Hussein Obama’s $77 Billion climate fund stashes will be found and gutted

Hussein Obama’s $77 Billion climate fund stashes will be found and gutted. (Bloomberg)

Most recent estimate puts tab at $77 billion from 2008-2013             

President Donald Trump will find the job of reining in spending on climate initiatives made harder by an Obama-era policy of dispersing billions of dollars in programs across dozens of agencies — in part so they couldn’t easily be cut.

There is no single list of those programs or their cost, because President Barack Obama sought to integrate climate programs into everything the federal government did. The goal was to get all agencies to take climate into account, and also make those programs hard to disentangle, according to former members of the administration. In some cases, the idea was to make climate programs hard for Republicans in Congress to even find.

“Much of the effort in the Obama administration was to mainstream climate change,” said Jesse Keenan, who worked on climate issues with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and now teaches at Harvard University. He said all federal agencies were required to incorporate climate-change plans into their operations.

Meanwhile, a handful of lesser-known offices saw their funding increase while Obama was in office. The budget for NASA’s Earth Science program increased 50 percent, to $1.8 billion. Funding for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which is mandated by Congress to report every four years on the state of climate change, rose 45 percent to $2.6 billion. At the National Science Foundation, the geosciences program almost doubled to $1.3 billion.

"The Trump Administration needs to defund the entire apparatus of the climate change federal funding gravy train," said Marc Morano, a former Republican staffer for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "In order to dismantle the climate establishment, agencies and programs throughout the federal government need to be targeted."

"The climate funding has spread to almost every aspect of the federal government with sometimes wacky results," said Morano, who doubts global warming and runs the website climatedepot.com. He cited one example of a Department of Transportation query about the link between climate change and fatal car crashes. Read the full story here.

U.S. Spends More on Medical Care for Inmates than for Seniors, Veterans, Military Personnel.

U.S. Spends More on Medical Care for Inmates than for Seniors, Veterans, Military Personnel. HT: JudicialWatch.

President Obama has repeatedly demonstrated that there’s an extra special place in his heart for incarcerated criminals, but this is a bit much.

The administration spends a lot more money on the medical care of jailed convicts than retired seniors on Medicare, active U.S. military personnel or veterans, including an extra $100 million in one year alone, according to a federal audit released this month.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) consistently pays outside doctors and hospitals more to treat inmates than Medicare or other federal agencies would pay for the same services, according to the report which is the result of a Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General investigation.

“We found that the BOP is the only federal agency that pays for medical care that is not covered under a statute or regulation under which the government sets the agency’s reimbursement rates, usually at the Medicare rate,” the report states. “Instead, the BOP solicits and awards a comprehensive medical services contract for each BOP institution to obtain outside medical services.”


This means the BOP negotiates its own rates for medical services, which is outrageous and ends up costing American taxpayers tens of millions of dollars annually. Read the full story here.

Obama 'admin' Order Colleges to Stop Checking Criminal/School Discipline History Because it Discriminates Against Minorities.

Feds Order Colleges to Stop Checking Criminal/School Discipline History Because it Discriminates Against Minorities. HT: JudicialWatch.

The Obama administration has ordered the nation’s colleges and universities to stop asking applicants about criminal and school disciplinary history because it discriminates against minorities. Institutions are also being asked to offer those with criminal records special support services such as counseling, mentoring and legal aid once enrolled. The government’s official term for these perspective students is “justice-involved individuals” and the new directive aims to remove barriers to higher education for the overwhelmingly minority population that’s had encounters with the law or disciplinary issues through high school.

Instructions are outlined in a cumbersome document (Beyond the Box) issued by the U.S Department of Education (ED) this month. It says that “data show plainly that people of color are more likely to come in contact with the justice system due, in part, to punitive school disciplinary policies that disproportionately impact certain student groups and racial profiling.”

Because education can be a powerful pathway to transition out of prison and into the workforce, it’s critical to ensure that admissions practices don’t disproportionately disadvantage justice involved individuals, the directive states. Colleges and universities should also refrain from inquiring about a student’s school disciplinary history—including past academic dishonesty—because that too discriminates against minorities. Civil rights data compiled by ED show “black students are suspended and expelled at a rate three times greater than white students and often for the same types of infractions.”  Read the full story here.

Trudeau' 'budget' slips in proposal to seize your bank account if bank fails.

Trudeau' 'budget' slips in proposal to seize your bank account if bank fails. HT: CIJNews.

Did you see what Justin Trudeau slipped into the budget this week, hidden away on page 223?
It’s called a bank “bail-in regime”.

That means if a Canadian bank starts to fail, it would be allowed to seize your bank account to pay its bills. Seriously.

It’s what they did in Cyprus three years ago, when bankers there made risky loans to Greece. In a back-room deal, politicians and bankers decided to pay off the bank debts by just seizing 10% of everyone’s deposits.

The country had a melt-down. Banks closed, ATM withdrawals were limited. It was a disaster. Of course, well-connected insiders got all of their cash out in time.

It’s all right there in black and white in Trudeau’s budget. Click here to see for yourself.

This outrageous proposal is not yet law. But if Canadians accept it in silence, it will be. Hmmm.....If you want to know a 'man's' Character give him power! Read the full story here. 2016 Budget can be downloaded here.

Obama legacy: 'He is the $20 trillion debt man.'

Obama legacy: 'He is the $20 trillion debt man.' (WT).

When President Obama signs into law the new two-year budget deal Monday, his action will bring into sharper focus a part of his legacy that he doesn’t like to talk about: He is the $20 trillion man.

Mr. Obama’s spending agreement with Congress will suspend the nation’s debt limit and allow the Treasury to borrow another $1.5 trillion or so by the end of his presidency in 2017. Added to the current total national debt of more than $18.15 trillion, the red ink will likely be crowding the $20 trillion mark right around the time Mr. Obama leaves the White House.

When Mr. Obama talks about fiscal matters, he usually takes credit for cutting the deficit by two-thirds. He also is correct that annual budget deficits have fallen from $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2009, in the depths of the recession, to $439 billion in fiscal 2015.

But the president rarely, if ever, mentions the accumulation of those annual deficits and what the rising national debt means for the country, for the presidents who will follow him and for the nation’s ability to pay for its priorities.

“Debt service will continue to consume a larger portion of the federal budget, and we’ll be looking at gross interest payments on the national debt of close to $1 trillion [annually] by the time another decade passes,” Mr. Sepp said.

Annual net interest payments on the national debt are projected to rise from around $220 billion currently to $755 billion in 10 years. Policymakers in Washington have been fortunate to date because interest rates have been at historic lows for several years.

“Debt payments comprise 6 percent of all spending now, but will more than double to 13 percent in 2025,” said Demian Brady, The National Taxpayers Union Foundation’s director of research. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office “cites two main causal factors: an expected eventual rise in interest rates, and the continuing expansion of the federal debt.”

Fiscal conservatives say it doesn’t seem to matter which party controls the White House or Congress when it comes to spending increases.

“When I ran for office in 2010, the debt was an enormous issue and the debt was $10 trillion,” Mr. Paul said Friday on the Senate floor. “Some of us in the tea party were concerned because it had doubled in the [previous] eight years. It doubled from five [trillion dollars] to 10 under a Republican administration. And many of us were adamant that Republicans needed to do a better job. We had added new entitlement programs, we had added new spending, and the deficit got worse under Republicans. Now we’re under a Democrat president, and it’s set to double again.” Hmmm........'CHANGE'. Read the full story here.

'CHANGE' - United States’ military posture is rated as “marginal” and is trending toward “weak.”

'CHANGE' - United States’ military posture is rated as “marginal” and is trending toward “weak.” HT: Heritage.

James Jay Carafano, America’s leading expert in national security and foreign policy challenges, has criticized the current state of the US military, calling it “not a bad grade for kindergarten,” but certainly “not much to show for a commander-in-chief after seven years of stewardship over America’s military.”

His comments on The Heritage Foundation website follow the assessments of the US military index, released by the Foundation in its “2016 Index of US Military Strength” report.

The report concluded that the US’ military posture is rated as “marginal” for its Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Nuclear power, trending toward “weak”, and is just plain “weak” for the Army.

The Status of U.S. Military Power

Finally, we assessed the military power of the United States in three areas: capability, capacity, and readiness. These three areas of assessment are central to the overarching questions of whether the U.S. has a sufficient quantity of appropriately modern military power and whether military units are able to conduct military operations on demand and effectively.

The common theme across the services and the United States’ nuclear enterprise is one of force degradation resulting from many years of underinvestment, poor execution of modernization programs, and the negative effects of budget sequestration (cuts in funding) on readiness and capacity. While the military has been heavily engaged in operations, primarily in the Middle East but elsewhere as well, since September 11, 2001, experience is both ephemeral and context-sensitive. Valuable combat experience is lost over time as the servicemembers who individually gained experience leave the force, and it maintains direct relevance only for future operations of a similar type. Thus, though the current Joint Force is experienced in some types of operations, it is still aged and shrinking in its capacity for operations.

The characterizations shown are not a reflection of the competence of individual service members or the professionalism of the services or Joint Force as a whole; nor do they speak to the U.S. military’s strength relative to other militaries around the world. Rather, they are assessments of the institutional, programmatic, and matériel health or viability of America’s hard military power.

Our analysis concluded with these assessments:

• Army as “Weak.” The Army’s score dropped from “marginal” last year to “weak” this year, a development that can be attributed primarily to a drop in capacity, as the Army has fewer BCTs ready for deployment abroad. The Army’s capability and readiness scores remained static over the past year as the service continued to struggle with recouping readiness levels after years of budget cuts.

• Navy as “Marginal.” The Navy again scored strong in readiness, but at a cost to future capability. Deferred maintenance has kept ships at sea, but this is beginning to affect the Navy’s ability to deploy. With scores of “weak” in capability (due largely to old platforms and troubled modernization programs) and “marginal” in capacity, the Navy is currently just able to meet operational requirements. Moving forward, the fleet will be further strained to meet operational demands, especially as Reagan-era platforms increasingly near the end of their service lives.

• Air Force as “Marginal.” In 2015, the Air Force flew sorties in support of many named operations, resulting in a higher than anticipated operational tempo. The USAF scored “very strong” in capacity. Capability scored as “marginal,” remaining static since last year’s assessment, while “readiness” dropped from “strong” to “marginal.” Although difficult to categorize, the readiness decline is best attributed to reports that under half of the service’s combat air forces meet full-spectrum readiness requirements. The aggregate score of “marginal” is a decline from the 2015 Index score of “strong”, driven primarily by degradation in capability and readiness.

• Marine Corps as “Marginal.” As with last year, the Corps’ strongest suit was in readiness, but even here there are problems as stated by the Corps itself. While the fighting competence of the service is superb, it is hampered by aging equipment; troubled replacement programs for its key ground vehicles (particularly its amphibious personnel carriers); and a shrinking force. The progress the Corps has made in replacing its rotary-wing aircraft has been a notable bright spot in its otherwise uninspiring modernization portfolio.

• Nuclear Capabilities as “Marginal.” Modernization, testing, and investment in the intellectual/talent underpinnings of this sector are the chief problems facing America’s nuclear enterprise. Delivery platforms are good, but the force depends on a very limited set of weapons (in number of designs) and models that are quite old, in stark contrast to the aggressive programs of competitor states. Following developments abroad in regions of national interest and increased uncertainty globally, there is now a greater need to modernize U.S. nuclear capabilities, particularly with regard to aging delivery systems. Continued reliance on legacy systems such as the B-52 will eventually diminish the effectiveness of the nuclear triad and lead to the degradation of our nation’s strategic deterrence. Overall

In aggregate, the United States’ military posture is rated as “marginal” and is trending toward “weak.”

Overall, the Index concludes that the current U.S. military force is capable of meeting the demands of a single major regional conflict while also attending to various presence and engagement activities but that it would be very hard-pressed to do more and certainly would be ill-equipped to handle two nearly simultaneous major regional contingencies.

The consistent decline in funding and the consequent shrinking of the force have placed it under significant pressure. Essential maintenance continues to be deferred; fewer units (mostly the Navy’s platforms and the Special Operations Forces community) are being cycled through operational deployments more often and for longer periods; and old equipment is being extended while programmed replacements are problematic.

The shift (since last year’s Index) in two services—the Army and Air Force—to a lower category in the course of a single year is surprising and should be seen as evidence of the rapidly accumulating effects of inadequate funding during a time of higher operational demand and policies that have traded long-term health for near-term readiness.

The cumulative effect of these factors has resulted in a U.S. military that is marginally able to meet the demands of defending America’s vital national interests. Read and download the full report here.

'Grinding the American Empire Down' - How to Lower U.S. Living Standards.

"Climate change is a problem which can no longer be left to a future generation." http://t.co/d0cPIhIBWR #PopeInDC pic.twitter.com/jHMgjBnAwg

— ABC News (@ABC) September 23, 2015

'Grinding the American Empire Down' - How to Lower U.S. Living Standards. (WSJ).

California Gov. Jerry Brown has a vision: When it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions, he wants his fellow Californians to emulate North Koreans. Meanwhile, many of Mr. Brown’s fellow Democrats—including President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders—will settle for putting Americans on a par with residents of Mexico.

That’s the essence of the climate-change agenda of America’s most prominent Democrats. They have pledged to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050, (aka 80 by 50). Their plan will take those emissions to levels that are common today in countries far poorer than the U.S.

What would 80 by 50 cost? None of the Democrats has provided a cost estimate, but we can get an idea by looking at Germany, which has set a goal of getting 80% of its energy from renewables by 2050.

Germany has already spent $100 billion on subsidies for renewables and its environment minister, Peter Altmaier, has estimated that hitting its 80 by 50 target will require spending another $1.3 trillion over the next two decades. The U.S. economy is four times as large as Germany’s, and U.S. energy consumption is seven times as large. Reaching 80 by 50 in the U.S. would likely cost more than $5 trillion. For reference, the cost of ObamaCare over the next decade is projected at $1.2 trillion.

In short, America’s highest-profile Democrats, including the leading contenders for the White House, have endorsed a climate agenda that will cost far more than ObamaCare. Yet not one of them or their green allies have provided a credible plan—meaning one that doesn’t include lots of nuclear energy—for achieving such draconian reductions without wrecking the economy. These Democrats can’t provide a scenario for achieving 80 by 50—a plan that is affordable and technically viable—for a simple reason: Such a scenario doesn’t exist. Hmmm......And this is how you destroy an Empire, while Iran, China and India rise , who by the way don't give a damn about 'Glo[BULL]warming'.Read the full story here.

Obama to grant amnesty to as many illegal immigrants as possible before he leaves office.

Obama to Protect Illegal Aliens Based on “Accrual of Unlawful Presence” in U.S.. (Judicial Watch).

Three years after the Obama administration quietly rewarded illegal immigrants with “unlawful presence waivers” it has a new plan in the works to shield them from deportation based on the “accrual of unlawful presence” in the United States.

That’s right; illegal aliens with the longest record of violating our laws will be rewarded by our government, according to the proposed plan obtained by Judicial Watch this month from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It’s all part of the president’s mission to grant amnesty to as many illegal immigrants as possible before he leaves office. This includes special executive programs created to help illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as children and “family reunification” measures that shield relatives and spouses of a broad range of immigrants.

The latest amnesty measure—based on accrual of unlawful presence—further relaxes the rule and drastically expands the pool of eligible candidates by, among other things, eliminating the requirement that applicants must be relatives of U.S. citizens.  Read the full story here.

'We Keep scores' - Obama collecting personal data for a secret race database.

'We Keep scores' - Obama collecting personal data for a secret race database.(NYP).

A key part of President Obama’s legacy will be the fed’s unprecedented collection of sensitive data on Americans by race. The government is prying into our most personal information at the most local levels, all for the purpose of “racial and economic justice.”

Unbeknown to most Americans, Obama’s racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school — all to document “inequalities” between minorities and whites.

This Orwellian-style stockpile of statistics includes a vast and permanent network of discrimination databases, which Obama already is using to make “disparate impact” cases against: banks that don’t make enough prime loans to minorities; schools that suspend too many blacks; cities that don’t offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities; and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds.

Big Brother Barack wants the databases operational before he leaves office, and much of the data in them will be posted online.

So civil-rights attorneys and urban activist groups will be able to exploit them to show patterns of “racial disparities” and “segregation,” even if no other evidence of discrimination exists.

Even if no one has complained about discrimination, even if there is no other evidence of racism, the numbers themselves will “prove” that things are unfair.

Such databases have never before existed. Obama is presiding over the largest consolidation of personal data in US history. He is creating a diversity police state where government race cops and civil-rights lawyers will micromanage demographic outcomes in virtually every aspect of society.

The first black president, quite brilliantly, has built a quasi-reparations infrastructure perpetually fed by racial data that will outlast his administration.  Hmmmm........"Don't think we're not keeping score, brother." That's what President Barack Obama said to Rep. Peter DeFazio in a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus last week, according to the Associated Press. Read the full story here.

FBI Files Document Communism in Valerie Jarrett’s Family.

FBI Files Document Communism in Valerie Jarrett’s Family. HT: Judicialwatch.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) files obtained by Judicial Watch reveal that the dad, maternal grandpa and father-in-law of President Obama’s trusted senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, were hardcore Communists under investigation by the U.S. government.

Jarrett’s dad, pathologist and geneticist Dr. James Bowman, had extensive ties to Communist associations and individuals, his lengthy FBI file shows. In 1950 Bowman was in communication with a paid Soviet agent named Alfred Stern, who fled to Prague after getting charged with espionage. Bowman was also a member of a Communist-sympathizing group called the Association of Internes and Medical Students. After his discharge from the Army Medical Corps in 1955, Bowman moved to Iran to work, the FBI records show.

JW also obtained documents on Bowman from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) showing that the FBI was brought into investigate him for his membership in a group that “follows the communist party line.” The Jarrett family Communist ties also include a business partnership between Jarrett’s maternal grandpa, Robert Rochon Taylor, and Stern, the Soviet agent associated with her dad.

Jarrett’s father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, was also another big-time Chicago Communist, according to separate FBI files obtained by JW as part of a probe into the Jarrett family’s Communist ties.


It’s been well documented that Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer and longtime Obama confidant, is a liberal extremist who wields tremendous power in the White House. Faithful to her roots, she still has connections to many Communist and extremist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood. Jarrett and her family also had strong ties to Frank Marshal Davis, a big Obama mentor and Communist Party member with an extensive FBI file. Read the full story here.

'Illegal Alien Rapists, Child Molesters Freed in U.S. Instead of Deported' - Judicial Watch.

'Illegal Alien Rapists, Child Molesters Freed in U.S. Instead of Deported' - Judicial Watch. HT: Judicial watch.

Thousands of illegal immigrants convicted of serious crimes—including rape, child molestation and kidnapping—have been released in the United States by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the agency doesn’t bother keeping track of the alien convicts.

The DHS agency responsible for removing dangerous illegal aliens, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), simply releases sex offenders when they complete their criminal sentence and fails to monitor or force them to register with local authorities in the communities where they resettle.

The incredulous story of this outrageous system comes via an investigative series published this week in a Boston newspaper that sued the government for the records.

It includes a database of criminals that one former federal prosecutor calls “chilling.” The offenders are “dangerous and predatory individuals who should not be prowling the streets,” the prosecutor says in the article. “In fact, they should not be in the United States at all.”

But our famously inept Homeland Security officials simply let these monsters loose in unsuspecting communities, even though one law enforcement agency cited in the series calls the illegal immigrant cons “the worst of the worst.” 

At the very least, ICE is supposed to assure that the thugs register with local authorities as sex offenders, but the agency doesn’t even bother to do that. Instead, once ICE frees the offenders, agency officials often lose track of them despite outstanding deportation orders. It’s like negligence on steroids. Read the full story here.

'The most divisive pres Evah?' - What if there were a federal program devoted mainly to white people?

'The most divisive pres Evah?' -  What if there were a federal program devoted mainly to white people? HT: WhiteHouse Dossier. By KeithKoffler.

What if there were a federal program devoted mainly to white people? What would everyone say about that?

I’m sorry to be the tarantula in the sleeping bag here, but I’m not too excited about President Obama’s My Brother’s Keeper initiative, or its expansion into the private sector with a new corollary group that will run on corporate donations. And not because I don’t think the goals are worthy.
Obama’s desire to help black and Latino youths is tremendously laudable. Solving the problems of disadvantaged youths and the culture they must inhabit is one of the great issues of our time. But this is not the way to go about it.

Appearing in the Bronx Monday, Obama announced that that program, which seeks to remove obstacles from the paths of young men of color – unless they’re Asian – would be his life’s work. Starting now.

The My Brother’s Keeper initiative, you’ll remember, was started soon after Obama saw himself in Trayvon Martin. But a president has to step outside himself, because he and the government have purview over us all.

I do not believe that a government, or a president, should be focused on one race or creed over another. All people are equally deserving of whatever government policies are designed to help the poor.

I do understand that there are strategies for combatting poverty that are particular to the black or Hispanic communities. But when government emphasizes the plight of one group over another, based on the color of their skin, it puts us on a slippery slope toward racial divide.

Which is exactly where Obama, with his constant focus on race – and his alliance with all the race-baiting canaries in the coal mine of oppression – has placed us.

This has become a time of racial tension. I’m not sure it had to be that way.

I might be supportive of certain color-blind initiatives to help the poor. If within that there are particular policies tailored to one group or another, fine. That’s not a technicality. It’s a crucial distinction.

What Obama has done is launch race-based governing. It’s a dangerous precedent, even if in pursuit of a worthy goal.

The White House claims that this new private entity will operate in some alternate universe from the president, where corporate donors drop money into the program out of unadulterated altruism and the White House is unaffected by the knowledge that the Wendell Wilkie Widget Works Corporation donated $5 million to Obama’s dearest cause and now wants widget safety standards slightly reduced.
Maybe the Obamas will ask the Clintons for some advice on how this is all going to work. Hmmm....I know this is a very sensitive Subject but i believe Keith Koffler is 100% right in his concerns and objections.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.” ― Abraham Lincoln

Video - Live feed of NYC solidarity protests

.@LelandVittert says police source told him #Baltimore mayor said, “Let them loot, it’s only property.” #KellyFile

— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) April 30, 2015

Who do u believe @BaltimoreMayor or the video http://t.co/TYiWSkDfqt #BaltimoreRiots #Baltimore

— Leland Vittert (@LelandVittert) April 29, 2015

'Orchestrated Racial Pogroms?' - Officers Saying Baltimore Mayor Told Police To Stand Down - Report.

.@LelandVittert says police source told him #Baltimore mayor said, “Let them loot, it’s only property.” #KellyFile

— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) April 30, 2015

'Orchestrated Racial Pogroms?' - Officers Saying Baltimore Mayor Told Police To Stand Down - Report.(conservative-headlines).


Stephanie C. Rawlings-Blake (born March 17, 1970) is an American politician and the 49th and current mayor of Baltimore, Maryland. She is the second woman to hold the office. A member of the Democratic Party, she currently serves as secretary of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and vice president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

Fox just reported that reporters said when they asked police why they were not responding to stop the rioters, they were told by the officers, “Talk to the mayor”, clearly implying they had been told not to move by the Mayor.

On Saturday, we reported the now-infamous statement from the Mayor about giving the protester/rioters ‘space’ to destroy.

When Republican Governor Hogan declared a State of Emergency last night, he also made comment about how he was glad that the Mayor “finally” called him. The National Guard is only arriving this morning. Hogan said that Obama had asked that they exercise “due restraint”.

Video above: Fast Forward to minute mark 7:30

“I worked with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters we able to exercise their right to free speech. It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on. We also gave those who wished to destroy, space to to do that as well.” – Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake...... More on Mayor Blake here.

Source. 

Baltimore Mayor Spoke With Obama in Afternoon – Then Waited 5 Hours to Call in the National Guard Read more.

The Governor of Maryland waited all afternoon for a call from Mayor Rawlings Blake to call in the guard.
ABC7 reported:

Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake was asked why she waited hours to ask the governor to declare a state of emergency, while the governor himself hinted she should have come to him earlier.

“We were all in the command center in the second floor of the State House in constant communication, and we were trying to get in touch with the mayor for quite some time,” Gov. Larry Hogan told a Monday evening news conference. “She finally made that call, and we immediately took action.”

The National Guard was called in after 15 businesses were torched, dozens of arrests and over 15 police officers injured.

Read more: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/04/baltimore-mayor-spoke-with-obama-in-afternoon-then-waited-hours-to-call-in-the-national-guard/#ixzz3Ycful1cu

Hmmmm.....Someone seems to be heading towards a new 'October revolution' time for America to wake up......Sometimes i wonder where all this Obama campaigning will lead to?

Video - 'If Obama had a son' Mom catches son rioting in Baltimore

Furious mother marches her son home from the #BaltimoreRiots live on TV http://t.co/OiSbX4m4uy pic.twitter.com/tqSHiYJkOv
— The Independent (@Independent) April 28, 2015

“What’s wrong with you?!” she shouts before ordering him home, as shocked bystanders stare at the two.

As her son attempts to walk away, she continues: “You wanna be out here doing this dumb sh*t? Get the f*ck over here. Get over here now. Did you hear what I said?!”

Hmmm.....I think this lady deserves the 'Mom of the year award'

Video - Obama: "Maybe it's time for mandatory voting?"

Can the American Energy Revolution Survive a Deal with Iran?

Can the American Energy Revolution Survive a Deal with Iran? by Gal Luft

Downstream Today.

There is no lack of voices warning against the dangerous implications of the nuclear agreement the Obama Administration is advancing with Iran. 

The opposition has mostly focused on the destabilizing geopolitical impact of a nuclear Iran and what it means for the security of the U.S. and its allies. But there is one less obvious casualty – the North American oil and gas industry.

Undoubtedly in the event of lifting of the sanctions, cash-starved Iran would do all in its power to quickly ramp up its oil exports to make up for lost revenues, and the oil market could face an injection of 500,000-800,000 barrels/day of Iranian crude.

At a time when U.S. crude oil supplies are already at their highest level in more than 80 years and storage facilities are reaching their maximum capacity, an influx of Iranian oil could easily slice current oil prices by half. This would be a crippling blow to America's oil and gas industry, effectively marking the end of the North American energy renaissance.

Even before Iran opens the floodgate the industry finds itself in a precarious situation. To cover their capital investment and operational costs, North American oil drillers have collectively borrowed in recent years about half a trillion dollars. 

This debt was secured from financial institutions on the premise that the oil would be sold for $100 a barrel or so. But at $50 a barrel the revenues are out of tune with expectations. To avoid bankruptcy, oil companies are forced to pump as much oil as they can to generate sufficient cash flow in order to service their debt. But such Red Queen practice cannot go on for much longer.

Hence, many projects have been shelved or streamlined; U.S. rig count, a key barometer of drilling activity, has been declining for the past six months; oil services companies have announced 40,000 layoffs to cope with lower oil prices; and independent oil and gas companies, particularly those with high production costs, are facing defaults and bankruptcies.

The slide in oil prices also impacts the natural gas market. The North American shale revolution has unleashed huge amounts of natural gas but, due to lack of infrastructure to export the gas to international markets, America's gas is under-demanded and oil companies holding large amounts of gas in their portfolios are losing their shirts on this commodity as well. 

So far, the industry has put its faith on the construction of several multi-billion dollar LNG terminals from where the gas could be shipped to Europe and Asia. And indeed five such projects have been approved for construction by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

But a few of these projects could be derailed if the Iranian oil tsunami occurs. LNG prices in Asia are indexed to oil. This means that low oil prices drag down LNG prices - the spot price of LNG in Japan is at its lowest level in five years despite the fact that the country's fifty nuclear reactors are still idle - making America's LNG less competitive in the Asian market compared to Australian or Qatari gas.

Developers of LNG liquefaction facilities in the U.S. who for years struggled to obtain export permits will soon realize that their revenue projections and debt structure may no longer be viable under the low price scenario.

If there is any salvation for the industry, it is in the creation of a new market for its product. This can be done in the sector in which it already has a big stake – transportation. Indeed this is the only sector that can gobble an amount of domestic natural gas significant enough to recover the depressed natural gas market.

But to generate demand for natural gas in transportation, cars, trucks and ships must be opened to fuels derived from the commodity, like methanol, ethanol, compressed natural gas and electricity. 

For this to happen automakers should be offered an option to reduce their fuel economy obligation – an unachievable 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, twice the current efficiency level – if they open most of their cars to some sort of fuel competition, whether through flex fuel engines, electric motors, natural gas engines, fuel cells etc.

The abundance of choice enabling vehicles would give rise to greater demand for natural gas and this would pad the balance sheets of America's energy companies and keep them viable until the oil market rebalances itself.

It will also provide consumers with lasting protection against future oil price hikes.A barrel of oil has roughly six times the energy content of a million Btu of natural gas. At current oil prices, gas is almost three times cheaper than oil on an energy equivalent basis. This means there is enough room for oil prices to come down without crowding out gas from the transportation fuel market. Hmmm......Just another link in the chain grinding America down. Read the full story here.

Obama's BFF Cuba gives its 'unconditional support' to Venezuela against US.

Obama's BFF Cuba gives its 'unconditional support' to Venezuela against US. (DS).

HAVANA: Cuba Tuesday offered its "unconditional support" to Venezuela after U.S. President Barack Obama authorized new sanctions against senior officials of the South American oil producer, Havana's closest ally.

An official statement published in the island's state-run media called Obama's executive order implementing the sanctions "arbitrary and aggressive."

"Cuba again reiterates its unconditional support and that of our people for the Bolivarian Revolution, the legitimate government of President Nicolas Maduro, and the heroic brotherly people of Venezuela," the statement said.

The Cuban reaction marked its first public confrontation with the United States since the two countries began discussions in December on fully restoring diplomatic relations.

"No one has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state or to declare, without foundation, someone a threat to national security," Cuba said.

It said the U.S. measures were "in reprisal for the measures adopted [by Venezuela] in defense of its sovereignty in the face of meddling acts by the governmental authorities and Congress of the United States."

Cuban leader Fidel Castro congratulated Maduro on his "brilliant and brave" stance against the U.S. in a letter also published Tuesday by the Cuban press. Hmmm....Never met an enemy of the US he did not embrace. Read the full story here.

U.S. Millennials consistently score below many of their international peers in literacy, numeracy, and problem solving.

U.S. Millennials consistently score below many of their international peers in literacy, numeracy, and problem solving. (ets).

Millennials may be on track to be our most educated generation ever, but they consistently score below many of their international peers in literacy, numeracy, and problem solving.

The results of this report help shed light on the growing inequality of opportunity in the U.S. and the impact this has on both skills acquisition and outcomes for both current and future generations.

This report, the first in a series to be produced by Educational Testing Service using data from the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), is an attempt to focus attention on a topic of interest to a broad range of constituencies.

The subject of this report is our nation’s millennials, those young adults born after 1980 who were 16–34 years of age at the time of the assessment. The authors chose to center attention on this cohort for several key reasons.

First, these young adults include the most recent products of our educational systems. Second, according to recent reports, they have attained the most years of schooling of any cohort in American history. And, finally, millennials will shape the economic and social landscape of our country for many years to come.

One central message that emerges from this report is that, despite having the highest levels of educational attainment of any previous American generation, these young adults on average demonstrate relatively weak skills in literacy, numeracy, and problem solving in technology-rich environments compared to their international peers.

These findings hold true when looking at millennials overall, our best performing and most educated, those who are native born, and those from the highest socioeconomic background. Equally troubling is that these findings represent a decrease in literacy and numeracy skills for U.S. adults when compared with results from previous adult surveys.

Millennials may be on track to be our most educated generation ever, but they consistently score below many of their international peers in literacy, numeracy, and problem solving in technology-rich environments (PS-TRE). The results of this report help shed light on the growing inequality of opportunity in the U.S. and the impact this has on both skills acquisition and outcomes for both current and future generations.

How do the average scores of U.S. millennials compare with those in other participating countries?

• In literacy, U.S. millennials scored lower than 15 of the 22 participating countries. Only millennials in Spain and Italy had lower scores.

• In numeracy, U.S. millennials ranked last, along with Italy and Spain.

• In PS-TRE, U.S. millennials also ranked last, along with the Slovak Republic, Ireland, and Poland.

The youngest segment of the U.S. millennial cohort (16- to 24-year-olds), who could be in the labor force for the next 50 years, ranked last in numeracy along with Italy and among the bottom countries in PS-TRE. In literacy, they scored higher than their peers in Italy and Spain.

How do U.S. top-performing and lower-performing millennials compare to their international peers? What is the degree of inequality in the score distribution?

• Top-scoring U.S. millennials (those at the 90th percentile) scored lower than top-scoring millennials in 15 of the 22 participating countries, and only scored higher than their peers in Spain.

• Low-scoring U.S. millennials (those at the 10th percentile) ranked last along with Italy and England/Northern Ireland and scored lower than millennials in 19 participating countries.

The gap in scores (139 points) between U.S. millennials at the 90th and 10th percentiles was higher than the gap in 14 of the participating countries and was not significantly different than the gap in the remaining countries, signaling a high degree of inequality in the distribution of scores.

How do millennials with different levels of educational attainment perform over time and in relation to their peers internationally?

Although a greater percentage of young adults in the U.S. are attaining higher levels of education since 2003, the numeracy scores of U.S. millennials whose highest level of education is high school and above high school have declined.

Since 2003, the percentages of U.S. millennials scoring below level 3 in numeracy (the minimum standard) increased at all levels of educational attainment.

U.S. millennials with a four-year bachelor’s degree scored higher in numeracy than their counterparts in only two countries: Poland and Spain.

The scores of U.S. millennials whose highest level of educational attainment was either less than high school or high school were lower than those of their counterparts in almost every other participating country.

Our best-educated millennials—those with a master’s or research degree—only scored higher than their peers in Ireland, Poland, and Spain. What impact do demographic characteristics have on the performance of U.S. millennials?

Among all countries, there was a strong relationship between parental levels of educational attainment and skills; across all levels of parental educational attainment, there was no country where millennials scored lower than those in the United States.

The gap in scores between U.S. millennials with the highest level of parental educational attainment and those with the lowest was among the largest of the participating countries.

In most countries, native-born millennials scored higher than foreign-born millennials; however, native-born U.S. millennials did not perform higher than their peers in any other country. Hmmm.....This is how Empires decline and Vanish!Read the full report here.

What made a Federal Judge Temporarily Halting Obama’s Amnesty Plan.

What made a Federal Judge Temporarily Halting Obama’s Amnesty Plan. (Heritage).

The 26 states that sued President Obama over his unilateral amnesty plan for illegal aliens won a major battle on Monday when a federal judge issued a temporary injunction against the plan’s implementation. In a fitting bit of irony, the order was issued on President’s Day, a day when we remember the great men who fulfilled their duties as heads of the second branch of government.

In his order, Judge Andrew Hanen enjoined Jeh Johnson, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, from implementing “any and all aspects or phases of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents ‘DAPA’) program as set out” by Johnson in his Nov. 20, 2014 memorandum that executed the president’s announced plan. In other words, the Obama administration can no longer implement the executive actions Obama took on immigration.

Hanen’s lengthy opinion provides an extensive, well-researched, well-written review of the history of the Obama administration’s actions in the immigration area and points out the many problems caused by its lack of enforcement and overriding of federal immigration law.

Hanen agrees that Homeland Security does have discretion “in the manner in which it chooses to fulfill the expressed will of Congress” in federal immigration law.

But it cannot “enact a program whereby it not only ignores the dictates of Congress, but actively acts to thwart them.” In fact, the Homeland Security secretary “is not just rewriting the laws; he is creating them from scratch.”

The states don’t disagree that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over immigration, but they argue “that the Government has abandoned its duty to enforce the law.” Hanen concludes that “this assertion cannot be disputed.” Read the full story here.