.
The company behind the mine claims the agency went too far.
“The intent of the EPA is to take on an authority that nowhere has Congress given them, to go across America and determine where development should occur and where it shouldn’t occur before anyone ever files a permit,” Pebble Limited Partnership CEO Tom Collier said.
EPA officials have said the agency only got involved after Alaska Native tribes asked for a special Clean Water Act 404(c) veto in 2010. But internal memos suggest some government ecologists wanted to sabotage the mine long before that. One email from 2009 reads, “we should be the ones to shape the discussion. We will need to do tribal outreach, they need to understand the risk.”
Another email listed the pros and cons of an early veto. Among the pros, it said a preemptive strike “can serve as a model of proactive watershed planning.”
Pebble Limited Partnership, along with the state of Alaska, sued the EPA. The inspector general is looking into whether the EPA adhered to laws, regulations, policies and procedures in developing its assessment of potential mining impacts on ecosystems in Bristol Bay.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., also is investigating. A year into its inquiry, though, the committee is hitting roadblocks. Phil North, a key, now-retired EPA biologist can’t be located. North worked in the EPA’s Kenai office and is a longtime acquaintance of the lawyer who filed the tribe’s request for an EPA veto. Some accuse North of initiating the Pebble Mine veto discussion within the EPA and even helping opponents craft the letter to the agency.
Now, not only is North unavailable to the committee, but two years’ worth of his emails about Pebble Mine are also missing. In response to the oversight committee’s request, the EPA searched North’s laptop and old computer hard drive, and three external hard drives, but could not find any of his electronic documents related to the mine for the period between April 2007 and May 2009. The EPA says it is still searching.
Geoff Parker, the lawyer who represented the Alaska Native tribes in filing the veto request with the EPA, said North did not begin the 404 (c) veto discussion. Parker told Fox News the impetus for the veto was the lack of a formal mine plan from Pebble Limited Partnership.
The mine was purchased by the Canadian company Northern Dynasty, parent company of Pebble Limited Partnership, in 2001. A few years later, the owners started reaching out to surrounding Native communities hoping to garner support.
In 2011, Northern Dynasty finally issued an economic assessment of the Pebble Mine. It outlined three possible mines ranging from 25 years, up to 78 years. The smallest mine would extract 2 billion tons of material. The largest would mine 6.5 billion tons. The scenarios were used by the EPA in its study of the mine’s potential impacts on the Bristol Bay watershed.
Pebble officials argue their economic assessment was not a mine plan and included none of the extensive mitigation program.
“It was an imaginary mine the EPA invented,” said Washington Examiner columnist Ron Arnold, who has written extensively on Pebble Mine. “You can’t respect anything the EPA says.”
But Bristol said the EPA did exactly the right thing. “The authority is there in the law, and the question we’ve asked is if not in this place, and not on this issue and not at this time, then when are they going to use [the veto]?” Bristol said. “There’s so much at risk.”
Bristol Bay is a $480 million a year fishery. In 2009, it provided 14,000 full and part-time jobs. Pebble officials say they can operate a mine without impacting the legendary salmon runs. The question is, will they ever get a chance to make their case?
The Environmental Protection Agency is under fire for a preemptive strike against a massive copper and gold mine in Alaska, where hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of jobs are at stake.
The controversy centers on Pebble Mine, located 200 miles southeast of Anchorage. It is the largest deposit of copper and gold in North America.
But environmental groups and fishermen, worried about the impact to the world’s most abundant salmon run in Bristol Bay, fought the mine from the beginning.
“It was people from Alaska that requested the EPA come in and take action,” said Tim Bristol, of Trout Unlimited in Anchorage. “We just don’t feel like we’re getting our concerns heard by the state of Alaska.”
The EPA did act, using the 1972 Clean Water Act for the first time ever to stop a mine before the owners even came out with a detailed plan.
The company behind the mine claims the agency went too far.
“The intent of the EPA is to take on an authority that nowhere has Congress given them, to go across America and determine where development should occur and where it shouldn’t occur before anyone ever files a permit,” Pebble Limited Partnership CEO Tom Collier said.
EPA officials have said the agency only got involved after Alaska Native tribes asked for a special Clean Water Act 404(c) veto in 2010. But internal memos suggest some government ecologists wanted to sabotage the mine long before that. One email from 2009 reads, “we should be the ones to shape the discussion. We will need to do tribal outreach, they need to understand the risk.”
Another email listed the pros and cons of an early veto. Among the pros, it said a preemptive strike “can serve as a model of proactive watershed planning.”
Pebble Limited Partnership, along with the state of Alaska, sued the EPA. The inspector general is looking into whether the EPA adhered to laws, regulations, policies and procedures in developing its assessment of potential mining impacts on ecosystems in Bristol Bay.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., also is investigating. A year into its inquiry, though, the committee is hitting roadblocks. Phil North, a key, now-retired EPA biologist can’t be located. North worked in the EPA’s Kenai office and is a longtime acquaintance of the lawyer who filed the tribe’s request for an EPA veto. Some accuse North of initiating the Pebble Mine veto discussion within the EPA and even helping opponents craft the letter to the agency.
Now, not only is North unavailable to the committee, but two years’ worth of his emails about Pebble Mine are also missing. In response to the oversight committee’s request, the EPA searched North’s laptop and old computer hard drive, and three external hard drives, but could not find any of his electronic documents related to the mine for the period between April 2007 and May 2009. The EPA says it is still searching.
Geoff Parker, the lawyer who represented the Alaska Native tribes in filing the veto request with the EPA, said North did not begin the 404 (c) veto discussion. Parker told Fox News the impetus for the veto was the lack of a formal mine plan from Pebble Limited Partnership.
The mine was purchased by the Canadian company Northern Dynasty, parent company of Pebble Limited Partnership, in 2001. A few years later, the owners started reaching out to surrounding Native communities hoping to garner support.
In 2011, Northern Dynasty finally issued an economic assessment of the Pebble Mine. It outlined three possible mines ranging from 25 years, up to 78 years. The smallest mine would extract 2 billion tons of material. The largest would mine 6.5 billion tons. The scenarios were used by the EPA in its study of the mine’s potential impacts on the Bristol Bay watershed.
Pebble officials argue their economic assessment was not a mine plan and included none of the extensive mitigation program.
“It was an imaginary mine the EPA invented,” said Washington Examiner columnist Ron Arnold, who has written extensively on Pebble Mine. “You can’t respect anything the EPA says.”
But Bristol said the EPA did exactly the right thing. “The authority is there in the law, and the question we’ve asked is if not in this place, and not on this issue and not at this time, then when are they going to use [the veto]?” Bristol said. “There’s so much at risk.”
Bristol Bay is a $480 million a year fishery. In 2009, it provided 14,000 full and part-time jobs. Pebble officials say they can operate a mine without impacting the legendary salmon runs. The question is, will they ever get a chance to make their case?
Re: News Flash
Lessons from Australia's Carbon Tax Disaster
quote:
Environmentalists had a global meltdown last week after Australia scrapped its carbon tax. They denounced the move as "retrograde" and "environmental vandalism."
They can fume all they want, but Australia's action, combined with Europe's floundering cap-and-trade program, signals that "mitigation" strategies—curbing greenhouse gases by putting economies on an energy diet—are not winning or workable.
Australia leapfrogged from being an environmental laggard (initially refusing to even sign the Kyoto Protocol) to a leader when its Green Party-backed Labor prime minister imposed a tax two years ago. It required Australia's utilities and industries to pay $23 per ton of greenhouse gas emissions.
But the tax was an instant debacle.
Australia has the highest per capita carbon dioxide emissions in the world and the main reason is that it's even more coal-dependent than America. Coal supplies 75 percent of its energy needs (compared to 42 percent in America). But contrary to green expectations, the tax didn't prompt companies to rush toward renewable sources, because they are far costlier.
Rather, utilities passed their costs to households—whose energy bills soared by 20 percent in the first year. Other industries that face hyper-competitive environment such as airlines suffered massive losses. (Virgin Australia alone reported $27 million in losses in just six months.) The tax also made Australian exports globally uncompetitive, deepening the country's recession economic slump.*
This spawned a backlash that brought down the Labor government and catapulted into office the Liberal Party's Tony Abbott, who made a "blood promise" to ditch the tax, which he did promptly once elected, despite warnings that Aussie lowlands are more vulnerable to rising sea levels and other dire consequences of global warming than other countries.
Not much better in pinko Europe:
quote:
urope's cap-and-trade program has managed to hang on, but only by neutering itself. The program hands companies an annual emission allowance. If they exceed it, they have to buy more on the open market or invest in clean technologies.
But the program handed out far too many allowances for free initially, causing their price to repeatedly crash. Worse, the European Parliament last year refused to scale back the allowances as planned for fear of prolonging the recession.
The upshot is that despite spending $287 billion, Europe has little to show for it. (Australia's tax at least reduced its carbon emissions 1.5 percent in the first year). According to a study by UBS, Switzerland's biggest bank the program has had "almost zero impact" on emissions—challenging the much more rosy assessments of the European Commission.
Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2011. Japan retreated from its pledges last year. And South Korea's finance minister is hinting that his country will delay its cap-and-trade program. (This ensures that next year's Paris summit to discuss even more ambitious reductions will be a complete waste of time and emissions.)
LINK http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/29/l ... ssie-car/1
Hard to call yourself a defender of "economic security" when you support policies that increase utility bills 20%. That hurts the most vulnerable.
Green Tyranny has to go.
If our winter is as cold as is indicated by our summer, progressives look out. We set a new record low for the date last week, tonight is supposed to set a new record low for this date by two degrees. I think the record low was set over a hundred years ago. We have had three record or near record cool periods this month. I can't remember a July that has been this cool. Sure gives the hounds a break though.
quote:
Environmentalists had a global meltdown last week after Australia scrapped its carbon tax. They denounced the move as "retrograde" and "environmental vandalism."
They can fume all they want, but Australia's action, combined with Europe's floundering cap-and-trade program, signals that "mitigation" strategies—curbing greenhouse gases by putting economies on an energy diet—are not winning or workable.
Australia leapfrogged from being an environmental laggard (initially refusing to even sign the Kyoto Protocol) to a leader when its Green Party-backed Labor prime minister imposed a tax two years ago. It required Australia's utilities and industries to pay $23 per ton of greenhouse gas emissions.
But the tax was an instant debacle.
Australia has the highest per capita carbon dioxide emissions in the world and the main reason is that it's even more coal-dependent than America. Coal supplies 75 percent of its energy needs (compared to 42 percent in America). But contrary to green expectations, the tax didn't prompt companies to rush toward renewable sources, because they are far costlier.
Rather, utilities passed their costs to households—whose energy bills soared by 20 percent in the first year. Other industries that face hyper-competitive environment such as airlines suffered massive losses. (Virgin Australia alone reported $27 million in losses in just six months.) The tax also made Australian exports globally uncompetitive, deepening the country's recession economic slump.*
This spawned a backlash that brought down the Labor government and catapulted into office the Liberal Party's Tony Abbott, who made a "blood promise" to ditch the tax, which he did promptly once elected, despite warnings that Aussie lowlands are more vulnerable to rising sea levels and other dire consequences of global warming than other countries.
Not much better in pinko Europe:
quote:
urope's cap-and-trade program has managed to hang on, but only by neutering itself. The program hands companies an annual emission allowance. If they exceed it, they have to buy more on the open market or invest in clean technologies.
But the program handed out far too many allowances for free initially, causing their price to repeatedly crash. Worse, the European Parliament last year refused to scale back the allowances as planned for fear of prolonging the recession.
The upshot is that despite spending $287 billion, Europe has little to show for it. (Australia's tax at least reduced its carbon emissions 1.5 percent in the first year). According to a study by UBS, Switzerland's biggest bank the program has had "almost zero impact" on emissions—challenging the much more rosy assessments of the European Commission.
Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2011. Japan retreated from its pledges last year. And South Korea's finance minister is hinting that his country will delay its cap-and-trade program. (This ensures that next year's Paris summit to discuss even more ambitious reductions will be a complete waste of time and emissions.)
LINK http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/29/l ... ssie-car/1
Hard to call yourself a defender of "economic security" when you support policies that increase utility bills 20%. That hurts the most vulnerable.
Green Tyranny has to go.
If our winter is as cold as is indicated by our summer, progressives look out. We set a new record low for the date last week, tonight is supposed to set a new record low for this date by two degrees. I think the record low was set over a hundred years ago. We have had three record or near record cool periods this month. I can't remember a July that has been this cool. Sure gives the hounds a break though.
Re: News Flash
Emails show White House adviser intervened on ObamaCare ‘bailout’ after industry appeals
White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett inside the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House complex in Washington, January 16, 2014.Reuters
Newly released emails show a key White House adviser intervened on behalf of the health insurance industry after an executive repeatedly warned that massive premium hikes were coming unless the administration expanded an ObamaCare program that Republicans call an industry "bailout."
The insurance industry ultimately got a more "generous" offer from the administration -- one that Republicans warn could transfer potentially billions of taxpayer dollars into the Affordable Care Act to bail out insurance companies.
The documents were included as part of a report by Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Republicans allege that White House adviser Valerie Jarrett intervened in response to appeals from the industry.
“Documents show that Ms. Jarrett took the warnings of the insurance companies very seriously,” the report said.
The controversy pertains to a program known as “risk corridors,” which allows the government to aid insurers that lose money by paying them from a pool of cash collected from insurers that turn a profit. The insurance industry, though, was concerned there wouldn’t be enough cash in the pool to go around.
A string of emails starting on April 4 of this year shows Chet Burrell, president of CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield, bringing this issue to Jarrett’s attention – and issuing blunt warnings that premiums could rise if the administration didn’t change course. The industry was apparently concerned about a decision to make the program budget-neutral, which would limit funding.
“If this is indeed the policy, then carriers will have to price premiums as if the Risk Corridor features is not fully available,” said a memo sent from Burrell to Jarrett on April 5. “Uncertainty or confusion will equate to higher rates. This could confront the Administration with a sea of far larger premiums increases than expected. Once the filings are made, they will likely quickly become public.”
The not-so-subtle warning about skyrocketing premiums received Jarrett’s prompt attention.
“I checked and the policy team is aggressively exploring options,” she wrote back later that day. “… I really appreciate you bringing this to my attention.”
Burrell’s CareFirst division represents Maryland, Washington, D.C., and parts of Virginia.
The two continued to correspond, and Burrell continued to warn about rate increases in 2015 if the program were not changed. On April 15, Jarrett said the industry was getting “80 percent” of what it wanted but she didn’t have “any more to add.”
Burrell responded that “substantial rate increases are coming.”
However, despite Jarrett’s response, the Department of Health and Human Services a month later issued a final rule detailing changes to the program. The agency said that in the “unlikely event” the pool ran out of money, the secretary was required to make “full payments” to insurers -- and the agency would use “other sources of funding … subject to the availability of appropriations.”
This move has angered Republicans, who warn that it puts taxpayer funds on the line.
“While the Administration’s changes to the Risk Corridor provision protected the profits of insurance companies’ ObamaCare-compliant plans, it was extremely detrimental to taxpayers,” the new GOP report said. “When government picks winners and losers in the market, it reduces competition and harms consumers. Congress should protect taxpayers and bring greater transparency to the premiums in the individual market by repealing ObamaCare’s Risk Corridor program.”
The insurance industry, though, has defended the program.
ObamaCare's "temporary risk mitigation programs are designed to help ensure market stability and affordability for consumers," a spokesman with America's Health Insurance Plans said last month. "The final rule provides important clarity about how these insurer-financed programs will work as health plans prepare their rates for 2015."
HHS has claimed the agency remains confident the program will not have a shortfall.
White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett inside the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House complex in Washington, January 16, 2014.Reuters
Newly released emails show a key White House adviser intervened on behalf of the health insurance industry after an executive repeatedly warned that massive premium hikes were coming unless the administration expanded an ObamaCare program that Republicans call an industry "bailout."
The insurance industry ultimately got a more "generous" offer from the administration -- one that Republicans warn could transfer potentially billions of taxpayer dollars into the Affordable Care Act to bail out insurance companies.
The documents were included as part of a report by Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Republicans allege that White House adviser Valerie Jarrett intervened in response to appeals from the industry.
“Documents show that Ms. Jarrett took the warnings of the insurance companies very seriously,” the report said.
The controversy pertains to a program known as “risk corridors,” which allows the government to aid insurers that lose money by paying them from a pool of cash collected from insurers that turn a profit. The insurance industry, though, was concerned there wouldn’t be enough cash in the pool to go around.
A string of emails starting on April 4 of this year shows Chet Burrell, president of CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield, bringing this issue to Jarrett’s attention – and issuing blunt warnings that premiums could rise if the administration didn’t change course. The industry was apparently concerned about a decision to make the program budget-neutral, which would limit funding.
“If this is indeed the policy, then carriers will have to price premiums as if the Risk Corridor features is not fully available,” said a memo sent from Burrell to Jarrett on April 5. “Uncertainty or confusion will equate to higher rates. This could confront the Administration with a sea of far larger premiums increases than expected. Once the filings are made, they will likely quickly become public.”
The not-so-subtle warning about skyrocketing premiums received Jarrett’s prompt attention.
“I checked and the policy team is aggressively exploring options,” she wrote back later that day. “… I really appreciate you bringing this to my attention.”
Burrell’s CareFirst division represents Maryland, Washington, D.C., and parts of Virginia.
The two continued to correspond, and Burrell continued to warn about rate increases in 2015 if the program were not changed. On April 15, Jarrett said the industry was getting “80 percent” of what it wanted but she didn’t have “any more to add.”
Burrell responded that “substantial rate increases are coming.”
However, despite Jarrett’s response, the Department of Health and Human Services a month later issued a final rule detailing changes to the program. The agency said that in the “unlikely event” the pool ran out of money, the secretary was required to make “full payments” to insurers -- and the agency would use “other sources of funding … subject to the availability of appropriations.”
This move has angered Republicans, who warn that it puts taxpayer funds on the line.
“While the Administration’s changes to the Risk Corridor provision protected the profits of insurance companies’ ObamaCare-compliant plans, it was extremely detrimental to taxpayers,” the new GOP report said. “When government picks winners and losers in the market, it reduces competition and harms consumers. Congress should protect taxpayers and bring greater transparency to the premiums in the individual market by repealing ObamaCare’s Risk Corridor program.”
The insurance industry, though, has defended the program.
ObamaCare's "temporary risk mitigation programs are designed to help ensure market stability and affordability for consumers," a spokesman with America's Health Insurance Plans said last month. "The final rule provides important clarity about how these insurer-financed programs will work as health plans prepare their rates for 2015."
HHS has claimed the agency remains confident the program will not have a shortfall.
Re: News Flash
quote:
It’s unlikely that United Mine Workers of America president Cecil Roberts thought he would be arrested protesting the energy policies of the very politician his union supported in 2008. But things have come full circle for coal miners, who now see President Obama’s climate agenda threatening their livelihoods.
Roberts and other UMWA members were arrested Thursday marching through Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, towards the federal building where the Environmental Protection Agency was holding field hearings for a new rule that could very well force more coal mines and plants to shut down.
Roberts was leading about 5,000 coal miners, their families and supporters to show the EPA that coal miners, boilermakers, electric workers and other unions did not support the Obama administration’s new regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants.
“This was an expression by the leadership of the union and the solidarity for our members when our jobs are on the line … it’s what it’s all about,” Roberts said while being arrested.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/02/coal- ... z39KrbTwon
Can't say the Big Eared O didn't warn them.
Apparently Union Sheep are so accustomed to listening to their bosses they have forgotten to think for themselves.
The Washington Times - Thursday, March 29, 2012
“If someone wants to build a new coal-fired power plant they can, but it will bankrupt them because they will be charged a huge sum for all the greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
-Candidate Barack Obama, 2008.
Well, we can’t say we weren’t warned. This week, the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency released a set of proposed rules designed to target greenhouse gas emissions. If enacted, these rules would virtually destroy the coal industry - just as President Obama once promised he would do.
I wonder who is paying for the green house gases that O and M are emitting from Air force one as he fund raises.
It’s unlikely that United Mine Workers of America president Cecil Roberts thought he would be arrested protesting the energy policies of the very politician his union supported in 2008. But things have come full circle for coal miners, who now see President Obama’s climate agenda threatening their livelihoods.
Roberts and other UMWA members were arrested Thursday marching through Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, towards the federal building where the Environmental Protection Agency was holding field hearings for a new rule that could very well force more coal mines and plants to shut down.
Roberts was leading about 5,000 coal miners, their families and supporters to show the EPA that coal miners, boilermakers, electric workers and other unions did not support the Obama administration’s new regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants.
“This was an expression by the leadership of the union and the solidarity for our members when our jobs are on the line … it’s what it’s all about,” Roberts said while being arrested.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/02/coal- ... z39KrbTwon
Can't say the Big Eared O didn't warn them.
Apparently Union Sheep are so accustomed to listening to their bosses they have forgotten to think for themselves.
The Washington Times - Thursday, March 29, 2012
“If someone wants to build a new coal-fired power plant they can, but it will bankrupt them because they will be charged a huge sum for all the greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
-Candidate Barack Obama, 2008.
Well, we can’t say we weren’t warned. This week, the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency released a set of proposed rules designed to target greenhouse gas emissions. If enacted, these rules would virtually destroy the coal industry - just as President Obama once promised he would do.
I wonder who is paying for the green house gases that O and M are emitting from Air force one as he fund raises.
Re: News Flash
The tax payors of America of course. Why is it legal for obabbler to go on fund raisers for the DEmoturds using tax payors money should it be the dems should pay for this since they benifit from it?
Re: News Flash
Dems gotta Dem.
The son of a Philadelphia congressman has been indicted on bank fraud, tax and theft charges, accused of stealing federal funds for city schools and using business loans to pay off mostly personal expenses, including more than $30,000 in gambling debts, federal prosecutors announced Tuesday.
Chaka Fattah Jr., 31, surrendered at the federal courthouse and vowed to clear his name. He was scheduled for a court appearance later Tuesday.
A federal indictment accuses Fattah, son of Democratic U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah, of lying about his income to obtain more than $200,000 in business loans.
He used one $50,000 loan, intended “for working capital to support business operations,” to pay down more than $15,000 in credit card debt and pay off more than $33,000 in casino gambling debt, prosecutors said.
He is also charged with theft of federal funds from the city school district, filing false income tax returns in 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2009, and failing to pay $51,000 in taxes on time in 2010.
The congressman’s office said it had no immediate comment.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/c ... tml?hp=l10
This walnut didn't fall far from the tree.
Rep. Chaka Fattah sought a “green vehicle” earmark for a for-profit school where his adult son, Chaka Fattah Jr. — now under investigation by the Justice Department — worked as director of business development.
First elected to Congress in 1994, he said he did nothing wrong in receiving the $375,000 solicitation for federal funds from the school and then advocating that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee earmark money for the project in a 2009 surface transportation bill that never got off the ground.
“I stand by my son. Nothing came of the request for funds, and my son had nothing to do with any request for funds,” the congressman said in a statement to POLITICO. “I will await the results of the investigation before making further comment.”
When asked if the congressman would recuse himself from funding decisions for the Justice Department, Fattah’s chief of staff, Maisha Leek, said, “Absent an allegation we will await the conclusion of the investigation.”
The raids are an outgrowth of the fraud conviction of Mikel Jones, a Philadelphia lawyer and former aide to Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), who has been a friend of the elder Fattah since they were children. In January 2011, Jones told two FBI agents that he had hired 259 Strategies and another company run by Fattah Jr. for consulting, according to the agents’ report of the conversation.
LINK http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73526.html
Wasn't Mr Hastings disbarred as a Federal Judge for illegal activities.
Cont'd
Super secret donors!
Former Gov. Ed Rendell and former Mayor W. Wilson Goode have launched a fund-raising effort to pay the legal bills of U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah's son, who has been under federal investigation for months.
Rendell said he agreed to pitch in after Rep. Fattah contacted him for help.
Rendell, in an interview, estimated that the Philadelphia congressman and his wife had spent $250,000 to help Chaka "Chip" Fattah Jr., 30, and said the costs had become a "little bit of a struggle" for the family.
On Thursday, Rendell said the fund would not reveal the donors or amounts - even to Rep. Fattah.
PM, are you on that list. You can tell us, we won't tell.
The son of a Philadelphia congressman has been indicted on bank fraud, tax and theft charges, accused of stealing federal funds for city schools and using business loans to pay off mostly personal expenses, including more than $30,000 in gambling debts, federal prosecutors announced Tuesday.
Chaka Fattah Jr., 31, surrendered at the federal courthouse and vowed to clear his name. He was scheduled for a court appearance later Tuesday.
A federal indictment accuses Fattah, son of Democratic U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah, of lying about his income to obtain more than $200,000 in business loans.
He used one $50,000 loan, intended “for working capital to support business operations,” to pay down more than $15,000 in credit card debt and pay off more than $33,000 in casino gambling debt, prosecutors said.
He is also charged with theft of federal funds from the city school district, filing false income tax returns in 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2009, and failing to pay $51,000 in taxes on time in 2010.
The congressman’s office said it had no immediate comment.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/c ... tml?hp=l10
This walnut didn't fall far from the tree.
Rep. Chaka Fattah sought a “green vehicle” earmark for a for-profit school where his adult son, Chaka Fattah Jr. — now under investigation by the Justice Department — worked as director of business development.
First elected to Congress in 1994, he said he did nothing wrong in receiving the $375,000 solicitation for federal funds from the school and then advocating that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee earmark money for the project in a 2009 surface transportation bill that never got off the ground.
“I stand by my son. Nothing came of the request for funds, and my son had nothing to do with any request for funds,” the congressman said in a statement to POLITICO. “I will await the results of the investigation before making further comment.”
When asked if the congressman would recuse himself from funding decisions for the Justice Department, Fattah’s chief of staff, Maisha Leek, said, “Absent an allegation we will await the conclusion of the investigation.”
The raids are an outgrowth of the fraud conviction of Mikel Jones, a Philadelphia lawyer and former aide to Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), who has been a friend of the elder Fattah since they were children. In January 2011, Jones told two FBI agents that he had hired 259 Strategies and another company run by Fattah Jr. for consulting, according to the agents’ report of the conversation.
LINK http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73526.html
Wasn't Mr Hastings disbarred as a Federal Judge for illegal activities.
Cont'd
Super secret donors!
Former Gov. Ed Rendell and former Mayor W. Wilson Goode have launched a fund-raising effort to pay the legal bills of U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah's son, who has been under federal investigation for months.
Rendell said he agreed to pitch in after Rep. Fattah contacted him for help.
Rendell, in an interview, estimated that the Philadelphia congressman and his wife had spent $250,000 to help Chaka "Chip" Fattah Jr., 30, and said the costs had become a "little bit of a struggle" for the family.
On Thursday, Rendell said the fund would not reveal the donors or amounts - even to Rep. Fattah.
PM, are you on that list. You can tell us, we won't tell.
Re: News Flash
According to a report from Minnesota Twin Cities FOX affiliate KMSP that aired Tuesday night, Abdirahmaan Muhumed, the second known American killed while fighting for ISIS in Syria, previously worked for Delta Global Services, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Delta Air Lines.
KMSP noted that according to sources, Muhumed’s position with Delta Global Services required a security clearance at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport in order gain access to the tarmac and unfettered access to planes.
Muhumed’s employment with Delta Global Services was confirmed by two former employees that acknowledged working with Muhumed.
Muhumed died in the same battle as Douglas McCain, an ISIS fighter also from Minnesota.
Profiling is bad, ugh car bombs are... Bush's fault.
KMSP noted that according to sources, Muhumed’s position with Delta Global Services required a security clearance at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport in order gain access to the tarmac and unfettered access to planes.
Muhumed’s employment with Delta Global Services was confirmed by two former employees that acknowledged working with Muhumed.
Muhumed died in the same battle as Douglas McCain, an ISIS fighter also from Minnesota.
Profiling is bad, ugh car bombs are... Bush's fault.