United States Budget Dilemma

Video:  United States Budget Dilemma

Tax loophole costs billions

 Loophole Video

Millions of illegal immigrants are getting a bigger tax refund than you. Eyewitness News shows a massive tax loophole that provides billions of dollars in tax credits to undocumented workers and, in many cases, people who have never stepped foot in the United States. And you are paying for it!

Note: This is part one in a two-part series. Read part two here.

INDIANAPOLIS - Inside his central Indiana office, a longtime tax consultant sits at his desk, shaking his head in disbelief.

"There is not a doubt in my mind there's huge fraud taking place here," he said, slowly flipping through the pages of a tax return.

The tax preparer does not want you to know his name for fear of reprisal, but he does want you to know about a nationwide problem with a huge price tag.

He came to 13 Investigates to blow the whistle.

"We're talking about a multi-billion dollar fraud scheme here that's taking place and no one is talking about it," he said.

The scheme involves illegal immigrants -- illegal immigrants who are filing tax returns.

How it works

The Internal Revenue Service says everyone who is employed in the United States – even those who are working here illegally – must report income and pay taxes. Of course, undocumented workers are not supposed to have a social security number. So for them to pay taxes, the IRS created what's called an ITIN, an individual taxpayer identification number. A 9-digit ITIN number issued by the IRS provides both resident and nonresident aliens with a unique identification number that allows them to file tax returns.

While that may have seemed like a good idea, it's now backfiring in a big way.

Each spring, at tax preparation offices all across the nation, many illegal immigrants are now eagerly filing tax returns to take advantage of a tax loophole, using their ITIN numbers to get huge refunds from the IRS.

The loophole is called the Additional Child Tax Credit. It's a fully-refundable credit of up to $1000 per child, and it's meant to help working families who have children living at home.

But 13 Investigates has found many undocumented workers are claiming the tax credit for kids who live in Mexico – lots of kids in Mexico.

"We've seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents, most times nieces and nephews, on these tax forms," the whistleblower told Eyewitness News. "The more you put on there, the more you get back."

The whistleblower has thousands of examples, and he brought some of them to 13 Investigates. While identifying information such as names and addresses on the tax returns was redacted, it was still clear that the tax filers had received large tax refunds after claiming additional child tax credits for many dependents.

"Here's a return right here: we've got a $10,3000 refund for nine nieces and nephews," he said, pointing to the words "niece" and "nephew" listed on the tax forms nine separate times.

"We're getting an $11,000 refund on this tax return. There's seven nieces and nephews," he said, pointing to another set of documents. "I can bring out stacks and stacks. It's just so easy it's ridiculous."

20 kids = $30,000

WTHR spoke to several undocumented workers who confirmed it is easy.

They all agreed to talk with WTHR investigative reporter Bob Segall and a translator as long as WTHR agreed not to reveal their identity.

One of the workers, who was interviewed at his home in southern Indiana, admitted his address was used this year to file tax returns by four other undocumented workers who don't even live there. Those four workers claimed 20 children live inside the one residence and, as a result, the IRS sent the illegal immigrants tax refunds totaling $29,608.

13 Investigates saw only one little girl who lives at that address (a small mobile home). We wondered about the 20 kids claimed as tax deductions?

"They don't live here," said the undocumented worker. "The other kids are in their country of origin, which is Mexico."

He later explained none of the 20 children have ever visited the United States – let alone lived here.

So why should undocumented workers receive tax credits for children living in a foreign country, which is a violation of IRS tax rules?

"If the opportunity is there and they can give it to me, why not take advantage of it?" the worker said.

Other undocumented workers in Indiana told 13 Investigates the same thing. Their families are collecting tax refunds for children who do not live in this country. Several of the workers told WTHR they were told it was legal for them to claim the tax credit for a child who does not live in the United States.

IRS was repeatedly warned

"The magnitude of the problem has grown exponentially," said Russell George, the United States Department of Treasury's Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA).

And he says the IRS has known about the problem for years.

George has repeatedly warned the IRS that additional child tax credits are being abused by undocumented workers. In 2009, his office released an audit report that showed ITIN tax filers received about $1 billion in additional child tax credits. Last year, the inspector general released a new report showing the problem now costs American tax payers more than $4.2 billion.

"Keep in mind, we're talking $4 billion per year," he said. "It's very troubling."

What George finds even more troubling is the IRS has not taken action despite multiple warnings from the inspector general.

"Millions of people are seeking this tax credit who, we believe, are not entitled to it," said the inspector general. "We have made recommendations to [IRS] as to how they could address this, and they have not taken sufficient action in our view to solve the problem."

Other information obtained from the TIGTA audits include:

· Claims for additional child tax credits by ITIN filers have skyrocketed during the past decade, from $161 million in 2001 to $4.2 billion in tax year 2010.

· Undocumented workers filed 3.02 million tax returns in 2010. 72% of those returns (2.18 million) claimed the additional child tax credit.

· In 2010, the IRS owed undocumented workers more in claimed additional child tax credits than it collected from those workers in taxes.

Agency responds – sort of

What does the IRS have to say about all this?

The agency sent WTHR a statement, defending its policy of paying tax credits to illegal immigrants.

"The law has been clear for over a decade that eligibility for these credits does not depend on work authorization status or the type of taxpayer identification number used. Any suggestion that the IRS shouldn't be paying out these credits under current law to ITIN holders is simply incorrect. The IRS administers the law impartially and applies it as it is written," the statement said.

George disagrees with that position and believes the IRS should be doing more to prevent undocumented workers from getting billions in US tax dollars.

"The IRS is not doing something as simple as requesting sufficient documentation from people seeking this credit," he said. "Once the money goes out the door, it's nearly impossible for the IRS to get it back."

Over the past month, WTHR has tried to ask the IRS more questions about its efforts to prevent abuse involving additional child tax credits.

Despite repeated phone calls, e-mails and a visit to IRS headquarters in Washington, the agency said none of its 100,000 employees had time to meet with 13 Investigates for an interview. An IRS spokeswoman said all staff were too busy because of the tax filing deadline in mid-April.

Apparently, the IRS doesn't have time to respond to some tax preparers, either.

Last year, our whistleblower noticed dozens of undocumented workers had used phony documents and false income to claim tax credits. He reported all of it to the IRS.

"These were fraudulent, 100% fraudulent tax returns, but I got no response; absolutely none. We never heard a thing," he said. "To me, it's clear the IRS is letting this happen."

The IRS tells WTHR it can do nothing to change the current system unless it gets permission from Congress. In other words, according to the IRS, closing the loophole would require lawmakers to pass a new law specifically excluding illegal immigrants from claiming additional child tax credits.

The big questions now: Is Congress willing to do that?

What's next

Tomorrow night, 13 Investigates will show you how lawmakers are reacting to WTHR's investigation and what they plan to do about. You'll also hear why some undocumented workers say the credits are essential and should be left intact. Our investigation continues Friday night at 11:00.

Full statement to WTHR from the Internal Revenue Service

The law has been clear for over a decade that eligibility for these credits does not depend on work authorization status or the type of taxpayer identification number used. Any suggestion that the IRS shouldn't be paying out these credits under current law to ITIN holders is simply incorrect. The IRS administers the law impartially and applies it as it is written. If the law were changed, the IRS would change its programs accordingly. The IRS disagrees with TIGTA's recommendation on requiring additional documentation to verify child credit claims. As TIGTA acknowledges in this report, the IRS does not currently have the legal authority to verify and disallow the Child Tax Credit and the Additional Child Tax Credit during return processing simply because of the lack of documentation. The IRS has procedures in place specifically for the evaluation of questionable credit claims early in the processing stream and prior to issuance of a refund. The IRS continues to work to refine and improve our processes.

Obama creates "green jobs"--in other countries

President Obama's reckless Stimulus spent billions of our tax dollars to create "green jobs"--in foreign countries like Mexico, Finland, and China.

The American people deserve to know what's going on--and that our tax dollars are being wasted on handouts to other countries, instead of creating jobs for 13 million unemployed Americans.

With the DNC admitting to their top donors that this ad could cause "serious damage" to the Left's agenda, and President Obama dedicating yet another TV ad to attacking AFP activists, they're more desperate than ever to keep the truth hidden.

There's a reason this ad has the Left shaking in fear. And with your help today, we can make sure this ad stays on the air and reach as many Americans as possible. After viewing "Obama's Wasteful Spending," make sure to send your most generous donation in the form to your right to keep this ad on the air:

AFP  Wasteful Spending Ad Video

40th (Now 42nd) Anniversary of 1st Earth Day a Grim Reminder of Immigration's Devastation of a Vision

2012 is the 42nd Anniversary of the 1st Earth Day but re-posting this article from 2010 has become my Earth Day Anniversary Tradition.  So when some indoctrinated college student or old hippie corners you with their Earth Day spiel, presentation or product over the weekend and into next week, get their email and send them the link to this post. Ask Marion~

This is a great article to use when contacting your Senator and Congressman: 40th Anniversary of 1st Earth Day a Grim Reminder of Immigration's Devastation of a Vision - We can solve two problems at once. If we stop illegal immigration and cut immigration in general... We will have no need for Cap and Trade and will solve our illegal alien (Hispanic and Muslim) problems, both groups that do not assimilate and reproduce in large numbers. Just by doing this one thing we will improve the quality of life of all Americans and legal aliens.

By Roy Beck, Sunday, April 18, 2010, 7:41 PM EDT – Originally Cross-Posted:  40th Anniversary of 1st Earth Day a Grim Reminder of Immigration's Devastation of a Vision by Ask Marion on 4.23.2010

THURSDAY IS THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FIRST EARTH DAY -- AND A GRIM REMINDER OF HOW IMMIGRATION HAS UNDERCUT VIRTUALLY ALL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS.

Pres. Clinton's Task Force understood it. The Father of Earth Day understood it. You and I understand it. Why does Congress not understand that U.S. environmental sustainability is not possible unless we greatly reduce immigration numbers?

What does sustainability mean? That the way we live today will not prevent our grandchildren from enjoying the same things we enjoy. The Golden Rule is at the heart of it.

Sustainability was the big idea 40 years ago when much of the nation's attention was drawn to the events and news of the first Earth Day. I was a cub newspaper reporter covering the events. And I remember well that an important theme in 1970 was that sustainability required the U.S. to begin to stabilize its population after having added the SECOND 100 million in just 55 years.

Well, now we've added the THIRD 100 million in less than the 40 years since that first Earth Day and we're on pace to add the FOURTH 100 million even faster!

Because of this massive population explosion, progress on environmental quality in recent years has stalled. The Chesapeake Bay, for example, is just about as near death today as it was in 1970.

And around 1 MILLION acres of natural habitat and farmland are cleared, scraped and developed each year just to accommodate this rapid population growth.

Nearly all of the population growth is caused by the increases in immigration that Congress ordered or allowed since 1970. For every restriction and cost that the government has put on us since then to improve environmental quality, it has negated part or all of the benefits by forcing high population growth through radically increased immigration numbers.

That is why the Father of Earth Day, Sen. Gaylord Nelson (D-Wis.), made U.S. population stabilization such an important part of the teaching back in 1970 and why he spent much of the last 20 years warning of the environmental dangers of continuing our high-immigration policies.

Even Pres. Clinton's Population and Consumption Task Force concluded in 1996 that the immigration increases since the first Earth Day had to be rolled back.

The Task Force was a bit nervous about taking on the immigration issues (just like most environmentalists are):

As a matter of public debate, immigration is a sensitive and explosive issue, and both legal and illegal immigration must be addressed with great sensitivity and care in order to advance the debate. We acknowledge these impediments to easy and informal dialogue, and we urge that participants take appropriate care so that a reasoned discussion of immigration and the American future can begin.

But then Pres. Clinton's Task Force stated forcefully:

We believe that reducing current immigration levels is a necessary part of working toward sustainability in the United States.

Pres. Clinton had established the Task Force in 1993 to find ways "to bring people together to meet the needs of the present without jeopardizing the future."

Have you noticed that I have been quoting only Democrats?

If you are represented by Democrats in Congress, this is an especially good time to call on them to be true to their Party's long-standing "stated" commitment to environmental sustainability.

Of course, most of them don't want to deal with the inconvenient truth that the Democratic Party's insistence on high immigration to drive massive U.S. population growth is at odds with decades of acknowledgments that these policies simply cannot continue if we hope to leave any kind of natural environmental legacy to our grandchildren.

President Carter in 1977 commissioned a Global 2000 Report <-- (the original seems to have been scrubbed) which eventually concluded that the "United States should: Develop a U.S. national population policy that includes attention to issues such as population stabilization ... just, consistent and workable immigration laws."

Without all the increases in immigration, our communities would have around 250 million inhabitants right now, with little likelihood of ever going over 265 million.

Instead, because of a quadrupling in legal immigration numbers, we have more than 310 million inhabitants and are on a trajectory to cross 600 million well before the end of this century!

Obviously, the first Earth Day vision was for an America greatly different than the one we occupy today. And congressional immigration policies are the main reason that bright vision is now so murky.

This 40th anniversary is not a time of celebration but of deep sadness for the promise that was lost.

As Sen. Nelson said on the 32nd anniversary just a few years before his death:

We are preparing to celebrate the 32nd Earth Day just after the Census Bureau has announced that far from winding down in the 1990s, U.S. population growth boomed at its highest level in the nation's history! Not even the peak of the Baby Boom in the 1950s added as many people!

"This new population boom represents a PROFOUND FAILURE in our nation's pursuit of environmental quality. Since 1970, another 80 million people have been added to the country.

"Every environmental goal has been delayed because of this failure.

And Sen. Nelson never flinched from naming who had caused the failure: Congress, because of its immigration policies.

I know from past experiences that many NumbersUSA members, especially in the West, do not think so kindly toward Sen. Nelson because he was the father of the Wilderness Act which they believe unfairly took huge swaths of land out of private control and use.

Our membership is divided about a lot of environmental matters. NumbersUSA does not take a position on any environmental issue other than immigration's role. Whatever your stance on various governmental efforts to combat environmental problems, we all can be united in the understanding that immigration is creating the double whammy of creating great pressures for more and more regulation to control environmental consequences while negating any positive effects.

Let's require our Members of Congress to promise not to force the FOURTH 100 million on us and our children and grandchildren.

ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA

NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.

Views and opinions expressed in blogs on this website are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect official policies of NumbersUSA.

Originally Posted by Knowledge_Is_Power at 4:36 PM -  Thursday, April 22, 2010 

An Earth Day Tradition… George Carlin on Saving the Planet

An Earth Day tradition: George Carlin on the intellectual bankruptcy of "saving the planet"

Video: George Carlin on Saving the Planet – a few questionable words but worth the listen!

Source: Washington Examiner (link no longer active) - www.washingtonexaminer.com

Most of us do believe that it is the right thing to do to be better stewards of our Earth and to be kinder to the animals we share it with. We need to do a better job of protecting our supplies of clean water, stop massive deforestation which includes the saving species of plants that may hold huge medicinal secrets, and to move toward cleaner and a bigger tool box of energy sources. But especially after Climategate most of us do believe that turning these matter over to the government or worse yet global control is not the way to do and will devastate us financially as well as ultimately turning over huge control over our country to the UN.

A lot of what George says makes sense!!

Today’s Earth Day announcement is that Al Gore’s movie, an Inconvenient Truth, based on very questionable science is going to be shown to our children in all public schools without the opposite point of view being offered.

These kids, your kids, are being programmed daily that they are smarter than you are and that it is their job to teach their parents. Can’t get to the adults… get to the kids. Do you remember the last time these methods were used??

Please stand up, as individuals, and in your parent groups… form some if you haven’t already and stop this concept as well as the pushing of the theory of Global Warming !

40 years of predicting the planet’s imminent demise

Earth Day Predictions, from the first one in 1970….

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” -George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” -New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.” Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” -Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” -Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” -Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.” -Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” -Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” -Sen. Gaylord Nelson

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” -Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

It was also announced that Congress is in the process of taking over control of all water in the US. – from Rivers, Lakes, Ponds down to Puddles… our drinking water and irrigation supplies. The existing law gives then control of all navigable water ways… they are now seeking to take out the word ‘navigable’. Ask the citizens of the San Joaquin Valley in CA, who used to be the bread basket of America, how that can work out. They now live in a Federally created Dust Bowl. This is a bad thing America!!

Related:

First they Shut off Water to CA Farmers, Now the Feds Attempting to Annex ALL Water in the U.S.

Please educate yourself… Pick up a copy of: Power Grab

OIL - You better be sitting down when you read this!

OIL… And Energy Independence

As you may know, Cruz Construction started a division in North Dakota just 6 months ago. They sent every Kenworth (9 trucks) we had here in Alaska to North Dakota and several drivers.

They just bought two new Kenworth's to add to that fleet; one being a Tri Drive tractor and a new 65 ton lowboy to go with it. They also bought two new cranes (one crawler & one rubber tired) for that division.

Dave Cruz said they have moved more rigs in the last 6 months in ND than Cruz Construction moved in Alaska in the last 6 years.

Williston is like a gold rush town; they moved one of our 40 man camps down there since there are no rooms available.

Unemployment in ND is the lowest in the nation at 3.4 percent last I checked.

See anything in the national news about how the oil industry is fueling North Dakota 's economy?

Here's an astonishing read. Important and verifiable information:

About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes brothers was the guest.

The host said to Forbes, "I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more than all the Middle East put together."

The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big.

It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana.

Check THIS out:

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels.  Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable,   (50.3 billion barrels) at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.

"When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor.  They had no idea.." says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.

"This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years", reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

It's a formation known as the Williston Basin, but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.'

It stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota, and into Canada.

For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end.  Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago.

However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves, and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from 2006!

U. S. Oil Discovery - Largest Reserve in the World  Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world.  It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction.

In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted.

With this mother load of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling? They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.

Here are the official estimates: 8 times as much oil as Saudi Arabia, 18 times as much oil as Iraq, 21 times as much oil as Kuwait,  22 times as much oil as Iran, 500 times as much oil as Yemen, and it's all right here in the Western United States.

HOW can this BE?  HOW can we NOT BE extracting this?

Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil!  Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy. WHY?

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East , more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.

Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price even with this find?  Think again!  It's all about the competitive marketplace, it has to.

Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?

Got your attention yet?  Now, while you're thinking about it, do this: Share this. If you don't take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you complain about gas prices, by doing NOTHING, you forfeit your right to complain.

By the way, this can be verified. Check it out at the link below.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

Cruz Construction: http://www.cruzconstruct.com/

Oil is the answer to our independence, fixing our entire economy and turning America’s decline around!!  The Republicans in Congress are trying force our Progressive Green President’s hand by adding the Keystone Pipeline Project to the tax deal presently in play.  Even many Democrats agree that the Keystone Pipeline should be approved now rather than in a year from now, as Obama has had it pushed back to, for even just serious consideration.  As the Republicans and reasonable Dems have pointed out… The Keystone Pipeline would create needed jobs, including many for military men and women who are now coming home that will increase unemployment if there aren’t any new jobs created.

Obama and his Progressive team and supporters are stealing American jobs and energy independence in the name of their ideological agenda by halting the expansion of the Keystone pipeline, in the name of their created Green energy goals. Then Obama has approved deep water drilling in The Gulf for Brazil, where were can’t drill, and will allow Canada to rapidly expand production of oil from “tar sands”, affecting our environment without any job or energy rewards and will end up turning around purchasing their oil either directly or from China, who they will be selling to.

Ask Marion~ -  h/t to Deonia Copeland

Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this link to every one in your address book.

Trump to OPEC: Oil Should Be $40-$50 a Barrel. not $150

Mitt Romney on U.S. Energy & Oil Independence

GOP on Keystone Pipeline Delay: ‘Utterly Irrational’ 

Fracking Butter and the EPA’s Fracking Report

** Obama has become so arrogant that even left leaning 60-minutes edited out Obama’s laughable claim that he is the 4th best President. **

Gore tells Watergate reporter American people know nothing about Clinton White House

Bob Woodward: sitting next to Gore 'taxing' & 'unpleasant'

An interesting series of quotes came from Bob Woodward recently about Al Gore - calling the former Vice President 'taxing' and 'unpleasant' to sit next to after a recent event he shared with the VP. Even worse, Woodward admitted he asked Gore how much the public knows about what went on during the Clinton administration. The answer: 1%, a number Woodward says made him feel 'icky'. Even ickier - Woodward waited 6 years to make this information public. Glenn Beck reacts on radio today. WATCH

Video: Glenn Reacts to Woodward Comments On Gore…

Woodward is no stranger to corruption in the White House as he helped expose President Nixon’s crimes and abuse of power to the public.

The Hill reports:

In a speech at the Organization for International Investment’s annual dinner at D.C.’s Ritz-Carlton Hotel on Thursday, the famed Washington Post journalist, who helped uncover the Watergate scandal, disclosed that he doesn’t enjoy the former vice president as a tablemate.

…

Woodward offered up another tidbit from the conversation with his dinner companion. The investigative reporter asked the politician, more than five years after leaving office, how much the public knows about what went on during the Clinton administration. Gore replied, “One percent.”

Woodward admitted that revelation made him feel a bit icky, saying, “I kind of died inside and have to confess to having an unclean thought.”

EPA to property owner: 'Your land is our land'

At the GOP Debate last week the two agencies that got the most votes from the public and the presidential candidates to either get rid or completely or get rid of start over were the EPA and the Department of Education… and the IRS was the 3rd if you put the fair or flat tax systems in place.  Under Obama they’ve all grown and will keep growing.

$40 million in fines pending over plan to build new home

Just imagine. You want to build a home, so you buy a $23,000 piece of land in a residential subdivision in your hometown and get started. The government then tells you to stop, threatens you with $40 million in fines and is not kidding.

That's the case now before the U.S. Supreme Court, with briefs being filed today by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of a Priest Lake, Idaho, family, Chantell and Mike Sackett.

Attorney Damien Schiff, who will be arguing before the high court in the case, said it's simply a case of a government run amok, and it poses a potential threat to perhaps not every landowner across the nation, but untold millions.

The Sacketts, Schiff said, "bought property, and the government in effect has ordered them to treat the property like a public park."

"The EPA has not paid them a dime for that privilege," he said. "The regime we have operating now allows the EPA to take property without having to pay for it, or giving the owners the right to their day in court.""

The organization has prepared a video to explain the case:

Video:  PLF Fights the EPA to Protect a Couple’s Dream

The case developed when the Sacketts bought a .63-acre parcel of land for $23,000 in a subdivision in their hometown of Priest Lake, Idaho. The land is 500 feet from a lake, had a city water and sewer tap assigned, had no running or standing water and was in the middle of other developed properties.

The couple obtained all of the needed permits for their project and started work. Suddenly, the Environmental Protection Agency showed up on the building site, demanded that the work stop and issued a "compliance order" that the couple remove the fill they had brought in, restore the land to its native condition, plant trees every 10 feet, fence it off and let it sit for three years.

Then they would, for costs estimated at roughly a quarter of a million dollars, be allowed to "request" permission from the government to build on their own land.

Or else, warned the agency, there is the possibility of fines of $37,500 per day – with the total now surpassing $40 million.

Chantell reported she was told by the EPA that if "you're buying a piece of property you should know if it's in wetlands."

"I started to do research. I said, 'So how do I find this piece of property in the wetlands [registry]'? And she said, 'Here's the coordinates.' When I actually pulled up the coordinates, it's not there."

No matter, said the government. Do what we want.

So the Sacketts went to court, only to be told the courts can't address a decision like this, as it's an administrative decision. The couple would have to meet the demands of the "compliance order" and pay the $250,000 to apply for a building permit, then challenge the eventual decision.

Or they could expose themselves to $37,500 per day in fines by refusing to cooperate.

The "taking" of their private property without due process now is the focus on the high court's hearings.

The brief explains that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that "no person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." But the Clean Water Act gives the EPA authority to issue compliance orders, then fine defendants who are "in violation."

"Any citizen engaged in a range of activities may run afoul of the act," the brief explains. "The Clean Water Act's reach is extremely broad, requiring a permit for the discharge of 'pollutants' from a 'point source' into the 'waters of the United States,' which phrase has been interpreted by regulation to include 'wetlands.'"

The regulations, the brief contends, had been defined so broadly by the EPA that they have pertained to "land that appears to be totally dry."

"If the EPA has completed an analysis and made a determination that the property contains jurisdictional 'wetlands,' the citizen has no right to judicial review of that analysis. If the citizen hires professionals to conduct a 'wetlands' determination, EPA is not obligated to accept it. Despite any evidence, professional opinions, or agency advice the citizen obtains, EPA may still impose sanctions by a compliance order if it has 'any information' that" it wants to use to call it wetlands, the brief explains.

Further, the "compliance order" also demands that the private property owners give the EPA full access not only to the lands but to their private records about what is done to the land.

"Given that the order is not based on probable cause, it withdraws the Sacketts' constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches by requiring them to grant access to 'all records and documentation related to the conditions at the site and th restoration activities conducted pursuant to this order.'"

The EPA ordered the planting of specific trees and shrubs and then demanded that the land "be fenced for the first three growing seasons."

"Monitoring of vegetation on the restored site for survival and ground coverage shall be performed in October 2008, June 2009, October 2009, and October 2010," it ordered.

"The very existence of the order, subjecting the property to a federal mandate, prohibiting the intended, authorized use, and requiring expensive remedial actions, substantially reduces the value of the property and limits the Sacketts' ability to [use] it," the brief said.

"Although there has been no judicial decision to establish EPA's jurisdiction and authority to impose these deprivations, the compliance order threatens the Sackets with various 'sanctions.'"

The couple's eventual lawsuit claimed the EPA does not have jurisdiction and the order violates their due process and other constitutional rights.

"The second claim turns on the basic principle that, before a person can be deprived of liberty or property, he is entitled to a full and fair hearing 'at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner,'" the brief argues. "The third claim is based on the related principle that a person cannot be punished for conduct that violates an 'impermissibly vague' law."

The district court rejected their case, as did the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"The court created a constitutional problem by reading the Clean Water Act to preclude judicial review of the compliance order," said the brief. "The court acknowledged both that the Clean Water Act's express language does not mandate the interpretation it ultimately adopted … and that courts should avoid statutory interpretations that raise serious constitutional questions," the brief said.

"The court never considered whether contrary inferences might support the conclusion that Congress did intend for individuals like the Sacketts to obtain review under the APA. Similarly, the court never considered whether the nature of the compliance order itself supports review."

Additionally, it's an order issued without probable cause and "the process that produces the order is entirely secret, with no notice given to property owners like the Sacketts."

"In sum, the compliance order has deprived the Sacketts of the only economically viable use of their property permitted under local law, deprived them of their right to exclude unwanted persons from their property, and deprived them of their right to be free from unreasonable searches of their property and effects. The Sacketts have never received any review, let alone meaningful review, of the compliance order," the brief argued.

Schiff earlier told WND the significant property rights and due process issues need to be resolved.

"When the government seizes control of your land, and you disagree with the justification, shouldn't you be allowed your day in court? Just as important, should EPA be a law unto itself, without meaningful accountability to the courts and the Constitution?" he said.

"We're very encouraged that the Supreme Court has recognized how important our case is," said Mike Sackett in a statement released earlier by the foundation. "We are standing up against an agency that seems to have unlimited resources and few if any limits on what it can do to property owners. We're standing up for everyone's right to go to court when the government hands you a raw deal– or takes over your hard-earned property. Thank goodness PLF has been helping us, and now PLF will be making our case in the nation's highest court."

Schiff told WND earlier that there is "no question that the power the EPA is claiming it has under the Clean Water Act is significant."

"Even if you have a good basis the think the EPA is wrong, the EPA won't let you get into the courthouse," he said. "They are able to shut the courthouse door by issuing compliance orders that are not judicially reviewable."

That puts a landowner in the impossible situation of either complying with the order with its potential cost of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars or facing that same penalty in fines.

And it's not just the Sacketts' land that could be subject to such orders. The foundation arguments suggest that private property across the nation could be at risk.

EPAofficials have declined WND requests for comment. They referred WND to a Department of Justice office, which did not respond.

The legal team noted that between 1980 and 2001, the EPA issued up to 3,000 compliance orders every year across the nation.

"The reality of the Sacketts' situation is that they have been unambiguously commanded by their government not to complete their home-building project, to take expensive measures to undo the improvements that they have made to their land, and to maintain their land essentially as a public park until the property is 'restored' to the satisfaction of the EPA. They have been threatened with frightening penalties if they do not immediately obey; but they have been refused the prompt hearing they should have received as a matter of right in any court," Pacific Legal argue

Source:  WND

Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws

The Green Agenda… Solyndra… and the Price

Just like the view below, the American economy and way of life are casualties of the left’s Green Agenda… or will be if we don’t stop them! And Solyndra is just the latest example of the lengths the left will go to, to achieve their desired ends: the fundamental  transformation of America, global distribution of wealth and the demise of our way of life. The green agenda or Green Hell are very much part of that plan!!

Lovely Mountain View… Or It Would Have Been ;-)

Freedom Works: Every day in Washington D.C. is filled to the brim with sound bites delivered by our incompetent leaders, devoid of any facts or reason, but fit for media consumption. The Obama administration is no exception to this unfortunate, but ironclad, rule of politics. Take the predictable spiel about “green jobs,” for instance we always hear rosy scenarios of a growing green industry, flush with high-paying jobs. A solar company touted by Obama as “a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism” merely a month ago has just shut its doors. Solyndra, the recipient of $535 million in low cost loan guarantees from the inefficient Department of Energy, closed shop without warning two weeks ago, ordering confused workers to vacate the premises. The unholy connections between Solyndra and the current administration, though, run deeper than a loan gone sour. Indeed, it is curious that George Kaiser, a large contributor to the failing company, was also a high-profile bankroller for Obama’s 2008 campaign.

            Dubious handouts from the government to favored businesses are nothing new, however. As many political observers of the 1980s could tell you, the subsidization of synthetic fuels was similarly a disaster. Originally an attempt by the Carter administration to promote “energy independence,” the Synfuels Corporation received a hefty $15 billion appropriation. Although it began with the noblest of intentions, it wandered from its original purpose and became mired in cronyism and corruption. High-profile resignations and repeated claims of mismanagement led Democrat Howard Wolpe to remark that, “We have created a fiscal Frankenstein that is beyond the control of the Executive and Legislative branches." Although many lawmakers may use the “job creation” line as a last ditch defense of their failed pet initiative, they fail to mention jobs that are indirectly lost. A recent study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid finds that every “green job” will result in the loss of 2.2 other jobs on average. Why is that? As the author of the report, Gabriel Calzada, explains, “The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices.”

            The question that naturally arises is why failure inevitably plagues government initiatives and “investments”? As we have seen in both the Solyndra and Synfuels saga, the government is more interested in promoting political ends rather than economic expansion. Whether a subsidy’s aim is to pay back a loyal supporter, or to attract more supports in the name of a vague ideal, power-plays and political considerations are the sole focus of activity. If the government were to simply yield to the private sector in matters of energy policy, America would be able to achieve “energy independence” quickly and more efficiently than it would under a stifling bureaucracy. In the case of Synfuels, even the Energy Secretary of the time admitted that "drilling in America would produce much more oil" than handing the corporation a blank check. Even today, political leaders fail to acknowledge the benefits in unleashing a dynamic free-market in the energy sector. Despite the millions of barrels of oil that could be obtained through off-shore drilling and the abundant supplies of natural gas, the government imposes a daunting regulatory approach to producing energy. Also, the government inefficiently subsidizes deep-shore drilling, which collects less oil on average and leads to the dangerous conditions present in the BP Oil Spill. These missteps, though, are merely a few of the plethora of unintended consequences that haunt every government action.

Government Picks a Loser

We now know that Valerie Jarrett, Pete Rouse Joe Biden and Obama knew there was a problem with Solyndra… if not worse. (Obama visited the facility at least twice and gave a speech from there.) 

From their own website:  Fremont, CA, March 20, 2009 – Solyndra, Inc. announced today that it is the first company to receive an offer for a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) loan guarantee under Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Solyndra, a Fremont, California-based manufacturer of innovative cylindrical photovoltaic systems, will use the proceeds of a $535 million loan from the U.S. Treasury’s Federal Financing Bank to expand its solar panel manufacturing capacity in California.

“The leadership and actions of President Barack Obama, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and the U.S. Congress were instrumental in concluding this offer for a loan guarantee,” said Solyndra CEO and founder, Dr. Chris Gronet. “The DOE Loan Guarantee Program funding will enable Solyndra to achieve the economies of scale needed to deliver solar electricity at prices that are competitive with utility rates. This expansion is really about creating new jobs while meaningfully impacting global warming.”

But now Hillary??

Hillary Clinton and Solyndra

One of the things liberals used to say about the Obama regime was that it was squeaky clean.  We knew that was not true, but Obama seemed lucky enough not to have any scandals stick. 

Until now.

Solyndra may be a name that follows Barack Obama throughout 2012 and a name he may end up wishing he had never heard of. 

The Obama regime began hyping Solyndra as the great green hope.   Solyndra’s biggest attraction to Obama was money.  The investors of Solyndra donated personally or bundled large amounts of money for the Obama campaign.  Who needs a good business plan when you can just give money to a candidate for the Party of Treason? 

The net result was a  $535 million dollar loan guarantee to Solyndra.  While alarm bells were being rung by the government employees who actually understood what was going on, and did not receive campaign contributions, those who did receive the contributions, pushed the project. 

One email between the White House and an agency staffer said it best.  “This deal is not ready for prime time,” the email announced.

In 2010, Obama visited the plant to tout it.  Perhaps he was just looking to start lining up 2012 campaign contributions.  Joe Biden slobbered, “This is what the Recovery Act was all about!”

The warning signs were there.  Auditors who had looked at the company raisedserious concerns. 

An audit of the company performed by PriceWaterhouseCoopers two months before Obama's visit noted that the firm had accumulated losses of $558 million in its five years of existence.

The auditor noted that Solyndra "has suffered recurring losses from operations, negative cash flows since inception and has a net stockholders' deficit that, among other factors, raises substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern."

Why was the Obama regime so concerned about pushing this “Green company?”  It is simple.  Money.

One of the major investors for Solyndra was George Kaiser, an Oklahoma billionaire and Obama campaign contributor.  He invested only after demanding that his investment be given priority over other investors, including the government.

With Republicans in control of the House, more of the actions of the Obama regime and Solyndra are going to come out and 2012 is going to be a bad year for Obama.

With his popularity plummeting and his chances of getting anything else done growing dimmer by the day, along with his reelection chances, Obama cannot be a happy camper.  Now, he can count on hearings running through next year featuring every detail of how the regime ignored the warnings of auditors and experts and pushed this risky loan guarantee through, which will now cost the tax payers half a billion dollars.

As the Obama regime demands higher taxes, we should all ask the question, “why?”  Why do we need to pay higher taxes? So Obama can send more money to companies like Solyndra?

All of this brings us around to Hillary Clinton.

If 2012 is going to be tough on Obama, it will be the 7^th circle of hell for Hillary Clinton.

Since she was young, Hillary has always dreamed of being the first woman to be President of the United States.  She still thinks she should have won it in 2008 and in her heart thinks she should be the one running for reelection in 2012. 

Had John Edwards beat her, she would already be out there as a primary challenger to a “President Edwards.”   Unfortunately for her, Barack Obama won.

Hillary was relegated to be Secretary of State.  As such, she has had the thankless job of traveling the world and doing very little.   She is chomping at the bit to take on Obama, who she believes she can take down, but she knows she cannot.

If she takes on Obama and beats him, black Democrats will abandon her and possibly even abandon the party, creating a rift which could totally destroy the party and which would guarantee a Republican win in 2012.  Actually given the magnitude of the anticipated Republican victory in 2012, the only difference would probably be the size of the victory.

If she takes on Obama, loses and then Obama loses, she knows the Clintons will be blamed, thus destroying the Clinton legacy and still possibly splitting the Democrat Party.

In the end, she knows even if she could beat Obama, almost any Republican picked out of the phone book will be able to beat any Democrat candidate.  For Hillary, her future is simply a retirement. 

She knows it and for her, that is a worse fate for her than it is for Obama.

Related:

ABC News: Solar Scandal Threatens to Engulf White House, Impact Election

Solyndra Not the Only Company Who Benefited From Democrat Ties

Whoa… RNC: “Obama Isn’t Briefed on Loan?” – Does anybody really believe that??

Solyndra Officials Made Numerous Trips to the White House, Logs Show

Yes… Bush Administration Looked at Solyndra and Turned Them Down

Oh My Emails Show White House Knew Solyndra Was a Disaster Before It Issued $535M Crony Loan

So will it be Operations Fast and Furious/Gun Walker or Solyndra Scandal that stick to the second Teflon president.  It was a cigar and a blue dress that stuck to the 1st!

Perhaps the most amazing part of all this is that in the midst of the unfolding Solyndra scandal, the Obama administration announced this week that they plan to finalize 15 additional green projects in the next two weeks… really???

Scientist Tied to Global Warning Being Investigated for ‘Scientific Misconduct’

JUNEAU, Alaska (The Blaze/AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article. Newser has more:

Charles Monnett is being investigated for unspecified “integrity issues” apparently linked to his report that polar bears could face an increased threat of death if they’re forced to swim farther as Arctic ice recedes.

Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into “integrity issues.” But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general’s office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

--> (Related: New study of NASA data may debunk global warming predictions) <--

On Thursday, Ruch‘s watchdog group plans to file a complaint with the agency on Monnett’s behalf, asserting that Obama administration officials have “actively persecuted” him in violation of policy intended to protect scientists from political interference.

Monnett, who has coordinated much of the agency’s research on Arctic wildlife and ecology, has duties that include managing about $50 million worth of studies, according to the complaint, a copy of which was provided to The Associated Press.

The complaint seeks Monnett’s reinstatement along with a public apology from the agency and inspector general. It also seeks to have the investigation dropped or to have the charges specified and the matter carried out in accordance with policy. The complaint also says that investigators took Monnett’s computer hard drive, notebooks and other unspecified items from him, which have not been returned.

A BOEMRE spokeswoman declined to comment on an “ongoing internal investigation.” Ruch said BOEMRE has barred Monnett from talking to reporters.

Documents provided by Ruch’s group indicate questioning by investigators has centered on observations that Monnett and fellow researcher Jeffrey Gleason made in 2004, while conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales, of four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm. They detailed their observations in an article published two years later in the journal Polar Biology; presentations also were given at scientific gatherings.

In the peer-reviewed article, the researchers said they were reporting, to the best of their knowledge, the first observations of polar bears floating dead offshore and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances in open water. Polar bears are considered strong swimmers, they wrote, but long-distance swims may exact a greater metabolic toll than standing or walking on ice in better weather.

They said their observations suggested the bears drowned in rough seas and high winds and “suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues.”

The article and presentations drew national attention and helped make the polar bear something of a poster child for the global warming movement. Al Gore’s mention of the polar bear in his documentary on climate change, “An Inconvenient Truth,” came up during investigators’ questioning of Gleason in January.

In May 2008, the U.S. classified the polar bear as a threatened species, the first with its survival at risk due to global warming.

According to a transcript, investigator Eric May asked Gleason his thoughts on Gore referencing the dead polar bears. Gleason said none of the polar bear papers he has written or co-authored has said “anything really” about global warming.

“It’s something along the lines of the changing environment in the Arctic,” he said. Gleason said others put their own spin on research or observations.

The complaint alleges Gleason and Monnett were harassed by agency officials and received negative comments from them after the article was published. Gleason eventually took another Interior Department job; he didn‘t respond to an email and a BOEMRE spokeswoman said he wouldn’t be available for comment.

Ruch also claimed the investigation is being done by criminal investigators with no scientific background, even though the case is an administrative matter.

Source:  The Blaze  - Cross-Posted at Just One More Pet

So… What Else Do They Not Tell Us …Or Lie About?

Energy… The Costs and Why It Is Going to Go Up and Change Our Lives

An audience of small business owners and energy moguls gather to discuss about their concerns with the administration’s policies toward small business and energy.  A video worth watching because it will affect all of us in a negative way if we and they don’t stand together and stand up!

Video: Energy Concerns and Small Businesses

Video:  It Begins… WOMAN ARRESTED For Protesting Smart Meter Installation

It’s an Obama World…
You will do as you’re told. You will keep your temperature at an Obama-approved level… Despite the double-standard set by our president.

A woman was arrested this past weekend for not allowing officials to install a smart meters in her neighborhood.

SmartMeter.org reported:

An activist protesting against the installation of ‘smart’ meters was arrested today for civil disobedience. Amy O’Hair was arrested at Monterey and Edna in the Sunnyside neighborhood of San Francisco at 9.30 on Saturday 18 June 2011.

She sat on the hood of a smart meter installation truck to prevent installation of smart meters and refused to move. The police were called and arrested her. It was early in the morning, and few people were around, but a bystander waiting at a bus stop gave support. Amy was taken to 425 Seventh Street (Bryant Police station) to be cited.

The Obama EPA-approved smart grid will track CO2 emissions and internet use.

The Smart Meter Rebellion

California’s Delta Smelt is Raising Your Food Prices

The Commerce Clause that regulates interstate commerce is at issue in the legal battle of Obamacare.  Can the federal government tell individuals that they must buy insurance?  Not as well known is how the same commerce clause is destroying farms and raising food prices by stopping the flow of water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers to the Central Valley in California.      The feds at the urging of the state government has literally turned off the tap, destroying prime farmland in order to benefit the sex lives of the Delta Smelt.

Approximately 85-90% of the water from this primary source has been shut off to the Central Valley.   The smelt is a fish so insignificant that no one other than the Bezerkely-enviro-wackos and some local fisherman have heard about this tiny fish.

The smelt is fish that is native to California and, for the most part, is known to fisherman simply as “bait”.   The California enviros’ zeal to increase the population of smelt has led to a terrible federal, legal decision that shut down the water to thousands of farmers in the Central Valley; the nation’s largest and most productive farm land.    Thousands of farmers there are suffering with unemployment over 20%, scores of farms have been lost and tens of thousands of agricultural workers are now without jobs.   If California didn’t have enough economic problems, you can add shooting yourself in the foot.  The inmates are now officially running the asylum.   If we needed a poster for enviro-insanity it would be the promotion of the lowly smelt over the interests of: farmers, food production, food prices, jobs and California families.

Fortunately, the GOP is now leading the charge is to cut funding for the programs that help the smelt at the expense of the farmers.  This could lead to turning on the tap to the farmers.  But California Sen. Dianne Feinstein is fighting the farmers; leading the opposition in the Senate and choosing to stand by the smelt over people.    The Pacific Legal Foundation, (PLF) a non-profit public interest group has sided with the farmers was recently successful in obtaining a new federal district court decision to force the state to re-examine its justification for turning off the spigot.

On Tuesday, the PLF made their case in front of the Ninth “Circus” Court of Appeals hoping for permanent relief.  They argued that the Commerce Clause doesn’t allow the feds to regulate intra-states species (species that don’t cross state lines) with no commercial sales.  Let’s just hope the people prevail over the bait, however, with the insane Ninth Circus Court no outcome is certain.

Source:  Big Government

Related:

San Joaquin Valley Federally Created Dust Bowl

Sean Hannity Travels to California’s Fields to get the Water Turned On

Federally Created Dust Bowl in CA – Another Test Crisis??

Journalist Files Charges Against WHO and UN for Bioterrorism and Intent to Commit Mass Murder

Charges Filed Against Obama, WHO and UN For Bioterrorism and Intent to Commit Mass Murder {1 of 3} – Video

AGENDA 21 Videos and Why Are Americans IGNORANT of ‘ AGENDA 21’

Land Grab by the Federal Government

Source: California’s Delta Smelt is Raising Your Food Prices  by Adam Sparks

SOLAR STICKER SHOCK HITS WASHINGTON COUNTY

Kittitas County, Washington, is experiencing sticker shock for a proposed 75 megawatt solar power plant as the true cost of solar power is coming in at more than three times the promised price, says H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

• On July 9, Howard Trott, managing director of Teanaway Solar Reserve, the company proposing the plant, estimated it would cost approximately $100 million to build what would be the largest solar power plant in the world.
• By mid-August, Teanaway revised its estimate to more than $300 million, and other analysts fear the final cost may be much higher still.
• Based on calculations by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, the price tag of the Teanaway solar power plant would be a minimum of $525 million and could rise as high as $750 million.

The council was established by Congress in 1980 to develop a regionwide electric power plan to guarantee adequate, reliable energy at the lowest economic cost while protecting environmental resources.

Solar power is an expensive alternative source of energy, says Burnett:

• Solar power currently costs three-and-a-half to four times the price of conventional power purchased on the spot market.
• When stripped of subsidies and preferential tax treatment, moreover, solar power is between 570 percent and 887 percent more expensive to produce than coal power, according to a recent study by Tufts University economics professor Gilbert Metcalf.
• Adding to the costs of solar power is the fact that solar panels deliver direct current, while the Northwest power grid uses alternating current.
• Converting from direct to alternating current boosts costs, and power is lost in the process; Trott estimates the loss would be about 2 percent but could be higher.
• In addition, power from solar plants fluctuates with the intensity and amount of sunlight and passing clouds, so the Northwest power grid will have to be upgraded to adjust for such fluctuations.

Source: H. Sterling Burnett, "Solar Sticker Shock Hits Washington County," Heartland Institute, November 1, 2009.

For text:

http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/26173/Solar_Sticker_Shock_Hits_Washington_County.html

For more on Energy Issues:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=22

This is just the beginning… If Cap and Trade passes (Kerry/Boxer Bill worse than even House Bill, we will all be sitting in the dark wearing Snuggies, eating crackers and cheese, if we are lucky!

-----------

Environmental Swine

My friend Mary wrote the other day to tell me of her grandfather’s dilemma. He’s involved in important litigation aimed at saving his farm, his family business, and hundreds of agricultural jobs in North Carolina. His problems have been produced by a series of unfortunate events. Among them is a radical environmental movement that cares more about trees and fish than it does about human beings (FULL STORY)

Of course, you can just look at the situation in California’s Central Valley, allowing people to go hungry and lose they livelihood over a 2” Minnow… Thank you Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein; 3 liberals that have to go!! - Sean Hannity Travels to California’s Fields (Updated)

The Great Man-Made Global Warming Swindle

Arctic Sea Ice Video (Jan 2000 - May 2009)

(Obama) Kerry and Boxer Despair and and Negative Transformation that you can believe in. These radicals need to go!!

The Kerrys are largely involved with the notoriously radical Tides Foundation

Kerry, Boxer and Obama are all pushing the global warming hoax and and Cap and Trade… a huge power grab and tax on America.

Barbara Boxer and Secy Hillary Clinton are leading the charge to pass the global children’s rights treaty, which will help the United Nations Usurp American Parent’s Rights… On Parental Rights

Related Resources:

Gore-Backed Car Firm Gets Large U.S. Loan

Senators to Unveil Draft Climate Bill

HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming

Read the book that started it all: Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance"

"Global Warming or Global Governance? What the media refuse to tell you about so-called climate change"

"The Sky's Not Falling! Why it's OK to chill on global warming"

Apollo Alliance Writing Legislation? Stimulus Bill, Cap and Trade Bill, Healthcare Bill? America Needs To Know!

The Goal…

Green Hell

Red Hot Lies

“Beware the prophet that has much to profit!” … Dennis Miller (Al Gore anyone…?!?).

Watch and take Part in Big Hollywood Premiere: Not Evil Just Wrong – The Movie Al Gore does not want you to see!!!

Graham's endorsement boosts climate bill - Beware the Cap ‘n’ Trade Republicans

The surprise endorsement of climate-change legislation by a leading Senate Republican has jump-started the languishing proposal but also has raised the prospect that it will include two major items that environmentalists dislike: more nuclear power and more offshore oil drilling.

In an op-ed published Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina joined with Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the chamber's leading Democratic advocate of climate legislation, to promote a bipartisan plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

They proposed a compromise that reduces U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions - which are widely considered to contribute to climate change - through a market-based "cap and trade" system, combined with a "clean energy" program providing incentives for nuclear power, offshore oil and gas drilling, and coal emissions controls.

Analysts from the political left and right expressed optimism that the unexpected alliance will improve the bill's chances of passage. The House narrowly passed its version this summer, but the Senate has long been considered a much tougher sell.

"If Sen. Graham supports action, it's a very important step forward," said Daniel J. Weiss, climate strategy director at the liberal Center for American Progress. "Sen. Graham has good standing on both sides of the aisle and it will help with undecided members of both parties."

Scott Segal, a lawyer at the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani who represents energy companies and manufacturers, said by e-mail that the Kerry-Graham plan faces significant opposition but addresses some of the most vexing issues impeding the bill's progress in the Senate.

"The senators' position is a definite step forward," Mr. Segal said. "They have outlined many of the key issues that need to be resolved in order to achieve political consensus behind a bill, and that's very useful."

Many obstacles remain. Democrats and Republicans from coal-producing states and the Midwest continue to resist the legislation over fears that it would cause huge increases in the cost of energy that would hurt their constituents and businesses.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, Ohio Democrat, has been adamant that a bill will not pass the Senate unless it includes measures to tax imports from countries that do not limit their carbon-dioxide emissions. President Obama has expressed doubts about the provision, saying it appears to be protectionist. Other Democratic senators, including Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, say they cannot support a bill that drives coal-fired energy prices higher.

Environmental groups tend to oppose nuclear power generation and prefer "green" sources such as wind, solar and geothermal energy. They also routinely oppose offshore oil and gas drilling, saying it threatens the environment without increasing U.S. energy security.

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, plans to issue a revised version of the bill soon, which she recently introduced with Mr. Kerry late last month. The bill does little for nuclear power beyond new training programs and is silent about offshore drilling.

Mr. Kerry and Mr. Graham were unavailable for comment Monday.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Kerry could not say whether their plan would be the basis for the committee's legislation. She said by e-mail that the joint op-ed "signals Sen. Kerry's and Sen. Graham's commitment to getting 60 votes in the Senate for climate change legislation." She added that the two want to make "substantial, bipartisan" progress leading up to the major U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen starting Dec. 7.

Mr. Obama and environmental groups have called on the Senate to act quickly to strengthen his negotiating position in advance of the summit, where developed and developing nations, including China, will meet to draft a new agreement intended to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Reuters news agency reported Monday that Mrs. Boxer, after meeting with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, said she wants to pass a bill through her committee before the Copenhagen summit. Separately, Energy Secretary Steven Chu told reporters in London that he remains optimistic that Mr. Obama could sign a bill into law by the time the summit opens, though few observers expect the Senate to act that swiftly.

Stanford U. doesn’t want you to see this video

What did I tell ya? Lindsey Graham signs on to cap-and-tax

Ugh: McCain & Company melting on cap-and-tax

The Boxer-Kerry green boondoggle

Beware the Climate Change Republicans

The Great Man-Made Global Warming Swindle

Green Hell

Red Hot Lies