Archive for December, 2011
Scientists in Revolt against Global Warming
December 20th, 2011 | 
Author: Scientists in Revolt against Global Warming
November 27, 2011
By Karin McQuillan
Global warming became a cause to save life on earth before it had a chance to become good science. The belief that fossil fuel use is an emergency destroying our planet by CO2 emissions took over the media and political arena by storm. The issue was politicized so quickly that the normal scientific process was stunted. We have never had a full, honest national debate on either the science or government policy issues.
Everyone “knows” that global warming is true. The public has no idea of the number of scientists — precisely one thousand at last count of a congressional committee — who believe that global warming is benign and natural, and that it ended in 1998. We have not been informed of the costs to our economy of discouraging fossil fuel development and promoting alternatives. The public need to know the choices being made on their behalf, and to have a say in the matter. We are constantly told that the scientific and policy debate on global warming is over. It has just begun.
What is never discussed is this: the theory of global warming has catastrophic implications for our economy and national security. Case in point: Obama’s recent decision to block the Keystone pipeline in order to placate global warming advocates. Key Democrat supporters fear the use of oil more than they care about losing jobs or our dangerous dependence on the Mideast for oil. The president delayed the pipeline by fiat, and the general public has had no say. (For the impact on our economy, see my article, “The Whole Country Can Be Rich.”)
President Obama has spoken out passionately on the danger of developing oil and gas because of man-made global warming. “What we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe.”
Obama calls for the debate to end. He cites hurricanes as proof: “dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real — it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.”
Happily, our president is wrong. The worst hurricanes were in 1926, the second-worst in 1900. The world’s top hurricane experts say that there is no evidence that global warming affects storms. There is no such thing as a man-made hurricane. Storm cycles and long patterns of bad weather are entirely natural. Yet this good news is suppressed by our politicized media. We hear only one side.
More and more scientists are revolting against the global warming consensus enforced by government funding, the academic establishment, and media misrepresentation. They are saying that solar cycles and the complex systems of cloud formation have much more influence on our climate, and account for historical periods of warming and cooling much more accurately that a straight line graph of industrialization, CO2, and rising temperatures. They also point out that the rising temperatures that set off the global warming panic ended in 1998.
It takes a lot of courage. Scientists who report findings that contradict man-made global warming find their sources of funding cut, their jobs terminated, their careers stunted, and their reports blocked from important journals, and they are victimized by personal attacks. This is a consensus one associates with a Stalinist system, not science in the free world.
Here is how it has worked. The theory that entirely natural sun cycles best explain warming patterns emerged years ago, but the Danish scientists “soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.” Physicists at Europe’s most prestigious CERN laboratory tried to test the solar theory in 1996, and they, too, found their project blocked. This fall, the top scientific journal Nature published the first experimental proof — by a team of 63 scientists at CERN — that the largest factor in global warming is the sun, not humans. But the director of CERN forbade the implications of the experiment to be explained to the public: “I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate.”
As more and more scientific evidence is published that debunks global warming, the enforced consensus is ending. The Royal Society, Britain’s premier scientific institution — whose previous president declared that “the debate on climate change is over” — “is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures. … The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause.” Most of the rebels were retired, as one of them explained, “One of the reasons people like myself are willing to put our heads above the parapet is that our careers are not at risk from being labeled a denier or flat-Earther because we say the science is not settled. The bullying of people into silence has unfortunately been effective.”
In America, Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-winner in physics, resigned in protest from the American Physical Society this fall because of the Society’s policy statement: “The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring.” Dr. Giaver:
Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science.
In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?
The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this “warming” period.
In 2008, Prof. Giaever endorsed Barack Obama’s candidacy, but he has since joined 100 scientists who wrote an open letter to Obama, declaring: “We maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”
Do a Google search: you will find this letter reported in Britain and even India, but not in America.
Fifty-one thousand Canadian engineers, geologists, and geophysicists were recently polled by their professional organization. Sixty-eight percent of them disagree with the statement that “the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” APEGGA’s executive director Neil Windsor said, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”
Dr. Joanne Simpson, one of the world’s top weather scientists, expressed relief upon her retirement that she was finally free to speak “frankly” on global warming and announce that “as a scientist I remain skeptical.” She says she remained silent for fear of personal attacks. Dr. Simpson was a pioneer in computer modeling and points out the obvious: computer models are not yet good enough to predict weather — we cannot scientifically predict global climate trends.
Dr. Fred Singer, first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, and physicist Dr. Seitz, past president of the APS, of Rockefeller University and of the National Academy of Science, argue that the computer models are fed questionable data and assumptions that determine the answers on global warming that the scientists expect to see.
Recently we’ve had a perfect example of the enforced global warming consensus falling apart. Berkeley Professor Muller did a media blitz with the findings of the latest analysis of all land temperature data, the BEST study, that he claimed once and for all proved that the planet is warming. Predictably, the Washington Post proclaimed that the BEST study had “settled the climate change debate” and showed that anyone who remained a skeptic was committing a “cynical fraud.”
But within a week, Muller’s lead co-author, Professor Curry, was interviewed in the British press (not reported in America), saying that the BEST data did the opposite: the global “temperature trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all – though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly.”
This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,” Prof Curry said. “Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.” In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected sceptics’ arguments were now taking them much more seriously. They were finally addressing questions such as the influence of clouds, natural temperature cycles and solar radiation – as they should have done, she said, a long time ago.
Other scientists jumped in, calling Muller’s false claims to the media that BEST proved global warming “highly unethical.” Professor Muller, confronted with dissent, caved and admitted that indeed, both ocean and land measurements show that global warming stopped increasing in 1998.
Media coverage on global warming has been criminally one-sided. The public doesn’t know where the global warming theory came from in the first place. Answer: the U.N., not a scientific body. The threat of catastrophic warming was launched by the U.N. to promote international climate treaties that would transfer wealth from rich countries to developing countries. It was political from the beginning, with the conclusion assumed: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (U.N. IPCC) was funded to report on how man was changing climate. Its scientific reports have been repeatedly corrected for misrepresentation and outright fraud.
This is important. Global warming theory did not come from a breakthrough in scientific research that enabled us to understand our climate. We still don’t understand global climate any more than we understand the human brain or how to cure cancer. The science of global climate is in its infancy.
Yet the U.N. IPCC reports drive American policy. The EPA broke federal law requiring independent analysis and used the U.N. IPCC reports in its “endangerment” finding that justifies extreme regulatory actions. Senator Inhofe is apoplectic:
Global warming regulations imposed by the Obama-EPA under the Clean Air Act will cost American consumers $300 to $400 billion a year, significantly raise energy prices, and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs. This is not to mention the ‘absurd result’ that EPA will need to hire 230,000 additional employees and spend an additional $21 billion to implement its [greenhouse gas] regime.
Former top scientists at the U.N. IPCC are protesting publicly against falsification of global warming data and misleading media reports. Dr. John Everett, for example, was the lead researcher on Fisheries, Polar Regions, Oceans and Coastal Zones at the IPCC and a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager, and he received an award while at NOAA for “accomplishments in assessing the impacts of climate change on global oceans and fisheries.” Here is what he has to say on global warming:
It is time for a reality check. Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios … I would much rather have the present warm climate, and even further warming…No one knows whether the Earth is going to keep warming, or since reaching a peak in 1998, we are at the start of a cooling cycle that will last several decades or more.
That is why we must hear from all the best scientists, not only those who say fossil fuel use is dangerous. It is very important that we honestly discuss whether this theory is true and, if so, what reasonable steps we can afford to take to mitigate warming. If the theory is not based on solid science, we are free to develop our fossil fuel wealth responsibly and swiftly.
Instead, federal policies are based on global warming fears. Obama has adopted the California model. The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 has shed a million jobs in that state. California now has almost 12% unemployment, ranking 50th in the nation.
The country could be following North Dakota, where oil development has led to a 3.5% unemployment rate, or Texas, which has created 40% of the jobs nationwide since the 2009 economic crash thanks to its robust energy sector. These are good jobs. An entry-level job on an oil rig pays $70,000 a year. A roughneck with a high school diploma earns $100,000 a year in Wyoming’s Jonah Fields. Brazil’s new offshore oil discoveries are predicted to create 2 million jobs there. We have almost three times more oil than Brazil.
When we treat oil and gas companies like pariahs, we threaten America’s economic viability. For global warming alarmists who believe that man-made CO2 threatens life on earth, no cost is too high to fight it. They avert their eyes from the human suffering of people without jobs, with diminished life savings, limited future prospects, and looming national bankruptcy.
This is not all about idealism. There are crasser reasons of money and power for wanting to close the debate. Billions of dollars in federal grants and subsidies are spent to fight global warming. The cover of fighting to save the planet gives the government unlimited powers to intrude into private business and our individual homes. The government can reach its long arm right into your shower and control how much hot water you are allowed to use. In the words of MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Lindzen, “[c]ontrolling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life.”
Warming advocates persistently argue that we cannot afford to pause for a reality check; we must not ignore the possibility that global warming theory might be true. Limiting fossil fuels and promoting green energy are presented as a benign, a “why not be on the safe side,” commonsense approach.
There is a lot of emotion and little common sense in this argument. If a diagnosis is based on a shaky and partly fraudulent theory, ignores much more convincing evidence, and has terrible negative side effects, you don’t perform major surgery. We do not have to run around like Chicken Little on the off-chance that the sky may be falling.
There has been a high economic cost to limiting our oil and gas wealth, with much human anguish because of government-imposed economic contraction. Responsible government policy requires honest media coverage, unfettered scientific inquiry, and robust political debate. Our country cannot afford the costs of foolish energy policy based on politicized science and fear.
Posted in 
Democrats Follow Obama Down the Low Road
Democrats Follow Obama Down the Low Road
On a recent visit to the East Coast, I was told by dear friends and relatives who know I’m a Tea Party Republican that Republicans are selfish (three times), moronic (four times), crazy (once), and racist (twice). I witnessed friends and family scared about lost jobs, failing businesses, losing their homes, their retirement money, friends with college grads who can’t get a job and are living at home. Every day of my visit, I witnessed these people who are so dear to me rant on and on, faces contorted with angry enthusiasm, against “The Rich.”
What if instead of “The Rich,” we called them the Jews, or the lawyers, or the bourgeoisie? Why is it so comfortable to blame one group of citizens for our enormous and complex problems when we call them The Rich? Scapegoating is evil, whatever the group targeted. This is a form of hate-mongering Republicans can’t stop — Democrats have to speak out and stop it.
It is not politics as usual. It has never existed in our lifetimes in America. Why are Democrats cheering the president on instead of saying, no, this is not okay, even if it plays well in the polls? We are not going to scapegoat a class of people for the country’s problems. We don’t target anger on groups of fellow citizens in America.
Here is another reason why Democrats should care. A leader scapegoats for one purpose: to deflect public attention away from how the public is being screwed by said leader. Our federal government is spending at a rate the country cannot afford. Obama wants his followers to think we can afford it, if only the top 1% of earners would give a little bit more. This is a lie. It may be a comfortable lie for Democrats, but it is one that none of us can afford to believe.
One liberal friend told me that she can’t stand hearing any more about our debt-to-GDP ratio. None of us can stand hearing about it. It is terrifying. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the federal debt will rise to 101% of GDP in ten years. That’s Greece territory.
The Rich don’t have enough money to pay for $4,000,000,000,000 (that’s trillions) a year in government spending — not even if the government confiscated 100% of their income every year. Yes, that is every penny they earn.
Democrats could vote to take every penny of the income of families who make $100,000, and it still doesn’t pay for our yearly federal budget. Why? They earn only $3.4 trillion in taxable income. Our president has spent $3.6 trillion this year, we are in debt for 15 trillion, and the looming Social Security deficit is over $50 billion this year — and $500 billion in a decade (again via the CBO). And still the Democrats are asking for more. The money isn’t there.
Either our government — that means both parties — faces reality and makes actual spending cuts, or we are finished as a prosperous nation. If we don’t curb our spending, our economy will sink into something that made the Depression look like child’s play.
Note that this disaster is completely bipartisan. The ballooning federal government has been created over decades by Republican and Democrat presidents and Congresses. There are big forces of history at play — to name two of the biggest, longer lives and medical miracles are bankrupting Social Security, and China’s unfair trade practices have gutted our industrial sector. Democrats and Republicans have failed to cope with these challenges.
The long-term problems aren’t Obama’s personal creation. But he and his loyal base are responsible for how they choose to meet these challenges. The summer debate on raising the debt ceiling focused the public’s attention for the first time on where we stand: right at the edge of the abyss. Everyone is scared. Fear gives rise to anger. Obama’s poll numbers plummeted. This is when scapegoating became the policy of choice for Democrats.
Obama’s pollsters told him that his chance of being re-elected on his record was zero. But they had good news for him: Obama didn’t have to do anything as hard as tackling our economic problems. He didn’t have to pivot to the middle and find bipartisan solutions as Bill Clinton did. Obama didn’t need to change his budget proposal, which still calls for increased spending. He didn’t need to respect the Tea Party’s grassroots demand for budget responsibility. All he had to do was make speeches about how the rich are too greedy to pay their fair share.
So that’s what we’ve had since the Martha’s Vineyard vacation: three months of nonstop Blame Game. It’s gone on and on because Obama’s loyal followers like it. They think it’s strong leadership.
Obama was advised to scare people about Social Security, make them think Republicans are greedy, evil, moronic, “you’re on your own” extremists. The liberal media and pundits are working overtime on the same message. They are thrilled that Obama has changed the topic from the need to lower government spending to the unfairness of income inequality. Of course, Obama promises Democrats that he will raise taxes on only Other People, the undeserving millionaires and billionaires. No one has to do anything hard — the millionaires and billionaires will pay for it all. Nothing has to be cut. Nothing has to change.
I can’t help but smile as I write this. Obama’s ploy is so childish, even ridiculous — and yet it works! I heard each and every talking point coming out of my liberal friends’ mouths. This is the power of leadership. My smile doesn’t last. It hurt me to see a friend’s love for her handicapped child abused, turned into gut-wrenching fear of Republicans — and then to see her gentle face all blurry and distorted with anger, a few inches from mine, as she yells into my face that Republicans want to abandon her child because we’re not willing to pay taxes. In that moment, the potential violence of the OWS crowd became chillingly real.
We are getting toxic leadership from this White House. Obama doesn’t have the power to destroy my old friendship. But he does have the power to destroy our country. Only Democrats can stop him.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/democrats_follow_obama_down_the_low_road.html
Salvaging The Mythology Of Man-Caused Global Warming
Salvaging The Mythology Of Man-Caused Global Warming
Peter Ferrara, Contributor
If you read this column completely and carefully today, you will learn about the true state of the scientific debate over global warming. You will not get the truth about that from the Washington Post, the New York Times, or the rest of the self-regarded “establishment” media. They are devoted to the fun and games of play acting as if there is no legitimate scientific debate over whether mankind’s use of low cost, reliable energy from oil, coal and natural gas portends catastrophic global warming that threatens life on the planet as we know it.
Recently, the media Knights Templar of the religious orthodoxy of man-caused global warming made a contrived pass at reviving flagging public respect for their fading catechism. The occasion was massively overhyped and misrepresented reporting of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project. But all that was new from that project was the departures from the official catechism.
The project reported only on the recorded temperature history since 1950 from temperature stations on land, which covers less than 30% of the earth’s surface. As the project leader Berkeley Professor Richard Muller reported in a Wall Street Journal commentary on October 21, after obtaining and reviewing “more than 1.6 billion measurements from 39,000 [land based] temperature stations around the world… the result showed [drum roll please] a temperature increase similar to that found by other groups.” Those are most prominently NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the U.S., and the Met Office and Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom.
In other words, that is nothing new. But this review and confirmation of the established land based temperature records that everyone working on the issue is familiar with was widely celebrated in the liberal/left Democrat Party controlled media as definitive new proof of the truth of the man-caused global warming religion.
Muller, however, was more intellectually honest than any of them in confessing in the Journal article that the BEST project involves no independent assessment of the question of “how much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects.” But that is the whole issue in the global warming debate.
Muller also honestly admits that “The [land based] temperature station quality is largely awful,” noting that “A careful survey of these stations by a team led by meteorologist Anthony Watts showed that 70% of these stations have such poor siting that, by the U.S. government’s own measure, they result in temperature uncertainties of between two and five degrees Celsius or more. We do not know how much worse are the stations in the developing world.” He adds that, “The margin of error for the stations is at least three times larger than the estimated warming.”
He also admits that the land based temperature records are corrupted by urban heat island distortions which are constantly growing over time, building in a warming bias. He recognizes that the established temperature authorities mentioned above today use data from only about 2,000 weather stations, down from 6,000 in 1970, which raises questions about their selections among available sites.
Moreover, Muller admits the recognized temperature authorities try to homogenize the temperature records from the thousands of temperature stations around the globe to come up with a summary statistic of the degree of global warming, and serious questions can be raised as to how to do that, disputing a large portion of the warming attributed to humans. Muller also confesses that one-third of land based temperature stations worldwide show cooling rather than warming.
These concessions are important to recount because of more basic problems with the established land based temperature record that Muller doesn’t confess. Weather satellites measuring atmospheric temperatures worldwide, over land and water, which are not subject to the above troubles of land based weather stations, show no warming since their record began in 1979, and before that there was actually global cooling dating back to 1940. The satellite record regarding atmospheric temperatures is independently confirmed by weather balloons. Moreover, the computer based climate models utilized by the UN’s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the atmospheric theory they rely upon, all insist that if man’s use of carbon based fuels was warming the planet, the atmosphere must be warming faster than the surface.
In addition, the scientifically recognized temperature proxy data from tree rings, ice cores, lake and ocean sediments, and stalagmites also show no warming since 1940. Note that the warming before 1940 is attributable to the global recovery of temperatures from the Little Ice Age, and even the land based records show no warming over the last 13 years.
Fred Singer concludes as a result “It is very likely that the reported warming during 1978-97 [from land based weather stations] is simply an artifact — the result of the measurement scheme rather than an actual warming.” When Singer sent a letter to the editor to the global warming cheerleading Washington Post, pointing out the above anomalies and his conclusion, he reports the peculiar response that “they were willing to publish my letter, but not my credentials as emeritus professor at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. Apparently, they were concerned that readers might gain the impression that I knew something about climate.”
But there is more. Even the land based temperature record is not consistent with the theory of man-caused global warming. That record does not show persistent warming following persistent growth of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Rather, it shows an up and down pattern of temperatures more consistent with natural causes. Those include solar flare and sun spot cycles, and the periodic cycling of warm and cold water in the oceans from top to bottom, particularly the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).
The truth is a vigorous global scientific debate persists over whether man’s use of carbon-based fuels threatens to cause catastrophic global warming, and the media not reporting that is not performing journalism. The most authoritative presentation of this debate can be found in the 856 page, Climate Change Reconsidered, published by the Heartland Institute in 2009. This careful, thoroughly scientific volume co- authored by dozens of fully credentialed scientists comprehensively addresses every aspect of global warming, and indicates that natural causes are primarily responsible for climate patterns of the last century. Heartland has just published a follow up 416 page Interim Report updating the debate.
When you run across a Knight Templar threatening you with a lance and a sword unless you confess the truth of catastrophic man caused global warming, ask him for his rebuttal to Climate Change Reconsidered. You will find the effect is like showing a cross to a vampire.
Indeed, the latest and best work actually provides scientific proof that the man-caused global warming catechism is false. Fully documented work by Roy Spencer, U.S. Science Team Leader for the AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, and Principal Research Scientist for the Earth Systems Science Center at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, shows using atmospheric temperature data from NASA’s Terra satellite that much more heat escapes back out to space than is assumed captured in the atmosphere by greenhouse effects under the UN’s theoretical climate models. This explains why the warming temperature changes predicted by the UN’s global warming models over the past 20 years have been so much greater than the actual measured temperature changes.
In August, 2011 came the results of a major experiment by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), involving 63 scientists from 17 European and U.S. institutes. The results show that the sun’s cosmic rays resulting from sunspots have a much greater effect on Earth’s temperatures through their effect on cloud cover than the UN’s global warming models have been assuming. This helps to explain why the historical pattern of temperature changes seems to follow the rise and fall of sunspots, rather than the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This further confirms what Heartland’s Climate Change Reconsidered argues — that natural causes have the dominant effect on Earth’s temperatures, not greenhouse gases.
Finally, the UN’s own climate models project that if man’s greenhouse gas emissions were causing global warming, there would be a particular pattern of temperature distribution in the atmosphere, which scientists call “the fingerprint.” Temperatures in the troposphere portion of the atmosphere above the tropics would increase with altitude producing a “hotspot” near the top of the troposphere, about 6 miles above the earth’s surface. Above that, in the stratosphere, there would be cooling. But higher quality temperature data from weather balloons and satellites now show just the opposite: no increasing warming with altitude in the tropical troposphere, but rather a slight cooling, with no hotspot, no fingerprint.
So the scientific foundation for shutting down our modern, 21st century, industrial economy has been obliterated. But that is not stopping religious crusaders, due to the extremist ideology and special interests driving the global warming charade.
Commenters, you can pass on the ad hominem attacks. No one is the least bit interested.
The truth is that the richer a country, and the more industrialized, the better that country takes care of the environment.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/12/01/salvaging-the-mythology-of-man-caused-global-warming/
A Simple National Energy Independence Strategy
A Simple National Energy Independence Strategy
To understand the implications of these reserves, they must be put into context, both physical and economic. According to the CIA, the world currently has about 1.5trillion barrels[1] of proven oil reserves, and humans consume about 87 million barrels a day[2] or 29 billion barrels per year, which would exhaust the reserves in about 46 years. And while consumption is growing steadily, particularly with the rise of the Asian economic giants, many geologists have long believed that the world is at or near its peak production of oil and will see falling production henceforth. (One can just Google “peak oil” to find a wealth of sites debating this point.) However, with new discoveries cropping up frequently with the current high prices, including a large, 33-billion-barrel find in Brazil[3] and shale oil and gas reserves in many part of the world, the peak may be prolonged somewhat[4].
Of the global proven reserves, the Saudis hold the most with about 263 billion barrels, while the U.S. has less than 1/10 that — 21 billion barrels, or a little over 1% of global reserves. Moreover, the U.S. is consuming about 1/4 of the world total, 20 million barrels day, and it imports half of that[5].
In addition, the current global oil reserves — known as low-cost or conventional oil — cost something under $15/barrel to produce, according to some former administration analysts[6]. Indeed, the Saudi and Iraqi fields cost only a few dollars per barrel to retrieve. The combination of enormous supplies at low cost is why the Saudis and their OPEC allies in the Middle East have had control of global oil markets for over thirty years.
But into this bleak scenario have recently penetrated some bright rays of hope. One is that according to numerous reports, there is a huge pool of oil sitting within the Lower 48 that could increase U.S. reserves tenfold and make the country energy-independent. This reserve, known as the Bakken Formation, stretches from North Dakota northwest into Saskatchewan, and the U.S. portion is thought by some analysts[7] to hold between 175 and 500 billion barrels. It is in a formation known as shale oil, which lies several miles below the surface in a narrow sheet of shale that must be reached by conventional drilling, then penetrated by horizontal drilling, and hydraulically fractured (or “fracked”) to shatter the rock to let the hydrocarbons leak out. Such formations are considered “tight oil.”
On April 10, 2008, the U.S. Geological Service reported[8] that the Bakken contains “only” about 4 billion barrels of “technically recoverable” oil. This estimate might be considered favorable but ultimately inconsequential, as it would represent only about a half-year’s consumption. However, the key term, “technically recoverable,” means that this oil is accessible given current technology and economics. It’s therefore critical to recognize that drilling technology is advancing rapidly. Indeed, compared to the prior USGS estimate of the Bakken twelve years ago, the new estimate is 20-30 times greater. If the total Bakken reserves are in fact about 400 billion barrels, then a mere 1% recovery rate would be extraordinarily and perhaps implausibly low. Getting at those reserves may ultimately be only a matter of technology and cost.
The unusual characteristics of the Bakken make it a more expensive formation to discover and produce than the low-cost fields. Numbers of $20-$40/barrel are bandied about[9]. The main indication of the Bakken’s production costs is that drilling is booming in the region, so at today’s prices, it is clearly attractive.
If the Bakken could produce half its estimated 400 billion barrels’ potential, it would be about the size of the Saudi reserves. This alone could make the U.S. energy-independent for decades. And there are other, similar shale oil formations in the U.S., such as the Eagle Ford deposit in south Texas. But the Bakken is actually small potatoes. The big game-changers, and other reasons for hope, are two other massive reserves, also here in North America.
The first of these is the Athabasca oil sands (or tars) in Alberta. These reserves are now being developed, and in 2003, the Canadian government officially added 177 billion barrels — 2/3 as much as Saudi Arabia — to its reserves from these fields. However, this is only about 1/10 of the total reserves of Athabasca[10]. In other words, this field holds more than the world’s proven reserves. Like the Bakken, it is thought to be more expensive to produce than conventional oil — perhaps in the range of $35-$40/barrel[11], but also as with the Bakken, this field is enjoying a development boom.
The U.S. also has oil sands, in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, though relatively small — but still significant — at 32 billion barrels, and evidently not yet being commercialized[12].
The other big game-changer could be U.S. oil shale (as distinct from shale oil, like the Bakken and Eagle Ford), the reserves of which lie close to the surface in the Rockies and are estimated to hold 2 trillion barrels[13] — again more than the world’s conventional reserves. The costs of producing these reserves are thought to be higher than oil sands, but well below the current prices of oil. In fact, Estonia and Brazil are already producing oil from oil shale, and IDT Corporation is working on a project in Colorado and another in Israel[14]. While various critics have stated that oil shale would take a decade or more to produce, this writer has spoken to a knowledgeable congressional aide who reported that Shell is confident that it could have 1-2 million barrels per day in production within a couple of years of a green light. But to produce these reserves would require substantial upfront investments that would not pay back for some years.
So why aren’t oil companies developing these massive reserves rapidly? There are two main obstacles: competitive risk and political opposition. Regarding competitive risk, oil-producers have witnessed huge swings in oil prices in the last 35 years, with peaks in 1974, 1979, 1991, and 2008 close to current levels (in inflation-adjusted dollars), with deep troughs as low as less than $25/barrel[15] in adjusted dollars in the mid-’80s, late ’90s, and 2009. This bitter history and the prospect of similar price swings in the future increase the perceived risks associated with making the long-term investments necessary to exploit these resources. Such risks chill, or kill, long-term investments.
The political impediment is even more imposing. The environmental movement has pushed the Democrats to prohibit leasing of the oil shale deposits[16], which lie mostly under federal lands[17]. Republicans have made repeated attempts to open these reserves, but they have not been able to get anything to pass the Senate. If they did so, getting their attempts signed into law would be problematic, as demonstrated by the political uncertainty surrounding obtaining federal permits to build the Keystone XL pipeline that would take Canadian oil from its sands to refiners along the Mississippi River and Gulf Coast[18].
To summarize: global production from conventional, low-cost reserves is not keeping up with demand growth; oil prices are near all-time highs and likely to rise farther if production can’t keep up with demand; but enormous supplies of higher-cost oil lie within NAFTA. The only reasons why they are not being developed aggressively are politics and competitive risk.
To address the latter, imagine that the U.S. government imposed a “reverse tariff” on oil imported from outside NAFTA, so that as the world price of oil fell below a certain point — say, $70/barrel — the tariff would make up the difference and keep the North American price for crude at $70. Producers of Bakken shale oil, Athabasca oil sands, and Rockies oil shale would have some security that prices would not force them to stop production, so they would be more willing to produce.
Such a policy would have several benefits, both economic and political. Setting a price floor like this would not impose an immediate increase on consumers, as it would kick in only if prices fell by about one-third from current levels. Indeed, such an increase may never be invoked. On the other hand, it wouldn’t necessarily represent a hard floor — if North American sources turned out to be producible at lower-price levels, competition among producers would drive the price down below the tariff trigger. The tariff would bite only if/when global oil prices cycled into a trough, from which they would eventually emerge anyway. And the low, unlikely costs of having this tariff should be compared to these substantial benefits: making North America truly energy independent, free from supporting the hostile nations currently providing us our energy; increasing the world supply of oil, thereby reducing the prices available to those other oil-producing nations; liberating the U.S. from having to guarantee the sea lanes to the Middle East; giving China and other emerging countries confidence that they have ample sources of supply outside of the Middle East; creating thousands of jobs in North America, with the associated tax revenues for all levels of government; and — importantly for those who believe in anthropogenic global warming — establishing an historically high price for North American oil that should in turn stimulate both conservation and development of alternative energy sources.
There is more for progressives to like about this program than just encouraging the development of non-carbon-based forms of energy. What could be more progressive than creating high-paying jobs in the U.S. and income for the working class and revenue for local, state, and federal government? Moreover, there are four basic issues in the upcoming election: persistent high unemployment, income inequality, fiscal solvency at all levels of government, and national security. Developing our national energy reserves would address all four simultaneously. This should be a bipartisan no-brainer.
Without incentives like this tariff policy, the U.S. may ultimately develop its own oil resources, but the process will probably take much longer, and in the meantime, the U.S. will continue to run unnecessarily large trade deficits, forego thousands of jobs and billions of tax revenues and, to paraphrase New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, fund both sides of the jihad, and run the risk of having a catastrophic oil shortage and resultant price increases because of supply disruptions in the Middle East. We have an opportunity now, with current oil prices, to break out of dependency on hostile oil states and establish a rational strategy towards energy independence.
Bruce Stevens received a bachelor in economics from Duke University and an MBA from Harvard. He worked as the global energy coordinator for The Boston Consulting Group in the late ’80s and has been involved in the energy industry as a private equity investor and management advisor.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/a_simple_national_energy_independence_strategy.html
Not All ‘Protesters’ Created Equal
December 15, 2011
Not All ‘Protesters’ Created Equal
By Jack Cashill
Yesterday, Time Magazine named the “Protester” its person of the year. Lumped in this category were sundry Tunisians, Libyans, Greeks, Russians, and — the without which not of Time’s interest — those Americans “who occupy public spaces to protest income inequality.” Not surprisingly, Time championed this protest: “Everywhere, it seems, people said they’d had enough.”
At Time Inc., not all protesters are created equal. Last year, when it had a chance to give that “diffuse collection of furies and frustrations that calls itself the Tea Party” its due, Time named Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg “Person of the Year.” It was an obvious slight, especially since the Tea Party protesters actually knew what they had “had enough” of. In November of 2010, their efforts led to something tangible — namely, the gain of 63 Republican seats in the House and the loss of Democratic control. That obviously did not impress Time in the way Time would hope to be impressed.
Equally troublesome, but less obvious, is Time’s disregard for the individual protester whose cause does not hew to the progressive party line. I have gotten to know several of these people well. Up close, through their travails, I have been able to see just how media bias shapes not only the fate of the protesters, but also the flow of history.
As might be expected, Time Magazine did not choose to cite the one serious protester who served real jail time in 2011. That would be Lt. Col. Terry Lakin. Unknown to Time readers, Lakin spent five months in prison at Fort Leavenworth before his release in May of this year. His crime — his real crime, that is — was to challenge Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president.
Lakin never claimed to know where President Obama was born or whether he was eligible. The problem, as Lakin saw it, was that no one knew. As an Army officer, one sworn “to support and defend the Constitution,” he felt an obligation to pursue the truth.
I got to know Terry through helping him with his memoir, Officer’s Oath, due out in January. If the U.S. Army has a more decent or dedicated officer than this 17-year veteran flight surgeon and father of three, I have yet to meet that person.
For more than a year, Lakin plied all regular channels to get at the facts. He had no intention of becoming a martyr to the cause, but in 2010 he received deployment orders to Afghanistan. Said the order: “Bring five (5) copies of your birth certificate.”
For Lakin, that did it. If he had to produce a birth certificate to deploy, Obama needed one to send him. By refusing deployment — he had already served in Afghanistan and Bosnia — Lakin hoped to take advantage of military due process to resolve the eligibility question. He did not succeed. The media brought no pressure to bear on his behalf. To the degree taht the media noticed, they ridiculed him. Our progressive friends had found a military protester they could not embrace.
Lakin was not the first. In researching my book, Ron Brown’s Body, I got to know a few other equally unloved military protesters. One of them, Petty Officer Kathleen Janoski, I got to know well. In 1996, Janoski was the head of the forensic photography team for the AFIP (Armed Forces Institute of Pathology), the Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. It was she who discovered what appeared to be a bullet-hole in the head of Ron Brown, the Clinton Commerce secretary killed in a Croatian airplane crash.
Frustrated by the lack of official action, she and her colleagues, most notably Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell, a doctor and deputy medical examiner, went public with their concerns. “When you get something that appears to be a homicide, that should bring everything to a screeching halt,” Cogswell was quoted as saying of Brown’s death.
The following day, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post did what the mainstream media routinely did during the Clinton years — attacked the protesters. Said Kurtz with preposterous certainty, “There definitely was no bullet because there was no exit wound.”
In a refreshingly noble gesture, Lt. Col. David Hause, a pathologist who had been present for the Brown examination, went public in support of Cogswell. Hause and Cogswell both agreed a bullet could have traveled down the neck and lodged elsewhere in the body. Given White House pressure, there had been no time to search for an exit wound, let alone perform an autopsy.
A third AFIP pathologist, Air Force Maj. Thomas Parsons, came forward. He confirmed that the hole was “suspicious and unusual” and worthy of an autopsy. Janoski offered public confirmation and support as well. For their protests, the White House saw to it that all four of these military careers were derailed, even ruined. True to form, Time Magazine offered not a word of support for any of them. Despite losing a reporter in the crash, The New York Times did not even bother reviewing the official Air Force crash report.
In a third case I got to see up close, the media turned their collective back on a fellow reporter. A former cop, James Sanders partnered with me on the 2003 Book First Strike and the 2001 documentary Silenced, both about the crash of TWA Flight 800.
Sanders had done the original, boots-on-the-ground reporting on the 1996 crash. With the aid of the chief 747 pilot inside the investigation, Sanders first broke the story that the plane had been downed by missile fire. For his efforts, he and the pilot, as well his flight attendant wife who introduced them, were arrested on federal conspiracy charges.
At their arraignment in 1997, it stunned Sanders that no one in the media crowd managed to frame a single First Amendment question. When Sanders’ lawyer at that time attempted to bring this issue into focus, a Newsday reporter began to argue the government line. Another reporter asked the attorney why his client did not immediately return the evidence the pilot had sent him to the FBI. CBS, which had promised to run a story on that evidence, had relented under government pressure. Why not Sanders?
The truth, as Sanders learned the hard way, is that Time Magazine and its fellow media travelers have no use for protesters or whistle-blowers or dissident journalists who threaten the progressive agenda or the Democratic powers that protect it.
Now, if only Time and the others would admit as much before they embarrass themselves further in the potentially Orwellian media year of 2012.
Obama’s Job Description
December 15, 2011
Obama’s Job Description
A starting point for such an evaluation was recently provided in the 60 Minutes interview with President Obama. Although CBS News described its segment as a discussion of “both [Obama's] accomplishments and the challenges he faces as he begins his quest for reelection,” many would argue that Obama’s role of campaigning has never ended.
Obama revealed his own view of his job early in the interview, when correspondent Steve Kroft asked: “Isn’t it your job as president to find solutions to these problems, to get results, to figure out a way to get it done?” Obama answered:
It is my job to put forward a vision of the country that benefits the vast majority of Americans. It is my job to make sure that my party is behind those initiatives, even if sometimes it’s breaking some china and going against some of the dogmas of our party in the past … And it’s my job to rally the American people around that vision.
Prior to hearing those remarks, many of us had been operating under the naïve assumption that the primary responsibility of the president was as sworn in the oath of office: to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. We assumed that a president’s “vision” would harmonize with our founding documents, that the president would provide leadership to more than his own party, and that his “initiatives” would not “benefit the vast majority” to the detriment of the freedom and liberty of all.
The American Thinker article “President Obama, It’s Business, Not Personal,” analyzed the job of Obama as if he were an executive in corporate America:
As the man at the top, he sets the tone for the rest of us, and the best interests of all shareholders should be his top priority, all while operating inside the parameters of power granted him. He must be the number-one champion of his company’s product — the assurance and protection of our God-given rights of freedom and liberty. And he must faithfully represent his company, not some fundamentally transformed entity audaciously designed in his own mind.
Imagine a corporate executive saying something like Obama told Kroft:
[W]hen I came into office in 2008, it was my firm belief that at such an important moment in our history, there was no reason why Democrats and Republicans couldn’t put some of the old ideological baggage aside … And I think the Republicans made a different calculation, which was, “You know what? We really screwed up the economy. Obama seems popular. Our best bet is to stand on the sidelines, because we think the economy’s gonna get worse, and at some point, just blame him.”
Most CEOs would never dare to make such whiny sentiments public, and we wonder what exactly Obama meant by the phrase “at such an important moment in our history.” Surely he referred to our economic troubles, and not to his own election victory. But then when Obama described to Kroft his view of Wall Street from “40,000 feet” above, it was difficult not to recall Newsweek’s Evan Thomas’ vision of Obama “standing above the world” as a “sort of God,” or the time that Obama, upon accepting his party’s nomination in 2008, declared: “…this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” He has since informed us, however, that his presidential powers do not include “control [of] the weather.”
In a speech describing the presidency, Rep. Mike Pence wisely noted:
[W]e as a people are not to be ruled and not to be commanded … the president should never forget this; that he has not risen above us, but is merely one of us, chosen by ballot, dismissed after his term, tasked not to transform and work his will upon us, but to bear the weight of decision and to carry out faithfully the design laid down in the Constitution[.]
It goes without saying that the commander-in-chief should be loyal to our founding ideals. Bows and apologies to the rest of the world and assertions that the American experiment of “a you’re-on-your-own economy … hasn’t worked … [and] it’s not gonna work in the future” display either a radically different view of our nation’s history or the desire to dramatically remake its character going forward.
Another president’s remarks have lately been making their way around the blogosphere:
Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand those high qualities[.]“[i]
While those words of wisdom by James Garfield were written over 100 years ago, his additional comments in the same essay are even more noteworthy:
The legislation of Congress comes much nearer to the daily life of the people than ever before. Twenty years ago, the presence of the national government was not felt by one citizen in a hundred. … Now he meets it in a thousand ways. Formerly the legislation of Congress referred chiefly to our foreign relations, to indirect taxes, to the government of the army, the navy, and the Territories. Now, a vote in Congress may, any day, seriously derange the business affairs of every citizen. [ii]
Garfield would be shocked to see the level of derangement produced by our government today. And he likely would never have dreamed that the burden of taxes are borne by only around half of the country, with a large proportion going to programs that redistribute to the other half or to pork-barrel spending. And if Garfield was concerned about the engagement of the constituency in his day, imagine his horror at the realization that today’s electorate would likely never vote against the hand that feeds it, a hand that under the guise of governmental authority takes wealth out of the pockets of others.
Rather than considering “cutting taxes” or “gutting regulations” to boost our lagging economy, Obama instead has dug in his heels and demanded that wealthy Americans “do their fair share” plus “a little bit more.” And if he lacks support, he asserted: “We’re just gonna keep on looking for specific things that we can do without congressional cooperation.”
Another president from the past viewed his role quite differently: Grover Cleveland, who “believed in keeping government expenditure at the minimum required to carry out essential constitutional functions.” Cleveland famously vetoed the Texas Seed Bill, legislation that proposed to spend $10,000 on assistance to drought-suffering Texas farmers. Cleveland stated:
I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.
Cleveland could not find the power for a $10,000 grant in the Constitution. Well, “folks,” guess what else besides the billions of dollars of today’s spending is not in the Constitution: the job description Obama has written for himself.
In the next few weeks, the GOP will begin the formal process of selecting its candidate. In choosing the most qualified contender, we also affirm our idea of the proper role of the president.
Our founding fathers aptly designated the chief executive as the “President of the United States of America and Protector of their Liberties” [iii]. The best candidate is the one who aspires to that presidential job description.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/obamas_job_description.html
Obama and the Financial Criminals
December 15, 2011
Obama and the Financial Criminals
By Bernie Reeves
At least CBS’s 60 Minutes is on to the national fury at the fact that the criminals who brought down the American economy have not been identified personally and brought before the bar of justice. But a week after a broadcast that bored in on the issue, interviewer Steve Croft let Barack Obama off the hook when the president disingenuously stated that the financial shenanigans by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and banking firms were legal — that his administration was instrumental in passing new regulations encompassed in the Dodd-Frank legislation to prevent it happening again.
Wait a minute. It is now known that Fannie and Freddie, the government-connected mortgage-packaging giants, threw out the qualifications to allow home-ownership for all, an idealistic social goal pushed by Democrats — from Jimmy Carter via the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 to Bill Clinton in the 1990s, who enlisted ACORN to badger banks to make bad loans to minorities, and then to Rep. Barney Frank and his fellow travelers in the 2000s, who put the full weight of the Congress behind the creation of bad mortgage loans.
The large investment and commercial banks saw an opportunity and concocted securities backed by dicey “sub-prime” loans, in which borrowers paid higher interest based on questionable credit. These mortgage-backed instruments were a hot item, yet when the banks learned that the underlying values had vanished, they lent money to mortgage origination firms to gin up even more bad loans at higher and higher interest rates to shape into even more mortgage-backed securities to sell to their customers — and each other.
Right there criminal fraud is manifest, contradicting Obama’s claim that the scam was legal. But there was more. The banks, knowing that the instruments were worthless when they sold them to their own clients, purposefully bought “insurance” (credit default swaps) against their own products, thus doubly swindling their customers. And they made millions doing it — first on the commissions from the sale, and then from their short position as the securities tanked. In 2008, the house of cards came tumbling down, taking with it the American economy.
Then enters Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, formerly chief of Goldman Sachs — the ubiquitous investment banking firm that has left fingerprints all over the meltdown — who insisted that we must save the hides of the big banks (his compatriots) with the stimulus bailout to “rescue the financial system.” Originally stated to be $787 billion, the total, according to Bloomberg research, reached $11.6 trillion — all secured by American taxpayers. The result was the near-destruction of the consumer sector, which represents 80% of the economy, all to save the criminals who committed the illegal acts that brought down the economy. But worse, commercial and community banks are still burdened with bad real estate loans and investments. Consequently, they are under orders from banking regulators not to lend, which further exacerbates the decimation of the middle class and small business owners who cannot find loans to recover and grow. The stimulus should have been distributed — via tax breaks and rebates — to households to stimulate consumer spending, which in turn would have stabilized the small business sector that could have kept workers and hired for new positions.
Thus, Obama’s claim on 60 Minutes that Paulson’s policies averted another Great Depression is ominously premature. Big-bank economists and government policy wonks do not understand the U.S. economy — that all new jobs are created by the small business sector. After three years of pain and suffering, someone saw the light, and Obama set out in 2011 to claim that he is now pushing small business recovery to create jobs. Yet his approach widely misses the mark by proposing federal money to create bogus “green energy” firms (like Solyndra) or the pitiful and outdated plan to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure and dump billions into high-speed rail transit.
Obama and his cohorts — like Paulson, now replaced at Treasury by Timothy Geithner, another investment-bank rent boy — have not only failed in their approach to the recession, but they may be the architects of an economic calamity more painful than the Great Depression when all is said and done. The European Union debt crisis is just one of the continuing manifestations of the global economic crisis set off by the American financial scandal. Add in the inability of real estate values in the U.S. to recover, and unemployment figures that boggle the mind, and the worst is yet to come.
But the central question Steve Croft asked Obama must be addressed before Americans can begin to regain hope for the future: what is being done to expose and prosecute the criminals who caused the economic collapse? The Securities and Exchange Commission has tried to wipe the shame from its face by investigating some of the sleazy practices, but this comes well after the fox has left the coop with all the eggs. And indeed, fines have been levied against some of the best-known bank brands in the world: JP Morgan Chase, CitiGroup, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, and others to come. But the fines are paltry, the banks are not required to admit guilt, and the individual culprits are not identified.
It turns out that the SEC cannot bring criminal charges under its charter, and Congress has refused to haul the perpetrators in front of an investigative committee. Obama dodged and weaved and said to 60 Minutes that it is not up to him to punish the culprits. Instead, he threw the ball back into Attorney General Eric Holder’s lap, who has yet to bring a single charge against the conspirators. Why are these two and Congress avoiding the justice Americans demand? Are they under the influence of the mandarins at the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and the New York Fed, who regulate the big New York banks? Do they believe that criminal prosecution or congressional hearings will divulge even more nefarious behavior that could shake financial markers even more? Are they taking hush money, or fearful of losing campaign contributions? The U.S. may be a polyglot nation today, but even newcomers understand the national belief that justice must be done.
Yet Obama refuses to go after the bad guys, to stand up for the people against the crooks on Wall Street, who walked away with all our money derived from a gigantic criminal conspiracy. Patting reporter Steve Croft on the knee, and purring that Croft and the public just don’t understand, Obama is lending credence to the fear that he is a liar with an agenda, hell-bent on a new world order emphasizing big government and the demise of the middle class and small business — the bourgeoisie, as Lenin called it.
Obama got away with another question by Steve Croft, who asked about the president’s role in the divisiveness in Congress and across the political spectrum. Obama once again took on an avuncular visage and said that the ill will was caused by special interests and the Republican refusal to budge on new taxes — mentioning Grover Norquist, author of the “no new taxes” pledge taken by a clique of Republican congressmen.
But our wily and mendacious president failed to mention his role in dividing the country by introducing his health care plan when citizens were reeling from the first throes of the financial meltdown. Indeed, it was the president and a Democrat-controlled Congress who split the country with ObamaCare, a far-reaching and frighteningly expensive overhaul that challenges core constitutional and free-market values held strongly by most Americans. And it was Obama who added to the disharmony on spending cuts and the budget by failing to acknowledge the findings of the debt reduction commission he created, co-chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. As an old friend once said of a cheater, “he bears watching.”
But the Republicans in Congress are not helping by continuing to refuse to take initiative on spending, except to stonewall any compromise. Compounding the danger that Obama could win again in 2012 is the manic contest for the Republican presidential nomination that is exposing each candidate to merciless attacks by his or her own brothers and sisters. The voting public watches with distress as the office-seekers fall, taking with them another slice of credibility for the GOP. Frontrunners Rick Perry and Herman Cain have fallen, leaving space for Newt Gingrich to challenge Mitt Romney, the one candidate who can beat Obama. With congressional Republicans in gridlock and the presidential primary candidates committed to a suicide pact, the unopposed Obama is avoiding the harsh light of scrutiny when it is needed the most. Hang onto your hat if he wins again.
Bernie Reeves is the editor and publisher of Raleigh Metro Magazine and the founder of the Raleigh Spy Conference.
What Obama Grasps, and Beck Doesn’t
What Obama Grasps, and Beck Doesn’t
By Peter Heck
Here’s something I never thought I would type: Barack Obama gets it, and Glenn Beck doesn’t seem to.
During his recent interview with 60 Minutes, Obama was asked by CBS reporter Steve Kroft how the president sized up the field of Republicans vying to be his opponent in 2012. Obama’s answer was candid and refreshingly accurate: “It doesn’t really matter who the nominee is gonna be,” he said. “The core philosophy that they’re expressing is the same. And the contrast in visions between where I want to take the country and what — where they say they want to take the country is gonna be stark.”
The president couldn’t be more right in that assessment — a reality that I think is lost on many of us who are political junkies. Those for whom the world of politics is either our livelihood or at least an obsessive hobby tend to view issues through a different lens and apply a level of detailed inspection to them that average citizens simply do not.
For instance, my wife and I watched the recent Republican presidential debate in Iowa together. She cares about her country and the direction it’s going, but she’s not the least bit interested in following the day-to-day drama of the presidential horse race. In fact, this was the first primary debate she has seen this year.
As the debate was unfolding, I noticed a remarkable difference in the way we perceived it. I was being hypercritical of certain responses or question-dodging, yet she was constantly saying things like “That was a good point,” or “I like him,” or “He knows his stuff.” When the debate was over, her comment was, “This is going to be hard, isn’t it?” But contrary to the media template that has emerged about the “epically weak Republican field,” she didn’t mean it was going to be hard trying to figure out which one of those jokers could possibly compete with Obama. No, when I asked her to clarify, she said, “It’s going to be hard to figure out which one of them to support when they all are so much better than what we’ve got.” Bingo.
While I was obsessing over the trivial differences in style or the substantive conflicts of specific policy between the candidates, my wife was looking at the big picture — each of those Republican candidates represented a marked departure from the Obama regime. And dare I say she is much more reflective of the hundreds of millions of eligible voters who will head to the polls next year?
That reality is what makes Glenn Beck’s recent comments so perplexing. Set aside the silly proposition that a Tea Partier who supports Gingrich over Obama is doing so only because of race. I attribute that nonsense to a frustrated Beck trying to draw attention to Newt’s progressive proclivities, rather than an honest indictment of a large swath of the population with whom he shares mutual respect and admiration. But Beck’s underlying assumption that a President Gingrich (or Romney, to a slightly lesser degree) would be a replica of President Obama is mystifying. And his further suggestion that he would consider a third-party alternative to Gingrich is beyond irresponsible, given that it all but ensures a second term of the very man Beck has rightly castigated as leading our country into the abyss.
As a man of integrity, I can only assume that Beck is charting this course based on principle. Fair enough. But as an admirer of Beck who recognizes the profound influence he wields on the right, I humbly ask: what principle does he hold that makes throwing Israel under the bus the best option? What principle does Beck hold that makes continuing to expand the practice of legalized child-killing the proper decision? What principle does Beck hold that makes the implementation and ingraining of ObamaCare into the fabric of our society a more noble choice?
Conservatives would be well-advised to make the case for their candidate in this primary and promote said candidate vigorously, while keeping in perspective what even the president himself understands: that all six of the individuals on the recent Republican debate stage represent a fundamental shift in philosophy from the current occupant of the White House.
Considering that Americans are now facing double the gas prices since Obama took office, almost double the unemployment from what it was the majority of Bush’s terms, double the debt, double the deficit, four times as many foreign countries under the thumb of the Muslim Brotherhood, fewer staunch allies who trust us, one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, more Americans than ever on food stamps, and the looming threat of a dramatic uptick in job loss as the president’s own signature “accomplishment” from his first term (ObamaCare) is fully implemented, that’s a reality that every conservative — including Glenn Beck — should be shouting from the rooftops.
Peter is a public high school government teacher and radio talk show host in central Indiana. E-mail peter@peterheck.com, visit www.peterheck.com, or like him on Facebook.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/what_obama_grasps_and_beck_doesnt.html
Oath Keepers Alert: Federal Agents Demand Customer Lists From Mormon Food Storage Facility
Oath Keepers has learned that federal agents recently visited a Latter Day Saints (Mormon) Church food storage cannery in Tennessee, demanding customer lists, wanting to know the identity of Americans who are purchasing food storage from the Mormons.
This incident was confirmed, in person, by Oath Keepers Tennessee Chapter President, Rand Cardwell. Here is Rand’s report:
“A fellow veteran contacted me concerning a new and disturbing development. He had been utilizing a Mormon cannery near his home to purchase bulk food supplies. The man that manages the facility relayed to him that federal agents had visited the facility and demanded a list of individuals that had been purchasing bulk food. The manager informed the agents that the facility kept no such records and that all transactions were conducted on a cash-and-carry basis. The agents pressed for any record of personal checks, credit card transactions, etc., but the manager could provide no such record. The agents appeared to become very agitated and after several minutes of questioning finally left with no information. I contacted the manager and personally confirmed this information.
This event points to a new level of federal government encroachment on the basic freedoms of the American people. Likewise, it points to a confused policy within federal agencies. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in their “Are You Ready?” guide to “In Depth Citizen Preparedness” recommends that citizens store emergency supplies, including bulk food, in the event of a natural disaster or man-made event (the new politically correct term applied to a terrorist attack). The FEMA guidance is spot-on as it allows individuals and families to be self-sufficient during an emergency situation.
And here in Tennessee, we just learned that Nashville Metro Public Health and the Tennessee Department of Health are conducting “door-to-door assessment of disaster preparedness … using a tool designed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to go door to door and check to see how disaster ready you are. .. in 30 neighborhoods in Davidson County [TN] that have been randomly selected to be the target of a door to door assessment.” I have confirmed that that is a state run effort.
So on the one hand, government agencies both state and federal are urging you to be prepared and even checking up on you to see how prepared you are, and on the other hand, we now have federal agencies that are attempting to gather information on individuals that are following FEMA suggestions. What is the reasoning behind gathering this information? Are American citizens now being “listed” by DHS if they are simply following FEMA guidance and purchasing bulk food and emergency supplies for their families? It appears as so.
This should be a red flag to all Americans. Not unlike the “trip wires” identified in the Oath Keepers list of orders that will not be obeyed, this incident should be considered as further evidence that our federal government is out of control. What business is it of the government if any of us purchase and store bulk food? Answer: It is none of their damn business! Maybe during the next Katrina-type event federal agents will storm your home to take your food stores along with your firearms. We can only theorize as to the motives of the government for this type of “list” being developed, but it goes against the very fabric of what a free people should allow by our government.” – Rand Cardwell.
Additional comments by Stewart Rhodes, Founder of Oath Keepers:
As Rand noted, it was fortunate that this particular cannery does not keep records of its customers. And Rand is correct that this is a very serious red flag. There’s a very good reason why one of the top ten orders that active duty Oath Keepers will refuse to obey is “We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.” As our Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey goes on to state:
“Deprivation of food has long been a weapon of war and oppression, with millions intentionally starved to death by fascist and communist governments in the 20th Century alone.
Accordingly, we will not obey or facilitate orders to confiscate food and other essential supplies from the people, and we will consider all those who issue or carry out such orders to be the enemies of the people.”
If those who carry out such orders to confiscate food are enemies of the people, then that same label also fits anyone in the government compiling lists of Americans who store food. There is no legitimate reason for the Department of Homeland Security to compile such lists. Al Qaida suicide bombers are not known to store powdered milk and buckets of wheat. Nor are they known to store away dehydrated carrots and instant potatoes, or fruit punch mix for the kids. But the Mormons are known to do so, and so are many other Americans who have the common sense and maturity to take personal responsibility for ensuring that their families will have food, come what may.
It is part of Mormon Church religious doctrine to store food for hard times and emergencies, with a recommendation that each family store a year’s worth of basic dry goods along with three months worth of store-bought canned and boxed foods. To facilitate that practice, the Mormon Church runs its own food storage canneries selling powdered milk, wheat, flour, rice and beans, sugar, salt, and various other dry goods either in bulk 50 lb bags or in #10 cans for long term food storage (up to 30 years for some items). These Church canneries also often sell food storage items to non-church members, seeing it as both morally right and prudent to help their neighbors store food, whatever their faith. The cannery in Tennessee that was “visited” by federal agents follows that practice of helping the general public become better prepared.
So why do federal agents want to know who is storing away long-term food storage? We suspect it is for the following reasons:
1. DHS/FEMA wants to know which Americans have food storage so the federal government can at some future point confiscate that food. Just as with lists of gun owners, compiling such lists is the first step toward future confiscation.
2. DHS wants to identify those Americans who are “switched on” and squared away enough to actually store food for coming hard times (such as during an economic collapse). That population of awake, aware, and prepared Americans poses a “threat” to whatever DHS and its masters have in store for the American people, and as Joseph Stalin so ably demonstrated, one of the easiest ways to subjugate defiant people is to confiscate their food and starve them into submission.
The federal government already tipped their hand by sending the FBI to military surplus stores (as we reported), gun stores, and pawn shops to encourage those businesses to spy on their customers who buy MRE’s (Meals Ready to Eat), bipods, “night flashlights”, high capacity magazines, rifle bipods, and bulk ammo. Maybe some of you fooled yourselves into thinking there might be some legitimate reason for them to track purchases of such items. But powdered milk and wheat berries? Those are hardly items that could be used in a terrorist attack. It must be the storage of food itself that the feds now find so offensive and so “dangerous.”
And while the door-to-door preparedness assessments in Tennessee appears to be well intended (and we spoke with a friendly state preparedness officer who said it was motivated by the recent natural disasters in Tennessee), Americans are well justified in being concerned about such efforts and how that information may be used in the future, in light of these other well documented and confirmed incidents of federal law enforcement collecting information on those who purchase preparedness items and indicating that the purchases of those items may be “indicators of terrorist activity.”
If you are one of the many Americans who still have on rose-colored glasses, or who still have your head buried in the sand (or stuck somewhere else warm and dark), it is time to pull your head out and face the reality of what the federal government is telling you by the actions of its agents. Those actions show both what they fear and their intent. What they fear are prepared, equipped, and “switched on” Americans, and their intent is to identify who they are, where they are, and then plan on dealing with them when the time comes. And rest assured that time will come. The recent U.S. Senate passage of S. 1867, which authorizes military detention and trial of U.S, citizens under the international laws of war (as if we were conquered Iraq or Afghanistan) is also an expression of their intent, and their contempt for the Bill of Rights.
Clearly, in light of the above, if you purchase food storage, along with any other preparedness items, you should be concerned about those purchases being tracked and your name winding up on some government list. But don’t let that stop you from storing food and other essential supplies, and don’t let this disturbing incident keep you from using your local Mormon cannery to do so. You need to get prepared. But do it while following the advice of James Wesley, Rawles over at www.survivalblog.com, who repeatedly urges his readers to “think OPSEC!” – if at all possible, buy with cash and pick it up in person, just like the customers of this particular cannery did, which left the “agitated” agents empty handed and frustrated. Good. That is as it should be. Don’t make it easy on them. And if you have not yet begun to store food, now is certainly a good time to start. You’re going to need it. Time is short, and you need to be prepared for what is coming. “Are You Ready?” indeed. – Stewart Rhodes
Recommended Preparedness and Self-reliance Resources:
http://www.providentliving.org/ (LDS website with links to church guidelines on preparedness and food storage)
www.survivalblog.com (one of the very best prepper websites, with tons of information. Use the search feature and enjoy)
http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com (EXCELLENT radio show by Oath Keeper Airborne vet Jack Spirko. Also has great articles, forum, and how-to videos too)
www.operationsleepinggiant.com (an Oath Keepers sister project, just getting off the ground, to wake up veterans and get them focused on individual, family, community, and state: preparedness, security, sound money, and state sovereignty and independence).
www.alt-market.com (how to build strong communities, barter exchanges, food independence, sound money independence, the Montana Safe Haven State project, and excellent economic analysis by Brandon Smith).
www.americanpreppersnetwork.com (another great site with tons of information, a podcast show, articles, videos, and chat)
www.onpointtactical.com (innovative scouting, tracking, wilderness and urban survival school. Stewart Rhodes has attended several of these classes and personally recommends this school to those who understand that “training trumps gear” as Kevin Reeve says)
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2011/12/08/oath-keepers-alert-federal-agents-demand-customer-lists-from-mormon-food-storage-facility/
UN Welfare – Set To Channel Up To $100 Billion From Industrial Nations To Developing Ones Using “Green Climate Fund”
United Nations envoys are closing in on setting up a climate aid fund that will channel aid to developing nations while lacking any pledges for where the money will come from.
The pool of money is called the Green Climate Fund and is meant to channel an unspecified portion of a $100 billion in aid pledged by industrialized nations to developing ones by 2020. Christiana Figueres, the UN diplomat leading the talks, has said it must be a key outcome of two weeks of talks in Durban, South Africa that are due to end tomorrow.
The U.S., Venezuela and Saudi Arabia last week objected to a report laying out the structure and governance of the fund, delaying a final decision.
“It has made a lot of progress, it’s an area that’s among the most advanced in the negotiations, and I don’t have any reason to think that’s not going to conclude,” U.S. delegation chief Todd Stern told reporters today in Durban. “That’s going to get done. I’m confident of that.”
Stern’s comments echo those of envoys from Barbados, and Bangladesh, raising the prospect that the Durban talks, deadlocked over the thorny issue of the future of the existing climate treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, may result in the creation of a fund that’s prized by developing nations.
Source of Income
Even so, the fund will need to have sources of income, and developed nations have yet to pledge public funds. There’s a concern the fund shouldn’t be an “empty shell,” said Barbadian envoy Selwin Hart, who negotiates on finance for the 42-member Alliance of Small Island States.
“We need more signals from developed countries that they are willing to support this fund,” said Hart. “We can design a perfect institutional structure, but if there are no resources, it will not have the effect it must have.”
Hart said he’s “confident” the fund will be established in Durban, as did Bangladeshi negotiator Quamrul Chowdury, who said there is still stalemate on some outstanding issues.
Mexico’s environment minister said his country would like to host the fund’s secretariat because his country is a good “bridge” between the industrialized and developing worlds.
Germany also offered to host the Green Climate Fund and pledged 40 million euros ($53 million) for further operationalization and start-up costs.
U.K. Energy Secretary Chris Huhne said Britain intends to “support” the fund as soon as it’s operational.
Not Immediate
“We have heard that there are some developed countries that are waiting for the fund to be adopted in Durban before they announce money that they will put in the fund,” said Silvia Merega, an Argentinian envoy who negotiates for the G77 block of more than 130 developing nations and China. “We are skeptical on the capitalisation. We think it is not going to happen immediately.”
The green fund’s structure was largely agreed before delegates came to Cancun, and shouldn’t be a stumbling block, according to Mark Lynas, climate change adviser to Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed,.
“Setting up the Green Climate Fund isn’t a deal breaker,” Lynas said. “The deal breaker is whether any money goes into it.”
http://newsrace.com/category/politics/
- Alex Jones - 2012-May-18, Friday 19/05/2012Friday - Alex Jones […]
- Alex Jones - 2012-May-17, Thursday 19/05/2012Thursday - Alex Jones […]
- Alex Jones - 2012-May-16, Wednesday 19/05/2012Wednesday - Alex Jones […]
- Alex Jones - 2012-May-15, Tuesday 19/05/2012Tuesday - Alex Jones […]
- Alex Jones - 2012-May-14, Monday 19/05/2012Monday - Alex Jones […]
- Alex Jones - 2012-May-11, Friday 19/05/2012Friday - Alex Jones […]
- Alex Jones - 2012-May-13, Sunday 19/05/2012Sunday - Alex Jones […]
- Alex Jones - 2012-May-10, Thursday 19/05/2012Thursday - Alex Jones […]
- Alex Jones - 2012-May-09, Wednesday 19/05/2012Wednesday - Alex Jones […]
- Alex Jones - 2012-May-08, Tuesday 19/05/2012Tuesday - Alex Jones […]
- The Colonies and the Revolution. 19/05/2012Podcast on ch.3 of the law school textbook Firearms Law and the Second Amendment. 44 mins. […]
- Reducing the Drug War's Damage to Government Budgets 19/05/2012Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Kopel, with Trevor Burrus. […]
- Bloomberg's X-ray. 19/05/2012NYC develops gun detectors to conduct secret warrantless searches. America's 1st Freedom. May 2012. […]
- Liberty Quotes. Free new book. 19/05/2012Just published on-line by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Lots of pro-RKBA quotes, including 21 by Kopel […]
- Cinco de Mayo: An all-American holiday 19/05/2012Created in 1862 by American Hispanics, to celebrate a victory in the Union's battle against slavery. […]
- Calderon misfires on U.S. gun control 19/05/2012Kopel op-ed in WashTimes […]
- Talks with Iran 19/05/2012Transcript, in Russian. Also includes link to Russian audio, from Radio Liberty […]
- Debate on constitutionality of Obamacare 19/05/2012Kopel vs. Univ. of Colo. Prof. Scott Moss. […]
- Gun and self-defense law reform after Heller 19/05/2012Kopel presentation at Fordham Law School. Kopel begins at 15:30 […]
- Antecedents of the Second Amendment: From Confucius to the British Whigs 19/05/2012Podcast of chapter 2 of Kopel's new law school textbook. […]
- Canada abolishes long gun registry. 19/05/2012Kopel details this extremely important development. […]
- Firearms Law and the Second Amendment. Chapter 1. 19/05/2012First in a podcast series on Kopel's new law school textbook. […]
- Online learning is no replacement for energetic classes, engaging teachers 19/05/2012Tami Miller writes: As a supplement to the classroom experience, it is a useful tool, but it in no way replaces the professor who is adept at the craft of creating classroom cultures that challenge, engage and encourage students to apply themselves to meaningful tasks that may require hours of committed research and work. […]oliveoreglet
- Letters: Primary reflections, TriMet transparency, school success, JPMorgan trading loss 19/05/2012The question I have now is whether our district and union leaders will recognize the moral of this story -- that more class time and more exceptional teachers in our high schools are essential for all students to achieve success in school and life. […]oliveoreglet
- Portland Parks & Recreation has other options to avoid closing Buckman Pool 19/05/2012Ellen Spitaleri writes: We ask that the City Council consider some alternatives to closing the Buckman Pool; those could include reduced hours or a campaign to publicize the pool, to bring awareness to more people that the pool is open for water activities, thus generating more revenue to pay for the pool's upkeep. […]oliveoreglet
- Letters: Education funding, outdoor activities, two-wheeled safety, too much of a party, urban renewal 19/05/2012Humans are relational beings and need to learn how to be part of a community. We thrive when we laugh and sing and gripe with others. Give your children a chance to breathe and participate. At least then they'll know that they have options. […]oliveoreglet
- Workers everywhere, including TriMet employees, need high-quality, afforable health care 19/05/2012Steve Cheseborough writes: The way to solve this problem is not to take away the TriMet workers' health care. It is to provide a similar health care system for everyone, a single-payer plan that takes the insurance companies' hands out of our pockets. […]oliveoreglet
- Letters: Outdoor School, teacher salaries, health care costs, Winterhawks 19/05/2012I would like to thank the Portland Winterhawks for a fabulous year of hockey. This team is a talented group of young men led by coach Mike Johnston. They ended up one game short of a berth at the coveted Memorial Cup, but they are all winners in my eyes. […]oliveoreglet
- Young women's leadership academy provides high-quality education 19/05/2012Joanne McIntyre writes: Tubman is bridging gender gaps in math and science. At a recent Portland Public Schools science fair, Tubman students won more awards than any other high school in the district. […]oliveoreglet
- Letters: Housing equity, Mitt Romney, Mother's Day, TriMet benefits, parades, a gift for the arts 19/05/2012Fred Fields understood how important it is to recognize that the arts need financial support. Every day, cities across Oregon offer small and big museums, performing groups, and artists whose talent and efforts preserve and share the rich culture of this region. […]oliveoreglet
- Everyone deserves marriage equality under the law 19/05/2012Eugene Uphoff writes: If the right to a marriage license is granted to one, it must be granted to all. Do you think gays aren't entitled to marry? Sorry, but you don't get to decide that because you ceded the issuance of marriage licenses to our government. […]oliveoreglet
- Letters: Health care rights, clean water, trickle-down economics, online learning, Outdoor School, marriage equality 19/05/2012It's past time that we make these rights real, with health care security and freedom for all of our people through a single-payer health care plan. […]oliveoreglet
- Occupy NATO Protesters Arrested On Terrorism Charges 19/05/2012[…]
- US Chamber, Manufacturers to Congress: Drop Green Building Program 19/05/2012A group of industry heavyweights have asked a top House Republican to put the breaks on the federal government's likely adoption of new green building standards, a letter obtained by Breitbart News shows. After a Congressional hearing last week examining the science behind green building rating systems, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association […]
- Updated: Evidence of Author Plagiarizing Elizabeth Warren Book 19/05/2012[…]
- WI Union Member Supports Scott Walker Over 'Marxist' Union Leadership 19/05/2012[…]
- Facebook IPO: Huge Volume, Slumping Price 19/05/2012The first day of trading for shares of Facebook didn't go well, with the stock struggling to stay above it's IPO price of $38. Earlier in the week, buzz about the Facebook IPO led the company to increase its target price from $28-35 up to $34-$38. The company also increased the number of available shares ahead of the launch by 25%. Now it seems tha […]
- ‘Exorcist’ Author Prepares Canon Lawsuit to Cut Georgetown’s Ties to Catholic Church 19/05/2012[…]
- Recall: Barrett Donor Gets No-bid Contract in Milwaukee 19/05/2012[…]
- Witness: Trayvon Martin Attacked George Zimmerman 'MMA Style' 19/05/2012Trayvon Martins real actions prior to being shot are finally being revealed. According to Sanford Police Department reports released today, a witness interviewed 90 minutes after the shooting testified that he saw Martin straddling George Zimmerman on the ground and violently battering him MMA style before Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest. The witness s […]
- Van Jones Rips Holder over Fast and Furious 19/05/2012[…]
- Did Elizabeth Warren Plagiarize Her 'Pow Wow Chow' Recipes? 19/05/2012[…]
- Recall: House Dems Targeting Scott Walker 19/05/2012[…]
- New Book: David Axelrod Privately Calls Obama 'Black Jesus' 19/05/2012[…]
- 'Dem Bums': Congressional Baseball Practice 19/05/2012[…]
- Massive Potential for Fraud in Montana Ahead of Primary 19/05/2012With Montana voters now receiving mail-in ballots for the June 5th primary election, Media Trackers Montana is receiving reports of significant ballot errors across the state. Unconfirmed reports placed possible statewide errors in the thousands, with a possible 600 erroneous ballots being reported in Broadwater County alone. Secretary of State, Democrat Lin […]
- SEIU Union Bosses May Make LAX the Most Dangerous Airport in America 19/05/2012[…]
- John Wolfe: Meet the Man Who Could Defeat Obama in Arkansas 19/05/2012[…]
- A 'Fact Checking Error'? Dystel & Goderich Ask Writers to Submit Their Own Bios 19/05/2012[…]
- Video: AEI/Arthur Brooks - Are Free Markets Fair? 19/05/2012[…]
- A 'Fact Checking Error'--Again, and Again, and Again... 19/05/2012[…]
- Obama Signs Brian A. Terry Memorial Act into Law 19/05/2012Border Patrol Brian A. Terry loved his job. According to a website in honor of him, he wanted to be a Federal Agent since he was a little kid. After he served in the Marines and was a police officer, Brian wanted more and decided to apply for the Border Patrol. He was president of his graduating class and assigned to the NACO station in Bisbee, Arizona. But […]
- Portland mayoral candidate Charlie Hales fires majority of campaign staff
- Portland officials consider giving transportation director more authority over garage fees: Portland City Hall roundup
- Portland must comply with plan to shut down open reservoirs by 2020, state says
- Eileen Brady's campaign prepared for 'Day One of her transition team': Portland City Hall roundup
- Mixed messages hurt Eileen Brady's Portland mayoral campaign
- Portland's mayoral election suggests limits to startup community's political interest, influence
- From Eileen Brady's stunning loss to Steve Novick's first victory: Portland City Hall roundup
- Beth Slovic dissects the Portland mayoral race (video)
- Charlie Hales, Jefferson Smith to runoff for Portland mayor; Eileen Brady out (2012 primary election)
- Amanda Fritz and Mary Nolan's Portland City Council race, separated by only hundreds of votes, heads to November rematch (2012 primary election)
- Amanda Fritz and Mary Nolan deadlocked in Portland City Council contest (2012 primary election)
- Voters overwhelmingly pass Multnomah County Library funding measure (2012 primary election)
- Steve Novick wins Portland City Council race (2012 primary election)
- Where will Portland Mayor Sam Adams be on election night?
- Portland proposes raising garbage rates by as much as 9.5 percent: Portland City Hall roundup
- New poll shows Charlie Hales and Jefferson Smith leading Portland mayor's race and Eileen Brady sputtering
- Portland sues Oregon Liquor Control Commission over food carts with booze: Portland City Hall roundup
- Portland mayoral candidates campaigning nonstop until Tuesday
- Steve Novick, candidate for Portland City Council, expected to move from sidelines to center stage
- Last-minute money in the mayor's race: Portland City Hall roundup