Saudis Tied to US Deaths in Somalia
June 29, 2009
A Defense Department intelligence document on weapons trafficking in Somalia suggests a prominent Saudi government charity supplied arms and other aid to a Mogadishu warlord whose forces killed 18 U.S. Soldiers in the notorious Black Hawk Down battle in 1993.
The heavily redacted memo said that the Saudi High Commission, a Saudi government agency, had been a conduit for arms shipments to forces allied with Mohamed Farah Hassan Aideed, and that the arms had come from both Iraq and Sudan.
Fighters allied with Aideed engaged in a fierce street battle on Oct. 3-4, 1993, with U.S. troops on a mission to capture top Aideed lieutenants believed to be blocking efforts to stabilize the country.
The document was provided to The Inquirer by lawyers for plaintiffs in a huge lawsuit that alleges the government of Saudi Arabia bears responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks because, over a period of a decade or more, it financed Islamic charities that in turn helped fund al-Qaeda. The lawsuit alleges the Saudi government knew it was funding charities that supported terrorism. Saudi Arabia denies the allegation.
"The Saudi Arabian High Commission has received humanitarian supplies from Sudan and Iraq; however the crates from the Sudan and Iraq have also contained military weapons, ammunition and supplies, usually hidden in false bottom containers," the intelligence report said.
30 June 2009
United Conservatives of Virginia: HR 5 We Have To Remember The Little Ones
In the madness of the Cap and Tax maelstrom and the healthcare mis-direction and legerdemain, we can't forget the stealth legislation that most assuredly will destroy this Nation.
H. J. RES. 5
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JANUARY 6, 2009
Mr. SERRANO introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred tothe Committee on the Judiciary
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein),
That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
ARTICLE — 3
‘‘The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.’’.
Posted by concretebob at 9:17 PM
29 June 2009
HOMELAND SECURITY AND US ARMY PLAN INVASION OF STATES
The Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security recently hosted a teleconference for law enforcement agencies and associations such as the National Association of Chiefs of Police to discuss the Obama Administration's interest in using the military during "emergencies."
Fortunately, NewsWithViews.com had exclusive access to the discussion and the explanations by Homeland Security and Defense Departments officials.
Pat attention Here:::
However, many law enforcement executives and organizations went on the record saying they did not appreciate the prospect of federal troops usurping the authority of local and state law enforcement agencies or the role of the National Guard unit currently under the control of governors.
"My initial reaction is: why are we allowing federal troops to basically invade the sovereignty of individual states when each state has its own law enforcement agencies and each state possesses an armed and trained National Guard and, in the case of some states such as New York, a trained militia?" according to New York police officer Edna Aquino.
Political strategist Mike Baker is disturbed over this latest "emergency plan" designed to allow federal troops to operate freely within US borders.
"This is a constitutionally unsound development for our nation. While President Barack Obama and his ilk worry about how America's military is perceived by other nations and are concerned with how we treat enemies, they seem to be willing to use extreme measures against their own citizens. Will we witness another Branch Davidian massacre in the name of 'emergency response' or other rationale? It's not a positive development for this nation," said Baker.
Subject: Help Us Free Sergeant Jermaine Nelson
Sgt Jermaine Nelson is the last of three decorated combat Marines charged with killing jihadists during the 2004 battle for Fallujah, Iraq.
Sgt Nelson was a member of the 3/1 Marines from Camp Pendleton, a storied and highly decorated ground-fighting unit. A brand new Corporal at that time, Cpl Nelson's job was to search house to house, on foot, in a 'seek and destroy' mission against jihadists who had flooded the city specifically to kill and conduct a holy war against the Marines. During the battle on 9 November 2004, four military-aged jihadist males were found barricaded in a house, shooting at Cpl Nelson and his team...
More information at BlackFive:
Please read and sign the petition to drop the charges against Sergeant Nelson:
Click here to sign the petition
Matthew "BlackFive" Burden
Chairman, Board of Directors
Warrior Legacy Foundation
27 June 2009
is a very simple problem to solve, and will create long-term permanent jobs.
1. Start drilling. If the oil companies say they know the oil is down there, let them go get it.
2. Build refineries; refurbish existing refineries.
3. Offshore drilling. I defy anyone to produce an instance of an oil spill from an offshore drill rig.
4. Let AMERICAN oil companies have first crack at the Iraqi oil. Our soldiers risked their lives for that oil, why did the dhimmicrats give it to China?
And last but not least:
CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It's a neccessary component of life. Stop treating it like its poison. If it were poison, all the trees and plants would be dead.
Of course, cap and trade is not about clean energy, climate change, or foreign oil.
and everyone who supports it is a screaming Marxist asshole dumbfuck with no, zero, zip, nada comprehension of what it will take to end our dependence on foreign oil.
Of course, ending our dependence on foreign oil is not what this bill is about.
This bill is about creating a socialist utopia where all our actions are controlled by a central government. Its about reducing the standard of living to a point where Americans can no longer afford the normal luxuries of things like camping trips and extra free time.
Its about making us spend our money just to survive. Its about taking as much of our income as possible.
Assholes. Marxist DUMBFUCK ASSHOLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
26 June 2009
Waxman-Markey Bill Is An Energy Tax That Doesn’t Work
Later today, the House of Representatives is slated to vote on the most convoluted attempt at economic central-planning this nation has ever attempted: cap and trade. The 1,200-plus page Waxman-Markey climate change legislation is nothing more than an energy tax in disguise that by 2035 will raise:
Gasoline prices by 58 percent
Natural gas prices by 55 percent
Home heating oil by 56 percent
Worst of all, electricity prices by 90 percent
Although proponents of the bill are pointing to grossly underestimated and incorrect costs, the reality is when all the tax impacts have been added up, the average per-family-of-four costs rise by $2,979 per year. In the year 2035 alone, the cost is $4,609. And the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035 are $71,493.
But on second thought, cap and trade is much more than that.
It Kills Jobs:
Over the 2012-2035 timeline, job losses average over 1.1 million. By 2035, a projected 2.5 million jobs are lost below the baseline (without a cap and trade bill). Particularly hit hard are sectors of the economy that are very energy-intensive: Manufacturers, farmers, construction, machinery, electrical equipment and appliances, transportation, textiles, paper products, chemicals, plastics and rubbers, and retail trade would face staggering employment losses as a result of Waxman-Markey. It’s worth noting the job losses come after accounting for the green jobs policymakers are so adamant about creating. But don’t worry because the architects of the bill built in unemployment insurance; too bad it will only help 1.5% of those losing their jobs from the bill.
It Destroys Our Economy:
Just about everything we do and produce uses energy. As energy prices increase, those costs will be passed onto the consumer and reflected in the higher prices we pay for products. Higher energy prices will cause reduced income, less production and an economy that falls way short of its potential. The average Gross Domestic Product (GDP) lost is $393 billion, hitting a high of $662 billion in 2035. From 2012-2035, the accumulated GDP lost is $9.4 trillion. The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception. The increase in family-of-four debt, solely because of Waxman-Markey, hits an almost unbelievable $114,915 by 2035.
It Provides Red Meat for Lobbyists:
Businesses, knowing very well this would impose a severe cost on their bottom line, sent their lobbyists to Washington to protect them. And it worked. Most of the allowances (the right to emit carbon dioxide) have been promised to industry, meaning less money will be rebated back to the consumer. Free allowances do not lower the costs of Waxman-Markey; they just shift them around. In other words, every day Americans are going to be footing the bill. Although the government awarded handouts to businesses, the carbon dioxide reduction targets are still there, and the way they will be met is by raising the price of energy and thereby inflicting more economic pain. Prices have to go up enough to force people to use less energy, and so if anyone is bought off with free allowances, the costs for everyone else are that much higher.
There’s one thing the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill doesn’t do: Work. All of the above-mentioned costs accrue in the first 25 years of a 90-year program that, as calculated by climatologists, will lower temperatures by only hundredths of a degree Celsius in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree Celsius at the end of the century. In the name of saving the planet for future generations, Waxman-Markey does not sound like a great deal: Millions of lost jobs, trillions of lost income, 50-90 percent higher energy prices, and stunning increases in the national debt, all for undetectable changes in world temperature. Who’s buying that?
25 June 2009
Re-posted with permission. If yo have family or friends in Florida, please encourage them to support this man.
An officer and a gentleman
Lt Col Allen West's Facebook page
His Twitter page
West Slams “Cap and Tax” Legislation
Calls on Klein to Support Energy IndependenceRepublican Congressional candidate Allen West (R-FL 22) called the upcoming vote on the so-called climate change legislation, “just another example of a bloated government program that will not address our nation’s energy problems”. West also called on Democratic incumbent Ron Klein to support legislation that will address our country’s need for energy independence.
The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote Friday on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. This bill is aimed at addressing climate change that contains a cap-and-trade program, commonly referred to as a National Energy Tax.
“The Pelosi-Klein approach to our nation’s energy needs will do nothing but increase energy costs and raise taxes in this tough economy,” West said. “This will be a key issue in my race against Ron Klein next year.”
West noted that the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that under this bill gasoline prices could increase by as much as 77 cents per gallon. Other estimates say every American family will be over $3000 in higher taxes.
“We need legislation that will make America energy independent by cutting regulations that are inhibiting the development of all new sources of energy. That means everything from drilling for more oil to clean coal to alternative forms of energy“
I’m an avid scuba diver. I’m for protecting our environment. But this bill will not move us forward in the right direction.“Take nuclear energy. Klein and Democrats say they are for more nuclear energy. But this bill does nothing to reduce the red tape involved in building new nuclear plants. Just last week a new nuclear plant was announced in southern Ohio. But the experts all say it will be a decade before any energy will be produced there. That’s ridiculous.”
West went on to describe the difference between himself and Ron Klein. “Ron Klein continually votes for the expansion of government that adversely affects everyday Americans, programs that have not worked in the past and will not work in the future. I’m for a program that uses the full spectrum of energy resources—plans that will provide energy independence for America and protect our citizens from higher taxes and huge increases in energy costs.”
The first thing that needs to happen is for people to stop calling carbon dioxide a pollutant. How is a substance necessary for life to continue a pollutant?
Trees and all green plants need CO2 to survive. They breathe CO2 and give back oxygen; we breathe oxygen and give back CO2. Almost seems like it was planned that way...DUH!!!!!!!!!!!
DEAL OR NO DEAL ON SPEAKER PELOSI’S NATIONAL ENERGY TAX?
No matter how Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) re-arrange the deck chairs, the fact of the matter is that their bill is a huge national energy tax. The so-called “deal” that was struck between Waxman and Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) is a sham. Hollywood, San Francisco and Boston still get a sweetheart deal at the expense of families, farmers, and small businesses. Here are the facts on the so-called Waxman-Peterson deal.
PART I – USDA, EPA & Agriculture Offsets
Myth #1 – The Waxman-Peterson “deal” on agriculture offsets will allow agriculture to benefit from the legislation.
FACT, Part 1 – Today the nation’s largest organization representing farmers, the U.S. Farm Bureau, voiced continued strong opposition to this misguided legislation, calling it “seriously flawed” and “detrimental to U.S. agriculture.” This influential group with members in all 50 states argues that the bill would “…force agriculture and other productive sectors of our nation’s economy into a position of severe competitive disadvantage with trading partners like China and other nations who will not burden their economies to control carbon emissions.”
FACT, Part 2 – Farmers and ranchers spent $60 billion on fuel, electricity, fertilizer and chemicals in 2008 and for some crops, those energy intensive inputs account for more than 70 percent of production costs. There is no debate that each of those inputs will increase in price under Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax. An agriculture offset program – no matter if it is administered by USDA or EPA – will allow farmers to recoup a fraction of their increased production costs. The Heritage Foundation recently estimated that farm income would drop $8 billion in 2012 and $50 billion in 2035 and that offsets will make-up for less than 10 percent of this lost income.
FACT, Part 3 – Many farmers will not be able to participate in an offset program, and will simply be stuck with significantly higher energy costs. Some crops like fruits, vegetables, rice, cotton and potatoes are simply not suitable for no-till or other farming practices to sequester CO2 in soil. The start-up costs to purchase the necessary equipment to engage in farming practices potentially eligible for an offset can be cost prohibitive, with some equipment costing more than $1 million. And, a new analysis by EPA projects virtually zero potential for soil sequestration.
Myth #2 – Under the Waxman-Peterson “deal,” the EPA will have no ability to regulate farmers and ranchers.
FACT, Part 1 – According to press reports, Chairman Waxman’s description of the deal is that “we will seek guidance from the Administration to figure out the appropriate role for the EPA.”
FACT, Part 2 – The 1,200-page Waxman-Markey has more than 800 references to the EPA or the EPA Administrator and includes the phrase “the Administrator shall” 274 times. In addition, for just the cap-and-trade section of the bill, the EPA is required to produce more than 60 rulemakings, agency and regulatory actions or reports. In contrast, USDA and “agriculture” appear a total of 12 times. Make no mistake, the EPA is the top cop on the beat.
FACT, Part 3 – The devil is in the details…of which there are very few. Until legislative language is produced and reviewed, it is impossible to determine the true impact of the so-called deal between Chairmen Peterson and Waxman. According to press reports, even the Blue Dog’s are reluctant to support a bill if given very short notice to review it. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) said the following:
“The coalition is just not going to be ready to vote on this next week, particularly if we don’t get language until Monday,” she told E&E last week. “Because many will insist that we have a number of days to review the language ourselves, to have back and forth with our constituencies and stakeholder groups, to understand how the system with a significant manager's amendment will work. Yes, absolutely, we need to chew on this awhile”
PART II – Indirect Land Use & Biomass Definition
Myth #1 – The Waxman-Peterson “deal” on indirect land use fixes the problem.
FACT – According to press reports, this “deal” simply kicks the can down the road by delaying the rule for five years and having the EPA and USDA jointly study the issue. The legislation Rep. Peterson introduced (H.R. 2409) permanently prohibited EPA from using indirect land use changes in the calculation of lifecycle GHG emissions.
Myth #2 – The Waxman-Peterson “deal” improves the definition of renewable biomass.
FACT – There is no deal. According to press reports, Chairman Peterson “hoped” to have an agreement by the end of the day (Wednesday). This issue – using the language from the 2008 Farm Bill to define biomass – is also included in H.R. 2409.
PART III – Rural Co-ops
Myth #1 – The Waxman-Peterson “deal” protects Rural America from electricity price increases.
FACT, Part 1: Farmers, families, and ranchers in rural America will still pay higher electricity prices. Why? The deal that the Democrats struck with the rural co-ops leaves some states way in the hole. The sham deal leaves many state co-ops still far short of the free permits they will need to comply with the new standards in the bill. Translation: rural America will pay more to comply with the bill.
FACT, Part 2: The Democrats’ backroom deal ties the hands of the co-ops to help offset the costs to their consumers. The few additional free allowances that were given to rural co-ops have strings attached. The money can only be used for efficiency, renewable, or low-income assistance. The local distribution company cannot use these allowances to cover the increase in the electric costs due to carbon permit costs. But these local distribution companies need the permits BECAUSE they face higher electricity costs, but the bill says they are not allowed to use these permits to pay for those costs?
FACT, Part 3: Although the bill made marginal improvements by prohibiting “excess distributions,” the deal simply means that states like California and Washington don’t actually make excessive profits on this provision. This Waxman-Peterson deal still means consumers in most of rural America will end up paying more for electricity.
Myth #2 – The Waxman-Peterson “deal” protects consumers and small business from electricity price increases.
FACT: Residential or commercial customers who use a lot of electricity, such as groceries or convenience stores, could be especially harmed by the Democrat deal. The deal now provides for industrial customers to receive allowance value based on the quantity of electricity they purchase and to reduce costs for them. However, utilities are NOT required to reduce costs to residential or commercial customers - the bill only requires that the allocations should be used for the benefit of ratepayers, and specifically prohibits rebates based on the amount of electricity they buy.
Myth #3 – Free allowances to the electricity sector are equitable.
FACT: The bill still distributes allowances to LDCs based 50 percent on emissions and 50 percent on retail sales. This is unprecedented. The much-touted acid rain permit program, for example, allocates permits solely on the basis of emissions. The Waxman-Peterson deal means that states with higher CO2 emissions are penalized. None of the changes they made in the bill remedy that inequity.
24 June 2009
United Conservatives of Virginia: HR 2454 UPDATE
UPDATE: HR2454 is a scam. The bill that was voted out of committee has been changed in backroom deals and 300 PAGES have been added. And that's not the end of it. More changes are expected WITHOUT public discussion. The Sunlight Foundation has the information.
Posted by concretebob at 3:39 PM
23 June 2009
United Conservatives of Virginia: Biden Got Money from Iran?
If you were wondering about Obama/Biden's timidity towards Iran, the story from NewsMax in 2008 shows Biden getting monies for his campaign by the pro-Mullah gang Obama wants to 'talk' to; allow to get nukes; while bashing Israel.
Posted by concretebob at 6:46 PM
United Conservatives of Virginia: Healthcare By the Numbers
From Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin:"In 2006, the Census Bureau reported that there were 46.6 million people without health insurance. About 9.5 million were not United States citizens. Another 17 million lived in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year and could, presumably, purchase their own health coverage . Eighteen million of the 46.6 million uninsured were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, most of whom were in good health and not necessarily in need of health-care coverage or chose not to purchase it . Moreover, only 30 percent of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than twelve months. Almost 50 percent regained their health coverage within four months . The 47 million "uninsured" figure used by [Speaker of the House Nancy] Pelosi and others is widely inaccurate."
Posted by concretebob at 6:45 PM
United Conservatives of Virginia: When News Becomes Propaganda
From Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center:
President Obama is trying to put our nation on the fast track to socialized health care, and on June 24, the ABC network will help him sell this bill of goods to the American people. Tomorrow night, ABC News will transform the White House into their newsroom for what has been described as an unabashed infomercial promoting the Democrat agenda; more specifically, government-run health care.
Posted by concretebob at 6:44 PM
United Conservatives of Virginia: HR 2454
Congress is scheduled to vote Friday on HR 2454, the 2 trillion dollar cap and trade legislation that will effectively reduce the standard of living for every citizen of the United States.Call your Congressperson and tell them to VOTE NO!!!!!!
Posted by concretebob at 6:43 PM
01 June 2009
A powerful congressional chairman has joined a growing number of Democrats who want to sharply increase the cost of drilling leases that the government provides on federal lands, a move vigorously opposed by Big Oil and Republicans.
Rep. Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia Democrat and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, has proposed a plan to boost royalty rates by 50 percent and to cut the lease periods to five years from the current 10 years or more. His recommendation would be part of a sweeping overhaul of the $22 billion, scandal-tarred oil and gas drilling program that the Interior Department oversees.
The plan also appears in line with the broader energy goals of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who is conducting a review of the Interior Department's handling of oil and gas leases and royalties as the House prepares to push through a bill to address climate change and the Senate works on its own energy legislation.