Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

For Those Worried About Alaska's Coast Line, This Article Should Calm Your Fears.

Obama administration greenlights Shell drilling off Alaska’s Arctic coast

   

The Obama administration gave Shell the go-ahead Wednesday to drill two oil exploration wells in the Chukchi Sea about 70 miles off Alaska’s Arctic coast, a decision environmental groups decried as posing a grave risk to the area’s marine life.
The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement issued approval for the wells, but the agency limited the drilling to the top sections of wells and prohibited Shell from drilling into oil-bearing zones. The conditional approval could be altered if Shell can repair an ice breaking vessel before the short open water season ends in late September.
The permits are the latest twist in a long-running saga. Shell spent $2.1 billion in 2008 to purchase leases from the Interior Department to explore for oil in the Chukchi Sea and it has spent about $5 billion more since then. But it has been mired in lawsuits and a regulatory process complicated by a series of mishaps that have damaged vessels required for the drilling program.
The most recent mishap sidelined the Fennica, one of two icebreakers in Shell’s Arctic fleet and the only one carrying equipment designed to fit over a damaged well in case of a blowout. Shell must have the equipment nearby before it can penetrate areas suspected of holding oil or natural gas.
On July 3 on its way to the drill site, the Fennica scraped into a shallow shoal and tore a 39-inch by 2-inch gash in its hull. The Coast Guard is investigating, but some areas along the ship’s route could be shallower than shown in surveys conducted decades ago.
“We remain committed to operating in a safe, environmentally responsible manner and look forward to evaluating what could potentially become a national energy resource base,” Shell spokesman Kelly op de Weegh said.
But Lois Epstein, an engineer and Arctic program director for The Wilderness Society, said of the administration’s announcement Wednesday: “This is a tremendously disappointing decision that poses a serious, long-term threat to the fragile environment of the Arctic Ocean.” She added, “there are two things certain about offshore drilling in the Arctic: things will go wrong, and the oil industry isn’t ready.
Since the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, environmental groups have urged President Obama to block Shell’s plans, especially given the remoteness of the Chukchi Sea from Coast Guard and other vessels.
League of Conservation Voters president Gene Karpinski said in a statement that any Arctic Ocean drilling ”is incompatible with President Obama’s strong record on and desire to address climate change.”
Speaking to reporters during a Camp David press conference in May, Obama emphasized that when it came to Arctic drilling, “nobody is more mindful of the risks involved and the dangers” given his experience with the Gulf of Mexico spill. He added that Shell had to “revamp its approach” based on stricter federal standards his officials authored.
In 2013, the Interior Department reviewed Shell’s abbreviated 2012 drilling program. Shell struggled to obtain certification of its containment vessel, the Arctic Challenger; the Arctic Challenger had trouble deploying its containment dome; and one of Shell’s two drilling rigs, the Kulluk, ran aground off Kodiak Island in December on its way to a warm water port.
Interior ordered a third party audit of Shells’ management culture and systems, but the department has turned down freedom of information requests filed by environmental groups seeking copies of the audit, Epstein said.
The Fennica will arrive soon for repairs in Portland. Shell said the ship should reach the Chukchi Sea before drilling penetrates formations the company hopes contain large oil reserves.
In 2012, Shell drilled in an oil prospect called Burger A, but the time it took Shell to meet permitting standards and an unusually icy summer meant it did not time to drill deep enough to enter oil or gas zones, so Shell plugged and secured the wells.
This summer, the company said it intends hopes to explore in other areas—known as Burgers J and V—based on “an improved and clear picture of the subsurface structure.”
But Epstein said that the wells cannot be drilled at the same time because the Fish and Wildlife Service has barred companies from drilling simultaneously less than 15 miles apart because the noise from drilling could harm walrus populations that often in the area. Shell’s wells are only nine miles apart.
Juliet Eilperin contributed to this report.

Obama Part Three?

Most of you who read this blog know that we believe that Obama will be running for at least one more term as President. He has two "placeholders" who have been very successful keeping other Democrats from coming into the fray, those being Hillary Clinton and potentially Joe Biden, his vice president.(The Democrats will never select a Socialist.)

How could he do it?  We have talked about the lack of "standing" that all of us have when it comes to the Courts and it being the procedure used by Obama's lawyers to defeat all cases brought against the President when he was asked to prove that he was a "natural born citizen" which is one of the requirements of the Constitution.

We also believe that he might institute martial law in an effort to prevent elections from occurring.  The "Black Lives Matter" movement and his responses to Baltimore and Ferguson are examples of his attempt to ratchet up racial tensions in this country. Could he be planning race riots in the fall of 2016?  One can only guess.

What about  the importing of Syrian and other middle east Muslims? Why are they all being resettled in Red States?  Is this an effort to water down these  Republican strongholds?  Or could Obama be planning to use these individuals as "poll watchers" who would intimidate Americans from voting against him?  What would the poll workers do if a number of these foreign immigrants started to question voters about their vote and suggest that they vote for The President? Could that throw the entire election out if it went against him?  Is that the plan?

Does he care if 70% of the population would be against him running for a third term?  It did not bother him  that that was the way we felt about ObamaCrapCare or the Dream Act.  So why should he care about this. The answer is he won't!

We believe that Obama has a plan and what it  will be revealed just before the Democratic Convention where in a repeat of history, the donkeys will have no candidate and will turn to Obama as they did to FDR in 1940.  He will hesitate at first, as he did with the Dream Act, but then will be "persuaded" to do what is in the "best interests of the country" to run for a third term. The news media will celebrate it as a great victory for common sense. After all he is one of the youngest men ever to  be President!

The weak willed, spineless Republicans will jump on television and radio, complain loudly, demand that he not run but in the end will do NOTHING. Citizen patriots will file suit but will be turned down as they have no "standing" to  bring the action. Should the case reach the Supreme Court the four liberal "dwarfs" will be joined by Chief Justice Roberts to defeat any case.

And folks, OBAMA WILL WIN.  Whether it is through voter intimidation, voter fraud, outright lies or some legal maneuver, he will  be the second President to serve a third term. He and Michelle will be around for a long time.

However, the worst thing for all of us is what will happen when he is inaugurated. He will explain exactly what he meant by "fundamentally change America."  If you thought that all of his actions and missteps were part of what he meant. You would be wrong.

Early on in his first term, he told us and the world that America was a Muslim country.  Most of us scratched our head, searched our brains and could not come up with what he really meant. It made NO sense to us.  He was telegraphing his goal. America would become Muslim.

We will find out what he meant either in the first couple weeks of his Administration or at his inauguration.  It is our belief that at this point, he will take his Presidential directives to a new low point. He will declare America to be Muslim. Among other things, he will direct all non-Muslims to pay tributes to the local mosque or go to jail.  He will use the IRS to enforce the rules.

He would eliminate the tax free status of churches, temples and synagogues.  However, mosques would retain their tax benefits. Legal holidays such as Christmas will be eliminated and only Muslim holidays will be allowed. Shariah law would be instituted and the current court system would be phased out over a period of years. The Constitution would be kept but interpreted by Islamic jurists.

America will have been "fundamentally changed."

This has to be his goal otherwise his abuse of Israel and his favoring of radical Islamic threats (i.e. ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood) make no sense. His and Kerry's weak approach to Iran in the nuclear discussions can only have one rational reason? It was not to curry favor with those in the Islamic world.  He wants the US to be part of that world.

Of course, we could be completely wrong. That Obama won't run for a third term and that he will not further "fundamentally change America."  We hope that we are just one turn away from the loony bin, however, his entire Administration has focused on bringing the US to a point where this all makes sense.

So, please tell us.  Is this the end of the US as we know it or.....

Conservative Tom







Monday, August 31, 2015

Another Texas-Mexico War Is Brewing. It's All Over Illegal Immigrant Anchor Babies.

Mexico Warns Texas on Not Issuing Birth Certificates to Illegals' Babies

Image: Mexico Warns Texas on Not Issuing Birth Certificates to Illegals' Babies(Wire Services) Illegal alien with infant.
By Cathy Burke   |   Friday, 28 Aug 2015 09:44 PM
The refusal of some Texas counties to issue birth certificates for children born to undocumented parents could threaten the state's relationship with Mexico, the Mexican government warns.

The notice comes in a brief filed in support of illegal immigrant parents who are suing Texas after being denied birth certificates for their U.S.-born children – even after providing ID cards, known as "matricula," issued by the Mexican Consulate, Fox News Latino reports. 
The Texas Tribune reports some Texas county registrars won't accept the consulate-issued identification because it isn't considered reliable.

Some Texas counties were accepting the consulate ID cards until recently, when they were ordered to stop by the Texas state health services department, the Tribune reports.

"[It] not only jeopardizes their dignity and well-being, but could threaten the unique relationship between Mexico and Texas," the Mexican government said in a brief tied to a lawsuit filed against the state by Texas Civil Rights Project and Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid.
Latest News Update

The suit against Texas was filed on behalf of six children who are U.S. citizens and their undocumented parents, who are from Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala, the Texas Tribune reports. The families argue Texas is violating the 14th amendment, among other things.

"Our argument isn't 'yes matrícula, no matrícula,'" attorney Jennifer Harbury, who represents the families, told the Tribune. "The argument is 'what will you take that people can actually get?' They have to take something. [The children] were born here. They are U.S. citizens."

The brief also claims denying the children U.S. birth certificates blocks their claims to Mexican citizenship; a child born to Mexican parents has that right but must show proof of identity, the Tribune reports.

Related Stories:


© 2015 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Words Mean Nothing When It Comes To Liberals


"Caitlyn" Jenner, formerly known as Bruce Jenner
“Caitlyn” Jenner, formerly known as Bruce Jenner
By Paul Bremmer
Progressives in America need to realize that when they point a finger at conservatives for “judging” various identity groups, there are three other fingers pointing back at them, journalist and author Jack Cashill says.
“The irony is that the left has prided itself historically on being anti-judgmental,” Cashill said in a recent interview on Phyllis Schlafly’s “Eagle Forum Live” radio show. “I mean, they have introduced that word ‘judgmental’ as though it were bad, and yet they are the most judgmental people on the planet.”
The things on which progressives pass judgment change from day to day, Cashill noted. He pointed to the recent controversy over use of the term “anchor baby” to describe the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.
It was a term used by Senate Minority leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., on the Senate floor in 1993. His conclusion was that “no sane country” would allow illegal immigrants to so easily gain a foothold.
But when Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump and Jeb Bush uttered “anchor babies” last week, ABC reporter Tom Llamas charged the term was offensive. He suggested calling an anchor baby an “American child of undocumented immigrants.” Bush’s use of the term is now being treated as a gaffe by the media.
Cashill, a WND columnist, finds it infuriating that progressives are raising a stink over the term “anchor babies” at a time when several undercover videos have shown Planned Parenthood employees casually discussing the buying and selling of aborted-baby parts.
“These people who are willing to endorse groups that dismember real babies, unborn babies, healthy unborn babies and trafficking their body parts are dictating to us our morality?” Cashill asked. “How did we let them get away with this?”
Americans also have allowed progressives to define public morality, according to Cashill. And conservatives are not without blame.
“We’ve seen our political leaders buckle in the face of the merest insults or name-calling, the fear of being called a racist, the fear of being called a sexist, the fear of being called a xenophobe has led to some very bad policy decisions on the parts of Republicans, always prodded of course by Democrats and their progressive puppeteers,” he said.
“Cashill’s newest book, “Scarlet Letters: The Ever-Increasing Intolerance of the Cult of Liberalism Exposed,” deals with this very topic of leftist name-calling.
In it, Cashill identifies the “seven deadly sins” against intolerant progressives: racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia and climate-change denialism.
Cashill calls self-righteous progressives “neo-Puritans” for their rigid adherence to a secular faith. And he believes this secular faith is actually the world’s second-oldest faith – the faith that humans can be like gods, as the serpent promised Adam in the Garden of Eden.
“For the left, they’ve adopted the idea that man can create his own universe more successfully than God can, and so they’re always tinkering,” he said. “They’re always improving. They’re always refining. And yet, as we know, it’s not like they’re making anything better. They’re simply appealing to their interest groups and calling it progress when in fact it’s regress.”
The “neo-Puritans” don’t tolerate dissent, according to Cashill. They assume anyone who disagrees with them has sinister motivations.
“So if you don’t believe in affirmative action, you’re racist,” he said. “If you don’t believe in illegal immigration, you’re a xenophobe. If you don’t believe that the earth is going to turn into a cinder in the next 10 years, you’re a climate-change denialist, a term they borrowed from the Holocaust. That’s how sinister their use of language is.”
Phyllis Schlafly, the host, jumped in and offered another historical comparison for what progressive are doing.
“It’s kind of like an inquisition, where you’re guilty before you even have a trial,” said Schlafly, a WND columnist and author of “Who Killed the American Family?”
Cashill acknowledged that not every part of the “neo-Puritan” coalition would naturally be in harmony. Most notably, two of the seven deadly sins are Islamophobia and homophobia, but Muslims could be considered “homophobes,” too, considering their religion’s intolerance of “gays.” But Cashill said such considerations don’t matter in the short term, because all parts of the coalition have the same goal.
“Muslim radicals wouldn’t seem to have much in common with gay rights activists, except they have the same enemy,” he said. “And that same enemy is traditional Judeo-Christian America. And their goal at this stage in both cases is to pull down the supports that maintain those traditions and those institutions.
“When that battlefield clears, if they win, they’re obviously going to have some trouble reconciling one group that wants to celebrate homosexuals and the other group that wants to stone them to death. They’re not exactly compatible worldviews.”
In fact, Cashill claimed Muslims used the homosexual lobby as an example of how to become part of the liberal grievance industry.
“Muslim activists saw the success that gay activists were having with the term ‘homophobe,’ so they borrowed the ‘phobe’ from the gays, who they would stone to death on their own terms, and they added it to Islam and then they used that as a weapon,” he said.
The neo-Puritan coalition invents new sins all the time, Cashill argued.
Witness the Bruce/Caitlin Jenner transformation saga. Two months ago, the author said, comedians were joking about Bruce Jenner. Then Jenner became a woman, gave a lengthy interview to ABC’s Diane Sawyer and received ESPN’s Arthur Ashe Courage Award. Now anyone who refers to “Bruce Jenner” is called a hater or “transphobe.”
“One day transitioning from male to female is bizarre, next day it’s sacred,” Cashill noted. “They have so imposed this kind of counterfeit morality on America that it is hard to know where it’s going to pop up next, so you always have to be vigilant.”

Copyright 2015 WND

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/and-the-most-judgmental-people-on-earth-are/#9JsKs0cdkaCL8UkL.99

Words Mean Nothing Now!

Were State Secrets Given To Weiner By Huma?

Trump: Huma Abedin Shared Information With 'Perv' Husband Anthony Weiner

Image: Trump: Huma Abedin Shared Information With 'Perv' Husband Anthony WeinerHuma Abedin and husband Anthony Weiner (Getty Images)
By Sandy Fitzgerald   |   Saturday, 29 Aug 2015 10:18 AM
Donald Trump drew laughs Friday night when he accused Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's top aide, of sharing classified information with her "perv" husband, Anthony Weiner, but the Clinton camp didn't find the comments funny.

"Think of it, Huma [who Trump called Ooma] is getting classified secrets, she's married to Anthony Weiner, who's a perv. He is," Trump told supporters in Norwood, Massachusetts, reports CNN.  "It all sort of came through Huma — who is Huma married to, one of the great sleazebags of our time."

Story continues below video.


Trump then imitated one of Weiner's texting sessions.

"You know, the little bing, bing, bing, bum, bum,'" Trump said, hitting keys on an imaginary phone, and then acting as he was Weiner calling Abedine, telling her "I love you very much."

Weiner resigned from Congress in 2011 after sexting lewd photos of himself to a woman who was following him on Twitter. In 2013, Weiner joined the race to replace New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, but pulled out after he repeatedly sexted under the alias "Carlos Danger" to a 22-year-old woman.

"I've known Anthony Weiner a long time. I knew before they caught him with the bing, bing, bing," Trump told his audience in Massachusetts, reports The Washington Post. "And he was a bad guy then. It turned out he was a really bad guy."

Clinton press secretary Brian Fallon tweeted that Trump's comments marked a new level of "boorishness."

Nick Merrill, a traveling press spokesman who worked with Abedin while Clinton was secretary of state, tweeted that Trump "crossed the line" and his comments were "disgraceful."

Trump said in the appearance that Clinton has "a lot of problems" coming from her use of a private email server, including that Abedin, who has been working for Clinton nearly 20 years ago, had access to much of the information coming through the emails.

Abedin, who is often seen at Clinton's side, had a security clearance while working for Clinton at the State Department, reports The Post, and was allowed to do consulting work, which has also come under scrutiny after Clinton entered the 2016 presidential race.

Trump also said Friday that Abedin "can't see straight" because she's "probably desperately in love with, in all fairness to Anthony, because why else would she marry this guy?"

Related Stories:

© 2015 Newsmax. All rights reserved