"The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge."

Thursday, September 29, 2011

DOE's Solarpalooza Smelly Smarmy 'Nudge'

                The Big Green Agenda                                      

On February 17, 2009 Obama signed a $787 Billion Dollar the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a stimulus package.  The ARRA was packed with billions of dollars dedicated to Green Energy.

If you really want to have your eyes glaze over at the staggering sum of monies spent by Steven Chu, King Pin of  the Department of Energy, on this Administrations Green Agenda, take a look at this project spread sheet from the Department of Energy's site.

On September 6th, Solyndra which received $535 million, in a loan that was restructured last January, which placed tax payers last filed for Bankruptcy.  One of the owners, Kaiser, was a campaign bundler and major contributor to the Obama election in 2008. "..."Solyndra's downfall puts a spot light on the kind of taxpayer-funded cronyism this White House said it would eliminate," said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus in a statement. "After bundling tens of thousands of dollars for President Obama and his campaign, company officials were granted at least 20 visits to the White House and had Energy Department officials sitting in on company board meetings. Before taxpayers are forced to spend another dime of stimulus money, the White House must explain why they were so reckless the first time around."

House Republicans also say they have e-mails showing the White House pressuring Department of Energy professionals to expedite the loan approvals, although the White House has argued that nothing improper happened..."

On September 28, 2011 the Department of Energy announced a $737 million dollar loan guarantee to Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC to develop the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project.  ..."One deal, a $737 million loan guarantee for Solar Reserve LLC, paves the way for construction of the 110-megawatt Crescent Dunes Solar Energy facility, which will use an array of mirrors to focus the sun's heat and power a steam generator. The Crescent Moon project will create 600 construction jobs assembling and mounting solar panels during the projected 30 month construction time frame, and 45 permanent operation positions once opened and licensed for operation, at an outrageous cost of $1,142,635 per job.

From this document released by the Department of Interior, led by Ken Salazar, states the goal is to: "...Provide an $850 million investment in U.S. renewable energy infrastructure, aided by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act-supported loan guarantees and renewable energy investment tax credits." This release goes on to state, "... ANOTHER RECOVERY ACT LEGACY: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) has served as an opportunity to transform the way we use energy, reducing our carbon emissions and create entire new industries based on American resources, ingenuity, and workers. Through the ARRA payments in lieu of tax credits for specified energy program, Tonopah Solar Energy can apply for payments of up to 30% of the eligible costs of the project. These payments are authorized by Section 1603 of the ARRA tax title."   

Some of the smarmy smelly details surfacing in the $737 million dollar deal to Tonapah, according to The Gateway Pundit"It’s as if Solyndra never happened. The Obama Administration is giving $737 million to a Tonopah Solar, a subsidiary of California-based SolarReserve. PCG is an investment partner with SolarReserve. Nancy Pelosi’s brother-in-law happens to be the number two man at PCG..."
Also troubling is one of the Principles from Solyndra, George Kaiser a campaign funding bundler, is also invested in this project. Kaiser has been reported to have made multiple visits to Whitehouse, prior to Solyndra receiving the $535 million dollar loan.  In this You Tube, from July of 2009, Kaiser stated "there has never been more money shoved out of the Government's door," while bragging  about leveraging his White House connections in order to gain Stimulus funds.

If Kaiser has the following Forbes rankings, #31 Forbes 400, #89 Forbes Billionaires and #32 in United States, it begs the question if Solyndra was such a sound fiscal idea, why did he not personally participate through a venture capital group?

According to this document heralding the announcement, here is an explanation of how this new technology works, "...SolarReserve’s solar power tower technology generates power from sunlight by focusing the sun’s thermal energy utilizing thousands of sun-tracking mirrors (called heliostats) onto a central receiver. A salt compound, heated to its liquid state, is circulated through the receiver to collect and store that energy. The heated salt then flows to an insulated storage tank, where it is stored for use during times when direct sunlight is unavailable, allowing for 24-hour-a-day power availability. When electricity is needed, the hot salt is sent to a heat exchanger to produce steam, which in turn drives a conventional steam turbine electrical generator. The cooler molten salt is stored, ready to be reheated by the sun and used again as part of a continuous closed loop. The system is completely self-sustaining and emissions free – no fossil fuels are required."

The second deal, a $337 million dollar loan guarantee awarded on Thursday September, 28, 2011, to Sempra Energy, California’s third- largest utility, received a $337 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee to build a 150-megawatt solar project in Arizona. While the project boast the solar panels will be manufactured in Arizona, the Suntech is a Chinese Solar Manufacturer.  In this article from Bloomberg Business Week, "The Mesquite project in Maricopa County, about 45 miles (72 kilometers) west of Phoenix, will use 800,000 multicrystalline silicon solar panels from Wuxi, China-based Suntech Power Holdings Co., San Diego-based Sempra said in February."

According to this article, from Seeking Alpha,  It clearly shows Suntech operating in the red, "Suntech Power (STP) is posting earnings results this morning that are in line with its competitors. Strong revenues and plummeting profits. Even when you take out the write off for the MEMC (WFR) and CSG Solar investments, the company still lost .19/share despite strong revenues of $830 million. Analysts had expected a profit from the company on revenues of $800 million. The CEO acknowledged it remains a highly competitive market and that it should remain so for some time.

"In a competitive market environment, our core operations performed well as customers continued to demonstrate their preference for Suntech’s superior quality and highly bankable solar products," said Dr. Shi, Suntech’s chairman and CEO. "With 48% shipment growth year-over-year, we achieved our shipment guidance and continued to improve our position in the Americas and emerging solar markets. Our pipeline to supply bankable utility-scale solar projects continued to build during the quarter, most notably with our 190MW partnership with Solarhybrid in Europe, and a recently-inked 200MW agreement for multiple projects in North America. We are also gaining traction in China’s utility solar market, which has been stimulated by the introduction of a national feed-in-tariff."

Looking ahead, the company expects PV shipments to increase 15% sequentially but also expects a $30 million loss relating to hedging. For the full year, the company expects to ship at 2.2GW of solar products and generate revenue of $3.2 – $3.4 billion which is lower than the previous estimate for $3.3 – $3.5 billion.

After initially rising at the open today, shares of STP have given up most of the gains and remain very weak technically. Sell volume continues to overshadow buy volume so it’s going to take some time before a definitive bottom can be called."

Here is a capture of Suntech's performance , showing the stocks decline,  and a review, "Sep 29, 2011 (SmarTrend(R) Spotlight via COMTEX) -- SmarTrend identified a Downtrend for Suntech Power Holdings (NYSE:STP - Analyst Report) on May 04, 2011 at $8.37. In approximately 5 months, Suntech Power Holdings has returned 70.1% as of today's recent price of $2.50.

In the past 52 weeks, shares of Suntech Power Holdings have traded between a low of $2.49 and a high of $10.83 and are now at $2.50, which is 0% above that low price.

Suntech Power Holdings is currently below its 50-day moving average of $5.28 and below its 200-day moving average of $7.74. Look for these moving averages to decline to confirm the company's downward momentum.

In the last five trading sessions, the 50-day MA has fallen 5.05% while the 200-day MA has slid 1.09%.

SmarTrend will continue to scan these moving averages and a number of other proprietary indicators for any changes in momentum for shares of Suntech Power Holdings."

And there are more in the pipeline awaiting approval, but may miss the deadline for funds that were available in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, expire tonight at midnight, when the new fiscal year begins at 12:01 a.m. EST.     

Of the projects awaiting decisions from the DoE, SolarCity’s $344 million project to install rooftop solar panels on military base housing will not meet tomorrow’s deadline. Two more projects from First Solar remain in the running. Both the 230-megawatt Antelope Valley project, with a conditional guarantee of $680 million, and the 550-megawatt Desert Sunlight project, with a partial guarantee of $1.88 billion, are still in the running. Sunpower Corp. (NASDAQ: SPWRA) is seeking a guarantee of nearly $1.2 billion for its 250-megawatt California Valley Solar Ranch project.

Perhaps the most interesting project remaining in play is Project Amp, a $2.6 billion project to finance solar installations on US commercial and industrial rooftops. The project is owned by ProLogis (NYSE: PLD), and is seeking a guarantee of up to 80% on $1.4 billion in debt financing that is being underwritten by Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC).  It’s also worth noting that tomorrow’s deadline for federal action applies only to so-called Section 1705 projects. Newer technologies like concentrating solar PV fall under Section 1703 of the law and will still be eligible for consideration."

I do not recall great entreprenuer Thomas Edison seeking massive grants from the government to finance his dreams, As a matter of fact the Department of Energy did not exist when Edison was busy being an industrial genious.

I believe in most circumstances communities and states place municipal place huge infrastructure electrical generation facilities on ballots seeking voter support, and are built as a result of voters accepting to certain taxes to pay for these beneficial improvements. 
If these sorts of huge reflective mirror like panels are truly the 'wave of energy' production in the future, (and their environmental impact on arid lands and deserts are yet to be fully understood) why should the Federal Government be engaged in forcing this type of energy production with either your or my tax dollars.  I am entirely against the Federal Government acting as the venture capitalist guaranteeing these enormous sums of money, to 'nudge' Americans towards a favored energy model driven by envirofascist.
Are these the reasons along with closing coal fired electric generation facilities that "electricity prices will necessarily sky rocket"  (In case you are interested all of the You Tube videos have been scrubbed from You tube.)
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was the first piece of legislation shoved down the throats of American tax payers in January of 2009.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Throwing The Crown Jewel Under The Bus

      Big "F-in" Deal SCOTUS Bound 

The Affordable Health Care Bill, was conceived behind closed doors, and is perhaps the most partisan major piece of legislation passed and signed by a sitting President in US History.

Olympia Snow, R, Maine was voted yes to allow the bill out of Committee. In the end she voted NO on the final bill but it was her 'Et Tu Brutess' vote that allowed The Affordable Health Care Act to move forward.

The Affordable Healthcare Act written behind closed doors at the Whitehouse and not one Amendment by the Republican Congress was added to the over 2400 pages long piece of legislation.  And President Obama's broke his Inaugural promise to post legislation on line for a minimum of 72 hours. It was passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve in 2009,  with deals made to some Senators to gain the votes necessary for Passage. 

The Affordable Health Care Act, was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010, in a 'Big F'in Deal Ceremony held at the Whitehouse on March, 23, 2010."...Obama signed the bill in the East Room, before a crowd that included all 219 House members who voted for final passage of the bill Sunday. Also in attendance: Vicki Kennedy, the widow of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., a longtime proponent of a national health care plan..."

Shortly after passage of The Affordable Healthcare Act, (which in my opinion created a permanent 'Caste System') Federally elected Representatives, The House Senate, Branch Executive Branch and Senior Staff were exempted . 

States immediately began lining up to sue the Federal Government for the wild overreach of the Obama Administration and joined one another in an effort to overturn this ruling.  "...Minutes after Obama spoke, Republican attorneys general from 13 states filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn aspects of the health care law, including the requirement that all Americans buy health insurance or face financial penalties..."

Since The Affordable Health Care Act was passed the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius has issued "...number of waivers issued for the greatest healthcare plan in the history of the world stands at 1,472..."

On September 26, 2011 In a stunning decision the Department of Justice announced it would not seek that the 11th Circuit Court review it's 2-1 decision against the The Affordable Health Care Act which now allows the process to move on to the United States Supreme Court.  

This article about the  decision, from the 11th Circuit says, "...Two words: Circuit Split. We now have one. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta on Friday struck down the law on constitutional grounds, by a 2-1 vote. The ruling is in direct conflict with a ruling from June from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, upheld the law’s constitutionality, also by a 2-1 vote.

The 11th Circuit ruled Friday that Congress exceeded its constitutional powers when it required individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.

This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives,” Judges Joel Dubina and Frank Hull said in a jointly written opinion. The decision affirmed part of a January ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson of Florida, who ruled the health-insurance mandate unconstitutional..."

This Wall Street Journal says,"... By not seeking an 11th Circuit review, the DOJ has increased the chances that the Supreme Court will consider the health-care law during this coming term and issue a ruling before the 2012 presidential election, Wall Street Journal reports..."

One cannot miss that the Left appears, to be playing politics and that Obama's precarious position and America's disdain for The Affordable Health Care Act are driving their decision making process.  

This Los Angeles Times article, points to the long shadow cast over 2012 Presidential race by The Affordable Health Care Act, "...The fate of Obama's healthcare overhaul figures to be at the center of next year's presidential race. Republicans have been running on a promise to "repeal Obamacare." If the Supreme Court were to strike down Obama's signature law as an unconstitutional overreach by the president and a Democratic Congress, it could deal a damaging blow to the president's campaign for reelection.

However, if the justices were to uphold the law as a reasonable regulation of the nation's health insurance market, their decision would give a powerful endorsement to Obama's crusade for healthcare reform just when he most needs it. A pro-Obama ruling by the court would also badly undercut claims by "tea party" activists who contend federal regulation of healthcare is outside the bounds of the U.S. Constitution..."

In This commentary from The Washington Post states, "...On the other hand, if the goal is preservation of the policy at all costs, Justice’s decision has at least one attraction. Pretend Justice had asked the 11th Circuit to reconsider and the appeals court took its time, pushing Supreme Court review into 2013. If Obama then lost his reelection bid, it could have fallen to new a new Justice Department to defend the statute — one led by an attorney general appointed by a GOP president committed to unraveling the health-care law in every way he or she knows how. That hypothetical Republican administration could have decided to do what the Obama Justice Department did with the Defense of Marriage Act — offer no defense of the law at all..."

Allahpundit made some salient observations in this column at HotAir.com  "...Good catch by Politico: The deck was stacked against the White House in the rehearing, so why risk absorbing an unnecessary blow by having a full panel of the 11th Circuit rule against them? On the other hand, Tom Maguire made the case this morning for why a Supreme Court ruling before the election would be a very bad idea for The One:

Obamacare does not poll well and Republicans will be campaigning on its repeal whatever the Supremes decide. And (just thinking out loud here) Obama might actually benefit from a Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare, since it would give him an excuse to give the people what they want. Put another way, if the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare it will be obvious that the only way to end it is to end Obama’s reign…

Delay is the only sensible choice for them. The strategic bet is that some of the folks who don’t like ObamaCare will figure that the courts will end it, and they will vote Democratic for other reasons. A Supreme Cout ruling against ObamaCare will energize Republicans; a Supreme Court ruling in its favor will double-energize them.

Interesting point, but having a conservative Court uphold the mandate would be a huge psychological boost for Obama and the left and might even help legitimize the program to independents who have been lukewarm about it until now. Don’t forget either that the White House is expecting Romney to be the GOP nominee. Even if grassroots conservatives feel energized by the Court decision, how jacked up can they be to replace Obama with … the architect of RomneyCare, who did more than anyone else until The One himself to introduce health-care mandates to America?

What I can’t figure out, though, is why O would run the risk of the mandate being struck down before the election. That would be demoralizing for the left and delegitimizing for Obama. What’s left of his first term if his signature domestic policy “achievement” ends up rubbished by SCOTUS as a violation of the Commerce Clause? I guess the thinking is that if the mandate is struck down, he can point to it as proof for liberals that they desperately need to appoint more left-wing justices to the Court and the only way to do that is to re-elect him. But even so, Obama’s not the kind of guy who wants to deal with X factors in the middle of the campaign..."

The Republican National Trust lays out this argument in an interview with David Rivkin, the lead counsel for the 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business in the Florida lawsuit against Obamacare, "...what is the significance of this decision?

David Rivkin: Well, it’s the first time the Court of Appeals has done it, point number one. Point number two, you have a bipartisan panel, I hate to engage in these types of observations, but it’s very important that you had a Republican judge and a Democrat nominee, if you will, come together. But most importantly to me, it is a meticulously crafted opinion. It’s long, 207 pages, and it debunks every single argument the government has made. And it has done it in a very measured, low-key fashion.

In my opinion, it sets it up perfectly for the Supreme Court review, and it will be the most influential Circuit Court opinion to set the stage, if you will, for the next phase.

Host: What is the key reason they gave for finding this individual mandate unconstitutional?

Rivkin: Interesting, because we’re ending up at this phase exactly where we started from the beginning. The argument is very simple. There is no meaningful, judicially enforceable limiting principle that attaches to this exercise of Congressional power.

If government can require you to spend your money, and the court emphasizes by the way, spending your money to purchase a product from another private party.

If the government can do that, the totality of your disposable income after taxes can be commanded by the government. That is a classical exercise of police power. Not a very good exercise policy-wise, but in terms of its legal pedigree, it’s what you call general police power; impacting people because they exist.

In our constitutional system, police power is vested in the states. Federal government is a government of limited, enumerated powers. And the court basically says, quite correctly, that if the government can do this here, it can do a variety of other mandates. State sovereignty is gone. But most importantly, individual liberty suffers..."

A peek at some polling ( and I am willing to bet that the internal polling the Whitehouse is not sharing is even more devastating, in this article from Commentary, shows, "...One of the Democratic party’s leading pollsters [Stanley Greenberg] released a survey of 60 Republican-held battleground districts today, painting an ominous picture for congressional Democrats in 2012. The poll shows Democratic House candidates faring worse than they did in the 2010 midterms, being dragged down by an unpopular president who would lose to both Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

The story goes on to say that instead of an overall anti-incumbent sentiment impacting members of both parties, voters are taking more of their anger out on Democrats. When voters were asked whether they’re supporting the Republican incumbent or a Democratic candidate, 50 percent preferred the Republican and just 41 percent backed the Democrat. And here’s the really ominous news for Democrats: Voters in these districts said they were more supportive of Republicans than they were during the 2010 midterms, when 48 percent said they backed the Republican candidate and 42 percent said they backed the Democrat. (Republicans won 55 percent of the overall vote in these 60 battleground districts, while Democrats took 43 percent.) In 2010, Republicans netted 63 House seats – their best showing since 1948.

There’s also this: President Obama’s job approval rating in the battleground districts is just 41 percent — and only 43 percent in the 30 more competitive seats that are a little more Democratic.

What this means is right now, based on the data of a respected Democratic pollster, Democrats would — if the election were held today — suffer a wipeout that makes what happened to them in 2010 look like a walk in the park. And things are likely to get worse, not better, as the months roll on.

It may be that Barack Obama will do to the Democratic Party what no one, not even Ronald Reagan, could achieve–which is to bring it to its knees."

The article from the Commentary article can be found here.

Why would the Obama Administration be so willing to Throw The Affordable HealthCare Act under the big black bus of his never ending election tour?
 Let me say that coming from this administration who promised to fight to save The Affordable Health Care Act every step of the way, something is not right with this picture.

Here is the case I believe that Obama will make on the campaign trail to whip up, make them 'fired up, ready to go' to his base.

Obama will argue that Republicans and the Tea Party and Conservatives in particular are making every effort to deny every American Affordable Healthcare.  That this decision will hurt the poorest and most feeble, harm college students and that grandma and grandpa will die.  Obama will focus on those who will be hurt most are his base, who will be forced back to the broken system and fraud and outrageous profits of evil private insurance bogeymen and that millions of Americans will be unprotected and without medical care.

Obama will carefully frame his argument not on Constitutional law and the argument for limited government, but  as an attack on the little man and in particular people of color. This argument will be poll tested in the most grand and austere altruistic language.  His argument will be filled with strawmen, murky untrue facts  loaded with fearmongering and race baiting.

Having watched Obama's endless campaigning, for nearly four years, this will be his avenue of attack against Republicans.  I am certain that this will be the election manuever of choice by the Obama Administration.  I am not so certain that they will win this case before the Supreme Court.

Should his administration and the DOJ lose the case, Obama's campaign tour will 'pivot'from the Jobsapalooza Not Jobs plan, and go on the blaming others attack slamming and blaming the Supreme court of the United states and calling for the Justices to be condemned. Obama will vow to the Punish the evil rotten selfish Republican Party.

Obama's argument will also be that as long as the Supreme Court has a majority of rabid right wingers who support the elite rich, unkind doctors, evil pharmacetical companies, selfish private insurers and hospitals that do not care for minorities and Americans of color there will be no justice for the poor and uninsured.  

Obama will say, "Elect me to a second term, and we will appoint judges who will fight to protect those disadvantaged and abused by the rich and selfish Republican led Supreme Court."

I can see no way that the Supreme Court validates The Affordable Health Care Bill.

Should the Supreme Court find in favor of the Obama Administration, our founding documents immediately will truly just become only meaninless words.


In case you are interested from The National Republican Trust, here is information regarding why Justice Kagan must recuse herself from this suit of 26 states headed to the Supreme Court:

"...Until May 17, 2010, Kagan served as United States Solicitor General, whose primary role (as stated on the Office of the Solicitor General website) is to “supervise and conduct government litigation in the United States Supreme Court. Virtually all such litigation is channeled through the Office of the Solicitor General and is actively conducted by the Office.” Because of her work as Solicitor General, Kagan has recused herself from 11 cases, but she will not do so from challenges to ObamaCare. She should, for two reasons.

According to federal law (28 U.S.C. § 455), “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself… [if] he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.” We know from documents obtained through CNS News’ FOIA request that the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) had been preparing for legal challenges to ObamaCare in January 2010, two months before Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law. There is no way she did not serve as “counsel” or “advisor” concerning the constitutionality of ObamaCare.

28 U.S.C. § 455 also declares that a Kagan must recuse herself because she has expressed “a personal bias or prejudice” regarding ObamaCare’s constitutionality. At her Senate hearings, Kagan revealed that she believes the Commerce Clause is almost infinitely elastic: it can be “applied to anything that would substantially affect interstate commerce...”

Monday, September 19, 2011

NY 9 ~ Why Obama Will Veto A Palestinian State

Return Israel To 1967 Borders
        "You Must Accept My Plan"

The Bully in Chief demanding Israel surrender
 lands won in the 1967 War
On June 4, 2009 Obama gave a speech in Cairo, Egypt laying out his Middle Eastern Policy.

In that now infamous speech, Obama wrongly stated Morocco  was the first nation to recognize the United States in 1796, when the truth is that France was our first ally and first to recognize the United States 18 years earlier in 1778.
Obama said, "...At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress."

Since Obama's community organizing speech in Cairo, the Middle East has exploded with one after another revolution.  This summer the Egyptian government was overthrown and President Mubarek, a long time ally of the United States is on trial.  Egypt has had an election, and it would appear that the Muslim Brotherhood, no friend to Israel or the United States has won recent elections and is in the process of writing a new Constitution based on Sharia Law.  Egypt has recently expelled the Israeli Ambassador and the Jewish Embassy in Cairo was attacked and set on fire.

Last year, in May of 2010 Israel seized a flotilla headed to Gaza, "Israeli naval personnel boarded a flotilla of six vessels attempting to violate the maritime blockage on Gaza. Militants on board attacked them with live fire and light weaponry including guns, knives and clubs. The attack on the Israeli soldiers was premeditated."

The government of Bahrain was also under pressure earlier the Saudi Arabia stepped in to squelch the uprising this summer.

Jordan, the only other nation besides Egypt to sign a peace treaty with Israel has also had  civil unrest.  And earlier this month it was reported "...Jordan's King Abdullah II, one of Israel's few remaining close allies in the Muslim world, said in remarks obtained Monday that the uprisings sweeping Arab nations have put the Jewish state in a difficult position. He also hotly rejected the notion that his country should take in Palestinians as a substitute for the creation of a state for them.

Abdullah told a closed meeting of Jordanian intellectuals and academics that Jordan and the Palestinians were now in a stronger position than Israel, whose current government fears growing isolation as a result of the Middle East's transformative changes in the Arab Spring.

In Yemen the President of Yemen, Saleh was attacked by Al Queada and received life threatening injuries.  the country remains in turmoil and a state of civil war. 

Just this week, Turkey and Egypt formed an alliance "As relations between Israel and two of its security and diplomatic bulwarks in the region — Egypt and Turkey — continue to deteriorate, the Obama administration is watching warily.

The unraveling of relations not only threatens Mideast stability and U.S. goals for the region, but it is coming as the Palestinians prepare to seek statehood recognition at the United Nations — a move that is likely to further complicate peace efforts, leave Israel even more isolated and push the Obama administration into the position of appearing to side with Israel over other allies and partners."

In Syria it would appear that the Assad administration has squelched the Arab Spring movement and has killed many demonstrators.  ..."Syria is a hotbed of protest and the Syrian government persist in shooting and killing it's citizens who are protesting for more freedom..."

It would appear that Obama's nation building speech in Cairo has left the Middle East very unstable.  And the tiny state of Israel is now surrounded by neighbors more openly hostile than in January of 2009

On May 19, 2011, President Obama in yet another major speech given at the United States Department of State, threw America's most stalwart ally, and only true Democracy in the middle east, Israel under the bus.

Israel's Pre-1967 Borders
"A day before the arrival in Washington of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, Mr. Obama declared that the prevailing borders before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war — adjusted to some degree to account for Israeli settlements in the West Bank — should be the basis of a deal. While the 1967 borders have long been viewed as the foundation for a peace agreement, Mr. Obama’s formula of land swaps to compensate for disputed territory created a new benchmark for a diplomatic solution."

Here is a direct quote from Obama's speech, “The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation,”
“The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

In 1964, the Arab League founded the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) whose stated goal was to destroy Israel, three years before the West Bank and Gaza Strip came under Israeli control.

For nearly 80 years the Democrats have owned the Congressional District of NY9. NY9 has the most highly concentrated Jewish Demographic of all 435 Congressional Districts.  In a stunning defeat last Tuesday, September 13, 2011 a 70 year old Catholic Republican Bob Turner won what had been not only Anthony Weiner's seat, but also the former Congressional Seat of Chuck Schumer.

In a very candid piece, former Mayor Ed Koch, could not have been more clear why he, a Democrat supported Turner and about the implications of losing this district, he stated, ..."I want to explain why I did what I did, so there's no misunderstanding of my intentions, or of my future plans. I hope President Obama gets the message that's been sent. If he does -- and if he announces, for example, that an attack by Turkey (which is heading toward war with Israel) or an attack by Egypt (which allowed the mob to occupy the Israeli embassy and threaten Israeli diplomats) would be seen as an attack upon the United States -- I'd be happy to support him and even campaign in Florida on his behalf in 2012.

But if he doesn't read the tea leaves and change his position, you can be certain I will continue to bang my drum. I will campaign against him not only in New York, but in other parts of the country next year. I'll be loud and clear about what I believe. There are many Floridians who are concerned about the Obama administration's treatment of Israel, and Florida will be crucial to the President's reelection..."

From the beginning of his Administration, Obama has pushed for a Palestinian State, ..."In February of 2011, the United States vetoed a U.N. resolution on Israeli settlements that Susan Rice had started negotiations on with the Arabs. The Palestinians were furious and rightly so. After all, they had just spent weeks with Rice going back and forth on acceptable language to make Israeli settlement activity a violation of international law. While Obama has sent the same lower-level diplomats multiple times to the region to encourage direct negotiations, he hasn’t sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It’s no wonder the two sides haven’t spoken formally since Sept. 2010."

Rice’s rejection of the longstanding U.S. position of only encouraging direct negotiations led the Arabs to believe they were on a different path. Previous U.S. administrations had bluntly threatened vetos on resolutions that made unilateral declarations, but Obama’s team was clearly open to the idea.
Arab diplomats also point to Obama’s 2010 statement that he wanted to see Palestine a member of the United Nations by Sept. 2011 as proof that he wants them to make bold moves.

It is clear that once again the Obama Administration has shown it's ineptness and has been caught with their diplomatic pants blowing in the wind. 

The LA Times has made this assessment, "With efforts stymied to head off a U.N. resolution on Palestinian statehood, some Obama administration officials hope to make the most of a silver lining — the chance to emphasize the president's solidarity with Israel by casting a high-profile veto in the Security Council.  For months, U.S. and Israeli diplomats worked to forestall a plan by the Palestinians to present their resolution to the Security Council. Now, however, with Obama facing restiveness among some Jewish supporters, the prospect of a veto comes at a politically useful moment..."

At the Stand for Israel site, states this viewpoint, ..."The General Assembly is made up of 192 countries, all of which are U.N. members. A majority are Arab and Third World nations that are anti-Israel and have historically passed a disproportionate amount of resolutions condemning Israel. This practice can be traced back to 1974, when the UNGA passed the infamous “Zionism is Racism” resolution. Since a General Assembly vote has no legal standing, and because the Obama administration has already stated that it will veto Palestinian statehood if it reaches the Security Council, what will the Palestinian Authority gain from pursuing this?

I asked this question to my fellow Israelis and was intrigued by their response. Many people I spoke with think that the P.A.’s real motive is to drive a wedge between Israel and the U.S., and to further isolate Israel internationally. The P.A. believes that if Israel loses the support of the U.S., it will no longer have the ability to defend itself, and it will only be a matter of time before Israel is weakened to a point of submission."

In this piece from Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former director of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence services and a former Saudi ambassador to the United States, it is clear that The Saudi's will be unhappy should the United States block the vote for nationhood of Palestine as a voting member of the UN Security council, ..."The United States must support the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations this month or risk losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world. If it does not, American influence will decline further, Israeli security will be undermined and Iran will be empowered, increasing the chances of another war in the region.

Moreover, Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to cooperate with America in the same way it historically has. With most of the Arab world in upheaval, the “special relationship” between Saudi Arabia and the United States would increasingly be seen as toxic by the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims, who demand justice for the Palestinian people.

Saudi leaders would be forced by domestic and regional pressures to adopt a far more independent and assertive foreign policy. Like our recent military support for Bahrain’s monarchy, which America opposed, Saudi Arabia would pursue other policies at odds with those of the United States, including opposing the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Iraq and refusing to open an embassy there despite American pressure to do so. The Saudi government might part ways with Washington in Afghanistan and Yemen as well..."

What a pickle and a predicament caused by Obama and his Foreign Policy Team.  He has completely undermined the Camp David Accords.  We are dependent on the Saudis for a fair portion of the oil we import, and Obama has created a true nightmare for himself and the United States by distancing himself from our most loyal ally in the Middle East, Israel. 

This Friday, the Palestinian Authority will go to the United Nations and make a bid for statehood, "...The historic friendship between the United States and Israel stretches from the founding of the Jewish state in 1948 to the present day. Our nations have developed vital economic and security relationships in an alliance based on shared democratic principles, deep cultural ties and common strategic interests. Historian T.R. Fehrenbach once observed that my home state of Texas and Israel share the experience of "civilized men and women thrown into new and harsh conditions, beset by enemies."

Surrounded by unfriendly neighbors and terror organizations that aim to destroy it, life has never been easy for Israel. Today, the challenges are mounting. The Jewish state faces growing hostility from Turkey. Its three decade-old peace with Egypt hangs by a thread. Iran pursues nuclear weapons its leaders vow to use to annihilate Israel. Terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians from Hezbollah and Hamas continue.

And now, the Palestinian leadership is intent on trashing the possibility of a negotiated settlement of the conflict with Israel in favor of unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations..."

And from this article found at Fox News, ..."The irony is that only 12 months ago, President Barack Obama said he wanted the U.N. to be welcoming Palestine as its newest member this year. But talks broke down long ago, and the U.S. is in the unenviable position of leading the opposition to something it actually supports, fearful a Palestinian victory might cause a debilitating rift with Israel and set the talks back further..."

From National Review Online, ..."There is no such thing as a Palestinian state, and the United Nations can’t conjure one into existence. That apparently won’t stop the Palestinians from seeking recognition as a state in the Security Council this week. We should veto the Palestinian effort without hesitation.

On top of its legal nullity, the push for recognition at the U.N. trashes the spirit of the Oslo Accords, which commit both the Israelis and the Palestinians to addressing their differences through negotiations. Thwarted at the Security Council, the Palestinians will likely go to the rabble in the General Assembly, where we don’t have a veto and they will presumably succeed in putting a fig leaf on a fraud..."

The stunning victory in NY9, by Bob Turner, R, who ran on a platform castigating President Obama over his Middle East policies, changed Obama's plans. President Obama is struggling in the polls, and he cannot afford to lose the financial support or the votes from the Jewish demographic, which is falling nationwide.

This yet another glimpse into the failed polices of President Obama and the damage he has created for the United States.  How can any of our allies rely on the United States in lieu of Obama's policies towards Israel and his not so veiled incivility to Prime Minister Netanyahu.  At this time nearly 3 years into his term, Obama has yet to visit Israel.

No wonder he is panicked about Jewish support and the voters in NY9, Florida and Pennsylvania.

He ought to be.  Any one with a half a brain could figure out the significance of losing a seat your party had held for 79 years.
I stand with Israel.  I am offended by the treatment our most loyal ally has received from the Obama Administration.

I suggest the following videos regarding the partition of Israel in 1948, and the violence that Israel has faced from Hamas and Hezbollah, two wings of the Muslim Brotherhood, made by The Terrorism Awareness Project so that you can judge for yourself just how wrong headed President Obama's determination Israel should return to her pre-1967 borders.  The first is titled
"What Really Happened in the Middle East" And the second is titled "Jimmy Carter's War" .

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Regulation Nation~An Army Of Regulators

Regulation Without Representation

The United States Government is the biggest government in the world.  In terms of size U.S. revenues, expenditures, deficits and the amount of debt that we have accumulated.

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) has 81,405 Pages Of Taxes and Fees. In 2010 unelected federal regulators wrote 78% more coded regulatory laws than were written and passed by the 111th Congress. Federal agencies wrote 3,573 coded laws, while our elected officials in Congress wrote 217 Bills that were passed and signed into law by the President.

A mind boggling 4,225 laws are placed in the federal regulatory pipeline to become law and 224 are considered economically significant, wielding an estimated economic impact of $22 billion dollars annually.

Of the 58 Agencies busy writing laws as complicated as our tax code, the biggest producers of regulatory excesses emanate from the departments of the Treasury, Health and Human Services, Commerce, and Agriculture, along with the Environmental Protection Agency.  These 5 agencies are responsible for 1,820 rules, or 43% of all rules in the Unified Agenda pipeline.

58 Agencies and an army of dedicated unelected federal employee regulators every day are busy writing exacting complicated rules.  Rules with punishing fines and penalties that impact the lives and employment of every American and effect the hiring decisions and profits of every sector of American Commerce and Industry.

Unlike private industry, that annually makes a cost benefit analysis of their operation, these agencies are not subject to cost benefit analysis that would review their economic impact by a third party.

From an article in The American, "Industry Has Spoken...Will The President Listen", ..."On February 7, 2011, Chairman Issa released a 2,000-page PDF of responses from 113 organizations. We dug into the file, and even we were surprised: While complaints about Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, the tax code, and provisions of the new healthcare law were expected, the clear focus of most responses was environmental regulation. As the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council warned:

The general regulatory thrust of the Administration with regard to energy and the environment will lead to less energy, higher energy prices, a disincentive to manufacture in the U.S. and massive job loss. Our energy sector is being forced into a regulatory vice—caps and restrictions are being imposed on how much America can use and produce, while excessive regulation on energy use and the industry are driving costs higher. Anti-energy activists in the regulatory bureaucracies seem accountable to no one. Unfortunately, small business owners and their workforce will bear the brunt of higher costs and widespread job loss if initiatives at the Environmental Protection Agency move forward..."

And from the same article, ..."the Association for Manufacturing Technology did not cite specific regulations, but rather explained that:  'in many cases, regulations are excessive, confusing and so costly that R&D and business development suffer as a result, hindering job growth and stifling innovation. This is particularly true with regulations originating from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), where it is obvious that regulators know little or nothing about manufacturing.'..."

From The Competitive Enterprise Institute, Ten Thousand Commandments, 2011, page 11, ..."As noted in the introductory summary, taxation and regulation can substitute for each other because regulation can advance government initiatives without using tax dollars. Rather than pay directly and book expenses for new programs, the government can require the private sector—as well as state and local governments—to pay for federal initiatives through compliance costs.

Because such regulatory costs are not budgeted and lack the formal public disclosure of federal
spending, they may generate comparatively little public outcry. Regulation thus becomes a form of off-budget or hidden taxation..."

Regulatory reforms placed by the Legislative Branch of government on agencies to police themselves will not rein in the regulatory state. However making Congress directly accountable to voters for the costs that are imposed on the public written by anonymous bureaucrats would promote more accountable regulation.

The road to control regulation is for voters to require Congress to vote on agencies’ final rules before such rules become binding on the public.

From a study conducted by The Phoenix Center For Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies, ..."In this POLICY BULLETIN, we quantify the impact on GDP and job growth of reductions in
the regulatory budget. Using econometric methods, we estimate that reductions in the federal regulatory budget have sizable effects on both GDP and jobs. A 5% reduction in the regulatory budget, which equals about $2.8 billion in spending, increases GDP by roughly $75 billion and the number of jobs by about 1.2 million annually. A 10% cut in the regulatory budget adds $149 billion to GDP annually and expands employment by 2.4 million jobs in each year. In recent years, however, the size of the regulatory budget has risen sharply, with the Obama Administration proposing numerous new regulatory agendas. This expansion in the regulatory budget is demonstrated here to be a drag on the economy and job creation. Each regulator (or employee of a regulatory agency) costs the American economy, at the margin, $6.2 million in economic output and about 98 private sector jobs each year. Accordingly, if policymakers wish to stimulate jobs and reduce federal spending, then responsibly trimming the regulatory budget may be a viable option."

No matter how you look at the current size and scope of our Federal Government's regulation, it absolutely is not what the Founders of this great nation had in mind.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Fundamentally Flawed Favoritism of President Present/President Absent &

 His Audacious Alliance of Thuggery
President Obama, Democrats and his Administration, backed by Unions, and the Environmental Movement, the NAACP, actively engage in the childish activity of blaming others.  They are engaged in political polarization. Obama the Democrats and the Main Stream Media nearly three years after his election are still blaming the Bush Administration.

During the Health Care Debate, not only did President Present outsource the writing the health care bill behind closed doors to Andy Stern and the SEIU. President Absent allowed the smarmy activity of turning your neighbors to the Whitehouse.  In the bowels of the Whitehouse, Linda Douglass  manned the online email program to turn your neighbors and friends in to the Whitehouse because they did not support ObamaCare.  Once discovered, it was such an outrage that Linda Douglass was forced to resign, and the political ploy of snitching out your friends was stopped.

The newest Gestapo, Politburo Obama snitch out an American tactic for telling the truth about the Obama Administration's smear machine is AttackWatch, paid for by "Obama For America".  What pointy headed rocket scientist genius tied to the Obama Re-election Committee accepted this attack on American citizens and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution?  Obviously Obama supports this divide, conquer and stifle any criticism of the failed policies of the Obama Administration.  President Absent never indicated once or pointed out the total inappropriateness of snitching on your neighbors because they don't support his policies.

In January President Obama stated, ..."But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized — at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do — it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals...."

This summer during the recall elections in Wisconsin unions spent millions in advertising condemning traditional American values expressed by the Tea Party. Elected officials in the Democratic Party Leadership have played the race baiting card against the Tea Party, Maxine Waters, Andre Carson, and Sheila Jackson Lee. Countless MSM talk show hosts and Democratic pundits continue to castigate everyday Americans who support the principles of the Tea Party as ignorant, racist and anti-American. They could not be more wrong.

Not once during the spring or on President Obama's bus tour through the decayed rust belt of manufacturing America did President Absent condemn the fiery rhetoric of his supporters on the left. 

Nor did President Absent or his administration offer anything but excuses of  tin-earred deafness to Jimmy Hoffa Jr's expletives and threats to the  Tea Party Caucus of Congress and members of Tea Party Organizations across America, seeking a return to the Constitution, lower taxes, and holding elected official accountable.

Both the $535 million dollar loan to Solyndra and the raid of the Gibson Guitar manufacturing facility exposed the naked preference to failed green energy and the hostility of the Obama Administration to private sector employment.

On his first state visit to Great Britain President Present gave the Queen of England an Ipod filled with his speeches and wrongly formatted DVRS of all of his lofty campaign rhetoric.  President Absent also sent the Bust of Churchill a gift to the United States after the 9/11 attacks from Tony Blair back to England. 

Continuing his foreign policy successes a vapid President Present offered to meet with Iran's President Ahmedinnejab with no preconditions, while President Absent stood silently during the Iran's Green Movement was rallying by the hundreds of thousand's in the streets of Tehran were gunned down by Iran's government.

President Present's DOJ and the ATF find themselves mired in the  GunRunner Scandal and Fast and furious.  President Absent sat in a State visit joint session of Congress speech by Mexican President Calderone a speech condemning the State of Arizona Immigration law modeled on United States Federal Government coded law. 

In a major speech on May 19th President Absent  called on Israel to return to their pre 1967 borders, this 11months after President Present in a meeting could not grind Prime Minister Netanyahu to meet his demands ..."After failing to extract a written promise of concessions on settlements," President Absent "walked out of his meeting with Mr Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisers and “let me know if there is anything new”, a US congressman, who spoke to the Prime Minister, said."

President Present cheered the "Muslim Spring" in Egypt, and President Absent remained mute while the Muslim Brotherhood overthrew the Mubarack Government of Egypt.

President Present is always happy to show up at any occasion and roll out his straw man argument from his bully pulpit to celebrate Keynesian Economics, and push his agenda forward.  But in the Whitehouse President Absent is happily signing Executive Orders and documents like the EJ MOU to undermine Congress if only until he is replaced in 2012.

This summer once again, during the debt crisis, in July President Present in his disingenuous best once again threatened the Military, Veterans and Social Security recipients they may not receive their checks if Congress would not accede to his and Tim Geithner's massive debt increase request. From the same link, "...Obama decides who does not get paid, and he decides who does get paid. When he threatens not to pay the elderly, the disabled, veterans, and even the military, he is saying that he has higher priorities than them. These may be things like Planned Parenthood, foreign aid to countries that may not even be friendly toward Barackistan, Michelle Obama’s personal staff of 40, State-run media (like NPR), and so on..."

And as usual during the Negotiations with Speaker Boehner President Present moved the goal post and blamed The Tea Party caucus in Congress and the Republican majority for the financial difficulties this nation faces because President Absent refused to take their advice, and did not chastise Harry Reid for tabling the Ryan Budget or Cut Cap and Balance of which either would have prevented the S&P United States credit rating.

The latest affronts to how our democracy works have surfaced as President Present calls for increased taxes while his political cronies like Warren Buffet owe back taxes, ..."On top of this tax bill, figure the value of the time IRS agents have invested trying to collect it – they don’t work cheap, and we pay their salaries – and the resources Buffett’s people have invested fighting back. All of which would have been saved if Buffett simply practiced what he preached, and willingly handed over his fortune to the brilliant and compassionate “leaders” he commands the rest of us to support without resistance.

Warren Buffet is no different from the other liars and frauds orbiting Barack Obama . His hypocrisy just runs billions of dollars deeper. When it comes to “shared sacrifice,” you do the sacrificing, and they do the sharing."

And during the Josapalooza Keynesian Stimulus speech unbelievably Jeffrey Immelt was seated next to First Lady Michelle "Antoinette" President Present pushed for higher taxes while GE paid no taxes .
Further in a more than bizarre juxtaposition of facts and US jobs, GE is moving its X-Ray division from Wisconsin to China  how could President Absent not know this?

Unbelievably President Present in one more Jobsapalooza speech to day said ..."The president particularly emphasized the bill's commitment to providing jobs in education and improving educational facilities.

"All across North Carolina, all across the country, there's schools with leaky ceilings and lousy heating... [with] ventilation so poor it can make students sick," he said, prompting laughter from the crowd in light of the room's lack of air conditioning.

"How can we expect our kids to do our best in places like that?" he asked. "We've got incredibly talented young people who want to teach, but while places like South Korea are adding teachers... we're laying off teachers left and right."

As the student-packed audience cheered, Mr. Obama urged: "Tell Congress to pass the American jobs act and put teachers back into the classroom where they belong."

"We know what's right: We know what we've got to do to create jobs right now," he continued, to enthusiastic applause. "We've got to give workers new skills for new jobs... We've got to give our young people a chance to earn a college education... We need to build an economy that lasts."

"I love you Barack!" one voice cried out in the crowd.

"I love you back," the president replied. "But if you love me, you've got to help me pass this bill!"

There are countless more examples of when President Present's rhetoric does not match President Absent's actions.

November 6, 2012 cannot come soon enough, and I look forward to the day when the President of all of the citizens of the United States listens to all Americans and the President's actions match the President's words.

I am personally worn out of President Present's Agenda before his Constitutional duties, cronies before sound policy and Keynesian Economics the policy of Audacious President Absent wrecking this nation.