Friday, November 19, 2010

The Tea Party May Save Us Yet.. (by John Myers) Nov. 17, 2010

The Tea Party May Save Us Yet

November 17, 2010 by John Myers 

The Tea Party May Save Us Yet

There has been a huge sigh of relief in the corridors of Calgary's oil towers following the Republican victory in the mid-term election. The GOP win assures much-needed changes in the Federal government's energy policy; changes that will benefit American consumers as well as Canadian petroleum producers.

It seems certain that climate change legislation in the United States is dead for at least the next two years, and hopefully forever. That is good news for Alberta's oil sands industry, which has been facing an uphill battle against Greens inside the old Democrat-controlled Congress.

"I think the playing field for Canadian energy will be a lot more level now," said Republican David Wilkins, the Bush administration's last ambassador to Ottawa.

Former Canadian diplomat Colin Robertson agrees and says that while special interest groups will still keep up their lobbying efforts against oil sands, climate change legislation is DOA. That closes the casket on what could have become a border levy on Alberta's oil sands.

A Fresh Look For Oil Sands
While Canadians may hate guns and embrace universal healthcare, many are happy about the Tea Party's influence. This is true of Canadian petroleum executives who understood the threat of ousted Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). They realize that the 112th Congress will have a far more balanced approach to petroleum. Incited by President BarackObama, Democrats had been making "clean energy" their mantra.

Finally, some sanity is restored. There is a growing realization that wind and solar power are incredibly expensive and are without significant infrastructure, and an understanding that neither will make a noticable dent in America's energy appetite before the end of this decade.

This truth didn't seem to faze House Democrats who wanted a national renewable-electricity standard. They were blissfully ignorant of a fundamental truth — that Green energy is more pie in the sky than it is juice on the grid.

Democrats also misunderstood America's growing dependence on Arab oil. Consider the Obama drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico following the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Neither he nor House Democrats seem to comprehend that oil from the Gulf of Mexico was helping the U.S. reduce oil imports. And while the largely untested Bakken formation of the Dakotas and Montana is promising, it was Gulf Coast production that was making the difference.

Stopping The Greens Before It's Too Late
A more conservative Congress can take immediate steps to re-establish offshore oil drilling and open up oil exploration in Alaska. This cannot happen too soon, as America faces an immense energy crisis — one that the Obama administration has recklessly ignored.

The GOP gets it, especially the conservative wing of the Party, which understands that fossil fuels are and will remain essential to America's national security. Oil will account for more than 90 percent of U.S. transportation energy and more than two-thirds of U.S. electricity through the end of this decade. The newly elected conservatives promise to be an enormous improvement over the previous Congress, which was focused on strengthening the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; an act which Obama reinforced last year with stimulus money.

What most Americans don't realize is what folly taxpayer's money was being spent on. There is a hidden clause in the Energy Independence and Security Act which was signed into law in 2007. It is found within Section 526.

According to that section, all Federal agencies — with the exception of NASA — are prohibited from purchasing carbon-intensive unconventional fuels:

"No Federal agency shall enter into a contract for procurement of an alternative or synthetic fuel, including a fuel produced from non-conventional petroleum sources, for any mobility-related use, other than for research or testing, unless the contract specifies that the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and combustion of the fuel supplied under the contract must, on an ongoing basis, be less than or equal to such emissions from the equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources."

The U.S. military could not get its fuel from Alberta's oil sands and instead had to rely on oil from nations like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, two countries renowned for their grassroots hatred of the U.S.

Last month, Energy & Capital pointed out what an obstacle this is, because America's military is the world's single largest purchaser of crude oil. Most anyone outside the Democratic Party will take Alberta over Arabia.

That is because most people have some common sense. They understand that having a strategic supply of oil next door in a democratic nation that shares a common language and core values is a good thing. But "most people" does not include Pelosi or Obama.

An Early Thanksgiving
Thank Heaven for the GOP's victory. Without it, Obama would have been free to sign a climate bill that would have targeted Canada's oil sands industry. Instead, Obama has been forced to admit that his hopes to put a price on the cost of carbon dioxide emissions — which he and the Greens blame for global warming — will be put on hold for at least the next two years. If you drive a car or heat your home you have to say: Hallelujah and pass the petroleum!

As you know, most Republicans campaigned against a so-called Cap-and-Trade bill that would have put a ceiling on U.S. climate pollution. We have a President that made "Going Green" a priority right after socialized medicine. Obama's Cap-and-Trade bill was in fact passed by the House, but stalled in the Senate because it was rightfully branded harmful to the U.S. economy by conservatives and others who were not corrupt or feebleminded.

Energy Injustice Derailed 
Obama has not given up on saving the environment. The President said he will push for more piecemeal incentives for developing alternative energies that could help the U.S. reduce its "carbon footprint."

The Greens may get their way if Obama continues forward with his economic policies. A recession turned depression would certainly reduce America's carbon footprint. It might even make the most radical of the Greens happy.

If you think I exaggerate, consider KAIROS, a coalition of half a dozen large liberal church groups in Canada that includes the United Church, some Catholics, Mennonites and Quakers. They have a staff of more than 20 and an annual budget that exceeds $4 million. Their largest project is called Energy Justice.

According to their Web site: "KAIROS is in the midst of Re-Energize: Time For A Carbon Sabbath, a three-year campaign for personal, community, and political change."

You might think that Canadian Christian groups might be worried about the lack of democracy or even women's rights in big Arab oil-exporting countries, some of which are known to finance terror groups like al-Qaida. Instead KAIROS, which unbelievably gets $1.5 million per year from the Canadian Federal government, has set its sights on something it considers far more evil: Alberta's oil sands.

What is most frightening is that environmental groups like KAIROS have plenty of allies, including Obama, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Liberty For All
And while many Canadians decry American conservative policies, Canada, too, is reaping the rewards of the conservative revolution spreading within the U.S. Canada is like American liberals who oppose handguns yet sleep better at night knowing that criminals are wary of breaking into their homes because at least a few of the neighbors are packing pistols.

Both Canada and the U.S. need Alberta's oil sands. Canada has roughly 180 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, second only to Saudi Arabia. More than 95 percent of these reserves are oil sands deposits in Alberta. In the past decade, Canada's oil production has steadily risen as new oil sands have come on-stream to replace aging, mature fields. This has been fortuitous to the United States, whose own aging fields have been in drastic decline. That the previous Congress thwarted this marriage of necessity borders on treason.

Next week I will be giving thanks with my family that there is new hope with the new Congress; hope sparked by the conservative ideals of the Tea Party, which are arresting the energy idiocy that is Obama and his Democrats.

Yours for real wealth and good health,

John Myers
Myers' Energy and Gold Report

Did You Know Your Airport Can Opt Out of TSA Molestations? (by Erick Erickson) November 16, 2010

Did You Know Your Airport Can Opt Out of TSA Molestations?


Byron York has good news for people around the country.

Your local airport can opt out of having the Transportation Safety Administration handle security at your local airport. Instead, you can contract out to the private sector. It was one of the ingenious and little noticed provisions the Republicans dropped in the post-9/11 legislation creating the TSA.

With a move to unionize the TSA and the TSA groping 3 year olds and nuns in nutty security theater, opt-ing out in favor of free market competence sounds like a great idea. Oh, and Congress will cover the payments to the TSA replacement.

Practicing what I preach, I am the Chairman of the Public Properties Committee of the City of Macon, Georgia. As such, I chair the committee that oversees the Middle Georgia Regional Airport. I will be drafting legislation to have my local airport opt-out of having the TSA grope passengers.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

SARAH PALIN: An open letter to Republican Freshmen Members of Congress (Nov. 16, 2010)

SARAH PALIN: An Open Letter to Republican Freshmen Members of Congress
By Sarah Palin
Published November 13, 2010 | FoxNews.com



Congratulations to all of you for your contribution to this historic election, and for the contributions I am certain you will make to our country in the next two years. Your victory was hard fought, and the success belongs entirely to you and the staff and volunteers who spent countless hours working for this chance to put government back on the side of the people. Now you will come to Washington to serve your nation and leave your mark on history by reining in government spending, preserving our freedoms at home, and restoring America’s leadership abroad.

Some of you have asked for my thoughts on how best to proceed in the weeks and months ahead and how best to advance an agenda that can move our country forward. I have a simple answer: stick to the principles that propelled your campaigns.

When you take your oath to support and defend our Constitution and to faithfully discharge the duties of your office, remember that present and future generations of “We the People” are counting on you to stand by that oath. Never forget the people who sent you to Washington.

GOP Assault on Federal Pay Puts Obama in Politically Difficult Position (By Stephen Clark) Nov. 16, 2010

GOP Assault on Federal Pay Puts Obama in Politically Difficult Position
By Stephen Clark
Published November 16, 2010 | FoxNews.com


ADVERTISEMENT
President Obama is stuck between a rock and a hard place, as newly empowered House Republicans unleash a torrent of proposals to shrink the size of government and following a series of reports that show federal workers increasing in numbers and salary.

Obama may have to choose between satisfying his base or placating independents who moved overwhelming into the Republican camp in the midterm elections two weeks ago based in part on their frustration over the growth of government in the past two years.

While slashing the government will be a top priority for Republicans in the next Congress, 60 percent of the federal workforce is represented by the labor unions that helped sweep the president into power two years ago.

"The calculation he has to make is how much he wants to bring that swing vote back," said Matrick Masters, a national labor expert and a professor of business and political science at Wayne State University.

"One of the ways is to go after government issues. The calculation he's going to make is how much damage it's going to do to the base," Masters told FoxNews.com. "He's got to realize he's got a difficult situation."

Already a flurry of proposals have been offered to slash spending on government functionaries.

Speaker-in-waiting John Boehner has called for a freeze in hiring and pay raises. Incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said his federal payroll plan could save taxpayers $35 billion.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the top Republican on the subcommittee with oversight of the federal workforce who is likely to become the panel's next chairman, wants a 10 percent across-the-board pay cut.

Chaffetz told FoxNews.com on Tuesday that the federal payroll has grown by an additional 141,000 federal workers -- not counting Census employees, postal workers and uniformed members of the military -- since Obama took office. The president wants to hire 125,000 more workers.

Including compensation, the current cost of the federal workforce is $447 billion, he said.

"Somehow, some way, we're going to have to learn how to survive on just $400 billion," he said, adding that his proposal would give each agency and department discretion in how to reach a 10 percent reduction.

Even the chairman of Obama's bipartisan federal deficit commission has recommended a three-year freeze on federal salaries and a 10 percent cut in the number of federal workers as part of a draft report that some lawmakers say is dead on arrival.

But the proposals run counter to Obama's plan to give a 1.4 percent across-the-board pay raise to 2.1 million federal workers next fiscal year.

A USA Today analysis last week showed that the number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more per year has soared tenfold in the past five years and doubled since Obama took office.

But the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest union for federal employees and a staunch supporter of the president, rejects the notion that federal workers make more than their private-sector counterparts.

"There has been a concerted campaign by corporate-influenced groups and others to introduce the dangerous lie that federal employees are 'overpaid' relative to their private sector counterparts," union president John Gage said in a written statement.

Gage cited statistics from the Labor Bureau that showed federal salaries lag behind those in the private sector for almost all jobs in almost all locations throughout the U.S.

And AFGE spokeswoman Christine Erling said AFGE "vigorously opposes any efforts to freeze federal hiring and cut federal employees' pay."

"We have made and will continue to make our opposition to these types of punitive proposals known to the Obama administration as well as to the Congress," Erling said in an e-mail to FoxNews.com.

Supporters of federal pay rates note that the highest paid federal workers, such as doctors, lawyers and nuclear engineers, are earning well below market price. But the Heritage Foundation has estimated that taxpayers would save $47 billion if federal workers were paid at the same rate as private sector employees.

The White House did not respond to an e-mail seeking an interview, but unions, which represent more than 600,000 federal employees and total about 60 percent of the government workforce, put Obama in a politically difficult position if he wanted to seek a compromise with Republicans on the issue.

Labor was critical in mobilizing voters and getting them to cast ballots for Obama in 2008 but turnout dropped in the 2010 midterm in part because many union workers didn't see Obama go to bat for their initiatives, Masters said.

"I don't think those memories are lost upon him," he said. "He will need the support of labor in 2012."

Masters said that Obama will be under "intense" pressure to freeze hiring and pay in the federal workforce.

"It's a relatively easy thing to do -- a stroke of the pen and say, I'm going to freeze hiring, cap pay, and everybody is going to say, hip hip hooray -- jump for joy and not think about what it means," he said.

But, he suggested, Obama may just want to try to explain why he opposes a hiring freeze.

"What are you going to do if you have 1,000 air traffic controllers retire tomorrow morning? What are you going to do? But you don't want planes to be delayed. What's the economic consequence of that?" he asked by way of example. "It's going to have some impact."

In-State Tuition upheld for illegal immigrants (by Nanette Asimov, Chronicle Staff Writer) Nov. 16, 2010

In-state tuition upheld for illegal immigrants

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

California's Supreme Court became the first in the country Monday to affirm the right of illegal immigrants to pay the same college tuition as state residents, rather than the higher out-of-state rate.

The ruling upholds a 2002 state law that lets students pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities if they attended a California high school for at least three years before graduating.

Civil rights groups, university officials and undocumented students themselves applauded the ruling, which may impact thousands of people living in the United States illegally who apply to California colleges each year.

California's tuition law affects not only undocumented students, but also anyone who meets the high school criteria, such as boarding school students whose parents live in other states or graduate students who grew up in California but lost residency by going to college somewhere else.

Nine states have similar laws.

Of the 2,000 or so University of California students who benefit from the law, about 400 are undocumented, according to a UC survey. Other state universities say they don't track students' status.

"Through their hard work and perseverance, these students have earned the opportunity to attend UC," said Mark Yudof, UC's president. "Their accomplishments should not be disregarded or their futures jeopardized."

Nonresidents sue

In 2005, 42 people who live outside California sued UC, arguing that the state's tuition law gave illegal residents an unfair advantage over legal U.S. residents when applying to college. Federal law prohibits such advantages for undocumented students "on the basis of residence within a state."

But Monday's ruling said the California law is not based on residence, but on such factors as how many years a student attended high school.

"If Congress had intended to prohibit states entirely from making unlawful aliens eligible for in-state tuition, it could easily have done so," the court ruled.

Attorney Kris Kobach, who represents the plaintiffs, called the ruling a "very weak opinion." He said he will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

Kobach, recently elected Kansas secretary of state, co-wrote Arizona's immigration law requiring police to question anyone they suspect of living in the country illegally. He said California's taxpayers lose millions of dollars each year because the state doesn't require undocumented students to pay the out-of-state rate.

But UC Berkeley sophomore Uriel Rivera, who entered the United States illegally at age 14, said taxpayers lose nothing because students like him have enough trouble paying the in-state rate.

Difference in tuition

At UC, state residents pay $11,300 in tuition a year; nonresidents pay $34,000. State and federal law prohibit illegal residents from receiving public grants or scholarships.

So Rivera and other undocumented students scramble for private scholarships. He wants to become a history teacher.

Today, however, Rivera is so far behind on tuition that the campus library won't even let him take out books.

Still, he said, he feels "happiness and relief" at the ruling. Without the tuition law, he said, "our chances of getting a college education would be nonexistent."

The case is Martinez vs. Regents of the University of California. The ruling can be found at sfg.ly/arNGH3.

E-mail Nanette Asimov at nasimov@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/16/MNG61GCDH0.DTL

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Serial Killer Linked to Rubidoux Slayings (Press Enterprise) Nov. 16, 2010

Serial killer linked to Rubidoux slayings


  Download story podcast

04:24 PM PST on Tuesday, November 16, 2010

By JOHN ASBURY
The Press-Enterprise

Riverside County sheriff's homicide detectives have linked a convicted serial killer to the execution-style killing of an Ontario man and a Rubidoux woman, authorities announced.

Cold case detectives linked Alfredo Rolando Prieto, 44, as a suspect in the two Inland killings. The connection follows a death sentence Prieto received last week for two other murders in Fairfax, Virginia. In all, Prieto has been convicted of or is believed to be responsible for nine slayings prior to his arrest in 1990.

Prieto has been on California's Death Row since 1992 for the rape and shooting of a 15-year-old Yvonne Woodruff in Ontario. He was extradited to Virginia in 2005 following a DNA match to the murder of a couple in that state.

Story continues below
cold case Rubidoux slayings
Alfredo Rolando Prieto

Homicide detectives delayed announcing the arrest in the Rubidoux case for six weeks to avoid influencing the Virginia jury hearing testimony in his penalty phase.

A DNA hit led detectives to Prieto as the suspect in the May 1990 killing of Stacey Siegrist, 19, and Tony Gianuzzi, 21 whose bodies were discovered shot and dumped along a dirt powerline road off Canal and Alta streets.

Detectives recently notified family members of both victims about the match last month, 20 years after they were killed.

Sheriff's deputies said Siegrist was sexually assaulted and shot twice, once in the temple and one in the back of her head. Gianuzzi was bound at his wrists and ankles and shot twice in the back of the head and his neck.

The couple were dating and last seen May 3, 1990.

Earlier this year, Riverside County homicide detectives submitted DNA evidence found at the scene to Orchid Cellmark, a private lab in Texas. The testing was done through a 2009 National Institute of Justice grant awarded to the Sheriff's Department.

On Oct. 4, Prieto's DNA was matched to the 1990 crime scene, according to central homicide Sgt. Scott Brown. Detectives believe Prieto may have been working with up to two or three other suspects who have not been identified.

Homicide detectives plan to forward the case to the Riverside County district attorney to review if new charges will be filed.

Story continues below
cold case Rubidoux slayings
Tony Gianuzzi, left, and Stacey Siegrist were shot and killed in May 1990. They were dating and last seen May 3, 1990.

Prieto is already facing three death sentences for crimes in California and Virginia.

Beginning May 10, 1988, Prieto was suspected of sexually assaulting and shooting an Arlington, Virginia woman on May 10, 1988. He was linked to the death of Tina Jefferson through DNA, but has not been charged.

Then in December 1988, he raped and murdered 22-year-old Rachael Raver and killed Warren Fulton III, in Reston, VA. A jury recommended death in the killings last week, but Prieto has not been sentenced.

Prieto was later accused of shooting Manuel F. Sermeno, 27, in September 1989, leaving Sermeno's body in a burning car near Interstate 95 in Prince William, Virginia. He was linked to the case by gun ballistics, but has not been charged. Prosecutors said they are not likely to seek charges.

By May of 1990, detectives believe Prieto had come to California where he was accused of killing Siegrist and Gianuzzi in Rubidoux.

Prieto was suspected of shooting and killing Lula Farley, 71, in Ontario in June 1990. Her husband, Herbert Farley, was abducted and found shot two weeks later in Rubidoux. Prieto was matched to the case through ballistics but has not been charged.

Prieto's final murder came Sept. 2, 1990, when he and two other suspects kidnapped three women in Ontario during a home burglary. There, Prieto raped and shot Yvette Woodruff. The other two men raped the other two women and stabbed them repeatedly. The women survived, and later identified Prieto and the other two men. All three men were sentenced to death. Prieto's case is going through appeals in California.

The Rubidoux case is the fourth cold case homicide matched by the sheriff's Cold Case Unit since the grant was awarded. Detectives are reviewing 84 unsolved homicides with possible DNA evidence. So far, two cases have come back with suspect DNA.

Detectives are asking anyone with information to call investigator John Powers at 951-955-2777.

Reach John Asbury at 951-763-3451 or jasbury@PE.com

Comment on this story

Guidelines: We welcome your thoughts, but for the sake of all readers, please refrain from the use of obscenities, personal attacks or racial slurs. All comments are subject to our terms of service and may be removed. Repeat offenders may lose commenting privileges.

Monday, November 15, 2010

Lewis bill would return $12 Billion in Unspent Stimulus Money to Treasury (Press Enterprise By Ben Goad) Nov. 15, 2010

Lewis bill would return $12 billion in unspent stimulus money to Treasury



10:00 PM PST on Monday, November 15, 2010

By BEN GOAD
The Press-Enterprise
Ratcheting up his calls for reduced spending -- and his bid for a key position in the next Congress -- Inland Rep. Jerry Lewis introduced legislation Monday that would return all yet-to-be obligated federal stimulus money to the U.S. Treasury.

Roughly $12 billion of the $787 billion stimulus bill has not been obligated to any programs, said Lewis, R-Redlands, citing estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

"We must stop the spending of any of these funds now, before the Obama administration rushes to spend what's left before Republicans return to the majority in January," Lewis said.

Lewis and other Republicans have called for a return to 2008 spending levels as part of the "Pledge to America," the national campaign platform they unveiled in the months leading to their landslide Election Day victory.

Since Democrats will have control in the House until the current Congress ends next month, Lewis' bill is unlikely to move forward. But it might help sway Republican colleagues who will decide whether to give him the chairmanship of the House Appropriation Committee in the next Congress.

Lewis has served as the top GOP member of the panel, which oversees government spending, for the last six years. Due to term limits Republicans place on certain positions, he'll need a waiver from the party's steering committee to serve as chairman.

Some conservative-leaning groups and media outlets have come out in opposition to Lewis' bid for the chairmanship, questioning whether he is a true fiscal hawk.

The bill introduced Monday, and a letter he sent to the White House calling on President Barack Obama to halt stimulus spending, reflect the latest in a series of actions Lewis has taken in recent months to show he is serious about working to cut the deficit.

Reach Ben Goad at 202-661-8422 or bgoad@PE.com