Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Now MEN are victims of Military Sex Assaults.. Male on Male attacks up since repeal of Dont Ask, Don't Tell... by Bob Unruh

Now men are victims of military sex assaults

Male-on-male attacks up since repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

rss feed Subscribe to author feed
While the full picture remains far from clear, signs of the ill effects of the Democrat-initiated law allowing homosexuals to serve in the U.S. military without hiding their sexual preference are beginning to appear.
The newest reports, for Fiscal Year 2011, have just come out, and Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, immediately noted that sexual misbehavior is on the rise.

She has completed an analysis of the the reports, including the overall military assessment of sexual assaults as well as the
army’s Gold Book report, and it cites 515 rapes, 414 aggravated sexual assaults and 349 forcible sodomies documented by just the Criminal Investigation Command in 2011.
“Pentagon officials regularly praise their own work and proclaim undeserved ‘success,’ even though evidence of sexual misconduct, both consensual and non-consensual, continues to accelerate, year after year,” she said.
“It is time to reconsider and change flawed policies that are weakening the culture of the only military we have.”
In December 2010, Congress repealed the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy established by President Clinton that allowed homosexuals to remain in the military on the condition they not make a public issue of their sexual lifestyle.
The new law, for first time in U.S. history, allows homosexual members to openly acknowledge their sexual choices.
Among the details in the reports: While, since 2006, 5 percent of the violent sexual assaults have been against men, recent reports now put that figure at 12 to 14 percent.
The Army said it is “currently monitoring same-gender sex crime for a potential increase in forcible sodomy and other sex offenses related to the disassociation of homosexuality from the crime itself.”
Non-consensual sodomy attacks for fiscal 2011 totaled 7 percent of the nearly 2,500 attacks cited on one military report.
In several cases “the victim ceased cooperating with the military justice proceeding and the subjects were given no judicial punishment for consensual sodomy.”
Other case descriptions from the Department of Defense included:
  • “Male victim alleged that male subjects groped him through clothing and attempted sodomy with a broom handle.”
  • “Male victim alleged that male subject performed oral sodomy on him in bar bathroom while he was passing in and out of consciousness from drinking.
  • “Male victim alleged that the male subject, National Guard soldier, took out his penis, and straddled his thigh in the motor poll while in Iraq.”
One of the reports said 9 percent of the victims claimed to be victims of “non-consensual sodomy.”
The more than 700 pages of the compiled reports, however, did not mention homosexuality.
Donnelly told WND that the statistics show a more than 20 percent increase in reported sexual assaults on males.
And she said researchers specifically announced plans to track numbers to monitor the increase, since “this category of homosexual conduct no longer is illegal.”
“It’s way too soon,” she said, to come to definitive conclusions. But she said the “numbers have gone way up.”
She said the military’s efforts to deal with the complications of women in the ranks, which have been around for years, as well as the new issues of open homosexuality, are failing.
“What they need to do is get rid of gender-integrated basic training,” she said. “That conclusions was drawn that it did [increase] and still is increasing disciplinary issues.”
“If you don’t learn the basics of discipline [in basic training], it won’t happen later,” she said.
Donnelly’s organization just released its policy analysis drawing information from the Army “Gold Book” report on wartime personnel stress, the most recent annual report of the Defense Department Sexual Assault Prevention & Response Office, and a 2010 report on ship captain firings from the Navy.
“Both the Army ‘Gold Book’ released in January and the Defense Department SAPRO report released last Friday hid the bad news in plain sight. Instead of reconsidering social policies known to increase disturbing disciplinary problems, the Pentagon is pressing ahead with costly, time-wasting programs that are not working,” she warned.
Take a guided tour into the future of the U.S. military once homosexuality is welcomed with open arms. Read Whistleblower’s special issue, “DROPPING THE ‘H’-BOMB.”
She said teams of professional sexual assault response counselors, untold hours of mandatory training, preemptive punishments, bureaucracy, conferences, meetings and feel-good gimmicks have produced:
  • A hike of 22 percent since 2007 in the sexual assaults in all branches
  • A doubling since 2006 of the number of violent attacks and rapes in the Army, from 663 in 2006 to 1,313 last year
  • A “chilling trend” of violent sex crimes rising at the rate of 14.6 percent annually, “and the rate is accelerating”
  • A 28 percent increase in the offense rate and a 20 percent increase in offenders from 2006-2011 in sex crimes in the active-duty Army
  • A jump in male sexual assault victims from 10 percent in 2010 to 14 percent in confidential reports for 2011
  • The need to fire senior enlisted Navy officers at the rate of nearly two per month because of sexual misconduct.
Donnelly explained the problem has been developing for some time. She cited the 1997 recommendation from the Kassebaum-Baker Commission for the Army to end the gender-integrated basic training, because it was “resulting in less discipline, less unit cohesion, and more distraction from training.”
But the advice was ignored, she said.
And Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, even while noting that the military branch experiences three sexual assaults every day, called for observance of a “Sexual Assault Awareness Month” that included “adult interactive plays.”
“Despite tangible evidence of failure, the same officials expect free-rein to implement policies that would worsen the situation. On Feb. 9, 2012, Pentagon briefers announced their intent to promote ‘diversity’ by incrementally implementing controversial recommendations of the Military Diversity Leadership Commission,” she said.
The report said, “More than 20 years ago, male and female naval aviators partied wildly at the 1991 post-Persian Gulf War Tailhook convention in Las Vegas. The highly publicized scandal ruined the careers of hundreds of officers.”
Now, “we are starting to see a military resembling Jenga Blocks – a table-top tower constructed of smooth wooden planks,” the report continued. “Players remove planks from the bottom of the tower and load them on the top, destabilizing the structure until it buckles and falls. In the same way, severe budget cuts combined with social burdens loaded on top could irreparably weaken the culture and strength of our military.”
The report said the next White House administration, to minimize damage and reverse course, should “put the needs of the military above ‘diversity metrics.’” And the military should reinforce core values and policies that are known to reinforce personal discipline, it said.
Basic training also needs to be separate for genders, women should be exempt from direct ground combat units, and military policies should be “based on reality, not ‘social fiction.’”
CMR has reported previously on the manipulation of government data that contributed to the Obama campaign to remove the ban on open homosexuality. It cited an inspector general’s report marked “For Official Use Only” that said numbers were combined to present the image that members of the military approved of Obama’s plan for open homosexuality.
It was the military’s original and now-suspect report that famously was quoted as affirming “70 percent” of the nation’s military members believe the repeal of the long-standing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” practice of allowing homosexuals to serve as long as they kept their sexual lifestyle choices to themselves would have either “a neutral or positive impact on unit cohesion, readiness, effectiveness and morale.”
However, the IG in documents uncovered by Donnelly revealed the actual figures for military members were: those who believed the change would impact units “very positively” (6.6 percent), “positively” (11.8 percent), “mixed” (32.1 percent), “negatively” (18.7 percent), “very negatively” (10.9 percent) and “no effect” (19.9 percent).
The only way the 70 percent figure can be reached is to combine “very positively,” “positively,” “mixed” and “no effect.” But this combination counts people with “neutral positions” as favoring the change, Donnelly argued.
Donnelly explained that taking the same figures and lumping them on the other side with “negatively” and “very negatively” would produce a total of almost 82 percent of the soldiers who believe the results of the change would be “negative or neutral.”
The IG report uncovered by Donnelly said exactly that:
We considered that the primary source’s likely pro-repeal sentiment was further demonstrated by his/her inclusion of the key 70 percent figure in the information provided to the Washington Post. … Had [the source] desired to further an anti-repeal bias for the article, he/she could likewise have combined four results categories from that same survey question to conclude that “82 percent of respondents said the effect of repealing the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy would be negative, mixed or no effect.”
The Thomas More Law Center announced a federal FOIA lawsuit against the Navy, seeking to obtain records that are expected to show intentional deception by the Pentagon “to gain congressional support for repeal of the 1993 law regarding open homosexual conduct in the military, usually called ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”
The lawsuit is based on the IG report obtained by Donnelly, “which suggested that a distorted Pentagon study of homosexuals in the military was produced and leaked solely to persuade Congress to lift the ban on open homosexuality.”
Erin Mersino, the attorney handling the blockbuster case, said the organization already has tried to obtain information.
“The Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy have failed to produce a single document despite numerous FOIA requests over the last two years for information to uncover the truth surrounding the congressional repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” she said.
In one side effect that rebounded on the White House, a Senate committee, in an attempt to ensure the law conforms to the new policy, voted to repeal the ban in the military on bestiality, an issue that White House press secretary Jay Carney didn’t consider a serious question.
The Senate quickly backtracked when its vote was revealed.
WND previously reported on CMR’s uncovering of the Inspector General’s report.
That documents how the co-chairman of the commission working on the assessment of the impact on the military, Jeh Johnson, “read portions of ‘an early draft’ of the executive summary … to a former news anchor, a close personal friend visiting Mr. Johnson’s home” three days before service members even were given the survey.
“Contrary to most news accounts, the ‘Comprehensive Review Working Group’ process was not a ‘study,’” Donnelly told WND. “Its purpose was to circumvent and neutralize military opposition to repeal of the law.”
She described the study “was a publicly funded pre-scripted production put on just for show.”
“The … report, completed on April 8, 2011, reveals improper activities and deception that misled members of Congress in order ‘to gain momentum in support of a legislative change during the ‘lame duck’ session of Congress following the November 2, 2010, elections,’” she wrote.
Donnelly explained that days before the survey was distributed, Johnson “was seeking advice from a ‘former news anchor’ on how to write the report’s executive summary more ‘persuasively.’”
Further, “The DoD IG report concluded that someone who ‘had a strongly emotional attachment to the issue’ and ‘likely a pro-repeal agenda’ violated security rules and leaked selected, half-true information to the Washington Post,” she explained.
Within days of the military’s repeal of its ban on open homosexuality, two members of Congress pointed out that the Department of Defense had failed to fulfill its obligations to prepare for the change.
The letter was from House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., and Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., the chairman of the personnel subcommittee.
It was addressed to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, whose media office declined to respond to a WND request for comment.

Monday, April 02, 2012

Closing Rialto Municipal Airport has gotten more complex..by Kimberly Pierceall..... March 30, 2012, The Press Enterprise ...


AIRPORT: Closing Rialto Municipal has gotten more complex


STAN LIM/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER
A runway not in use at the Rialto Municipal Airport on March 27. In 2005, Congress authorized the airport to close to make way for homes and shops. The airport has remained open, though, while the city of Rialto and developers wait out the economic downturn and face questions about what the end of redevelopment agencies may mean for the property.
1of6
A Text Size  
It should have been simple, or as simple as it can be to shut down an airport after securing the first difficult-to-get go-ahead to make way for homes, shopping and industry.
But closing Rialto Municipal Airport has been anything but easy.
Seven years after a rare act of Congress authorized the airport to close — a workaround that avoided a showdown with the Federal Aviation Administration that had funded the airport's development — it's still open and none of the tenants have been moved to nearby San Bernardino International Airport as planned.
The economy's swift and enduring downfall put plans to develop homes, shops and a business park on hold and made land prices of 2005 unrealistic. By the time land entitlements were complete and a specific plan approved in 2010, "the economy was long gone," said Robb Steel, assistant to the city of Rialto's administrator.
The airport's fate has only been made more complicated with the dissolution of California's redevelopment agencies.
The city's redevelopment agency owned the airport property and had the agreements with a private developer and San Bernardino airport. That agency no longer exists.
"The economy kicked us in the gut and then the state kicked us in the gut," Steel said.
The plan has already cost the city of Rialto and the developer millions of dollars, and the delay kept San Bernardino airport officials waiting for a windfall that hasn't arrived.

View Rialto Municipal Airport in a larger map
In addition to transferring the land to the city of Rialto — which later transferred it to the city's redevelopment agency — Congress required that nearby San Bernardino International Airport would have a 45 percent claim on the appraised value of the land. Those funds, paid by Rialto, would be used for relocating tenants and building hangars to house planes and businesses that had been at the closed airport.
The tenants that remain at Rialto today pay rent month-to-month, knowing the airport will close, just not when.
New tenants have arrived knowing there's still time, including Fontana Police Department's air support and an owner who has ketchup bottles sitting on tables in a soon-to-open restaurant at the airport.
To kick start development, Rialto's City Council approved raising $30 million through a complex financing deal for management of the city's water system that would raise residential rates between 97 percent and 115 percent.
But first, the city has to regain ownership of the airport property and sign new agreements with the developer and San Bernardino airport.
POTENTIAL PROFITS
In 2005, the city had visions of grandeur — development that would include 4,000 homes, shops, restaurants, a corporate park, a school, even a new City Hall — with the project dubbed "Renaissance Rialto."
Lewis-Hillwood Rialto LLC, a combination of the Upland-based Lewis Group of Companies that developed Victoria Gardens and Hillwood, which developed all of the non-aviation space at San Bernardino International Airport, agreed to eventually buy more than 500 acres of what would be the 1,400-acre Renaissance Rialto development.
Early on, the developer agreed to take on all the costs.
Rialto would get paid for the land and share in the profits of development. But the economy inspired a shift in responsibilities as well as a scaled back plan. The two sides were in the midst of negotiating a new agreement when redevelopment went away.
The standstill and uncertainty now is in stark contrast to the speed at which plans and agreements were falling into place between 2005 and 2007, including moving Westpac Restorations, one of the largest tenants at the airport, to Colorado Springs, Colo., at a cost of close to $10 million.
"In 2008, the door shut," Steel said, referring to the economic downturn.
Lewis-Hillwood has spent more than $30 million relocating tenants and securing land entitlements among other costs, "and we are still excited about moving forward," said Executive Vice President Randall Lewis in an email. The city's redevelopment agency has spent about $8.4 million paying back Lewis-Hillwood for some of the costs.
The pay-off was expected to more than make up for the spending. Rialto was poised to make at least $26 million from land sales, not counting a share of profits from the development, as a result of the airport's closure.
The amount the city's redevelopment agency ultimately agreed to pay the San Bernardino International Airport Authority to take on its tenants before the development stalled: $49.5 million.
Recently, negotiations have been revived to move the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department to San Bernardino airport. The agency brought its helicopters and planes to Rialto airport in 1978 and has since outgrown its 20,000 square feet of space. Capt. Jeff Rose said the department could use 65,000 square feet.
The hangar at San Bernardino airport could cost an estimated $8.7 million. A large part — $4.2 million — would come from the city of Rialto when it sells airport property to pay for relocation costs. In prior plans, the Sheriff's Department agreed to pay $1 million, and San Bernardino airport's related Inland Valley Development Agency which oversees redevelopment of former Norton Air Force Base property would cover the rest of the cost and recoup what was spent by leasing the building back to the county for at least 25 years. More than a year ago, the San Bernardino airport authority approved — in concept — to build the space.
Under a new proposed plan, the city of Rialto would pay a $375,000 cash down payment — an advance on the $4.2 million — toward the design of the new hangar. The remainder would still be paid from land sales, if and when that happens. It's a risk because Rialto would only pay the rest if the land is sold, Steel said.
"Now, we've got a few more potholes in front of us," he said.

Gas Could Hit $8.00 On Iran Showdown, Experts Say..... USAToday Report


Gas Could Hit $8 On Iran Showdown, Experts Say

Gas prices could double if Iran acts to close the Strait of Hormuz to oil-tanker traffic near the beginning of next year, cutting global economic growth by more than 25%, a leading energy-consulting firm says.

Iran lacks the military might to close the strait for long, but it may be able to disrupt global oil supplies for up to three months by laying mines in the 6-mile-wide shipping passage that the U.S. and its allies would have to find and remove, analysts at IHS Global Insight said on a conference call with reporters Wednesday. About 17 million barrels of oil a day pass through the strait, or nearly 20% of the global market.

Brent crude oil prices could briefly hit $240 a barrel in the first quarter of 2013, said Sara Johnson, senior research director for Global Economics at IHS. Brent, the benchmark European oil, which IHS uses as a proxy for global prices, closed at $123.07 in London Thursday. In the U.S., West Texas Intermediate, the benchmark U.S. crude oil, closed at $105.35 a barrel.

Prices could stay as high as $160 in the second quarter before reverting to somewhere around $120, she said. The firm forecast that such an oil shock could bring back gas lines in much of the world, and shave global economic growth next year to 2.6% from a current forecast of 3.6%.

"If it did hit $240, you're looking at about a doubling of where gas prices are now," said Jim Burkhard, managing director of the global oil group at IHS CERA, the firm's energy-research arm. "And the U.S. is at $4."

Closing the strait probably wouldn't be in Iran's best interests, but its leadership often fails to act in ways that Westerners consider rational, said Farid Abolfathi, senior director of the IHS Risk Center. The firm's analysis assumes the strait would be closed at the start of 2013, as Iran reacts to pressure to stop development work on nuclear weapons.

Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah, the ruler of Kuwait, said on state media Tuesday that Iran had assured its neighbor it would not close the strait, despite its public threats to do so.

IHS' energy-related forecasts attract attention because of the reputation of Daniel Yergin, chairman of the IHS CERA division, formerly known as Cambridge Energy Research Associates. Yergin's books include the best-seller The Quest, about the evolution of energy markets since the end of the Cold War, and 1993's The Prize, a Pulitzer Prize-winning history of the oil industry.

The firm's outlook is gloomier than some economists' assumptions. In an interview earlier this month, Moody's Analytics chief capital markets economist John Lonski said U.S. gasoline prices would reach $4.75 a gallon if Iran closed the strait.

The impact would be so large because global oil supplies are so tight, said Burkhard. The world has only 1.8 million to 2.5 million barrels a day of unused production capacity, down from 6.2 million in 2009.

Tight inventories magnify the impact of any interruption in crude from nations around the strait, he said. Much Iranian crude has already been taken off world markets because of international sanctions.

If gas prices doubled, consumers could spend an extra $145 a month for gasoline, said Nigel Griffiths, chief economist at IHS Automotive.

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

GAMBLING: Two pending state bills toss the dice.... Press Enterprise.... Ca. Lawmakers have introduced legislation to legalize poker and sports wagering.. chances for success vary...


GAMBLING: Two pending state bills toss the dice

California lawmakers have introduced legislation to legalize online poker and sports wagering. Chances for success vary, experts say


JOE CAVARETA/AP
Bettors in Las Vegas check out the odds for the Super Bowl in 2004. A California bill would legalize sports wagering at horse tracks, tribal casinos and other places that have a current gaming license.
1of2
A Text Size  
SACRAMENTO — Someday in the near future, a California resident might be able to play a few hands of poker on the Internet and then, after a short drive, bet the winnings on that night's basketball game. And it would all be legal.
Legislation recently introduced would significantly broaden the state's portfolio of legal gambling beyond the lottery, horse racing, card clubs and tribal casinos that now exist.
The Senate's top Democrat is the co-author of a bill to legalize online poker as a way to generate as much as $200 million for the state's beleaguered general fund. Wealthy gaming tribes in Inland Southern California are among those that have expressed interest in participating, but there has long been disagreement over the details.
Another measure would legalize sports wagering at licensed gambling establishments such as casinos and horse tracks. Federal law prohibits sports betting in most states, and California's approval of a law to legalize it would hasten a legal and political showdown over the issue.
The online poker bill, introduced Feb. 24, was widely anticipated. But many in the gaming industry were surprised by the introduction of the sports wagering measure, the first time since the late 1980s that such a bill has been put forward.
California residents who want to legally bet on sports now must go to Nevada, one of four states exempted from the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992. The other three states are Montana, Oregon and Delaware.
New Jersey unsuccessfully sued the federal government to end the ban. Lawmakers there recently approved a law to legalize sports betting in that state, but only if the federal prohibition ends. In Congress, Garden State representatives have introduced two measures: one that would let New Jersey have sports wagering, another to lift the federal prohibition entirely.
If California lawmakers passed SB 1390, the state could join forces with New Jersey to try to end the federal sports betting ban. The state bill would allow any licensed gaming establishment to offer sports wagering.
It's expected that the state's struggling horse tracks, which have unsuccessfully tried to get slot machines to boost foot traffic, would be most likely to participate.
"It would be the greatest thing to ever happen to California horse racing," said Kirk Breed, executive director of the California Horse Racing Board, offering his personal opinion.
The state would get a share of any winnings, the same way it does with existing legal games. The additional revenue, however, is not expected to be significant.
POKER LEGISLATION
The bill to legalize online poker, however, has a goal of raising $200 million for the state general fund.
Proponents say the bill would get the state a piece of the millions of dollars that Californians currently bet on online poker on sites that are based in foreign countries to get around a federal ban on Internet gambling.
Federal officials have suggested that states can legalize online games within their boundaries.
The California bill would offer an unlimited number of 10-year licenses to would-be poker site operators. Officials expect that the proposed $30 million up-front payment effectively would limit participation to serious operators.
"We're going to want some real certainty that the return to the state is going to be significant. That's the only reason to do it," said Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, who introduced the bill with state Sen. Rod Wright, D-Los Angeles, who is also the author of the sports wagering measure.
OPPONENTS, SKEPTICS
James Butler of the California Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, said there are better ways for the state to raise money.
"When you bring (gambling) into homes and businesses, you're asking for more trouble," Butler said.
Other public reaction to the legislation has been muted. Many influential interest groups, from tribes with casinos and horse tracks to card clubs and companies that sell online gaming computer servers and other equipment, are still scrutinizing the 46-page measure.
Also quiet is the California Online Poker Association, a Riverside-based consortium of card clubs and gaming tribes led by the Morongo Band of Mission Indians in Cabazon and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians near San Bernardino. The group sponsored an online poker bill last year that never gained traction.
David Quintana, political director for the California Tribal Business Alliance, said many tribes privately have serious concerns with the bill. He said the measure seems to violate the tribes' casino revenue-sharing agreements with the state. Those agreements protect the casinos from competition in exchange for making substantial payments to the state.
"This bill has so many fundamental problems with it from very powerful large stakeholders, I don't see a path to success for it this year," Quintana said.
Steinberg said he is looking for a compromise.
"Part of the art here, if we're going to get the money for the general fund, is we have to put together a coalition," he said.
GAMBLING EXPANSION
Two bills were introduced last month that would legalize additional gambling in California.
SB 1463: Legalizes online poker no later than Jan. 1, 2014. The goal is to raise $200 million for the state general fund.
SB 1390: Legalizes sports wagering in California. Federal law currently bans sports wagering in all but four states.

Barack Obama's Oil Lies are Rooted in His Contempt for the United States of America... Posted March 8, 2012 by Conservative Bytes..

Barack Obama's Oil Lies are Rooted in His Contempt for the United States of America



replacing oil is not going to make energy cheaper. Oil is the cheapest form of energy, for what it provides, that we have. That's what the market does. The market provides the cheapest and the most efficient of everything. Or it won't survive. Eventually it'll go kaput. It's called competition. Oil does not have any competition right now, not any serious competition.
Great to have you back, Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. Telephone number if you want to be on the program, we will get to your calls in this hour, 800-282-2882.
So Obama's in North Carolina, yeah, we're gonna have alternative energy, gonna bring down energy costs. Nope, they're gonna skyrocket. President Obama wants higher energy costs. Barack Obama wants higher gasoline prices. When it hit four dollars a gallon years ago Barack Hussein Obama said he was only unhappy about how fast the price got to four dollars. He was not unhappy that it did get to four dollars. His Nobel prize-winning energy secretary, a guy named
Steven Chu, said that they have no interest in lowering gas prices; they just want to get us off of oil. Not possible. That's what the free market does, folks, it gives you the cheapest and most efficient of everything. If there were something better than oil it would have been found, it would have been invented. If it were cost sensible, if it was affordable, if it made sense to produce it. It doesn't. Oil is it. It's the beauty of free markets.
Free markets tell you what work. So whatever he comes up with as his alternative, A, there isn't one, and, B, it's simply a way to raise taxes and raise prices and raise costs. You say, "Why would he want to do that?" Well, to accept the answer to that you have to — (interruption) Yes, I am saying algae is not better than oil. That's right, President Obama proposed algae as a substitute for oil a couple of weeks ago. Algae. Pond scum, for those of you in Rio Linda. Why would he want higher prices? Why does he want higher taxes? Well, you have to understand what he thinks of America to answer that and to believe the answer.






Wednesday, March 07, 2012

Beck and Guests Dissect Skyrocketing Gas Prices and Obama Admin's ' Misleading Facts About Oil Production.... by Mytheos Holt March 5, 2012

GBTVBECK AND GUESTS DISSECT SKYROCKETING GAS PRICES AND OBAMA ADMIN'S 'MISLEADING FACTS ABOUT OIL PRODUCTION'

On Monday, Glenn welcomed two guests with quite a lot to say on the subject of energy prices to dissect the Obama administration's "misleading facts about oil prodcution." The first of these was Jack Gerard, President and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute (API). The second was the founder of Cross Consulting and Services and author of the book "Secret Weapon," Kevin Freeman:

Both men brought ample knowledge of the field to the program. Gerard has been the head of API — the foremost trade association for oil companies — since November 2008, after a long career in public service. From his bio at API's website:
Gerard has led API since November 2008, expanding its membership and influence in all 50 states and globally, adding offices in Dubai and Singapore to its operations in Beijing, enabling API to better inform the public and policymakers on important energy issues. API's Washington presence is the foundation for the oil and natural gas industry's advocacy and outreach at state, federal and global levels on public policy, standards and certification programs, and as the source for information on industry best practices.
Gerard is recognized by numerous publications and his peers as one of Washington's most influential advocates.Washington Life magazine named him one of the city's "Power 100" and a Fortune magazine profile said Gerard's effort to build a 50 state advocacy network for the oil and natural gas industry was "showing signs of success" through its outreach to workers and non-traditional allies.
Prior to joining API, Gerard served as president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council, and earlier held the same position at the National Mining Association. Gerard also spent close to a decade working in the U.S. Senate and House. He came to Washington in 1981, and worked for Rep. George Hansen. He also worked for Sen. James A. McClure, who chaired the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Freeman, meanwhile, runs a company known simply as Freeman Global Holdings, LLC., which operates at the global level trying to gauge world markets for clients. His book alleges that foreign countries deliberately sabotaged the United States economy. From his bio:
Kevin Freeman is considered one of the world's leading experts on the issues of Economic Warfare and Financial Terrorism. He has consulted for and briefed members of both the U.S. House and Senate, present and past CIA, DIA, FBI, SEC, Homeland Security, the Justice Department, as well as local and state law enforcement. He has traveled extensively with research trips to Russia and China and throughout Europe and the Americas.
Glenn opened the segment with a quote from Energy Secretary Steven Chu that gas prices should be "boosted" to the level of Europe (around $10/gallon now). He then segued into speaking with Gerard about the effects of Obama administration policies on the energy market. Specifically, Glenn pushed Gerard on the topic of why oil imports have decreased in the United States, as President Obama trumpeted in a recent weekly address. Gerard's response is below:
That's factually correct, but let me tell you why it's misleading. The reason our imports are down is because demand in the United States has dropped significantly because of the recession. So either the President is impliedly taking credit for the downturn in the economy or he's taking credit for the increase in domestic production, which is what we in the industry have done on state and private land.

Obama's Pump Dream.. March 7, 2012 by John Myers....


Obama’s Pump Dream

March 7, 2012 by  
Obama’s Pump Dream
“This president, systematically, is doing everything he can to raise the price of energy in this country. He’s shutting down all sorts of opportunities for us to drill for oil.”
–Rick Santorum
If you think gasoline is expensive now, just wait and see the price at the pump if Barack Obama is re-elected. His policies have steadily dragged the country toward $5 per gallon. If he gets another term in office, affordable gas will be a faint memory. And that will have Obama and his Green backers tickled pink.
The Obama Administration doesn’t seem to care that every 1 cent increase in the price of gasoline costs the economy $1.4 billion. America is becoming more dependent on Muslim oil while turning its back on a half-century energy alliance with Canada. This has been made evident by the President’s rejection of the Keystone Pipeline.
When Obama was sworn into office, the price of gasoline was $1.80 a gallon. Three years into his term, prices for some Americans are approaching $5 per gallon.
That is just the way Obama likes it. Given another four years, gasoline prices could reach $8 a gallon. This is because Obama has a greater allegiance to the Green Machine that drove home his victory in 2008 and that is fueling his chances for another victory lap come November.
The specifics of what the President promised to the environmentalists if he is re-elected remain a secret. But what we know for certain is that Obama clamped down on deep-water drilling inside the Gulf, tightened Federal restrictions for onshore oil exploration and vetoed the Keystone Pipeline, a major oil artery that would secure dependable Canadian crude to a nation thirsting for oil.
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) said the evidence is in, that the Obama Administration has willfully brought higher prices to the gas pump because it has put an embargo on fresh and dependable sources of North American petroleum.
“We can’t slow down global demand for oil and gas, but we can do a lot more here at home to assure that we have the energy we need and to halt skyrocketing costs,” Hutchison said. “President Obama’s policy has resulted in an unprecedented slowdown in new exploration and production of oil and gas.”
Speaker of the House John Boehner said the President has been reckless in mismanaging the nation’s energy policies.
When added up, not passing the Keystone Pipeline and “scrapping leases for oil-shale development” makes the President responsible for $5 gasoline, read a press release from Boehner.
“The Obama administration has spent more than three years blocking efforts to expand energy production and bring down gas prices, while pushing job-crushing tax hikes and taxpayer-backed loans to companies like Solyndra.”
Boehner laid out a timeline showing Obama’s purposeful drive to sending gasoline prices higher:
  • Jan. 7, 2010 – The Obama administration announces new bureaucratic hurdles to American energy production that Secretary Salazar admitted “could add delays to the leasing and drilling process.” Gas is $2.67 a gallon.
  • March 31, 2010 – Instead of opening new areas to energy exploration and development, President Obama blocks deep-ocean energy production on 60 percent of America’s Outer Continental Shelf. Gas is $2.80 a gallon.
  • Dec. 1, 2010 – The president re-imposes and expands the moratorium on offshore energy production. Gas is $2.86 a gallon.
  • Jan. 2, 2011 – TIME reported that the Obama administration issued the first in a series of regulations on January 2 designed to unilaterally impose a national energy tax. Gas is $3.05 a gallon.
  • May 5, 2011 – The White House issues a formal statement opposing House-passed Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act and Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act, legislation designed to jumpstart [sic] American energy production, address rising gas prices, and help create new jobs. Gas is $3.96 a gallon.
  • June 21, 2011 – The White House opposes the House-passed Jobs & Energy Permitting Act that would unlock an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Gas is $3.65 a gallon.
  • Nov. 8, 2011 – The Obama Administration releases a plan for a five-year moratorium on offshore energy production, placing “some of the most promising energy resources in the world off-limits,” according to the House Natural Resources Committee. Gas is $3.42 a gallon.
  • Jan. 18, 2012 – President Obama rejects the bipartisan Keystone XL pipeline and the more than 20,000 jobs that would come with it. Gas is $3.39 a gallon, and rising faster and earlier than ever before.
Rising in tandem with gasoline prices has been crude oil.  As you can see from the chart below, crude oil has risen almost 40 percent in the past two years and last week had an upward gap at $105 per barrel. This is a bullish signal and technically indicates the price of oil is going to go higher. More importantly, I think Obama will continue to provide the fundamentals for crude and gasoline to increase, perhaps another 40 percent higher if he is re-elected this November.
Crude Oil Prices Rising Steadily under Obama's Influence
While debating other GOP candidates last month, Newt Gingrich criticized Obama’s national energy program, saying it has been instrumental in driving the price of gasoline to $5 per gallon in some parts of the country.
“[America needs a new] energy policy, getting back to $2.50 a gallon gasoline, outlining both the economic and National Security implications, indicating that instead of bowing to a Saudi King we ought to be drilling, and our goal should be to be so independent that we don’t care what the Iranians are doing in the Straits of Hormuz,” Gingrich said.
That really is a pipe dream for Gingrich and it can only happen if a Republican is in the Oval Office next year.  Short of that, Obama’s pump dream of $8 per gallon gasoline is what we will have. That might good for Green backers and tree huggers, but it will cripple the recovery for the rest of the Nation that depends on affordable gasoline.
Yours in good times and bad,
–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report
Editor’s Note: Last week, TransCanada announced it would move ahead with part of the Keystone XL pipeline, completing a section Oklahoma to Texas. This plan does not require Federal approval. In January, the Obama Administration rejected TransCanada’s proposal to build a pipeline from the Montana-Canada border through Nebraska because of pressure from environmentalist groups.