I know why Romney lost 3 million white voters, and over 12% of teaparty voters. Voters that just last election, put the Republican party in charge of the house

Have you ever been cought off guard by something like Mit Romney was during this election? To find out that the answer to the mystery was right in front of you and so obvious that everybody else could see it but you. This is how I am when I'm looking for the tool I just put down. Usually if I turn around it is right there. I could not find it because it was too obvious. Romney and the Republican Party leadership sabotaged themselves at the 2012 Republican convention in Tampa. The election results show that, as compared to the last midterm election, white males stayed home by the order of ~ 3 million across the midwestern states that Obama won such as Ohio. Why then did they stay home? Simple answer protest vote against the Party leadership (and their canidate) that has clearly stated they are not wanted. Even thoe the Tea party helped sweep 61 seats into republican hands Party leadership and all that help would be needed to secure the senate and the presidency during the republican convention the Old Guard Leadership and Mitt Romney's people attacked the newcomers attempting to put them down.
From Michelle Maulkin post:
"This past Friday, the RNC’s Convention Rules Committee voted – after several contentous votes – to change the party’s rules to allow future presidential candidates to have veto power over who can be delegates from any state – in other words, take power away from the grassroots and their ability to elect fellow conservatives as delegates.
This represents a brazen move by several Washington Beltway consultants and party insiders to diminish the power and influence of conservatives over the party."

"Finally, we would like them to help us spread the word that this is an insider power grab by a bunch of DC Beltway types who want consultants to be able to pick who the delegates are from their respective states in the future – AS WELL AS FUTURE PLATFORM COMMITTEE MEMBERS. Post a link to this page on Facebook and Twitter…spread the word on the media…COMPLAIN. Let everyone know this is wrong, and that it is ANTI-GRASSROOTS!"
From Tim Eaton | Monday, August 27, 2012, http://www.statesman.com

"The Texas delegation is livid. At a morning meeting of Texas delegates, Munisteri and a boisterous crowd discussed how the proposed change would affect the way Texans might send delegates to future conventions.

We will be “told how to select our delegates,” Munisteri said.

Texas prides itself on being a state party whose members choose who will go the national convention. It’s a grassroots — versus top-town — approach, said James Dickey, an at-large alternate from Bee Cave.

Dickey said the result of the change, if it is approved, could be drastic.

“It would dampen enthusiasm a lot,” Dickey said. “It would dampen excitement about running to be a delegate.”

So after pissing off the conservitive groups that helped elect Romney in the primary and were on fire to help the republicans replace Obama what did they do? Stomp on them again.
" Floor fight: Grass-roots activists battle attempt to rig RNC delegate rules Updated: Palin: “direct attack on the grass-roots;” RNC power grab showdown 2pm; Rush weighs in; purge underway?; Rules Cmte votes 78-14 for deal; dissidents gather sigs for floor fight; Boehner/Sununu declare”no objections” over massive boos on floor

By Michelle Malkin • August 27, 2012 03:04 P

Dudley Brown from Colorado was part of the group trying desperately to use the last resort to block it.
“If you’re trying to win a presidential campaign and put on a show, you shouldn’t poke a sharp stick in the eye of conservative activists,” he said.


From Politico:

"TAMPA, Fla. —The Romney campaign appears to have fended off a floor fight Tuesday over the 2016 nominating process.
First, Mitt Romney’s top surrogates agreed to a compromise on the Republican National Convention’s rules committee that assuaged some angry conservatives.

Then the chairman of the rules committee, top Romney surrogate John Sununu, swiftly brought the amended rules up for a full voice vote on the convention floor late Tuesday afternoon.
Over Ron Paul supporters loudly screaming their disapproval, House Speaker John Boehner (chairing the convention) declared that the “yes” votes had prevailed.
Conservative ire was already flaming out earlier in the afternoon after the rules committee voted, 78 to 14, to accept a full set of revised rules. Negotiated behind the scenes by Romney’s surrogates on the rules committee, the compromise means that winning candidates will not be able to approve or reject their delegates.
But staying intact is a change to the Republican National Committee governing document that makes binding every statewide primary or caucus — that is, the new rule will invalidate any delegate who votes for a candidate other than the one they are bound to support under their state’s rules.

From the Blaze report by Mythoes Holt
"The trouble began when Credentials Committee Chairman Mike Duncan took the stage to announce the results of several appeals requests to have three delegations controlled by Texas Congressman Ron Paul’s supporters seated at the convention. True to early reports, the convention seated two of them, but declined to seat the Maine delegation, instead choosing to seat an alternate delegation.

The announcement that the Maine delegation would not be seated met with audible booing. The decision, however, passed the convention floor by a voice vote, despite the cacophonous roar of “No” from the Paul supporters.

It was at this point that the real chaos started. Business Insider reports:

Things just got a little awkward during the Republican National Convention, as Ron Paul supporters burst out into protest and shouted “point of order” in protesting the RNC’s determination not to seat Paul delegates from Maine.
“Point of order! Seat them now! We’ve been robbed!” Paul supporters shouted.
The Paul supporters’ chants were countered by Romney supporters chanting “U-S-A!”

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, who looked rather bewildered throughout the entire ordeal, repeatedly asked for calm banging his gavel on the podium.
Audio of the screaming was cut out by C-SPAN, but it continued unabated as the convention proceeded, with angry delegates shouting “No” to practically every motion following this decision. The shouting of “U-S-A” followed each outburst, a response that Tweeter robport suggested might have been coordinated:

Timothy P Carney@TPCarney
RT @robport: ND delegate just texted me saying they were instructed to chant "USA" to drown out dissent. #RNCpowergrab
28 Aug 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite
Coordinated or not, the problems did not stop after this first outburst. When Rules Committee Chairman John Sununu took the floor to ask for agreement to a set of rules – rules that have been slammed up and down by grassroots conservatives and conservative pundits for depriving activists of power – the makings of a real rebellion looked to be in the making. Reporter Zeke Miller Tweeted:



Zeke Miller@ZekeJMiller
Two members of the Texas delegation are chanting "Point of order" repeatedly.
28 Aug 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite


Zeke Miller@ZekeJMiller
More members of the Texas delegation now joining in
28 Aug 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

Permanent convention Chairman John Boehner called for a voice vote on the rules. Those voting “Aye” screamed their approval. Boehner called for those opposing to yell. The response was arguably indistinguishable from that of the supporters. Nevertheless, Boehner ruled that “The Ayes have it” and all the rules went through. Despite early reports that minority reports had been sent to the Chair that would have offered an alternate vision of the rules, no minority reports were voted on. It was as though no opposition had ever existed.

Boos and fury followed. The unseated Maine delegation walked out in disgust.


Added for reference for thoes who do not remember the 2009 midterm elections.
Political balance shifts to the right
ELECTION 2010
Republicans also gain in the Senate, though Nevada Democrat Reid keeps his seat.
November 03, 2010|Mark Z. Barabak
Email
Share


Republicans seized control of the House on Tuesday and shrank the Democratic advantage in the Senate, dealing a major setback to President Obama and sweeping a number of "tea party" insurgents into power.

The nearly coast-to-coast blowout -- a result of voters' frustration and deep economic anxiety -- promised to once more change the country's political dynamic, presenting challenges to both parties in a newly divided government.An energized conservative electorate, fueled by the anti-establishment Tea Party movement that emerged in 2009, helped Republicans to what could be their biggest gain in congressional elections in decades.

"It's clear tonight who the real winners are, and it's the American people," said Boehner, who is expected to become House Speaker in January when the new GOP majority takes over.

"With their voices, the American people are demanding a new way forward in Washington," Boehner said, calling for conservative policies favored by the Tea Party such as cutting spending and reducing the size of government

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/boehner-booed-at-convention-as-chaos-erupts-on-convention-floor-over-ron-paul-delegates/
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80294.html#ixzz2Bz1876Dm

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/entries/2012/08/27/national_republicans_at_odds_w.html/http://michellemalkin.com/2012/08/27/floor-fight-grass-roots-activists-battle-attempt-to-rig-gop-convention-delegate-rules/
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80294.html#ixzz2Bz1zMOba
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/entries/2012/08/27/national_republicans_at_odds_w.html/

More Obama voters display there lack of knowledge

More confirmation of my last post: business guy with a good plan but no clue on publicity coupled with aparently no college outreach vs the president with no plan but great publicity. (Provided free from colleges and the mainstreet news)

Put plainly Romney and especially the republican leadership failed to reach the college age voters.



Further thoughts.
The post election economic moves by business to prepair for the new Obama care taxes and regulations is underfoot. The post election layoffs/plant closings have begun. Did anybody else besides me notice that when it looked like Romney was going to win earlie during the reporting that the stock market surged only to lower drastically once it was apparent that Obama would win.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how-many-businesses-have-announced-closings-or-lay-offs-since-obama-won-a-second-term/

election results...thoughts

Feeling quite shocked since the economy and jobs and taxes were on my mind and supposedly high on many others as well. Rather than hiring a new president with business credentials we re-hired the big spending politician who has proven he does not understand economics or business.

Obama's reteric of "The rich must pay their fair share/free stuff for everybody else" won out over the business guy with the plan but bad marketing. Remember the brieghtbart web sight video of the Ohio Obama college voters? They new nothing of our economic situation or the bengazi failures, nor did they know Romney/Ryan's economic recovery plans. They acted like they never heard of them. Yet they were voting for Obama, it was the cool thing to do.

Neil Boortz top 3 posts in his "Neil's Nuze" today are the best explanations for what happened that I have seen so far. Others have incorrectly blamed the "Tea party and conservatives". Last night the ABC news commentator went so far as to say that speaker Baner will have to go to "thoes" guys and reign them in that they are the reason we are facing the fiscal cliff cause "they" blew it preventing us from getting Obama's tax deal. Yes he actually blamed the runaway deficit spending on the guys who are attempting to be finically sound and want the out of control spending/borrowing to stop. His twist of logic/reality is astounding.

By Neal Boortz
Will somebody please explain how in the hell this makes any sense: Exit polling showed that the economy was, by far, the most important issue in this election for voters … yet, they vote for the SCOAMF?

I’ve outlined in detail the failures of the ObamaEconomy and the ObamaRecovery. But even without that information, it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to understand that Obama has been an abject failure when it comes to our economy and recovery.

So what is going on here? Either people are lying about their top voting issue or they have absolutely no clue. Remember what I told you about the Dunning-Kruger effect? Incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas. This is the only way to explain how people can go to the polls with the economy as their top voting issue and push the button for Obama.
These are the people who believe that it is possible to tax our way to prosperity and that the rich aren’t paying their fair share. These are the people who believe that Warren Buffett pays less in taxes than his secretary. And these people are now, officially, the predominant force in America. Yesterday, they proved that.
I warned you that the greatest threat to this country are these uneducated voters. I hope you are making plans to get out of dodge, because the moochers are outnumbering you and they have the numbers on their side to vote their way into your pocketbook.


"The argument could be made that this was our last chance .. this election … 2012. Our LAST chance … and we blew it. Turning this country back toward freedom, economic liberty and self reliance will be an even tougher task in the midterm elections of 2014, and probably impossible in 2016. By 2016 even more Americans will realize that they can use the ballot as a weapon .. a legal weapon .. to do something that would put them in jail if they did it with a gun … and that is take someone else’s money. Game. Set. Match.

Those people cheering this Obama victory have no real idea what is going on in the minds of business owners across America today. Some are making plans to close less-profitable locations and lay off employees. Some businessmen are shelving plans for expansion and more hiring, deciding that it would be better to take their money and put it where it will be safe from the coming tax increases. Other businessmen are preparing to fire some employees and reduce others to part-time status in order to stay below the employee threshold on ObamaCare. People who voted for Obama yesterday will be out of a job by the end of the week because their election wishes came true.
Here’s an interesting dynamic that the low-information voters who put Obama over the top will not be able to grasp. As businesses cut back on employees, and as they move more employees to a part-time status in order to escape the mandates of ObamaCare and other government regulations, the employees who will suffer; the employees who will lose their jobs or be relegated to part-time status with lower pay, will be the less capable, less educated employees who voted for Obama yesterday. They will never understand that their job situation has become more tenuous because of the vote they cast. They simply aren’t intelligent enough to understand that. They’ve done this to themselves, but they are too ignorant to realize it.

Are you wondering what the wonderful low-information voters have brought us on this day after the election?

Here … let me drop a few reminders:
Higher taxes on productive Americans, of course. Exit polls showed that most voters want this. Obama’s class warfare tactics worked like a charm.
Labor unions will renew their push for card-check; unionization by intimidation.
Taxes on jobs producing small businessmen will almost certainly go up.
Obama will issue a call for another multi-billion dollar stimulus bill that will do nothing other than reward cronies and campaign contributors.
Doctors who have been in practice for many years will be closing up shop. They know what a nightmare ObamaCare is going to be for their patients, and they want no part of it.

The Second Amendment will come under immediate attack. The United Nations will be used as an excuse to limit our rights.

The EPA will unleash a flood of new “clean air” regulations that will all but destroy the coal industry and bring huge increases in the cost of energy.

Democrats will start talking about a scheme to levy a tax against retirement and pension funds on the premise that it is not fair that some people are going to have a comfortable retirement while others will have to shove shopping carts at customers entering Wal-Marts.
The push for ETIs will return. Economically Targeted Investments. This means that the government will tell you where you can and cannot invest your qualified retirement (401K, IRA) funds. The purpose will be to force you to invest these funds in “union-friendly” (i.e., unionized) companies.
Democrats will develop schemes to punish states with Right-To-Work laws in an attempt to force more Americans into joining unions in order to work.
Democrats will attack talk radio with community advisory boards and shorter license renewal periods. Syndicated talk radio may be a thing of the past in four years, except for Clark Howard, of course."

real good you tube video.

Retired rear admiral confirms Glen Beck's theory of the Obama administration running guns to Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups, and that American Military personnel were set to respond to the attackers. Only someone very high up in the Obama administration countermanded the order of Admiral William McRaven Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command .

My post title is taken from my read of the recently posted Washington times column by Retired Adm. James A. Lyons. He is someone who is very qualified to discuss this subject from an inside baseball point of view.

From his online biography, his qualifications:

ADMIRAL JAMES “ACE” LYONS, JR., U.S. Navy Retired was an Officer of the U.S. Navy for thirty-six years, most recently as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, the largest single military command in the world, his initiatives contributed directly to the economic stability and humanitarian understanding in the Pacific and Indian Ocean regions and brought the U.S. Navy Fleet back to China. He also served as Senior U.S. Military Representative to the United Nations. As the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations from 1983 – 1985, he was principal advisor on all Joint Chiefs of Staff matters, and he was, the father of the Navy Red Cell, an anti-terrorism group comprised of Navy Seals he established in response to the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut. Admiral Lyons was also Commander of the U.S. Second Fleet and Commander of the NATO Striking Fleet which were the principle fleets for implementing the Maritime Strategy. Admiral Lyons has represented U.S. interests with military and civilian leadership worldwide – including China, Japan and other Pacific Rim countries, the European continent and Russia. As Fleet Commander he managed a budget of over $5 billion and controlled a force of 250,000 personnel. Key assignments preceding Flag rank included Chief of Staff, Commander Carrier Group Four, Commanding Officer, USS Richmond K. Turner (CG-20) and Commanding Officer, USS Charles S. Sperry (DD697). He has been recognized for his distinguished service by the United States and several foreign governments. He is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and has received post graduate degrees from the U.S. Naval War College and the U.S. National Defense University.


LYONS: Obama needs to come clean on what happened in Benghazi
The American people deserve to know the truth


By Adm. James A. Lyons Sunday, October 28, 2012.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/28/lyonsobama-needs-come-clean-what-happened-benghazi

There is an urgent need for full disclosure of what has become the “Benghazi Betrayal and Cover-up.” The Obama national security team, including CIA, DNI and the Pentagon, apparently watched and listened to the assault on the U.S. consulate and cries for help but did nothing. If someone had described a fictional situation with a similar scenario and described our leadership ignoring the pleas for help, I would have said it was not realistic—not in my America – but I would have been proven wrong.



We now know why Ambassador Christopher Stevens had to be in Benghazi the night of 9/11 to meet a Turkish representative, even though he feared for his safety. According to various reports, one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments’ support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a “central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.”



In another excellent article, Clare Lopez at RadicalIslam.org noted that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with our Benghazi mission. During the terrorist attack, the warehouses were probably looted. We do not know what was there and if it was being administrated by our two former Navy SEALs and the CIA operatives who were in Benghazi. Nonetheless, the equipment was going to hardline jihadis.




Once the attack commenced at 10:00 p.m. Libyan time (4:00 p.m. EST), we know the mission security staff immediately contacted Washington and our embassy in Tripoli. It now appears the White House, Pentagon, State Department, CIA, NDI, JCS and various other military commands monitored the entire battle in real time via frantic phone calls from our compound and video from an overhead drone. The cries for help and support went unanswered.



Our Benghazi mission personnel, including our two former Navy SEALs, fought for seven hours without any assistance other than help from our embassy in Tripoli, which launched within 30 minutes an aircraft carrying six Americans and 16 Libyan security guards. It is understood they were instrumental in helping 22 of our Benghazi mission personnel escape the attack.


Once the attack commenced, Stevens was taken to a “safe room” within the mission. It is not known whether his location was betrayed by the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, the local force providing security to the consulate, which had ties to the Ansar al-Sharia terrorist group conducting the attack, and to al Qaeda. Unbelievably, we still do not know how Ambassador Stevens died.


The Obama national security team, including CIA, DNI, State Department and the Pentagon, watched and listened to the assault but did nothing to answer repeated calls for assistance. It has been reported that President Obama met with Vice President Joseph R. Biden and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in the Oval Office, presumably to see what support could be provided. After all, we had very credible military resources within striking distance. At our military base in Sigonella, Sicily, which is slightly over 400 miles from Benghazi, we had a fully equipped Special Forces unit with both transport and jet strike aircraft prepositioned. Certainly this was a force much more capable than the 22-man force from our embassy in Tripoli.


I know those Special Forces personnel were ready to leap at the opportunity. There is no doubt in my mind they would have wiped out the terrorists attackers. Also I have no doubt that Admiral William McRaven, Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, would have had his local commander at Sigonella ready to launch; however, apparently he was countermanded—by whom? We need to know.


I also understand we had a C-130 gunship available, which would have quickly disposed of the terrorist attackers. This attack went on for seven hours. Our fighter jets could have been at our Benghazi mission within an hour. Our Special Forces out of Sigonella could have been there within a few hours. There is not any doubt that action on our part could have saved the lives of our two former Navy SEALs and possibly the ambassador.


Having been in a number of similar situations, I know you have to have the courage to do what’s right and take immediate action. Obviously, that courage was lacking for Benghazi. The safety of your personnel always remains paramount. With all the technology and military capability we had in theater, for our leadership to have deliberately ignored the pleas for assistance is not only in incomprehensible, it is un-American.


Somebody high up in the administration made the decision that no assistance (outside our Tripoli embassy) would be provided, and let our people be killed. The person who made that callous decision needs to be brought to light and held accountable. According to a CIA spokesperson, “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need.” We also need to know whether the director of CIA and the director of National Intelligence were facilitators in the fabricated video lie and the overall cover-up. Their creditability is on the line. A congressional committee should be immediately formed to get the facts out to the American people. Nothing less is acceptable.


Retired Adm. James A. Lyons. (bolding by buglover34465)


Here is my problem with all this, the one thing in my opinion, that Obama and his administration were attempting to cover up.
After George Bush spent Billions of dollars on two wars and many American soldiers lives, attacking, routing, and killing the leadership of AL Qaeda, (the group responsible for killing 3000 plus Americans in the 9.11.2001 Terrorist attack) why is the Obama Administration re-arming, and refunding them?

Buglover34465

Copy of Black five post info from a "legandary Delta operator" confirming weapons systems were in the air over Bengazi.

POSTED BY BLACKFIVE • [OCTOBER 26, 2012] Having a back and forth with a former legendary Delta operator. Here is the gist of what he is implying: The news is breaking today but there is a small bit that is being overlooked. According to the statements from Fox News: The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators. Everyone is reporting this but they are missing a key point. From the retired Delta operator: Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me. One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not "paint" a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station. Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area. If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta says) that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed. If that SEAL was actively "painting" a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS! This is far bigger than Watergate. The second worst feeling in the world has to be the platform crew being desperately asked for help, given a clear target and then having to stand down and watch your fellow Americans die. The worst has to be the team on the ground knowing that the President just left you to die.

Damming update to king David post..evidence that the president would have known in 4 minuets of the attack.

'STAND DOWN': U.S. HAD TWO DRONES, AC-130 GUNSHIP, AND TARGETS PAINTED IN BENGHAZI

by AWR HAWKINS 27 Oct 2012 Reports indicate two drones and an AC-130 gunship were in the area when Benghazi was attacked, yet their resources were not used. This runs completely against the current explanation coming out of the White House, which is that Obama did everything he could once he learned of the attack. You'll remember that in the second presidential debate, Obama said that as "soon as I was aware the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team." The not-so-subtle intimation is that Obama was stepping up to the protect the U.S. personnel who were in Libya. And in the wakes of their deaths, which weren't "optimal," we have been assured that stronger action wasn't taken stronger because those options weren't available. Sec. of State Leon Panetta gave us another version this same excuse, saying: "The U.S. military did not get involved during the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi last month because officials did not have enough information about what was going on before the attack was over." There are three huge problems with the excuses Obama and Panetta are making. 1. It is now known that the U.S. had two drones in the area -- both of which were filming the attacks, sending back feeds in real time, and at least one of the drone may have been armed. 2. Reports also indicate a Specter gunship, probably an AC-130, was in the area for backup. The gunship could have swooped in and not only leveled the playing field in the match between 50 attackers vs a handful of security personnel, it could have thrown the attack decisively in favor of the security personnel. 3. The security personnel in Benghazi had painted a laser mark on the attackers outside the consulate. This mark would have made possible a response by the drones or the AC-130 routine had they been allowed to zero in on it. The member of the security team who was on the roof of the consulate, spraying machine gun fire down on the attackers, continually asked for backup from the AC-130. It never came. Obama says he was doing everything he could, and Panetta says we didn't react more strongly because we weren't sure what was going on. Yet we now know two drones were sending back video of the attack in real time, and at least one of those drones may have been armed. We also know a massive AC-130 gunship could have been used for backup as well, but it was not. And we know that security was begging for backup and even marking targets with lasers for the drones and/or gunship so they could make quick work of the attackers. Yet Obama chose not to respond, and that's the bottom line. --------by JOEL B. POLLAK 26 Oct 2012 Central Intelligence Agency director David Petraeus has emphatically denied that he or anyone else at the CIA refused assistance to the former Navy SEALs who requested it three times as terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on the night of Sep. 11. The Weekly Standard and ABC News report that Petraeus's denial effectively implicates President Barack Obama, since a refusal to assist "would have been a presidential decision." Earlier today, Denver local reporter Kyle Clarke of KUSA-TV did what the national media largely refuses to do, asking Obama directly whether the Americans in Benghazi were denied requests for aid. Obama dodged the question, but implied that he had known about the attacks as they were "happening." Emails released earlier this week indicated that the White House had been informed almost immediately that a terror group had taken responsibility for the attack in Benghazi, and Fox News reported this morning that the two former Navy SEALs, Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, had been refused in requests for assistance they had made from the CIA annex. Jake Tapper quoted Petraeus this afternoon denying that the CIA was responsible for the refusal: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate." As William Kristol of the Weekly Standard notes, that leaves only President Obama himself to blame: So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No. It would have been a presidential decision.

Update to King David post

It seems to me that muslim friendly Obama has sided with the muslim brotherhood and is attempting to help them in their effort to take over the arab world. This explains why we helped over-throw Egypt and Libia, which were already our allies/governments working in our interests. And why we are helping the rebels in Syria. It also leads credence to my king david /mob boss theory of having no witnesses and no evidence equals no case against them. Beck reminded that it has been widely reported that President Obama has a close relationship with the Turkish prime minister, before continuing: An hour after that, the Turkish ambassador leaves through the front door and the front gate, unmolested. Now you tell me– why was the Turkish general counsel there? …Why was it so important on Sept. 11 to go to the most dangerous city, into a CIA safe house? An hour after he leaves, the fight begins. We now know that the White House– somebody, the military, somebody, sent a drone. So there was a live video feed of what was going on. They’re watching it in the State Department, they’re watching it at the Pentagon, they’re watching it at Langley, and they’re watching it in the Situation Room. At 5:00 in the afternoon, Leon Panetta has a meeting with the president of the United States. The first email comes at 4:05. So the Secretary of Defense arrives at the White House to have a meeting with the president 55 minutes after the Situation Room and everybody else gets an email saying, ‘Libya, the safe house is under attack.” ​[Emphasis added] Beck proceeded to read several more emails explaining how our personnel in Benghazi were missing and under attack, before he got to one time-stamped at 6:07. According to the memo, Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the attack and– though he isn’t sure– Beck said it’s possible that Ansar al-Sharia was one of the groups that we gave arms and funding to during the war to overthrow Gaddhafi. “This is why the White House covered, because our ambassador was killed by [guys] we were running guns to, and we are still running guns today.” He then read an international report from Russia Today saying U.S. Stinger Missiles are in the hands of Syrian rebels, adding that the New York Times has also reported that we are using the Muslim Brotherhood to arm the rebels in Syria. Beck concluded the segment: “This president is on the wrong side. It is so crystal clear…let’s just take it one step at a time. The President of the United States of America, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State have all lied to you. They lied to you and said, ‘this might be a video, we don’t have all the information, the information is still sketchy, it’s confusing,’…We now have the documents that came into the Situation Room saying, ‘There’s an attack, they’re watching.’ Then, we have the documents that we had a live video feed in the Situation Room, so they could see that there was no protest. ​Then there are the documents– and there’s now 13, with this new one– there’s now 13 different documents saying it’s a terrorist attack, and here’s the group that’s doing it. And they lied to you.” Russia: Syria rebels have US-made weapons ---http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20055271 --- The West has been reluctant to openly arm the rebels Continue reading the main story Syria conflict Aleppo's frontline trauma hospital Turkish town scarred Echoes of Spanish civil war No-man's land A senior Russian general has said Syrian rebels now have anti-aircraft weapons, including US-made Stingers. Gen Nikolai Makarov was quoted by the Interfax news service as saying the origin of the surface-to-air missiles should be "cleared up". Russia is the biggest supplier of arms to its Syrian government ally. Aerial bombardment of rebel-held towns continued on Wednesday, as the UN's Syria envoy prepared to brief the Security Council on ceasefire efforts. Lakhdar Brahimi has been trying to arrange a ceasefire between rebels and government forces over the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha, which begins on Friday. Weapon supplies "We have reliable information that Syrian militants have foreign portable anti-aircraft missile systems, including those made in the USA... it should be cleared up who delivered them," Gen Makarov told journalists in Russia. There have been earlier unconfirmed reports of the Syrian opposition having shoulder-mounted missiles, but the West has been reluctant to openly arm the rebels. In August, Syrian rebels said they had shot down a fighter jet near the border with Iraq.

Bengasi :King David style hit on Ambassador Stevens

More of my thoughts on the ambassador stevens incident. As I see it: This was a King David style hit on the ambassador just like King David did to Bathsheba's husband. In both cases our man was put in the area of highest fighting and the other people pulled back leaving our man to die. Just like with King David this was done to cover the king's sin up so nobody would know. With this theory in mind the facts come into place. Establish the cover story: here we have the pre 9.11.2012 apology out of now where about a video supposedly offensive to muslims that nobody there had yet seen or herd of. Having our egyptian embassy do this ensures that the right people would hear the apology. Then have our ambassador go to the area of Libia where the fighting is the greatest..Bengasi. Have the state department pull the american security detail replacing them with alquieda/musulim brotherhood friendly security armed with billyclubs. Given the instructions of warn them and run away. Now just like King David did, we have our man left to die at the hands of our enemy. Complete this with real time video of the hit, which 2 different news reports have CIA people claim happened, and we can understand why our president could go to sleep after hearing (seeing) the news. Like King David to him his troubles were taken care of, the evidence and the witness were gone. For weeks afterwords we let anybody run through the ambassadors compound, possibly to allow the evidence to be removed..recall that CNN waltzed through the compound days later and found Ambassador Stevens diary on the floor while most of the other documentation is gone. CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson asked the obvious question yesterday: If we could fly an unarmed drone over the consulate while it was under attack, why didn’t we send the military in to rescue our people? Some lawmakers are asking why U.S. military help from outside Libya didn’t arrive as terrorists battered more than 30 Americans over the course of more than seven hours. The assault was launched by an armed mob of dozens that torched buildings and used rocket propelled grenades, mortars and AK-47 rifles. CBS News has been told that, hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle. The State Department, White House and Pentagon declined to say what military options were available. A White House official told CBS News that, at the start of the attack, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta “looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies.” But it was too late to help the Americans in Benghazi. The ambassador and three others were dead. --BY ALLAHPUNDIT-- According to Reuters, the guards patrolled with flashlights and batons, not guns; multiple British government sources told the authors of the story that they’d never heard of Blue Mountain, even though it’s based in the UK. Supposedly, State skimped on hiring a more established firm because they didn’t know how long they’d have a presence in Benghazi and didn’t want to hire full-timers who they might then have to find a position for later. That’s how you end up with your “guards” hiding on the roof — or maybe even lending the bad guys a hand — instead of defending vulnerable Americans inside. That’s who Chris Stevens had in his corner. Let’s see who was in the other corner: The founder of Libya’s Islamist militia Ansar al-Sharia was at the U.S. consulate compound during the deadly attack here, Libyan officials say, but he remains free a week after those allegations were disclosed to Libyan political leaders and U.S. investigators in Tripoli. Ahmed Abu Khattalah—who current Libyan officials and former Islamic militants describe as propagating an al Qaeda-style ideology—was seen during the Sept. 11 attack at the diplomatic mission where two of the four Americans died, said two senior Libyan security officials familiar with the investigation… “There’s no doubt the sheik was there,” said one of these officials, referring to the religious title Mr. Abu Khattalah’s followers use for him. “If the sheik was there, then the sheik was giving commands. That’s how the group operates.” Some Libyan witnesses have traveled to Tripoli at their own expense to talk to the FBI, but “three of these witnesses say the Americans have offered them no protection in exchange for their cooperation, prompting two of them to say they are trying to dissuade other Libyans from talking to the bureau.” So there’s your “spontaneous protest” update of the day, replete with added irony: According to the Journal, Ansar al-Sharia, while denying any involvement, has itself been busy using the “spontaneous protest” defense to claim that the attack on the consulate was some sort of grassroots reaction to the Mohammed film. The White House’s lame, discarded spin is now the de facto alibi of the likely culprits.

must see evidence that our Libian ambassador ws left to die and Obama, Hilliary knew....from the CIA....

http://www.therightscoop.com/former-cia-officials-say-no-way-wh-didnt-know-benghazi-was-a-terrorist-attack-even-during-the-attack/ The CIA officials say we could have sent both a team and air power in time to save lives but the white house/state department did nothing but watch.

More supposition that our libian ambasador was attempting to reaquire the lost rocket launchers..retweet of barry rubin posting.

The Murders in Libya, The Presidential Debate, and The Pattern of Obama Foreign Policy October 17, 2012 - 9:35 am - by Barry Rubin Tweet While foreign policy did not figure large in the second presidential debate, the Middle East again emerged as the overwhelming international issue. In the beginning of the debate, President Barack Obama claimed that he put a high priority on energy independence, an assertion well refuted by Governor Mitt Romney. A president who wants energy independence from the unreliability of Middle East supplies has many options: he could easily expand oil drilling on federal land, promote the use of new technology to produce oil and gas, approve a major pipeline from Canada, and continue production and use of coal for generating power. To do none of these things and put his effort into restricting traditional energy sources and pushing hard for untested, long-term, and failed “green energy” schemes subverts energy independence. But the main emphasis in the debate was on the Benghazi assassinations. Obama said: So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three instructions. Number one, beef up our security and — and — and procedures not just in Libya but every embassy and consulate in the region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure that folks are held accountable and it doesn’t happen again. And number three, we are going to find out who did this, and we are going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I’ve said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them. In other words, Obama said let’s increase security — after the attack was made — and then investigate and find those responsible for the attack. This is all rather obvious and anyone would have done that. But the real questions are different ones: How about investigating why there was such a security breach and the reasons for the attack? And how about what happened beforehand? The official story of what led up to the attack is just plain weird. Supposedly, the U.S. ambassador arrived back in the country and immediately ran off to Benghazi virtually by himself allegedly to investigate building a new school and a hospital there yet without any real security. His protection was to be provided by relatively untrained Libyans who a few months earlier had been rebels in the civil war. It is quite true that the State Department and ultimately Secretary of State Hillary Clinton bear responsibility for the ambassador being in Benghazi and for ensuring his protection. The president would not be consulted on such a “minor” event. But the story hinges on why the ambassador was in Benghazi that day. If he was, as accounts by sources in the U.S. intelligence community suggested, negotiating with a terrorist, anti-American group to obtain the return of U.S. weapons provided during the civil war, that would have been a much higher-priority matter. I have been asked by sources not to reveal the specific weapons system that was Washington’s highest priority to buy back, but the details make sense. The fact that the ambassador was not accompanied by a delegation of foreign aid experts to evaluate these alleged projects shows that the reason for the ambassador’s presence in Benghazi is being covered up. This situation transcends State Department jurisdiction and brings in the CIA and higher-level national security officials. The plan would have been in the presidential briefing and it is quite conceivable he would have been called on to approve of it. Obama and his administration immediately lied to the American people about the cause of the attack, what happened, and who appeared to have done it. – They said the attack was due to the video rather than a revolutionary Islamist attempt to hit at the United States and subvert the regime in Libya. – They said the attack was a spontaneous act in the context of a peaceful demonstration when it was a planned assault. – They said that there was no idea who was responsible when it was almost certainly al-Qaeda. In the debate, Obama charged: While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release trying to make political points. And that’s not how a commander in chief operates. You don’t turn national security into a political issue, certainly not right when it’s happening. Yet all three of the above lies were precisely a matter of turning “national security into a political issue,” and that is what Obama has done throughout his term. To acknowledge the cause of the attack would have been to acknowledge the real threat in the Middle East and the embarrassing fact that American weapons had been given to terrorist, anti-American groups. Incidentally, far from learning anything in Libya, Obama is now doing precisely the same thing in Syria. To acknowledge the nature of the attack would be to show the depth of the security failure — on September 11 of all days — in not recognizing the danger in Benghazi. This includes the fact that the guards were untrained; that they had — according to one of them — been aware of the danger and not told any Americans; that they had fled; that Libyan regime sources had apparently tipped off the attackers to where Americans were hiding; and that there had been no U.S.-provided security. Was that last shortcoming due to an attempt not to “offend” the Libyans by showing they weren’t trusted? If so, that arises directly from the themes Obama has set in his foreign policy. In addition, attributing the event to a video produced in the United States — a clear and obvious lie — put a large part of the blame on America itself. No, huge forces aren’t seeking to create radical Islamist regimes in every country in the Middle East; there are just folks offended by a slur on their religion. To admit that al-Qaeda is still very much in business would show that Obama’s claim the group had been defeated was false and demonstrate the limited value of killing Osama bin Laden. Al-Qaeda is, of course, still strong in Yemen and Somalia as well as having active groups in the Gaza Strip, Iraq, Syria, and other places. Obama continues in the debate: But when it comes to our national security, I mean what I say. I said I’d end the war in Libya — in Iraq, and I did. I said that we’d go after al-Qaida and bin Laden. We have. I said we’d transition out of Afghanistan and start making sure that Afghans are responsible for their own security. That’s what I’m doing. What Obama should have said is that he would end U.S. combat presence in these countries. Yet the wars continue. The assassination of the U.S. ambassador to Libya was an event in that war. And contrary to Clinton’s statement, Obama affirmed: “…I am ultimately responsible for what’s taking place [in Libya]….” But what is taking place? The debate ultimately focused on the rather narrow question of whether Obama had or had not immediately called the assassination a “terrorist attack.” This is a red herring. Inasmuch as Americans were murdered for non-criminal reasons, the attack was by definition terrorist. Yet if this was a spontaneous deed in the midst of a peaceful demonstration of people upset because their religion had been slandered, then it was not so much a “terrorist attack” — first-degree murder — but rather some combination of self-defense and passions bubbling over in a spontaneous way. The real questions, however, were raised by Romney in his response: There were other issues associated with this —with this tragedy. There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration or actually whether it was a terrorist attack. And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack, and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people. Whether there was some misleading or instead whether we just didn’t know what happened, I think you have to ask yourself why didn’t we know five days later when the ambassador to the United Nations [Susan Rice, acting of course on administration directives] went on TV to say that this was a demonstration. How could of we not known? In other words, the Obama administration deliberately lied to the American people. But I find more troubling than this that on…day following the assassination of the United States ambassador — the first time that’s happened since 1979 — when we have four Americans killed there, when apparently we didn’t know what happened, that the president the day after that happened flies to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser, then the next day to Colorado for another event, another political event. In this regard, Obama didn’t so much “make political points” or “turn national security into a political issue.” He simply put his own political benefit ahead of national security. Since, according to his own claim, Obama didn’t know what happened and there was a wave of other attacks developing, he should have put the priority on dealing with a crisis. And as for the way Obama behaved, to quote his own words, “that’s not how a commander in chief operates.” That is why this specific issue is so emblematic of Obama’s foreign policy performance. Romney continued: This calls into question the president’s whole policy in the Middle East. Look what’s happening in Syria, in Egypt, now in Libya. Consider the distance between ourselves and Israel, where the president said that…he was going to put daylight between us and Israel. We have Iran four years closer to a nuclear bomb. Syria — Syria’s not just the tragedy of 30,000 civilians being killed by a military, but also a… strategically significant player for America. The president’s policies throughout the Middle East began with an apology tour and pursue a strategy of leading from behind, and this strategy is unraveling before our very eyes. Quite true. The assassinations in Libya and how Obama handled them are one more example of that pattern. A region involving hundreds of millions of people and the main international source for American energy is going down the drain and Obama is, figuratively, heading off for Las Vegas. Update: It has now come out that the State Department hired a small, relatively unknown British firm (how’s that for outsourcing jobs?) which in turn hired 20 untrained, unarmed Libyans who were told to sound the alarm and run away if there was an attack. From the New York Post US ‘too slow’ to act as drone’s cam captured Libya horror By TIM PERONE From With POST WIRE SERVICES Last Updated: 6:30 AM, October 21, 2012 Posted: 12:37 AM, October 21, 2012 The United States had an unmanned Predator drone over its consulate in Benghazi during the attack that slaughtered four Americans — which should have led to a quicker military response, it was revealed yesterday. “They stood, and they watched, and our people died,” former CIA commander Gary Berntsen told CBS News. The network reported that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft observed the final hours of the hours-long siege on Sept. 11 — obtaining information that should have spurred swift action. But as Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three colleagues were killed by terrorists armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, Defense Department officials were too slow to send in the troops, Berntsen said. VIEW TO A KILL: As terrorists attacked the consulate in Benghazi, a US Predator drone was reportedly observing from above. “They made zero adjustments in this. You find a way to make this happen,” he fumed. “There isn’t a plan for every single engagement. Sometimes you have to be able to make adjustments.” The Pentagon said it moved a team of special operators from Central Europe to Sigonella, Italy — about an hour flight from Libya — but gave no other details. Fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships — which could have been used to help disperse the bloodthirsty mob — were also stationed at three nearby bases, sources told the network. When the attack began, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta “looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies,” a White House official told the network. Even as the administration continues to vow that the perpetrators will be brought to justice, the man identified by witnesses as a ringleader in the attack continues to walk the streets of Libya without fear of arrest. Ahmad Abu Khattala has admitted being at the consulate during the horrific attack but has yet to be questioned by any Libyan authorities. Abu Khattala spoke to a New York Times reporter Thursday from a hotel patio as he sipped a strawberry frappe and mocked the US and Libyan governments. “These reports say that no one knows where I am and that I am hiding,” he boasted. “But here I am in the open, sitting in a hotel with you. I’m even going to pick up my sister’s kids from school soon.” Lax security at the consulate was an open secret. Stevens wrote a cable in June that there wasn’t enough security at the consulate, and he noted there had been a recent spike in attacks against “international organizations and foreign interests,” ABC News said. The ambassador wrote another cable in August that read, “A series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape during the Ramadan holiday.” Stevens said that the incidents were “organized” and that the Libyan security force had “not coalesced into a stabilizing force and [provided] little deterrence.” Several requests for additional security in Benghazi were made to the State Department prior to the attack. They were all rejected. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton tried to deflect blame from President Obama last week, saying the decision not to beef up guards was her responsibility.

Not so funny trend with the Obama administration...calling terrorist attacks anything else but a terrorist attack. Two examples The fort hood massacar and the most recent string of attacks against our ambassador in Bengasi which resulted in his death. "According to Stars and Stripes. The Obama administration has thus far refused to consider the November 2009 mass murder a terrorist attack, choosing instead to call it — I kid you not — “workplace violence.” The victims and families of those murdered by Hasan want that changed ASAP" When describing the bengazi attack Obama in selling his it's due to the video narriative said Something along the lines that the mob attack was the justifiable reaction of mussulims to a video insulting their religion. Not that a mob attack is ever justifiable, not that such violance is wrong, no but he agreed with the terrorist mobs that there actions were valid. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/19/video-fort-hood-massacre-not-considered-a-terrorist-attack/ Article documenting Obama negociating with terrorists something George Bush said America would never do. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/19/What-Has-America-Gained-from-Obamas-Taliban-Concessions This CBS report details how we had a predetor drone watching the attack but sent ne reinforcements in. It also states that Hilliary Clinton knew of the attack and asked the libian goverment for permission to have our military fly into their air space. in other words she knew that night about the attack. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/20/Good-Libya-Reporting-Gives-Romney-Debate-opportunity

Barack Obama's energy policy summed up: Make solar, wind energy more finically feasible by driving up energy costs so that wind, solar look like the better finical choice. Per the May-June 2012 Cogeneration & On-site power Production pg 26 quotes "the average installed cost of residential and commercial solar systems fell by 17% ...the LBNL study estimated an average price of between $6.30/W and $8.30/w for systems less than 10 w in size, and between $3.00/w and $4.00/w for large utility-sector systems." Compare this with nuclear at ~$22/kw ( $.022/w) To do what Obama wants with nuclear power this much lower than solar/wind, the government will have to raise electricity generation costs 66% to make solar /wind viable. For a country in the economic state we are in this shows a dreamer with very bad judgement. Investing in R&D to bring down the costs of solar /wind would have been a much more practical and a less costly solution. Background Obama's administration lost 90 billion backing solar and other green energy companies whose technology and business models were not financially feasible.

must watch video

THE CAUSE OF SKYROCKETING GAS PRICES Here is a promise that OBAMA delivered on..."Under my policies ENERGY PRICES WILL NECESSARILY SKYROCKET"...read gass..and electricity both which hurt the middle and lower class.

Most excellent crystal river anamie show. My daughter Jacquellynne-Marie as Maffia Romano from Hetalia.

Must watch this OBAMA in his own words. His words vs his actions.

Reject the lie, repeal ObamaTax!

Right now Obama is hiring tens of thousands of new IRS agents to enforce Obamacare. He has to, it's a very onerous tax and millions of Americans don't like it. Frankly, this law would never have passed if Pelosi and Reid had told the truth to the American people: Obamacare is a tax. This is why we need to fight back. We need to expose the ObamaTax to the American people. Reject the lie, repeal ObamaTax!

Fast and furious summed up.

A program designed by idealogues to create gun voliance to shutdown gun ownership in the USA. Along with conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Issa suggested as late as April that Fast and Furious may have been part of a policy by the White House to flood the Mexican market with guns to foment violence, which would then put political pressure back on the US to curb its wide-open border gun bazaar and weaken Second Amendment rights… “Could it be that what they really were thinking of was in fact to use this walking of guns in order to promote an assault weapons ban?” Rep. Issa said. “Many think so. And [the administration] hasn’t come up with an explanation that would cause any of us not to agree.”… [W]hile the political lines around Fast and Furious are thus clearly drawn, allusions to Watergate-sized conspiracy theories do, at the very least, also help bolster Issa’s central point: If only to quell such theories, Americans deserve to know whether it was really a hapless bureaucratic blunder or whether administration officials lied about the extent of their involvement in what became a deadly scandal.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

An interesting note the current administrations demand of the border patrol to only carry bean bag shot instead of real bullets means that a border guard's death was and is still inevetiable. nobody in their right mind would bring a BB gun to a gun fight. If our guards had real bullets they might have had a shot. For the longer more detailed version. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0tZm90DcjM&feature=share&list=PL3C13E3C48D1DED7F

If you add this "newly discovered" oil field find, to the balklands oil field, and the gulf oil field discovery, we have by far the most oil and natural gas in the world. We already are the leader in coal. We just need to use our own natural resources. Refering back to T-boon pickins producing our own resources would stop the 2.5 trillion bleed of our money from this country to OPEC. The federal goverments take from full development of the Balklands oil fields is in the trillans as well. Add to it there cut on the new discovery's production. What a kick in the economy that would be. Add to that all the high paying jobs we would have to have to do the drilling and refining. The refineries would have to be built and the drills as well. Lots of good paying jobs. Especially if we use american steel to do it. The american steel companies would love that. Ought to be really good for their local econamies as well. Would it be great to see all thoes old steel towns coming back to life. We can do it.

per Statement of Anu K. Mittal, Director Natural Resources and Environment Testimony The United States of America has the worlds largest oil reserves, in the trillions of Barrels!! If we develope it we can kiss the national debt goodby!!

UNCONVENTIONAL OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION Opportunities and Challenges of Oil Shale Development Statement of Anu K. Mittal, Director Natural Resources and Environment Testimony. Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House of Representatives. Not to Be Released Before 9:30 a.m. EDT Thursday, May 10, 2012 GAO-12-740T United States Government Accountability Office Our October 2010 report found that oil shale development presents significant opportunities for the United States. Potential opportunities associated with oil shale development include increasing domestic oil production and socioeconomic benefits. • Increasing domestic oil production. Being able to tap the vast amounts of oil locked within U.S. oil shale formations could go a long way toward satisfying the nation’s future oil demands. The Green River Formation—an assemblage of over 1,000 feet of sedimentary rocks that lie beneath parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming—contains the world’s largest deposits of oil shale. USGS estimates that the Green River Formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil, and about half of this may be recoverable, depending on available technology and economic conditions. The Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, estimates that 30 to 60 percent of the oil shale in the Green River Formation can be recovered. At the midpoint of this estimate, almost half of the 3 trillion barrels of oil would be recoverable. This is an amount about equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves. The thickest and richest oil shale within the Green River Formation exists in the Piceance Basin of northwest Colorado and the Uintah Basin of northeast Utah. Figure 1 shows where these prospective oil shale resources are located in Colorado and Utah. • Socioeconomic benefits. Development of oil shale resources could also yield important socioeconomic benefits, including the creation of jobs, increases in wealth, and increases in tax and royalty payments to federal and state governments for oil produced on their lands. Our October 2010 report did not attempt to quantify these potential socioeconomic benefits because of current uncertainty surrounding the technologies that might be used to develop oil shale resources, which would influence the ultimate size of a future oil shale industry.

9 dollar gass.

Among the charges against Obama: gas prices have doubled during his presidency, he opposed drilling in ANWR, channeled taxpayer dollars to politically connected Solyndra, rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, and picked an energy secretary who supports European prices for gasoline (topping $9 in some countries).

See this
http://www.americanenergyalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/AEA-Nine-Dollars-Ad1.pdf

Obama oil war: His state department giving away US territory with billions in known oil reserves.

BLACK-GOLD BLUES
OBAMA'S GIVEAWAY: OIL-RICH ISLANDS TO RUSSIA
Exclusive: Joe Miller sounds alarm over deal to put land in hands of Putin's Kremlin
Published: 02/16/2012 at 7:55 PM


By Joe Miller

The Obama administration, despite the nation’s economic woes, effectively killed the job-producing Keystone Pipeline last month. The Arab Spring is turning the oil production of Libya and other Arab nations over to the Muslim Brotherhood. Iraq is distancing itself from the U.S. And everyone recognizes that Iran, whose crude supplies are critical to the European economy, will do anything it can to frustrate America’s strategic interests. In the face of all of this, Obama insists on cutting back U.S. oil potential with outrageous restrictions.

Part of Obama’s apparent war against U.S. energy independence includes a foreign-aid program that directly threatens my state’s sovereign territory. Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin.

The seven endangered islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake.

The State Department has undertaken the giveaway in the guise of a maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia. Astoundingly, our federal government itself drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side. But as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by President Obama or Secretary Clinton.

The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature has passed resolutions of opposition – but the State Department doesn’t seem to care.

The imperiled Arctic Ocean islands include Wrangel, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta. Wrangel became American in 1881 with the landing of the U.S. Revenue Marine ship Thomas Corwin. The landing party included the famed naturalist John Muir. It is 3,000 square miles in size.

Northwest of Wrangel are the DeLong Islands, named for George Washington DeLong, the captain of USS Jeannette. Also in 1881, he discovered and claimed these three islands for the United States. He named them for the voyage co-sponsor, New York City newspaper publisher James Gordon Bennett. The ship’s crew received a hero’s welcome back in Washington, and Congress awarded them gold medals.

In the Bering Sea at the far west end of the Aleutian chain are Copper Island, Sea Lion Rock and Sea Otter Rock. They were ceded to the U.S. in Seward’s 1867 treaty with Russia.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/obamas-giveaway-oil-rich-islands-to-russia/

OBAMA CARE LAW

Talked with the CEO of our powerplant in an 'unoffical discussion of what he sees going on / comming up' (No offical policy but here is what is going on in my world type of discussion). It is a nice thing we get to do this occasionally. When the topic of health care came up he said the people in his circle say that most if not all the companies will drop there insurance when the new government insurance law takes effect and the government exchanges are in place. (OBAMA-CARE)He said we currently have good insurance and he does not want to see it going away, but that decision is above him. We like the catholic church are self insured. As all of us are ex navy, none of us, wanted to go back to VA care as we all have direct or indirect VA horror stories. Then today I found this in the politico:

Four hard truths of health care reform
By: David Nather
March 16, 2012 05:41 PM EDT

President Barack Obama promised over and over during the health care debate that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”

It turns out that, for a lot of people, that isn’t true.

A Congressional Budget Office report issued this week says that 3 to 5 million people could move from employer-based health care plans to government-based programs as the Affordable Care Act takes effect. And in the worst-case scenario, it could be as many as 20 million.

For Obama, it’s an inconvenient truth at a really inconvenient time.
The link has the rest of the story.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=163606BD-07A1-434B-B5CD-EF6825A7DA32

usa-an-oil-rich-nation-after-all

Not including the oil in the montana.

At least 86 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf yet to be discovered
About 24 billion barrels in shale deposits in the lower 48 states, according to EIA.
Up to 2 billion barrels of oil in shale deposits in Alaska’s North Slope
Up to 12 billion barrels in ANWR, according to the USGS.
As much as 19 billion barrels in the Utah tar sands
A stunning 1.4 trillion barrels of oil shale the massive Green River Formation in Wyoming
The main problem is that most of these resources are roped off. Just knowing the oil is there comes as little comfort if there are never going to be any leases issued by the government for energy companies to explore. And our ability to access the shale oil – while technically well withing our capability today – will be significantly hamstrung as long as activists continue to fight fracking and horizontal drilling.