---
I just spoke with a family member I dearly love but whose background has led explains why she is a socialist. I love to ask her pointed questions and today I asked what she thought of the current political scene. She responded she was disappointed with Obama, whom she voted for, but saw nothing in the Republican candidates that satisfied her enough to turn away from him. She said moderates will determine the election. However, anyone who maintains they would prefer Obama over Romney, Gingrich and/or Huntsman has basically revealed their commitment to Obama is unshakable and therein lies the hurdle Republicans may not be able to overcome. Inertia and/or a rock at rest takes a powerful force to nudge.
Unable to pull away, Obama lovers feel compelled to defend their innate Liberalism and can only do so by examining alternates after putting them under a microscope they dare not apply to their own candidate. In this case Obama.
Consequently, it is understandable, no matter how incompetent Obama's failed record is, no opponent can measure up because Liberals remain unwilling to be objective when called upon to compare apples to apples. To do so is beyond their self claim of being intellectually honest and objective. (See 2 and 2a below.)
So What's it gonna take? Go to:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ9VjjhfnEQ and watch:
"A challenge to all Jews" By J Mark Campbell
Meanwhile, I would like to believe my dear relative could or would be willing to contemplate connecting these dots but I realize she cannot: Obama musters enough energy to get re-elected but hasn't enough for a pipeline. (See 2b and 2c below.)
---
Why we are in deep doo doo! (See 3 below.)
---
The world scene is currently so depressing falling back on humor helps so let's hear from our "red neck" friends:
A Redneck passed away and left his entire
Estate to his beloved widow . ....
But she can't touch it 'till she's 14.
How do you know when you're staying in a Redneck motel?
When you call the front desk and say,
" I gotta leak in my sink, and the clerk replies .........
"Go ahead."
Two reasons why it's so hard to solve a Redneck murder:
1) The DNA is all the same
2) There are no dental records
State Trooper pulls over a pickup on Highway 16
And says to the driver, 'Got any I.D.?'
The driver replies 'Bout wut?'
Now don't you feel better.
---
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Syria: No Longer Revolution, It is A Civil War, A Guide to the Battle
By Barry Rubin
The only honest answer to the question of what will happen in Syria is: No one knows. After an eight-month-long battle in which more than 3500 people have been killed, there’s no telling who will be ruling Syria when the dust settles, or even when the dust will settle. Aregime victory is quite possible—perhaps most likely—and its overthrow might--but not necessarily--bring an Islamist regime.
But what do we know about Syria? Here’s a guide.
1. Don’t overrate Iran’s role.
Despite wild rumors, the Syrian regime doesn’t need Iranians to help it repress the people. Iran is important as a source of financing for the government, but this is President Bashar al-Assad’s battle to win or lose. Tehran is definitely going to be a secondary factor.
Syria’s other ally isHizballah but the killing of so many Sunni Muslims, including Muslim Brotherhood people, has lost it Hamas. There is a sort of Sunni-Shia version of the Spanish Civil War going on now. But when it comes to the radical and Islamist forces on both sides there’s no good guy.
2. And Turkey isn’t the good guy
The Turkish Islamist regime isn’t motivated by some love of democracy in opposing the Syrian regime.The Ankara government wants a fellow Sunni Islamist dictatorship in Damascus,preferably under its influence. In this situation, Turkey is just as bad as Iran.
3. Will the two sides make a deal?
No, this is a war to the death. The regime cannot make a deal and yield power because the elite would lose everything it has. Moreover, the government elite would face death, exile, or long-term imprisonment if it loses. Similarly, the dominant Alawite community and large portions of the Christian one (together roughly 25 percent of the population) risks massacre if the government falls.
4. Will the army bring down the regime or change sides?
No, see point 3. While some are defecting (see below), the high command cannot survive a change of power. Unlike in Egypt and Tunisia, the armed forces cannot usher in a new regime under which it can hope to keep its privileges.
5. Is this now an inter-communal war?
Net yet. There are hints of small-scale communal killings but if and when such a blood bath begins you’ll know and it will be terrible indeed. This outcome might be avoidable but the situation is very dangerous.
6. Is Syria now in a civil war?
This is beginning.Defectors from the military have formed a Free Syrian Army. A nine-member Military Council has been formed including five colonels. Note the lack of generals (see Point Four) and all of them appear to be Sunni Muslim Arabs (see Point Five). They say they are going to fight the regime and defend the populace. But from where will they get arms?
7. Will economic collapse bring down the regime?
No. See Points 1, 3, and5. Nobody is going to quit because they get hungry. This is a kill-or-be-killed situation.
8. Is Syria going to encourage a war against Israel?
No. Historically, Middle Eastern dictatorships have provoked war against Israel to distract attention from problems at home. The most likely scenario would be a Hizballah-Israelwar, as happened in 2006. But we’re past that point for the Syrian regime(though a radical Egypt might try this tactic after 2013.) In addition,Hizballah is trying to consolidate power in Lebanon and a war would be very much against its interests.
9.Who is the opposition leadership?
Ah,that’s a very interesting question. The best-known group is the Syrian NationalCouncil (SNC). It has announced its 19-member leadership group which includes15 Sunni Muslims, two Christians, and 2 Kurds. Note that there are no Alawites or Druze. The SNC has an advantage because it was assembled by the United States using the Islamist regime in Turkey.
Given Western backing the SNC is surprisingly dominated by Islamists. Ten of the 19are identifiable as such (both Muslim Brothers and independent—Salafist?—Islamists) and a couple of those who are nominally leftists are apparently Islamist puppets. The fact that U.S. policy is backing an Islamist-dominated group indicates the profound problems with Obama Administration policy.
It should be stressed, though, that the SNC’s popular support is totally untested.Many oppositionists—especially Kurds—are disgusted by the group’s Islamist coloration and refuse to participate.
The National Coordination Committee (NCC) is a leftist-dominated alternative. The Antalya Group is liberal. There is also a Salafist council organized by Adnan Arour, a popular religious figure; a Kurdish National Council and a Secular Democratic Coalition (both angry at the SNC’s Islamism);
It is hard to overestimate how disastrous Obama Administration policy has been. Not only has it promoted an Islamist-dominated leadership(which might be pushed into power by monopolizing Western aid) but this mistake has fractured the opposition, ensuring there would be several anti-SNC groups.This strategy has also angered the Kurds and Turkmen minorities who view the SNC as antagonistic to their hopes for some autonomy. As a result, these two groups have reduced their revolutionary activities.
The best source on these events is the exiled democrat Ammar Abdulhamid whose daily Syrian Revolution Digest is indispensable to understand what’s going on in the country. He writes that, despite U.S. and Turkish support, nobody will recognize the SNC as the “legitimate representative of the Syrian people” because of its “over representation of certain currents and underrepresentation of others, as well as lack of transparency in the selection and decision-making processes, not to mention lack of clear political vision and transitional plans.”
Again, it should be stressed that in terms of actually directing the rebellion, there is no leadership.
10.So who do we want to win?
Despite the threat of a Sunni Islamist regime, I hope that Assad will be overthrown. Why? If the regime survives we know it will continue to be a ferociously repressive dictatorship,allied with Iran, and dedicated to the destruction of U.S. and Western interests, the imperialist domination of Lebanon, wiping Israel off the map,and subverting Jordan.
With a revolution, there is a chance—especially if U.S. policy doesn’t mess it up—for a real democracy that is higher than in Egypt. In Syria only 60 percent of the population is Sunni Muslim and thus might be potential recruits to be Islamist. The minorities—Alawite, Christian, Druze, andKurdish—don’t want an Arab Sunni Islamist regime.
As for the Sunnis themselves, they are proportionately more urban, more middle class, and more moderate than in Egypt. Islamists and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular have never been as strong in Syria as in Egypt. In Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia, the Islamists face what is largely a political vacuum; in Syria they have real, determined opposition.
Today, the Syrian people have two major enemies blocking the way to a moderate stable democracy. One is the regime itself; the other is the U.S.-Turkish policy that is determined—naively for the former; deviously deceitful from the latter—to force a new repressive Islamist regime on the Syrians.
1a) Iran flies Palestinian terrorists to Syria for raids into Israel
Under cover of a four-day military exercise starting Friday, Nov. 18, Iranian and counter-terror sources are reported to be transferring Palestinian terrorist units into Syria after training them at IRGC Al Qods facilities for cross-border raids into the West Bank and Israel.
By this step, Iran and Syria are fighting back for the armed campaign the opposition Free Syrian Army-FSA began launching last week on Syrian military installations and commands centers.
Tuesday night, Nov. 15, FSA mounted an organized assault on the "Syrian Air Force Intelligence Command" at Harasta near Damascus - the Assad regime's primary covert tool of repression - using anti-tank weapons and heavy machine guns. No official information was released about the scale of casualties or damage.
Western intelligence sources following events in Syria report most of the buildings were torched, an estimated 10 Syrian soldiers were killed and at least 30 injured before a combat helicopter was lofted to break up the battle.
Wednesday, Nov. 16, a second FSA assault group armed with the same weapons hit ruling Baath party headquarters in Idlib.
Sunday, Nov. 20, Syrian ruler Bashar Assad issued his routine warning of a "Middle East earthquake" if attacked.
May 10, shortly after the Syrian uprising erupted, Bashar Assad's cousin Rami Makhlouf, a tycoon who controls 60 percent of the national economy, issued this warning: "Without stability in Syria, there will be no stability in Israel.
In the intervening months, 300 "volunteers" were recruited in Syrian Palestinian refugee camps and transferred to Iran for courses in guerilla combat against strategic and urban targets. They were trained at al Qods elite unit facilities, some at their marine base.
Split into groups of twelve, they were taught combat tactics behind enemy lines. Three of these groups have been flown back to Damascus.
Friday, Nov. 18, straight after the International Atomic Energy Agency called on Iran to halt uranium enrichment and cooperate in disclosing its nuclear work, Tehran announced the start of a big four-day war game. Contrary to many reports, the exercise is not limited to testing the air defenses of Iran's nuclear sites and infrastructure but rather a large-scale war game, staged by the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) and including operational intelligence and combat units of the Iranian army, disciplinary (security) forces and trained popular troops.
The "popular troops", according to military sources, refer to the Bassij militia, whose task it is to preserve stable authority in cities in times of war or crisis, plus the Palestinian units recruited in Syria.
From Sunday, Nov. 20, the maneuver is extending to Iran's five main cities, Tehran, Mashad, Urmieh, Kerman and Bushehr.
When the exercise winds down next week, three Iranian military planes will fly the rest of the Palestinians fighters to Syria.
1b)..Egyptian forces burn protest tents in Tahrir
By MAGGIE MICHAEL and SARAH EL DEEB
Egyptian soldiers and police set fire to tents in the middle of Cairo's Tahrir Square and fired tear gas and rubber bullets in a major assault Sunday to drive out thousands of protesters after two days of clashes.
An Associated Press reporter at the scene said police and troops chased the protesters out of most of the square as the sun was about to set over the city. But soon after night fell, hundreds of protesters were making their way back to the square, slowly approaching the heart of the square while waving the red, white and black Egyptian flags and chanting "Allahu Akbar," or God is greatest.
The protesters are demanding that the military, which took over from Mubarak in February, quickly announce a date for the handover of power to a civilian government.
"This is what they (the military) will do if they rule the country," one protester screamed while running away from the approaching security forces.
At least a dozen of the protesters' tents, along with blankets and banners, were set ablaze after nightfall and a pall of black smoke rose over the square as the sound of gunshots rang out. Protesters initially ran away in panic while being chased by army soldiers and police, hitting them with clubs. But they later regrouped at the southern entrance of the square next to the world famous Egyptian museum and began to walk back to the square. Both sides then began pelting each other with rocks.
Tensions are rising on Egypt's streets in the days leading up to Nov. 28 — the start of the first parliamentary elections since the ouster of authoritarian leader Hosni Mubarak. The violence reflects rising public anger over the slow pace of reforms and apparent attempts by the ruling generals to retain power over a future civilian government.
"We're not going anywhere," said protester Mohammad Radwan. "The mood is good now and people are chanting again."
The assault followed the protest earlier on Sunday by some 5,000 people in and around Cairo's Tahrir Square, birthplace of the 18-day uprising that toppled Mubarak in February. Many chanted "freedom, freedom" as they pelted police with rocks and a white cloud of tear gas hung in the air.
"We have a single demand: The marshal must step down and be replaced by a civilian council," said protester Ahmed Hani, referring to Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi, head of the ruling military council and Mubarak's longtime defense minister. "The violence yesterday showed us that Mubarak is still in power," said Hani, who was wounded in the forehead by a rubber bullet. He spoke over chants of "freedom, freedom" by hundreds of protesters around him.
In clashes Saturday in Cairo and other major cities, two protesters were killed and hundreds were wounded. The clashes were one of only a few violent confrontations to involve the police since the uprising. The black-clad police were a hated symbol of Mubarak's regime and they have largely stayed in the background while the military took charge of security. There was no military presence in and around Tahrir Square on Saturday or Sunday.
The military, which took over from Mubarak, has repeatedly pledged to hand over power to an elected government but has yet to set a specific date. According to one timetable floated by the army, the handover will happen after presidential elections are held late next year or early in 2013. The protesters say this is too late and accuse the military of dragging its feet. They want a handover immediately after the end of the staggered parliamentary elections, which begin on Nov. 28 and will take place over the months to come and finish in March.
On Sunday, rocks, shattered glass and trash covered Tahrir Square and the side streets around it. Several hundred protesters were camping out on the lawn of the square's traffic island, and protesters manning barricades into the square checked the IDs of anyone trying to enter.
The windows of the main campus of the American University in Cairo, which overlooks the square, were shattered and stores were shuttered.
"The marshal is Mubarak's dog," read freshly scrawled graffiti in the square.
An Interior Ministry statement said 55 protesters have been arrested since the violence began on Saturday and a total of 85 policemen were hurt in clashes. It said some of the protesters were using firearms, firebombs and knifes to attack security forces.
Yahya el-Sawi, a 21-year-old university student, said he was enraged by the sight of riot police beating up protesters already hurt in an earlier attack by the security forces.
"I did not support the sit-in at the beginning, but when I saw this brutality, I had to come back to be with my brothers," he said.
Many of the protesters had red eyes and coughed incessantly. Some wore surgical masks to ward off the tear gas. A few fainted, overwhelmed by the gas.
Hundreds of protesters gathered near the Interior Ministry, which is in charge of police, to offer the Muslim noon prayers, but came under police attack using tear gas and rubber bullets. Ali Saber, a protester who attended the prayer, said the man who led the prayer was hit in the shoulder by a gas canister.
Doctors staffing two field hospitals in the square said they have treated around 700 protesters so far on Sunday. Alaa Mohammed, a doctor, said most of those treated suffered breathing problems or wounds caused by rubber bullets.
"The police are targeting the head, not the legs as they normally do," said Mohammed.
On Saturday, police fired rubber bullets, tear gas and beat protesters with batons, clearing the square at one point and pushing the fighting into surrounding side streets of downtown Cairo. At least one protester was killed in Cairo, and another in Alexandria, officials said, and 676 were injured.
A member of the military council, Maj. Gen. Mohsen el-Fangari, said protesters' calls for change ahead of the election were a threat to the state.
"What is the point of being in Tahrir?" he asked, speaking by phone to a private TV channel. "What is the point of this strike, of the million marches? Aren't there legal channels to pursue demands in a way that won't impact Egypt ... internationally?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)From the rabid Obama fan:Jewish Vote Not a Problem for Obama
GOP May Be Fooling Itself by Hoping for Big Electoral Slice
By Jim Gerstein
As the 2012 election approaches and Republican presidential candidates continue to attack President Obama on his Middle East policies, we can expect to hear increasing chatter and anecdotes about a “Jewish problem for Obama and Democrats.” These claims may capture headlines, but they ignore the data that demonstrate how Obama’s only problem with Jewish voters is that there are not more of them.
SEE THE FORWARD’S ENTIRE PACKAGE ABOUT OBAMA’S POLL NUMBERS.
Michael Bloomfield and Mark Mellman say predicting the Jewish vote is getting more complicated. Amy Cohen and Anna Greenberg write that Obama’s effort to hold onto Jewish support is part of a larger task of keeping his coalition intact.
National surveys conducted by Gallup International show that American Jews have approved of Obama’s job performance throughout his presidency by an average of 14 percentage points more than the rest of the American electorate. This gap undercuts a frequently made, but factually erroneous, claim that Obama has a policy toward Israel that alienates Jewish voters, leading Gallup to conclude that its results “call into question attempts to link a decline in Obama’s approval among Jews to his statements or policies on [Israel] matters important to Jewish policymakers and lobbyists.”
To put Obama’s Jewish support in proper perspective, consider that Gallup’s latest release of Jewish data, in mid-September, revealed a 54% job approval — slightly higher than the 48% approval among Hispanic voters, who, like Jews, constitute a base Democratic constituency (but unlike Jews, constitute nearly 10% of the electorate and can make a serious difference in swing states).
When looking at the 2012 election, the president’s job approval is only one piece of the puzzle. In fact, a president’s job approval always measures lower than his eventual share of the vote. In the case of Jewish voters and a Democratic president, this phenomenon is even more dramatic, because a core dynamic that drives the Jewish vote is the intense opposition that Jews express toward political conservatives and toward the Republican Party. Whether it is Glenn Beck and the Tea Party movement or George W. Bush and Mitt Romney, surveys that my polling firm has conducted show that Jews fundamentally distrust the individuals and institutions that define the various wings of the Republican Party.
While the antipathy toward Republicans is one central component of the Jewish vote, another key factor is the very positive feelings that Jews express toward Obama and Democratic policies. The president’s signature accomplishments of his first term — ending the war in Iraq, the Osama bin Laden operation and health care reform — directly address three issues that Jewish voters identified as determinants of their vote in 2008.
Of course, the single most important issue for Jews in 2008 and today is the economy. The problems in the economy should have some impact on Obama’s support among American Jews, but this is likely to be mitigated by the progressive ideological leanings of American Jews whose perspective is more Warren Buffett than Herman Cain.
Our latest poll of American Jews simulated an election between Obama and Romney, and perhaps presents the clearest picture of where the Jewish vote may be headed. The initial vote shows Obama leading 63–24. When we allocated the undecided voters by party identification — a common practice among political pollsters when trying to map out the outcome of a race — the vote was 70–27, and far better than the dead heat reported in a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll among American adults. Clearly, Obama has a lot of challenges on the road to re-election, but getting the Jewish vote is not one of them.
2a)The Absent-Minded Energy Secretary
Debra J. Saunders
President Barack Obama likes to brag that his energy secretary, Steven Chu, won a Nobel Prize in physics. You would think that means that Chu is a brainiac who makes shrewd decisions and is extremely aware of whatever is happening around him. But as his testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee on Thursday revealed, there's a world of information that escapes Chu's notice.
The subcommittee is investigating Chu's decision to make Fremont, Calif., solar power company Solyndra the first recipient of a federal energy program loan in September 2009. Two years and $528 million later, Solyndra filed for bankruptcy, and it looks as if taxpayers will not see a dime of it. The Nobel Prize winner's pet pick was a bust.
Thursday was supposed to be Chu's moment to take responsibility for this high-profile bad "bet" -- as Obama once put it. Chu did say, "The final decisions on Solyndra were mine." Yet by the end of the hearing, Chu was using the passive voice and putting the onus on other people. As he looked back at the whole thing, Chu said that "competent decisions were made by the people in the loan program," that green energy is important and that everyone knew "there were risks."
If the White House was pushing for the Solyndra deal because Obama campaign contribution bundler and frequent White House visitor George Kaiser owned an equity firm that backed Solyndra, it was news to Chu. Ditto on communications between Solyndra backers and top White House operatives. Who knew?
The Nobel laureate was "not aware" of staffers' predictions that Solyndra would go broke, even run out of cash in September 2011.
In September 2009, Chu approved the Solyndra loan. He clearly missed the Office of Management and Budget staff's recommendation that the deal be "notched down" in light of "the weakening world market prices for solar generally." When he showed up at Solyndra's groundbreaking, Chu announced, "If you build a better solar panel, the world will beat a path to your door."
As Rick Perry would say, "oops."
In March 2010, PricewaterhouseCoopers warned that Solyndra's recurring losses and negative cash flows raised "substantial doubt about (its) ability to continue as a going concern."
And still, Chu was a booster. In May 2010, Obama appeared at a Solyndra event, chatting up Chu's Nobel history and proclaiming, "The true engine of economic growth will always be companies like Solyndra."
A month later, Solyndra canceled a planned $300 million public offering.
This might be a good place to mention that shortly after winning its first loan guarantee, Solyndra applied for a second, this one for $400 million. To its credit, the administration did not approve the loan.
By October, CEO Brian Harrison had informed the Energy Department that the company was about to lay off workers. According to an email from Kaiser's investment fund, "the DOE ... requested a delay until after the election (without mentioning the election)."
Voila. Solyndra announced it would shutter one of its plants and lay off 40 workers Nov. 3, the day after the election. Chu testified he would not have approved such a political request.
Now Chu admits he approved a deal that allowed investors to put $75 million into Solyndra in order to give the company a chance to survive. He acknowledged that the second deal included a sweetener that put investors ahead of taxpayers in the payback line that follows bankruptcy.
Sadly, when that expensive (for taxpayers) gambit failed, Solyndra laid off 1,000 workers.
Chu rejected the notion that incompetence and politics may have been factors in this half-billion-dollar blunder. "It's extremely unfortunate what happened," said Chu, "but the bottom fell out of the market; it was totally unexpected."
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., came to Chu's defense. "We have lost the money," he announced. "It's unfortunate, but there's no scandal there."
No scandal? In February 2009, former Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet was so sure he'd get the loan that he set 10 conditions for the administration to meet to help him raise another $147 million. No. 9: "Fundraising support after conditional commitment: Steven Chu visits Solyndra with press interviews (target by end of March)."
Just who worked for whom?
2b) Obama Gets Money Bonanza by Killing Energy Jobs
By Marita Noon
It has been a week since President Obama made his shocking announcement delaying the Keystone XL pipeline decision until after the presidential election. The news has been met with cries of victory and sighs of disappointment, but the tactic shouldn’t have surprised anyone as it fits in totally with his ideology.
First, we all know that the President is fundamentally opposed to all carbon-based fuels (think Solyndra, et al)—so the pipeline’s approval was a longshot. But it would have created thousands of true shovel-ready jobs without a dollar of taxpayer money. Many of those jobs would have been union jobs.
The pipeline’s approval would have made the unions happy. while angering the environmentalists. Two of his solid funders were in conflict—one shouting in one ear, the other in the other ear. Waiting for the decision, watchers wondered which base held more sway.
The delay announcement, however, is a fundraising coup.
In April, the President announced that he would raise a record-breaking $1 billion for his reelection campaign. To date, fundraising has not been as strong as expected.
In August, when the Environmental Impact Statement on the pipeline “reaffirmed the environmental integrity of the project,” environmental groups threatened to pull their support for President Obama in the upcoming election if he approved the project—some calling his environmental record disappointing and dismal. Because they have no place else to go, Obama expects them to stick with him.
Not only will environmentalists likely stick with the president, his apparent quandary invites their input—only this time, not in his ear, in his pocket.
We all know that President Obama is not immune to the influence of donors on his decisions. With less than twelve months until the 2012 election, both the unions and the environmentalists will be buying—oops, I mean vying for—his favor. While some are calling his punt indecisive or a debacle, it could be the most brilliant fundraising tactic as both sides over-donate in support of their positions.
We also know that the Obama administration supports higher gas prices. The Keystone XL pipeline would have provided more stability in oil supply and pricing. The supplies of crude oil from Mexico and Venezuela are declining, and the pipeline would have provided refiners in the Gulf region with a secure supply—and a supply from a friendly source. Less supply means higher prices. Without the XL pipeline on the horizon, prices will increase as they’ve done since the delay announcement came out. Higher oil prices translate to higher prices at the pump. With the cover of environmental concerns as the cause, President Obama could put the pipeline off and raise gas prices without the average person realizing his responsibility for the increasing costs. With higher gasoline prices, the Government Motors Chevy Volt becomes more attractive—giving the president a win/win.
So President Obama chose to appease the environmental base and raise gas prices rather than to support the jobs that he claims to want. Additionally, the pipeline would have brought foreign money into the United States through increased exports of refined gasoline and provided a strong signal to the world markets that America is putting a long-term sustained strategy for expanding the domestic oil supplies we will need for decades to come. Once again, he has made a decision as America’s campaigner-in-chief rather that America’s chief champion.
While the President’s mind may have been made up regarding the Keystone XL pipeline on January 20, 2009, TransCanada made it easy for him.
TransCanada expected that the pipeline would be easily approved—all previous cross-border pipeline requests have been granted. They went through all the open houses and public meetings, did the environmental impact studies, and endured the most exhaustive and detailed review ever conducted for a crude oil pipeline. Nebraska, and most of the United States, is already a maze of pipelines. However, they chose the cheapest route for the Keystone XL pipeline—which took it through the environmentally sensitive area of Nebraska’s Sand Hills. By choosing the short route, rather than adding about 250 miles of pipeline, they gave the environmentalists an unlikely alliance: Republican lawmakers and traditionally conservative farmers. Because even the Republicans opposed the pipeline, it gave Obama additional cover—after all, even the locals didn’t want it. Had they been willing to move the pipeline to parallel the existing Keystone pipeline, avoiding the Sand Hills, it likely would have gone through without the local opposition.
One month before President Obama made his delay announcement, the TransCanada Vice President who would be in charge of the pipeline met with Nebraska state senators. He told them: “We understand that the best solution from your perspective is to move the route. We don't believe that is an option for us.” However, once the delay announcement was made, TransCanada has quickly agreed to re-rerouting as proposed by the Nebraska state legislature. Now they are pushing for an expedited review of the alternate route—which could allow the project to begin before the 2012 elections.
Environmentalists, angry over President Obama’s perceived weakness regarding his loosening of proposed EPA regulations, demonstrated at the White House for months to push their point—with the Center for Biological Diversity promising to keep up the public pressure. Previously, public and industry pressure made President Obama withdraw the EPA Ozone regulations. Note: public pressure works.
As America is in an economic war, we need what the Keystone XL pipeline has to offer. Keep the pressure on President Obama. Now that TransCanada has agreed to rerouting, they’ve called his bluff. Call the White House and tell President Obama to expedite the review and approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
2c)Rep. Poe: Obama at War With US Energy Firms
By David A. Patten
The administration’s decision to postpone the Canadian XL pipeline despite the price of crude oil jumping above $100 a barrel has led energy-sector executives to suspect the administration “...is at war with American energy production.”
Poe, who represents the heartland of the U.S. refinery industry in Southeast Texas, says delaying a decision on the XL pipeline until after the November 2012 election will hurt U.S. job growth. Once fully operational, that pipeline would deliver over 1.2 million barrels a day to the thirsty U.S. oil refineries that blanket the Gulf Coast region near Port Arthur, Texas.
“That’s as much oil as we get from Saudi Arabia,” Poe tells Newsmax. “Why not trade with a stable partner, rather than relying on Middle Eastern oil? Even the pipeline folks in Nebraska have now a new route that they want to go through, to go around the environmental concerns. The State Department says, ‘No, we’re not going to do it. We’re going to wait until after the election to make a decision.’”
Poe warned that Canada may simply build a pipeline west rather than south, and offload the crude into oil tankers bound for China. He said the administration’s decision appears to be motivated by politics: Environmentalists oppose construction of the Canada-to-Texas pipeline.
“By a failure to make a decision, we are just continuing down the road of high energy prices,” the Texas congressman said.
Other highlights from Poe’s exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV:
• The joint congressional “Supercommittee” that has been meeting behind closed doors on the deficit was a bad idea. “I think this should be open not only to other members of Congress, but it should be open to the public,” Poe says. “The public should know what’s taking place. It’s too important an issue to have it in a smoke-filled room.”
• Deep, automatic cuts looming for the Pentagon if the committee can’t reach a deal “would be bad for our national security.” Poe adds: “We’ve already cut the department of defense drastically, even though we are involved in several wars throughout the world.”
• Poe maintains that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan should excuse herself from the Supreme Court’s upcoming review of the president’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. As a former judge, Poe says, “It won’t look right if she hears the case, and her impartiality is in question.” He says Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas does not have a conflict of interest stemming from his wife’s grass-roots activities, however.
• President Barack Obama’s divisive rhetoric targeting Wall Street executives and wealthy citizens have contributed to the Occupy Wall Street protests, Poe says. “The president has engaged in purposefully splitting America into as many factions as he can, all in the name of politics,” says the congressman.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts
unelected.org
The first ever GAO(Government Accountability Office) audit of the Federal Reserve was carried out in the past few months due to the Ron Paul, Alan Grayson Amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, which passed last year. Jim DeMint, a Republican Senator, and Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator, led the charge for a Federal Reserve audit in the Senate, but watered down the original language of the house bill(HR1207), so that a complete audit would not be carried out. Ben Bernanke(pictured to the right), Alan Greenspan, and various other bankers vehemently opposed the audit and lied to Congress about the effects an audit would have on markets. Nevertheless, the results of the first audit in the Federal Reserve’s nearly 100 year history were posted on Senator Sander’s webpage earlier this morning.
What was revealed in the audit was startling:
$16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious - the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs.
To place $16 trillion into perspective, remember that GDP of the United States is only $14.12 trillion. The entire national debt of the United States government spanning its 200+ year history is "only" $14.5 trillion. The budget that is being debated so heavily in Congress and the Senate is "only" $3.5 trillion. Take all of the outrage and debate over the $1.5 trillion deficit into consideration, and swallow this Red pill: There was no debate about whether $16,000,000,000,000 would be given to failing banks and failing corporations around the world.
In late 2008, the TARP Bailout bill was passed and loans of $800 billion were given to failing banks and companies. That was a blatant lie considering the fact that Goldman Sachs alone received 814 billion dollars. As is turns out, the Federal Reserve donated $2.5 trillion to Citigroup, while Morgan Stanley received $2.04 trillion. The Royal Bank of Scotland and Deutsche Bank, a German bank, split about a trillion and numerous other banks received hefty chunks of the $16 trillion.
"This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else." - Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
When you have conservative Republican stalwarts like Jim DeMint(R-SC) and Ron Paul(R-TX) as well as self identified Democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders all fighting against the Federal Reserve, you know that it is no longer an issue of Right versus Left. When you have every single member of the Republican Party in Congress and progressive Congressmen like Dennis Kucinich sponsoring a bill to audit the Federal Reserve, you realize that the Federal Reserve is an entity onto itself, which has no oversight and no accountability.
Americans should be swelled with anger and outrage at the abysmal state of affairs when an unelected group of bankers can create money out of thin air and give it out to megabanks and supercorporations like Halloween candy. If the Federal Reserve and the bankers who control it believe that they can continue to devalue the savings of Americans and continue to destroy the US economy, they will have to face the realization that their trillion dollar printing presses will eventually plunder the world economy.
The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows..
Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
and many many more including banks in Belgium of all places
View the 266-page GAO audit of the Federal Reserve(July 21st, 2011): http://www.scribd.com/doc/60553686/GAO-Fed-Investigation
Source: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-696
FULL PDF on GAO server: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf
Senator Sander’s Article: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment