He thought the progress to date was as he would have hoped and reminded me after 7 operations and procedures on my knee I should not be disappointed that it is as it is.
Carlton is a wonderful man, we took him and his wife to dinner, and Carol is very lovely.
He gave us a book about West Point and the history of his own auspicious military career was included.
Carlton is the kind of person who belongs in the medical profession - up front, great surgeon and compassionate person. It is tragic a professional like Carlton has to be subjected to the inanity of our president's willful lunacy.
I consider Carlton more than my surgeon. He is my friend and I am grateful for that.
===
.jpg)
.png)
If Obama was a comedic movie would you pay money to see it?
===
If only the world peace could be brought about by song and dance.
"Putin on the Ritz...in Moscow , NO LESS!!"
Who would have thought in 2012 young people in Moscow would put on a "flash mob" happening, dancing to an 83-year-old American song, written by a Russian born American Jewi (Irving Berlin)?
Left click below:
===
Our military may look better in combat but I doubt we will win any more wars!
There are four reasons why so:
1) We allow politicians to fight them.
2) We allow the embedded press and media to report them .
3) We no longer possess the temperament to win them.
4) We have made our military politically correct.
We have turned Semper Fi into Whimper Why! (See 1 below.)
===
After lying again about March being the deadline and the administration would not change it, Obama unconstitutionally - yes you guessed it, Obama did just that. (See 2 below.)
===
Excerpted from Stratfor: Moldova Faces Russian Pressure Against EU Integration
As the standoff continues between Russia and the West over Ukraine, tensions have grown to encompass Ukraine's neighbor Moldova, which like Ukraine has been making efforts to integrate further with the West. Most recently, Russian military exercises held March 25 in Moldova's breakaway territory of Transdniestria have stoked these tensions. Russia has many economic, political and security levers to employ in Moldova in response to its Western integration efforts, and Russia can use this leverage to destabilize the country, if not derail integration efforts altogether.
Moldova was, after Ukraine, the most logical and likely country to experience a growing competition between Russia and the West over the former Soviet periphery. Moldova has made efforts to build closer ties to the European Union, primarily by working toward signing the EU association and free trade agreements. Moldova initialed these agreements at the November 2013 Vilnius summit, during which former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich rejected the deals, and Moldova is now set to sign the deals in June along with Georgia. The Moldovan government has also supported the Western-backed uprising in Ukraine and has been a strong advocate of the Ukrainian government's ambitions to sign the EU agreements.
Russia has been very concerned with these developments. Like Ukraine, Russia's strategic interests require Moldova to remain a neutral country and not a part of the Western alliance structure. Therefore, Russia will likely work to undermine Moldova's Western integration efforts just as it has been doing in Ukraine, and Moscow has several levers it can use toward this end.
===
More Obama skulduggery in Obama'attempt to suppress free speech! (See 3 and 3a below.)'
===
President Feckless fails to lead again.
Empty rhetoric is no substitute for deterrence.
Such actions will simply embolden Putin and those over whom he will ultimately lose control and then war? (See 4 below.)
===
Expect more pressure on Israel as Abbas remains obstinate. That's the way Kerry and Obama operate. Extract flesh from your friends not your enemies. (See 5 below.)
Making peace with the devil? (See 5a below.)
===Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)No General Officer in the Armed Forces would ever raise this issue, because it would end their career.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)No General Officer in the Armed Forces would ever raise this issue, because it would end their career.
It’s not all about qualification. I’m speaking as a female Marine Iraq war vet who did serve in the combat zone doing entry checkpoint duty in Fallujah, and we worked with the grunts daily for that time. All the branches still have different standards for females and males. Why? Because most women wouldn’t even qualify to be in the military if they didn’t have separate standards. Men and women are different, but those pushing women into combat don’t want to admit that truth. They huff and puff about how women can do whatever men can do, but it just ain’t so. We’re built differently, and it doesn’t matter that one particular woman could best one particular man. The best woman is still no match for the best man, and most of the men she’d be fireman-carrying off the battlefield will be at least 100 lbs heavier than her with their gear on.
Women are often great shooters but can’t run in 50-80 lbs of gear as long, hard, or fast as men. Military training is hard enough on men’s bodies; it’s harder on women’s. And until women stop menstruating, there will always be an uphill battle for staying level and strong at all times. No one wants to talk about the fact that in the days before a woman’s cycle, she loses half her strength, to say nothing of the emotional ups and downs that affect judgment. And how would you like fighting through PMS symptoms while clearing a town or going through a firefight? Then there are the logistics of making all the accommodations for women in the field, from stopping the convoy to pee or because her cycle started to stripping down to get hosed off after having to go into combat with full MOP gear when there’s a biological threat.
This is to say nothing of unit cohesion, which is imperative and paramount, especially in the combat fields. When preparing for battle, the last thing on your mind should be sex; but you put men and women in close quarters together, and human nature is what it is (this is also why the repeal of DADT is so damaging). It doesn’t matter what the rules are. The Navy proved that when they started allowing women on ship. What happened? They were having sex and getting pregnant, ruining unit cohesion (not to mention derailing the operations because they’d have to change course to get them off ship.)
When I deployed, we’d hardly been in the country a few weeks before one of our females had to be sent home because she’d gotten pregnant (nice waste of training, not to mention taxpayer money that paid for it). That’s your military readiness? Our enemies are laughing – “Thanks for giving us another vulnerability, USA!”
Then there are relationships. Whether it’s a consensual relationship, unwanted advances, or sexual assault, they all destroy unit cohesion. No one is talking about the physical and emotional stuff that goes along with men and women together. A good relationship can foment jealousy and the perception of favoritism. A relationship goes sour, and suddenly one loses faith in the very person who may need to drag one off the field of battle. A sexual assault happens, and a woman not only loses faith in her fellows, but may fear them. A vindictive man paints a woman as easy, and she loses the respect of her peers. A vindictive woman wants to destroy a man’s career with a false accusation (yes, folks, this happens too); and it’s poison to the unit. All this happens before the fighting even begins.
Yet another little-discussed issue is that some female military members are leaving their kids behind to advance their careers by deploying. I know of one divorced Marine who left her two sons, one of them autistic, with their grandparents while she deployed. She was wounded on base (not on the front lines) and is a purple heart recipient. What if she’d been killed, leaving behind her special needs child? Glory was more important than motherhood. Another case in my own unit was a married female who became angry when they wouldn’t let both her and her husband deploy at the same time. Career advancement was the greater concern.
I understand the will to fight. I joined the Marines in the hopes of deploying because I believe that fighting jihadists is right. And I care about the women and children in Islamic countries where they are denied their rights, subjugated, mutilated, and murdered with impunity; and where children are molested and raped with impunity (not to mention defending our own freedom against these hate-filled terrorists who want to destroy freedom-loving countries like America.) Joining the Marines was one of the best things I’ve ever done in my life, and I’m glad I got to deploy. It not only allowed me to witness the war, but to witness the problems with women in combat.
Women have many wonderful strengths, and there is certainly a lot of work for women to do in the military. But all the problems that come with men and women working together are compounded in the war zone, destroying the cohesion necessary to fight bloody, hellish war. We are at war; and if we want to win, we have to separate the wheat from the chaff. And the top priority should be military readiness and WINNING wars, not political correctness and artificially imposed “equality” on the military.
Earlier this year, the Marine Corps decided to delay the low 3 pull-up requirement for women <http://www.washingtontimes.
Advocates for women in combat have mouthed the words: If women can make the standards, they should be able to serve in the combat units and special operations. If they are telling the truth, why don’t they insist women be tested on the men’s unaltered standards? Three pull-ups is the bare minimum; it would put a man at the bottom of his unit. Women get 100% for eight pull-ups where men have to do twenty for 100%. Is that equality?
The tiny cabal of feminist officers and NCOs who sued to be able to join the combat units and their far-left backers like DACOWITS <http://www.westernjournalism.
If, as these advocates say, women can do everything men can do, why can’t women succeed by the men’s standard naturally, or even with result-specific training? This is where WIC advocates cut to commercial and cry discrimination. That’s their playbook. The feminists and their lackeys have been doing it since women were fully integrated into the military branches and academies, resulting in overall lower standards and reduced combat readiness. Doing the same to put women into the combat units on a false narrative of equality will have even more disastrous results.
If they were serious about equality, they would demand that no standards be “re-evaluated” and insist that women perform on the men’s standard. That will never happen because on those standards, most women wouldn’t be qualified for the military in the first place. Women already have an equal opportunity to compete against men in the military; but every time they are tested, they fail to measure up. It is Nature herself who discriminates. Women were built for something more important than combat.
Even on the lower standard, women have a much higher rate of injury, non-availability, non-deployability, and attrition (separating from the military before fulfilling their contract) than men. These are among the plethora of eternal truths making it impractical to put women into combat, even if they do train like Cross-fitters to improve their performance. When women were integrated fully into the forces and the academies, the same type of feminist cadre said that exposing these facts would hurt morale. Indeed. “Equalizing” standards, “leveling the playing field,” even “providing women the best opportunity to succeed” actually means lowering the standards and discriminating against more capable men.
This issue is not about equality or even equal opportunity. The WIC advocates don’t care about equality, let alone combat readiness. They don’t care that they are subjecting the entire population of able-bodied young women to the possibility of the draft. They care about themselves and their own power; and they don’t care if they have to destroy women, men, the military, and, by extension, the country, to get it.
Jude Eden is a graduate of Hillsdale College in Michigan, and the Hallmark Institute of Photography in Massachusetts. She served in the Marine Corps from 2004-2008, deploying to Fallujah Iraq in 2005-6. Articles were originally published on the www.westernjournalism.com http://www.westernjournalism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Boehner Slams Obamacare Extension: Is This a Joke?
By Todd Beamon
Speaker John Boehner slammed the latest Obamacare extension on Wednesday -
angrily asking, "What the hell is this? A joke?"
"Last night brought us yet another delay of Obamacare, another deadline made
meaningless," the Ohio Republican said at his weekly news conference on
Capitol Hill. "If he hasn't put enough loopholes into the law already, the
administration is now resorting to an honor system to enforce it.
"This is part of a long term-pattern of this administration manipulating the
laws for its own convenience," Boehner added. "And it's not hard to
understand why the American people question this administration's commitment
to the rule of law."
The Department of Health and Human Services said on Wednesday
<http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/
ne-SEP-3-26-2014.pdf> that Americans who have been unable to obtain
coverage under the Affordable Care Act via the HealthCare.gov website by the
March 31 open-enrollment deadline would have until mid-April to do so.
The latest extension is expected to affect millions of Americans who have
not been able to enroll in Obamacare through the troubled federal website.
Any rush of enrollees before the deadline could prevent Americans from
obtaining coverage in a timely manner.
"Open enrollment ends March 31," Alicia Hartinger, a spokeswoman for the
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told Newsmax in a statement.
"We are experiencing a surge in demand and are making sure that we will be
ready to help consumers who may be in line by the deadline to complete
enrollment - either online or over the phone."
HealthCare.gov has been plagued with technical glitches, and the site has
been taken down numerous times for repairs. The site covers 36 states that
do not have their own insurance exchanges.
Hartinger also noted that the extension was similar to what was done in
December. The Obamacare individual mandate took effect on Oct. 1.
"Our systems will allow individuals with special circumstances and complex
cases to receive help completing the enrollment process outside of open
enrollment," she said.
"These opportunities already exist - and we will issue guidance that
clarifies a limited number of situations where we would accommodate people
with complex or extenuating circumstances."
Hartinger added that the Affordable Care Act "accounted for these
circumstances, and these policies build on our existing operational
processes to support consumers utilizing our online system and call center."
Since the December delay, however, the administration had insisted that the
March deadline was firm. If Americans had not obtained coverage by then,
they faced fines from the Internal Revenue Service.
For enrollees to qualify for the extension, they would have to check a blue
box on HealthCare.gov - and the government will rely on an honor system
<http://www.newsmax.com/
id/561737/> rather than work to determine whether Americans are telling the
truth.
Still, Republicans universally attacked the latest extension as further
evidence that Obamacare was unworkable and should be scrapped.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell charged that Obamacare has "basically
become the legal equivalent of Swiss cheese" because of so many extensions.
"They said it would create jobs," the Kentucky Republican said on the Senate
floor. "They also said it would improve the economy, lower premiums, and
insure the uninsured without causing Americans to lose their insurance,
their doctors, or their hospitals.
"But now, Americans know better," McConnell said. "It's a law that's
unravelling before our very eyes.
"If Washington Democrats think Obamacare is so bad that they need to exempt
that many people from its mandates, then why shouldn't we just remove that
hardship for everyone? Doesn't the middle class deserve a break, too?"
And Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn recalled how an HHS spokesman said that
the White House lacked the authority to extend the open-enrollment deadline
and that Secretary Kathleen Sebelius ruled out any further Obamacare delays
in December.
"It is apparent from the contradictory remarks made by Secretary Sebelius
that she either does not understand the how law is supposed to work or that
she does not care," Blackburn said in a statement. "Are the bureaucrats at
HHS really so inept that they cannot figure this out?"
angrily asking, "What the hell is this? A joke?"
"Last night brought us yet another delay of Obamacare, another deadline made
meaningless," the Ohio Republican said at his weekly news conference on
Capitol Hill. "If he hasn't put enough loopholes into the law already, the
administration is now resorting to an honor system to enforce it.
"This is part of a long term-pattern of this administration manipulating the
laws for its own convenience," Boehner added. "And it's not hard to
understand why the American people question this administration's commitment
to the rule of law."
The Department of Health and Human Services said on Wednesday
<http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/
ne-SEP-3-26-2014.pdf> that Americans who have been unable to obtain
coverage under the Affordable Care Act via the HealthCare.gov website by the
March 31 open-enrollment deadline would have until mid-April to do so.
The latest extension is expected to affect millions of Americans who have
not been able to enroll in Obamacare through the troubled federal website.
Any rush of enrollees before the deadline could prevent Americans from
obtaining coverage in a timely manner.
"Open enrollment ends March 31," Alicia Hartinger, a spokeswoman for the
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told Newsmax in a statement.
"We are experiencing a surge in demand and are making sure that we will be
ready to help consumers who may be in line by the deadline to complete
enrollment - either online or over the phone."
HealthCare.gov has been plagued with technical glitches, and the site has
been taken down numerous times for repairs. The site covers 36 states that
do not have their own insurance exchanges.
Hartinger also noted that the extension was similar to what was done in
December. The Obamacare individual mandate took effect on Oct. 1.
"Our systems will allow individuals with special circumstances and complex
cases to receive help completing the enrollment process outside of open
enrollment," she said.
"These opportunities already exist - and we will issue guidance that
clarifies a limited number of situations where we would accommodate people
with complex or extenuating circumstances."
Hartinger added that the Affordable Care Act "accounted for these
circumstances, and these policies build on our existing operational
processes to support consumers utilizing our online system and call center."
Since the December delay, however, the administration had insisted that the
March deadline was firm. If Americans had not obtained coverage by then,
they faced fines from the Internal Revenue Service.
For enrollees to qualify for the extension, they would have to check a blue
box on HealthCare.gov - and the government will rely on an honor system
<http://www.newsmax.com/
id/561737/> rather than work to determine whether Americans are telling the
truth.
Still, Republicans universally attacked the latest extension as further
evidence that Obamacare was unworkable and should be scrapped.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell charged that Obamacare has "basically
become the legal equivalent of Swiss cheese" because of so many extensions.
"They said it would create jobs," the Kentucky Republican said on the Senate
floor. "They also said it would improve the economy, lower premiums, and
insure the uninsured without causing Americans to lose their insurance,
their doctors, or their hospitals.
"But now, Americans know better," McConnell said. "It's a law that's
unravelling before our very eyes.
"If Washington Democrats think Obamacare is so bad that they need to exempt
that many people from its mandates, then why shouldn't we just remove that
hardship for everyone? Doesn't the middle class deserve a break, too?"
And Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn recalled how an HHS spokesman said that
the White House lacked the authority to extend the open-enrollment deadline
and that Secretary Kathleen Sebelius ruled out any further Obamacare delays
in December.
"It is apparent from the contradictory remarks made by Secretary Sebelius
that she either does not understand the how law is supposed to work or that
she does not care," Blackburn said in a statement. "Are the bureaucrats at
HHS really so inept that they cannot figure this out?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) BOMBSHELL IN WAPO/KEYSTONE SCANDAL: DID THE POST COORDINATE WITH CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS?
A major development occurred today in the scandal surrounding the Washington Post’s attempt to advance Democratic Party talking points by falsely linking Koch Industries to the Keystone Pipeline. In the unlikely event that you are not already familiar with the story, you should begin by reading this post and this one, as well as the one from last October where I dismantled the International Forum on Globalization report that was the basis for the Washington Post’s story of March 20.
The facts, very briefly, are these: Koch Industries has no interest in the Keystone Pipeline; it has not lobbied in favor of the pipeline; if the pipeline is built, Koch will make no use of it to ship oil from Alberta or anywhere else; and construction of Keystone would actually damage Koch’s economic interests by raising the price of midwestern oil that flows to Koch’s Pine Bend refinery. The reporters who wrote the Post article that tried to portray Koch as the driving force behind the Keystone pipeline, Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson, did not dispute any of these facts.
After my first post appeared, Eilperin and Mufson tried halfheartedly to respond to it. They posed the question, why did they write the article, given all of the facts that Power Line pointed out? Their answer was: “[I]ssues surrounding the Koch brothers’ political and business interests will stir and inflame public debate in this election year.” So their intention in writing the article was explicitly political.
But it may have been even more political, and more nakedly partisan, than we suspected. Today Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman wrote a letter to David Robertson, President and COO of Koch Industries. The Democrats’ letter was premised almost entirely on the Washington Post’s discredited article; it repeatedly footnoted that article and the IFG report on which the Post story was based. The two Democrats concluded by requesting that Koch answer questions and produce a long series of documents relating in various ways to the Keystone pipeline.
The Democrats’ letter raises an obvious question: did the Washington Post publish its article attempting to link Koch to Keystone at the request of Whitehouse and/or Waxman, or at the request of other Democrats who were coordinating with Whitehouse and Waxman? Given the blatantly political purpose to which the Post’s article has now been put, it is reasonable to inquire into its genesis: was it a Democratic Party plant from the start?
Here is the Whitehouse/Waxman letter:
March 26, 2014
David L. Robertson
President and Chief Operating Officer
Koch Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 2256
Wichita, KS 67201-2256Dear Mr. Robertson:We are writing to learn whether Koch Industries or any of its affiliated companies has a financial interest in the Keystone XL pipeline. Groups backed by Charles and David Koch have lobbied and run political ads to support construction of the pipeline. But Koch Industries has consistently denied financial motives played any role in these activities, asserting that the Keystone XL pipeline has “nothing to do with any of our businesses.” We want to know whether this is true.There is mounting evidence that Koch Industries has a financial interest in the Keystone XL pipeline. The Washington Post reports that Koch Oil Sands Operating ULC holds at least 298 Alberta Crown Oil Sands leases covering 1.1 million acres in the tar sands region of Alberta.[1] According to the Washington Post, these holdings make Koch Industries at least “one of the region’s largest” leaseholders.[2] The actual holdings could be “closer to two million,” according to “highly authoritative” industry sources.[3] The group that first disclosed these leases, the International Forum on Globalization (IFG), told the Washington Post that Koch Industries will “reap huge benefits” from the Keystone XL pipeline by reducing the cost of shipping tar sands.[4] IFG estimated that Koch Industries could make “an additional $100 billion in profits” as better market access boosts the prices for tar sands products across the board.[5]Another subsidiary of Koch Industries, Flint Hills Resources, LLP, is “among Canada’s largest crude oil purchasers, shippers, and exporters” and owns a crude oil terminal in Hardisty, Alberta, where the Keystone XL pipeline will begin.[6] When Canada’s National Energy Board held hearings on the Keystone XL pipeline in 2009, Flint Hills sought intervenor status because of its “direct and substantial interest” in the pipeline. According to Flint Hills’s filing:Flint Hills Resources Canada LLP (“Flint Hills”) is among Canada’s largest crude oil purchasers, shippers and exporters, coordinating supply for its refinery in Pine Bend, Minnesota. Consequently, Flint Hills has a direct and substantial interest in the application.[7]Koch also owns at least two refineries that process tar sands or could do so. One of the refineries is Koch’s Pine Bend Refinery in Minnesota, which in 2011 processed 25% of the tar sands imported into the United States.[8] The other is Koch’s Corpus Christi refinery, which is located near the end of the Keystone XL pipeline and would be a potential buyer for tar sands crude shipped through the pipeline.[9]If these reports are right, Koch Industries has interests at virtually every point along the tar sands supply chain: it owns a company that holds extensive leases in Canadian tar sands; it owns a company that purchases, ships, and exports tar sands from Canada; and it owns a company that refines the tar sands imported into the United States. Each of these businesses would appear to benefit from construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The single greatest obstacle to tar sands development is the lack of access to markets. Investment banks, tar sands producers, and the Canadian government have all pointed to market access, and specifically pipelines, as crucial to meeting goals to expand production. These entities have also identified Keystone XL as the largest, most viable, nearest term, and least costly means of expanding that market access.Koch Industries has been asked about these ties in the past and has consistently denied having any interest in the pipeline. In 2011, staff for Rep. Waxman contacted Koch Industries to learn more about the company’s role in the Keystone XL pipeline and Canadian tar sands. On May 19, 2011, representatives of Koch Industries told the staff that the Keystone XL pipeline has “nothing to do with any of our businesses” and that Koch had “no financial interest” in the pipeline.[10] Philip Ellender, the President for Government and Public Affairs at Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC, subsequently wrote: “We have stated publicly and repeatedly, including last week when questioned by the staff of Congressman Waxman, that we have no financial stake in the pipeline.”[11] These statements were made while the House Energy and Commerce Committee was actively considering legislation to expedite federal approval of the Keystone XL pipeline.These denials were apparently persuasive to members of Congress. When the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a May 23, 2011, hearing on the Keystone XL pipeline, Chairman Upton dismissed the evidence of a link between Koch investments and the pipeline as an “outrageous accusation” and a “blatant political sideshow.”[12] At a January 25, 2012, legislative hearing on a bill related to Keystone XL, Chairman Whitfield stated: “the Koch brothers have nothing to do with this project.”[13]At the same time that Koch Industries has been denying any connection to the pipeline, Koch-backed groups have launched extensive campaigns to support the construction of the pipeline. One of these groups, Americans for Prosperity, which was founded by David Koch, has run a multi-year pressure campaign in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline, including airing ads against members of Congress for opposing the pipeline.[14] Another Koch-linked group, the American Energy Alliance, spent millions of dollars on an ad campaign in the last election cycle that “hammers Obama for his decision on the Keystone XL pipeline.”[15]Consistent with these efforts, Koch-affiliated entities have been leading funders of those who seek to undermine the broad scientific consensus establishing the relationship between the use of carbon-based fuel and climate change. This industry-funded “research” manufactures doubt about the science to distort the public’s understanding of climate change and delay or prevent government policies to address the issue. Recent research documents how funding for this work has become increasingly dominated by anonymous donor-directed funds, further obfuscating connections between so-called climate change deniers and those most ready to profit from their work.[16]We believe that Congress and the public have a right to know when individuals funding political ads and attempting to influence government decisions have a financial stake in the outcome. We certainly believe it would be wrong for any company to mislead Congress and the public by falsely describing its economic stake in legislation.We are seeking additional information from you to clarify the facts. We want to know what holdings Koch Industries or its affiliated companies may have that could be affected by the Keystone XL pipeline. For this reason, we ask that you provide us with responses to the following questions and document requests:1. How many Alberta Crown Oil Sands leases do Koch Industries or its subsidiaries hold? How many acres are covered by these leases? Please provide documents sufficient to demonstrate the accuracy of your responses.2. How many exploratory wells have Koch Industries or its subsidiaries or their contractors drilled on their leased land in Alberta? How many production wells have Koch Industries or its subsidiaries or their contractors drilled on their leased land in Alberta? Please provide documents sufficient to demonstrate the accuracy of your responses.3. What is the current level of production from the leases owned by Koch Industries or its subsidiaries on their leased land in Alberta? How many total barrels of tar sands-derived oil[17] have Koch Industries or its subsidiaries produced on their leased land in Alberta? What is the expected annual level of production for each of the next ten years from land leased in Alberta by Koch Industries or its subsidiaries? Please provide documents sufficient to demonstrate the accuracy of your responses.4. What is the estimated total recoverable resource from the land leased in Alberta by Koch Industries or its subsidiaries? Please provide documents sufficient to demonstrate the accuracy of your response.5. If additional pipeline capacity, starting with Keystone XL, is approved that allows tar sands products access to world markets, would that raise or lower the value of your lease holdings? Please provide documents sufficient to demonstrate the accuracy of your response.6. How much oil derived from Canadian tar sands do refineries owned by Koch Industries or its subsidiaries refine each year? Which refineries owned by Koch Industries or its subsidiaries refine oil derived from Canadian tar sands? Please provide documents sufficient to demonstrate the accuracy of your responses.7. How would the volume of oil derived from Canadian tar sands refined by refineries owned by Koch Industries or its subsidiaries be affected by the approval or disapproval of the Keystone XL pipeline? Please provide documents sufficient to demonstrate the accuracy of your responses.8. How much oil derived from Canadian tar sands does Koch Industries or its subsidiaries, including Flint Hills Resources, purchase, ship, or export each year? How much of this oil derived from Canadian tar sands is shipped or exported to the United States by Koch Industries or its subsidiaries, including Flint Hills Resources? Please provide documents sufficient to demonstrate the accuracy of your responses.9. If additional pipeline capacity, starting with Keystone XL, is approved that allows tar sands products access to world markets, would that raise or lower the value of the Canadian tar sands oil purchased, shipped and exported by Koch Industries or its subsidiaries, including Flint Hills Resources,? Please provide documents sufficient to demonstrate the accuracy of your responses.10. Does Koch Industries or its subsidiaries have plans to export oil derived from Canadian tar sands through the Keystone XL pipeline? Please provide documents sufficient to demonstrate the accuracy of your responses.11. Since 2009, how much funding has Koch Industries, the Koch Affiliated Foundations, their subsidiaries or related entities provided to organizations or individuals that conduct or support climate science research? What are the names of those organizations or individuals? During that same time period, has Koch Industries, the Koch Affiliated Foundations, their subsidiaries or related entities funded or made contributions to Donors Trust/Capital? If so, what conditions, if any, were place on the investment and future distributions of those funds?Your cooperation in providing this information to Congress would be greatly appreciated.Sincerely,Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and CommerceSheldon Whitehouse
Subcommittee on Oversight,
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Coincidence? Maybe. But it seems likely that the Washington Post article was a put-up job, cobbled together and based on a ridiculous report written, apparently, by a couple of high school-age interns at the International Forum on Globalization, for the specific purpose of serving as the pretense for Whitehouse and Waxman to push the Democratic Party’s talking points. Is this what happened? I don’t know, but we would like to find out. Toward that end, I have requested that the Washington Post produce relevant information and documents to me. I have the same right to request information and documents of the Washington Post that Waxman and Whitehouse have to request information and documents from Koch Industries. My email to the Post follows:
To: juliet.eilperin@washpost.com
steven.mufson@washpost.com
readers@washpost.com
emilio.garcia-ruiz@washpost.com
veronica.dillon@washpost.comFrom: John HinderakerDate: March 26, 2014On March 20, you wrote an article in the Washington Post that attempted to link Koch Industries to the Keystone Pipeline. Your article suggested that Koch is, or may be, the driving force behind the pipeline. I criticized your article at http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/03/washington-post-falls-for-left-wing-fraud-embarrasses-itself.php, and you attempted, briefly, to respond to my critique. I wrote a subsequent post at http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/03/the-washington-post-responds-to-me-and-i-reply-to-the-post.php, to which you have made no rejoinder.In response to my initial post, you said that you wrote the article linking Koch to Keystone for political reasons: “[I]ssues surrounding the Koch brothers’ political and business interests will stir and inflame public debate in this election year.” The significance of that admission became evident today when Democrats Henry Waxman and Sheldon Whitehouse wrote a letter to Koch Industries, questioning whether Koch has some interest in the Keystone Pipeline in reliance on your March 20 article and the IFG “report” that you cited. Many thousands of readers of my posts will wonder whether the Post’s story was a put-up job: a collaborative effort between you and Congressional Democrats, intended to serve as a pretext for politically-motivated harassment of Koch Industries, one of America’s premier companies.Relying on your thoroughly-debunked March 20 article, Waxman and Whitehouse posed a long series of questions to Koch and requested various documents. I have the same right to request information that they do, and therefore I ask that the Washington Post answer the following questions and produce the following documents:1) Prior to publication of the referenced article on or about March 20, 2014, did either Juliet Eilperin or Steven Mufson have any conversation or exchange any written documents relating to the subject matter of the article with Sheldon Whitehouse, Henry Waxman, any other Democratic member of the House or Senate, or any member of the staff of any Democratic Senator or Representative, or the staff of any House or Senate committee? If so, please state the time and place of all such conversations, identify all participants, describe the conversations in detail, and identify all responsive documents.2) Prior to the publication of the referenced article on or about March 20, 2014, did either Juliet Eilperin or Steven Mufson have any conversation or exchange any written documents relating to the subject matter of the article with Tom Steyer, Andrew Light, John Podesta, or any employee or representative of the Center for American Progress? If so, please state the time and place of all such conversations, identify all participants, describe the conversations in detail, and identify all responsive documents.3) Identify by name, address, phone number and business affiliation or employment every person with whom either Juliet Eilperin or Steven Mufson spoke or exchanged emails or other correspondence in connection with the referenced article that was published on or about March 20, 2014.4) Produce all emails, letters, notes, memos or other documents in any form, whether paper or electronic, that contain or refer to any communications between Juliet Eilperin or Steven Mufson and Sheldon Whitehouse, Henry Waxman, any other Democratic member of the House or Senate, any member of the staff of any House or Senate Democrat, or any staffer for any Congressional committee, that relate in any way to the subject matter of the referenced article that was published on or about March 20, whether such documents predate or postdate publication of the referenced article.5) Produce all emails, letters, notes, memos or other documents in any form, whether paper or electronic, that contain or refer to any communications between Juliet Eilperin or Steven Mufson and John Podesta, Tom Steyer, Andrew Light or any employee or representative of the Center for American Progress that relate in any way to the subject matter of the referenced article that was published on or about March 20, whether such documents predate or postdate publication of the referenced article.I recognize that there is not currently pending any litigation in which court process would require the Washington Post to produce the requested information and documents. However, I trust that the Post will want to respond to the concerns that are felt by many thousands of readers as to whether the newspaper has allowed itself to be used as a foil and a pretext for the advancement of Democratic Party talking points that “will stir and inflame public debate in this election year.”
3a) Adelson, Democracy, and Anti-Semitism
Jonathan S. Tobin
This week the Republican Jewish Coalition is holding a conference in Las Vegas, the home of casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, its most prominent supporter. Like other prominent conservative political donors, Adelson’s largesse to causes and candidates he supports brought him a great deal of scrutiny in 2012 when he and his wife Miriam singlehandedly kept Newt Gingrich’s presidential hopes alive during the GOP primaries. Undeterred by the fact that most of the people they backed in the last election lost, the Adelsons are thinking about 2016. As the Washington Post reported in a feature about the RJC event, some, though not all, Republican presidential hopefuls are eager to win what some wags are calling the “Sheldon primary.” Anyone who supports Israel and the Obama administration’s liberal economic policies is apparently welcome to try. Perhaps extra credit will be given to those who back the magnate’s crusade against Internet gambling. But lest anyone think they are contemplating backing Newt or another outlier, in this cycle the Adelsons are apparently echoing “establishment” GOP thought by emphasizing an ability to win a general election rather than conservative ideological purity in deciding who will benefit from their generosity.
Their willingness to put their money where their mouths are makes them easy targets for abuse from those who don’t care for their politics. But a particularly low blow against them was struck yesterday by the Forward’s J.J. Goldberg, whose reading of the Postfeature prompted him to comment that the RJC event seemed more like a plot by Adelson and a “bunch of Jewish zillionaires” to “buy the White House” in order to protect the Jewish state against the rising tide of anti-Semitism around the globe. As such, Goldberg thinks the “Sheldon primary” seems like the sort of thing Jews should either worry about or be ashamed of since he thinks their conduct seems like a classic example of the same kind of anti-Semitic stereotype of Jewish wealth being used to subvert American foreign policy that is cited by some of the worst enemies of Israel and the Jewish people. At the very least, the Forward columnist seems to be saying that Adelson’s political activity is providing fodder for anti-Semites, but this is exactly the sort of reasoning that Jews of every political stripe should reject.
Altogether the Adelsons gave a whopping $93 million to 17 different conservative super-PACs in 2012 and that’s not counting direct contributions to candidates that are limited by law (or the tens of millions that they gave to charitable and Jewish philanthropic causes). For those who think money ought to be driven out of politics, this is unseemly or a threat to democracy. But money is, and always has been, the lifeblood of American politics and the last 40 years of attempts at legislating campaign finance reform have proved that such efforts are counterproductive. Spending money on causes and candidates is an expression of political speech protected by the Constitution. The Adelsons are just as entitled to spend some of their billions to support pro-Israel and pro-economic freedom candidates as the Koch brothers are to support conservatives, George Soros is to back liberals, and hedge-fund billionaire Tom Steyer is to fund politicians who toe his particular line on environmental issues.
There should also be no misunderstanding about the fact that both sides of the political divide are doing the same thing. As the OpenSecrets.org site run by the left-wing Center for Responsive Politics recently noted, a list of the largest political donors in the period stretching from 1988 to 2014 reveals that most of the biggest givers were in fact inclined to support Democrats and left-wing causes. Twelve of the top 16 names on the list were unions while the other four were business groups that gave to both parties. Koch Industries, run by the aforementioned brothers of that name who are more hated by liberals than are the Adelsons, ranks a paltry 59th on that list.
As they proved in 2012, the Adelsons can’t buy anybody the White House. Nor can the Kochs, Soros, Steyer, or any combination of unions. But all of them have every right to use their wealth to promote the causes and candidates they support or to oppose the ones they dislike.
To imply that there is something untoward or unsavory about Jewish donors acting in the same way that other Americans do, be they union bosses or liberal financiers, is appalling. The essence of democracy is participation and pro-Israel Jews are just as free to use their wealth as those who are interested in preventing global warming. Goldberg is right to worry about anti-Semitism, but Jews being afraid to step out into the public square to advocate for their causes and to spend money to support those who agree with them will not stop it. Fear of antagonizing anti-Semites is what caused the leaders of American Jewry to fail to speak out during the Holocaust. Subsequent generations who mobilized on behalf of the Soviet Jewry movement and for Israel learned that lesson. That Sheldon Adelson and his friends have also done so is to their credit. Rather than being embarrassed by the “Sheldon primary,” pro-Israel Jews and supporters of free speech, be they Democrats or Republicans, should be cheering it.
Jonathan S. Tobin is senior online editor of COMMENTARY magazine.
4) Obama's Uncertain Trumpet
The American bows to European passivity on Putin.
Delivering the keynote address of this week's European tour, President Obama rejected Russia's invasion of Ukraine point-by-point with lawyerly logic. If the stately Palais des Beaux-Arts in Brussels on Wednesday had been the Oxford Union debating society, the American would have carried the evening.
But Vladimir Putin has no time for another tutorial "that in the 21st century the borders of Europe cannot be redrawn with force, that international law matters." He gobbled up Crimea in three weeks at zero cost in the 21st century and may want a bigger chunk of Ukraine's south or east. Nothing Mr. Obama said or did in Europe gives the Russian leader a compelling reason to rethink his assault on the post-Cold War order.
President Obama after delivering a speech at Palais des Beaux-Arts in Brussels on Wednesday. Reuters
In five years at the White House, Mr. Obama ignored America's relations with Europe and failed to anticipate Russian revanchism. Yet the leader of the Atlantic alliance and the world's sole superpower can still rally long-standing allies—as long as he leads and argues for a robust strategy to deter Russian aggression. This week he has not. Instead he has settled for minor sanctions, rhetorical pleading, and more diplomatic "off-ramps" than I-95. To a KGB man like Mr. Putin, that sounds like weakness.
Start with sanctions. Ahead of the trip, U.S. officials said Mr. Obama would push the EU to ramp up economic pressure on Russia. In a promising first step, Washington put several Putin insiders and a Russian bank on a financial blacklist. Facing resistance from Cyprus, Italy and others, the EU refused to follow. Mr. Obama then yielded to European passivity. On Wednesday he said "sanctions will expand" only if Russia's leadership "stays on its current course."
Translation: Mr. Putin can keep Crimea as long as he stops there. But why would he? The U.S. and its allies had promised to exact a cost for his land grab in Ukraine. Instead the response has been "anemic," as former Defense Secretary Robert Gates put it on these pages Wednesday. Mr. Putin can logically conclude that the price also wouldn't be high for an incursion elsewhere in Ukraine or his continuing campaign to destabilize the new government in Kiev.
On security, Mr. Obama usefully confirmed America's commitment to its allies in the Brussels speech. "What we will do—always—is uphold our solemn obligation, our Article 5 duty to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of our allies," he said. Yet he offered no appeal or promise to bolster NATO's defenses or deploy forces to front-line states. Mr. Putin would have noticed that. Mr. Obama also didn't make any new commitments to boost missile defenses or announce a halt to the U.S. troop drawdown in Europe.
Instead he tried to assuage Mr. Putin's neuroses over NATO, as if that is what drove him into Crimea. "America and the world and Europe has an interest in a strong and responsible Russia, not a weak one," he said. "Make no mistake: Neither the United States nor Europe has any interest in controlling Ukraine. We have sent no troops there." And: "Of course, Ukraine is not a member of NATO—in part because of its close and complex history with Russia. Nor will Russia be dislodged from Crimea or deterred from further escalation by military force."
The message that Kiev will hear in all this is: You're on your own.
As he has since the Ukrainian crisis began, President Obama sounded almost a defeated tone, beseeching the Russian czar to stop and talk it over. "Russia has resisted diplomatic overtures," he said at one point, plaintively stating the obvious—before calling again on Russia to "de-escalate" and take the diplomatic off-ramp.
The Kremlin isn't dumb. If the off-ramp is always available and nothing stands in the road ahead, why get off the road at all?
5) Kerry Announces Surprise Meeting with Abbas
by Elad Benari
The latest impasse in the talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) is enough to cause U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to interrupt a visit to Italy to meet with PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in Jordan.
Kerry's surprise trip to Amman, which will take place on Wednesday, aims "to continue to narrow the gaps between the parties", State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Tuesday, according to AFP.
Kerry will also be in touch with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu "over the phone or by video conference", Psaki added, in what is seen as an acknowledgement by the Americans that talks have hit a snag.
Kerry coaxed the two sides back to the negotiating table in July after a three-year hiatus, but the talks have stumbled as he has sought to hammer out an agreed framework to guide the next few months.
The new meeting with Abbas comes just over a week after the PA Chairman visited the White House to meet President Barack Obama for what were described as "difficult" talks.
Kerry's unexpected plans to leave the Italian capital only hours after arriving came as fresh tensions arose over the peace talks, which he is struggling to keep on track and hopefully extend beyond an April 29 deadline.
Arab leaders meeting Tuesday in Kuwait backed the PA’s refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, an Israeli demand that threatens to derail the talks.
In a draft statement endorsed by foreign ministers, the summit stressed a "categorical rejection" of the demand for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and rejected "all pressures exerted on the Palestinian leadership" to force it into agreeing.
Abbas, meanwhile, Abbas launched a tirade against Israel at the Arab League summit, , accusing the Jewish state of being responsible for the peace talks not progressing.
“The Israeli government is trying to dodge an agreement it had with the U.S. administration to release pre-Oslo Palestinian prisoners,” Abbas said.
“The Israeli government took every chance to foil the American efforts. This proves what we say about the lack of seriousness and preparedness of the Israeli government to withdraw and create peace,” he charged.
On Monday, a PA official stated that Abbas would agree to extend peace talks with Israel, but only if certain conditions are met.
These conditions, according to the official, are more terrorist releases and a freeze on construction in Judea and Samaria.
Abbas has consistently said that unless all his preconditions are met, there will be no peace with Israel.
5a) Ismail Haniyeh Calls for Israel's Destruction
Date: March 27, 2014 at 12:52:44 PM EDTYesterday (3/24/14) the Prime Minister of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, gave a feverish speech in front of thousands of supporters at Saraya Square in the Gaza Strip. The message: Palestinians should not and will not stop fighting through terrorist acts against the State of Israel. Haniyeh encourages Palestinians to attack innocent Israelis and he explicitly outlines a new plan to use tunnels on an offensive against Israel. His speech also refers to striking Tel Aviv as thousands of supporters cheer him on.Click here for a portion of the speech
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment