Monday, September 17, 2012

The Romney/Bain formula works because it starts from a different point and produces a different result. Bain risks private capital on private ventures to create private jobs and private wealth.


( Hows that for FAIR ?? )

The economy created a disappointing 115,000 jobs in April, and the “official” unemployment rate “dropped” to 8.1 percent (from 8.3%) as a result of more Americans leaving the job market altogether. The economic recovery is stalled and does not look to change any time soon. It is appropriate to ask: how did we get here?

After his election, President Obama wasted no time investing in green energy ventures he confidently predicted would occasion America’s next “Sputnik moment.” However, just as there were no “shovel ready” stimulus projects, the green dream was just that. Bankrupt solar company Solyndra is the poster child for Mr. Obama’s green misadventures, and representative of the wider wreckage his policies have caused.
In the past several months, the following green companies – which received state or federal funding guarantees – declared bankruptcy or laid off hundreds of workers to avoid bankruptcy: Ener1 (renewable energy storage battery technology components), Abound Solar Manufacturing (solar panels), Beacon Power (energy storage), Evergreen Solar (solar panels), SpectraWatt (silicon solar cells), and Solar Trust of America (1,000 megawatt solar plant).
The sheer volume of this waste is astounding. Solyndra defaulted on a $535 million federal loan guarantee, leaving recession-battered taxpayers holding the bag. Solar Trust received a $2.1 billion federal loan guarantee, but last month, the company sought bankruptcy protection in Delaware after failing to meet a federal Energy Department loan guarantee deadline.
Against this backdrop of waste, crony capitalism and failure arrives Mr. Obama’s opponent Mitt Romney, who represents something else entirely: private sector success at Bain Capital. Founded in 1984 by Mr. Romney and two partners, Bain has risked billions investing in hundreds of companies across America. No investment was guaranteed to succeed; many did not pan out. But here’s a very short list of Bain’s more famous successes: AMC Entertainment, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications (the largest radio network in America), Domino’s Pizza, Dunkin’ Donuts, Guitar Center, Staples, Toys “R” Us, and Warner Music Group.
Thus, if you go to the movie theater, eat a hamburger, wear a coat, listen to the radio, eat pizza or donuts, play guitar, and buy printer ink, toys or music albums, you’ve benefitted from Bain Capital and Mr. Romney’s leadership. Unlike in politics, where results too often play second fiddle to good intentions, in business, results determine survival. Mr. Romney survived and thrived at Bain.
The Romney/Bain formula works because it starts from a different point and produces a different result. Bain risks private capital on private ventures to create private jobs and private wealth. In contrast, the Obama/Solyndra formula risks public money on private ventures and creates no private jobs or (non-union) wealth. And despite the recession, Bain-esque opportunities presently exist in America, for example the private sector oil and gas boom that President Obama is simultaneously taking credit for while attempting to derail.
Beyond Solyndra, President Obama’s energy policy is characteristic of his failure-first approach. For instance, he has thwarted the Keystone Pipeline (which would create thousands of good oil jobs) and praised the virtues of algae (which promises no sure jobs) while attempting to take credit for the private sector oil boom occurring in places like North Dakota. This oil shale-rich state boasts the nation’s lowest unemployment rate (3%) as a result of its booming oil industry. North Dakota represents the Romney/Bain approach, which is why it has succeeded. Mr. Obama’s silence on this success is bewildering.
As President Obama kicks off his reelection campaign by talking about ways to “win the future” through “shared responsibility” and “shared sacrifice,” it is apparent that despite the clear evidence of what currently works (oil) and what does not (algae), he cannot or will not own up to his economic failures. Indeed, when pressed on his administration’s support for Solyndra, Obama offered a Clinton-esque dodge, “This was not our program, per se.” This was an outright lie. During a May 2010 visit to Solyndra, Obama triumphantly proclaimed, “This new factory is the result of [Recovery Act, i.e. stimulus] loans.” Further, when asked if Solyndra’s failure would cause him to rethink his support for green technology, Mr. Obama replied, “I’m proud to say that we’re going to continue to support it.”
In stark contrast, unlike Solyndra, Bain Capital is still in business and despite the recession, it is poised to invest in companies and produce jobs as a result. The reason why is simple: the Romney/Bain formula works; the Obama/Solyndra formula does not.
This November, voters have a clear choice – Solyndra v. Bain: government failure versus private sector success. No one doubts Mitt Romney’s ability to turn around ailing entities, and no one believes in Barack Obama’s ability to do so. And while it’s too late to save Solyndra, the bankruptcy process through which it traveled presents a useful metaphor. In bankruptcy, debts are discharged, creditors paid, and viable businesses emerge reorganized, often under new leadership. November’s election presents voters a similar opportunity to reject the bad deals made by the Obama Administration, reorganize America’s leadership, and oust the man responsible for it all, the Debtor-In-Chief.

Obama fawns all over the "Rich" ...Kisses their ass... and then demonizes them to the "Slaves of the Democratic Party"

Obama and the “Party of the Rich” Enjoy Mocking Americans on Tax Cuts... but takes as much money as he can from the uber rich who run his fund raisers. This is the strategy of Plutocrats!

by Brian Kelly on September 11, 2012 · 
Brian Kelly
It is a strange world indeed in which we find utterly rich Democrats waging a war on the rich. If it were real, it would be a suicide mission, would it not? But it is not real. It is pure chicanery in an attempt to charm the public into thinking that all Democrats are poor just like the rest of us. Yet, only two Democratic presidents in fairly recent times, Harry Truman, who by the time he died had become a millionaire, and Bill Clinton, who later hit the jackpot with book deals for himself and his wife, were not in the millionaire’s club on Inauguration day. The Clinton’s net worth today is about a quarter billion dollars. Yes, that is right, the Clintons are becoming billionaires. Even Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama were millionaires when elected.  Let me say it again. Every United States President selected from the ranks of the Democratic Party has been a millionaire. No wonder Barack Obama can joke about tax cuts. Neither he nor other prominent Democrats need them. Just how disingenuous can the Democrats be in their bogus war on the rich? Even Al Gore came from huge wealth and like Clinton; he too is headed for the billionaire’s club. The Kennedys, John Kerry and FDR fit nicely in the billionaire’s club. Moreover, almost every one of the mega-multimillionaire Democratic presidents inherited their loot or married it. They did not earn it. They were never quite regular Americans. Check out the net worth of your favorite Democrats such as mega-millionaires Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, and Diane Feinstein next chance you get. Ask yourself why the “Party of the Rich” would be waging a war on the rich, and why would they be so dead set against tax cuts, which help all Americans?
Try as they may, Democrats have to lie to suggest that Mitt Romney did not earn his own wealth. Even though it is not true, Democrats persist in trying to demonize Romney for being successful. Thankfully, most Americans see through their ruse. When the Romney family came to the US from Mexico, they were penniless. But they were smart and they believed in a great education. Mitt Romney is blessed with an innate understanding of business, and a great gift that enables him to take nothing and make something out of it. Mitt Romney and his father achieved their success by relying on innovation and thinking outside the box. The Romney’s are not conformists. The Romney’s started with zero and worked hard for every penny that they earned. Additionally, they earned their paychecks honestly and engaged in honest businesses. Like many traditional American families, the son, Mitt, not only matched the success of his father, he exceeded it.
Unlike the Democratic millionaire superstars, who all have a common biography—born with a silver spoon in their mouth and enjoying old wealth and family connections—Mitt  Romney came into the world with none of these advantages. In fact, Romney is more like the rest of us than any of the Democratic presidents. He too had to work for a living.
Most Americans, me included, have never been close to being rich. That’s OK! Many of our later generations have been blessed with far more than our first and second generation fathers and grandfathers. Despite our past success, we are all hurting today from the bad policies of an inexperienced President, presiding over the longest recession since the Great Depression. Even Obama knows that the spending and the give-away policies of millionaires Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barney Frank caused the financial meltdown. It was not Bush at all. However, Obama likes to hide the truth from Americans to help his reelection chances. Blaming Bush is much more convenient, and all of the non-thinking progressives believe whatever Obama says.
After the original meltdown, this congressional trio plus Obama brought unemployment to over 8% for 43 straight months from just 4.6% when the progressives took over the Congress in the last two years of the Bush Administration.  Though Obama, had four years to get us on the right path, the economy is still in the toilet, but the blame has never shifted from Bush to a man who could handle an issue. Our “incomplete” President instead chooses to blame everybody within eyeshot or earshot, but he never blames himself.  He goes so far as baiting Americans to wage a class war against the rich and to hate the most successful people in our country. Being a millionaire himself, Obama forgets that all Americans are striving for the success he too has achieved, yet now condemns.
Perhaps our deified President did not spend enough time in the mainland to realize that real Americans begrudge nobody their deserved success or their accumulated fortunes. To each his own! The American Dream, after all is for all Americans to achieve their own fortunes.  What good would it serve to tax our individual success at such a high rate that Americans would be discouraged from being successful?  Would we not all be fools if we did not want our taxes cut?
Yet, this President speaks to us like as if we should prefer to turn our paychecks over to faceless government bureaucrats for redistribution, rather than spend them ourselves on things we decide. In fact, Obama is so sure that we are fools that he has begun to joke about tax cuts like as if he can convince sane and prudent people that keeping their earnings for their families is a bad thing. He thinks that feeding a bloated, out of control, government gone wild is the smart thing to do. Smart Americans know the President is wrong. Giving a dime to Washington helps as much as throwing it down the sewer.
And, the notion of giving your fair share to government is ridiculous. The government already takes too much from all taxpayers. Government is not designed to be a charity. Give your fair share to charities such as the United Way, please. But, willfully donating anything to our wasteful government is foolsplay.
With a federal debt now heading for $17 trillion and projected deficits exceeding $1 trillion a year forever, over-spending is on track to destroy our nation.  Recent history tells us that the federal government cannot control costs or live within a budget. In fact, it cannot even pass a budget. So, why would anybody want to hand more of their earnings over to a bunch of wild spending and misguided bureaucrats? Nobody with any sense trusts this hapless government to spend more wisely than they can spend themselves.
It always helps to remember that nobody ever got a job from a poor person.
Without the rich, America would be nothing but a third world country. We should thank God that the rich still continue to choose to live, work, and operate businesses in America. Though too many have chosen to become ex-patriots because they are sick of being abused by leaders who do not appreciate their contributions, this is not good for America.  I entreat the rich who are preparing to leave America to give our country another chance. Obama is not like most Americans, and hopefully he will soon be gone. I thank the rich every day for the many things they do. I owe my College Education to nameless and faceless rich people who paid for my education. Thank you.
Like many my age, I asked my father if he could help me with my college tuition at King’s College in Wilkes-Barre, PA in 1969 when tuition was just $950.00 per year. Can you believe that tuition? My dad said I could continue living at home without paying room and board.  That was a great start.
Rich people had given King’s College an endowment that they could use to help students pay for college. It was not government. It was private citizens who did not have to contribute a dime but chose to do so. Rich people contribute much of their wealth while they are alive and even after they pass on to charitable organizations and educational institutions. Why do we not, as a nation, thank the rich, instead of revile them for not throwing enough of their salt in the pot? Many of us have benefited from the goodness of the rich even when the rich take no credit for their giving.
Because of generous rich people, I was able to sit for a King’s Academic Scholarship test. From this fund, I received a 400.00 per year scholarship.  Since that amount was not enough to cover my tuition, King’s offered me a $500.00 National Defense Student Loan, which I paid back as soon as I could upon graduation. The loan funding again was from rich people who paid a disproportionate share of their incomes in taxes. I was still $50.00 short but I knew I was going to go to King’s one way or another. King’s then offered me a job for $1.25 per hour, the minimum wage, working as a full-time janitor in the summer and 15 hours per week part-time during the school year.  It was not a freebie. I washed floors, cleaned steps, cleaned classrooms, scraped gum from under desks and tables, etc. King’s paid 10% of my salary and the Federal Work-Study fund, subsidized by rich people’s taxes paid the other 90%. Thank you to all who contributed.
I would never have finished college without the help of rich people. Some gave their donations to King’s directly of their free will, while these and other rich people paid the rest through their taxes to the government. I like rich people for their charity to Americans to this day. Somebody in all societies is rich. The beauty of America is that through hard work and good decisions, we can all become rich, and we too can become benefactors for those less fortunate, without having government as a middle man. Reaching the top is a big part of the American Dream. Why Obama vilifies that notion is puzzlement to me.
Some rich people are not quite as generous and they choose to help the poor by taking the earnings of others to fulfill their charitable obligations. I admit that. But, the majority of the rich are very generous. They just don’t talk about it and they prefer to give directly rather than give to the government. You may know that Joe Biden and Dr. Jill Biden, his wife, in their combined tax return, just before Joe became the US VP gave little more than $300.00 to charity per year in total. Check out their tax return. It is literally better than nothing but not by much.  Many of my peers and many of you give many times that amount if not more. My peers are not rich but they are kind and generous. Obama does not give much more than Biden but he does give a higher percentage of his income to charity. Obama’s personal giving is reported to be about 1% of his income.
Yet, Obama, a tightwad as far as charitable ventures go, wants to take your taxes and do what he wants with them to help Obama. He pretends it is for the poor. If the President were actually a truly charitable man, he would use his own money and he would help his half-brother George. He doesn’t even take care of “poor George.”  Obama’s brother lives in a one person sized hut in the squalor of the raw sewage and garbage in the slums of Nairobi. Obama doesn’t talk much about George because George actually thinks like most Americans and does not expect anything from his brother. “He has his own family,” says George, explaining away his brother’s indifference to his plight. Too bad George Soros did not take a liking to George Obama instead of brother Barack.
Unfortunately, the older brother ignores George’s needs. Yet, the same person has the gall to joke about tax cuts that all regular Americans need. Obama does not need the tax cuts because he is funded by somebody who is rich, and from whose coattails, somehow, he too magically has become a multi-millionaire.
Not only does Obama choose not to help his younger brother, he has no respect for working people anywhere and he has full intentions to redistribute as much of their income as possible. The President is a taker and not a giver. That is why even those expecting that he would be giving “stuff” away from his “stash” upon election, have been disappointed. Who do you think gets the earnings the Obama government confiscates and redistributes? It goes to people whose votes the President can buy and who will thank and praise Obama for the favor eternally. Obama takes our money, gives it to others, and then he basks and grins and takes all the good will that he can. Hmmm!
Though this essay is mostly about Obama’s mocking the notion that all Americans need tax cuts, let’s check out how Mitt Romney fares in the charity area. To make this expose’ even more exciting, let’s compare it with the President’s propensity to be charitable with his own money.
You remember Mitt Romney don’t you? He’s the guy that Obama wants us to think is the poster boy for the nasty and greedy rich. Obama would like to get you to hate Romney and he does his best to adjust your thinking every day. He works to get you to wage your own war against the rich. Like most proselytizations of Obama, his attempts to convince us all that Romney is a real bad guy are fraught with the fodder that fact checkers dream about.  And the lies go on and on and on. If Obama’s target were himself rather than Romney, the fact checkers would be having nightmares as Obama, does not have enough charity in him to be worthy of tying Mitt Romney’s shoelaces.
Compared to the rounded up 1% in charity that Obama gives from his heart to everybody except brother George, Mitt Romney is doing quite well. If Obama actually has a stash, he keeps it for Michelle and the family whereas Mitt Romney gives a large part of his stash to charity.
For example, as all members of his church, Romney pledges a whopping 10% of his earnings to the church. That is 10 times higher as a percentage than Obama’s total giving. But, that is not enough for Mitt Romney. In 2011 as an example, he donated 19% of his income to charitable causes. That is 19 times more than Obama and hundreds of times more than Biden.
When you give to charity, as we all know, your effective tax rate goes down so the disingenuous Barack Hussein Obama calls the press’s attention to Romney’s tax rate. Obama can lower his tax rate also if he chooses to up his charitable ante.
Many of us have seen the email circulating in which even the liberal Snopes couple agrees that Romney is the real deal. The verified email highlights the non-cash charitable work of Mitt Romney. For example, early in life, for a whole year, Romney volunteered in his dad’s gubernatorial campaign. Not a cent! But, just like my dad when I went to college, George Romney helped his kid in as many ways as he could. Mitt Romney was also an unpaid intern in the Governor’s office for eight years. He was a Mormon missionary in Paris for two years and an unpaid Bishop in his church for ten years. One thing is common in his public service; he did not take a salary. I wonder if President Obama took a salary in his multiple roles as a community organizer.
When Obama rescued the Olympics, again, Obama took no salary. Whoops! Wrong guy! Of course Obama took no salary because he never did anything as spectacular as rescuing the US Olympics from failure.  Yet, Obama is pleased as punch to mock any and all of Romney’s achievements. Did Obama also rescue the Olympics?  You can bet if Obama could put the Olympics in his accomplishments column, he would be bragging about it forever. But it was Romney, quietly as the hero again, with no fanfare and no salary. When Romney was governor of Massachusetts; you guessed it, he took no salary. On top of all the good that Obama says is bad about Romney, especially those who say Romney came from wealth and it was all easy for him, consider this one little fact that Obama and the demonizing Democrats have missed. Romney donated his entire inheritance to charity.
Like it or not, Romney is a self made man worthy of being admired as a good American. We should all give the governor kudos for being a great American. Instead, for political expediency, Obama makes things up about this man, and puts him down like as if he was a nothing. For twenty-eight years, even when he was not so successful, Romney did not take a salary when doing the public’s work. Yes, Romney is a millionaire for sure because he did it the old fashioned way. He earned it. Can millionaire Obama say the same? Ask him.
All I know is what I hear Obama say, and he says an awful lot and most is negative. He sure likes to mock real achievers and for my money, little though it may be, such behavior is beneath the dignity of the office of the Presidency.
Democrats and their friends in the US media love to demonize anything that can hurt progressives, including this President. The entire media is like a kennel of lapdogs trying to please the master. They expect to always be able to dupe America and Americans. Their following is so loyal that they often succeed, except for a few independent thinking break-aways. The Progressives expect you and me to fall in line and believe their malicious blather.  Their latest theme is that tax cuts are actually bad for taxpayers. Isn’t that insane?  They want all Americans to let the government spend our money.
Consider how incongruous this notion is to good thinking. Yet, at the DNC convention, the Obama Lemmings stood and cheered as the President spewed his venom both against a man of good will, and a nation in great need of true leadership. Do they really want their taxes to go up? Since calling the President a liar is disrespectful of the office, let’s just say from what I saw, Obama is a very clever Prevaricator in Chief.
Will this new demonization of those who do not donate all to government, cause the Lemming Progressives to begin to scream in the streets: “Tax me, Tax me, Tax me… oh please Tax me.” Somebody should write a song about that!
Obama’s new joke is not just against Romney; it is against all Americans who want to keep their hard earned paychecks and starve the government; instead of feeding a bloated government and starving themselves. Obama knows what he is doing and he thinks he will get away with it. He thinks that with his wiliness and his unabated charm, he can convince all Americans that low taxes are actually unpatriotic and bad for the country. The corollary of course is that big government can spend your money better than you can. Rational people will not buy the argument but those more hopeful than rational just may.  Here is vintage Obama from the DNC Convention:
“All they’ve got to offer is the same prescriptions that they’ve had for the last 30 years:  tax cuts, tax cuts, gut some regulations — oh, and more tax cuts, he said. Tax cuts when times are good, tax cuts when times are bad, tax cuts to help you lose a few extra pounds   tax cuts to improve your love life — I — it’ll cure anything, according to them, …..  Feel a cold coming on? Take two tax cuts, roll back some regulations and call me in the morning,” Obama mocked. He mocked Romney and all Americans thinking we are all too dumb to see the truth.
Ironically, while mocking Romney and the American people, Obama also was mocking the spirit of JFK. Way back in 1963, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, a Democrat, though nothing like the liberal progressives of today, knew that rich people were the economic engine of America.  He knew that the rich needed to keep some of their earnings to expand their businesses and hire new workers.  President Obama is no JFK, and he never will be. Obama does not understand economics, but he does know how to put down honest efforts to do the right thing for America.
JFK reduced the tax rate of the wealthy from a punishing 91 percent and he reduced the corporate rate from 52%.  As Kennedy expected, after the cut in tax rates, economic growth averaged more than 5 percent a year for three years, with very low inflation. In other words, mock as Obama may, cutting taxes worked for Kennedy.  It worked for Reagan and it worked for Bush.  Which of the four is the dunderhead?  JFK was smart enough to know the solution and had no problem saying that tax cuts actually increase revenue, spark growth, create jobs and can lower the deficit. Barack Obama must have skipped school the day that lesson was on the agenda.
Ronald Reagan is another great president who well understood how a government run by a socialist / communist like Obama actually works:
“Governments view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
Reagan and Kennedy had the right idea. After four years, we know that Obama has the wrong idea. America cannot afford four more years of Obama. The people should keep their money and government should take only as much as it needs to do the things that the people cannot provide for themselves—roads, bridges, national defense, etc.  Not much else is really necessary. Big government simply does not work and it requires too much of the people’s money to keep it afloat.
There are many examples of things that America does not need from its national government. One example is that the national government should not be in charge of education. Local school boards with local teachers do just fine. Having the federal government in charge of education is very costly and very ineffective. Worse than that, it leads to the indoctrination of very tender minds towards the ideological principles of the political party in charge.
“Mmm Mmm Mmmm Barack Hussein Obama!”
Brian Kelly is a business owner and former assistant professor at Marywood University; he and his wife live in Northeastern Pennsylvania. Kelly is running for Senate in his state and believes limited government brings liberty and freedom.

The EPA is an Anti-Capitalist Poverty Making Killer Machine custom designed to Destroy the US from the inside!

The EPAs arrogance and incompetence keeps America dependent on foreign oil

by Marita Noon on September 17, 2012 · 
Marita Noon
The riots, rage, and ruin that have spread throughout the Middle East over the past few days emphasize the urgency of opening up and bringing online America’s vast resources—yet, as Congressman Pete Olson (R-TX) states: “The EPA is the biggest obstacle to energy independence.”
Olson’s comment specifically addressed the Hydraulic Fracturing Study requested by Congress as a part of the FY 2010 appropriations bill, which states:
“The conferees urge the Agency to carry out a study on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, using a credible approach that relies on the best available science, as well as independent sources of information. The conferees expect the study to be conducted through a transparent, peer-reviewed process that will ensure the validity and accuracy of the data. The Agency shall consult with other Federal agencies as well as appropriate State and interstate regulatory agencies in carrying out the study, which should be prepared in accordance with the Agency’s quality assurance principles.”
A study “on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water” sounds like a great idea. No one wants their drinking water filled with toxic elements, and, if the EPA followed the mandate, a work of global importance could result. American private enterprise and initiative has lead the world in developing and implementing horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques that are safe and are uniquely responsible for totally transforming the energy landscape—making previously unrecoverable resources, recoverable. Therefore, the final study from the EPA has worldwide implications for oil and natural gas supplies. It must be done right.
Instead of moving forward with a “Hydraulic Fracturing Study” as requested by Congress, the EPA has done what is characteristic of this administration; they’ve blown it out of proportion—making it something bigger, requiring additional personnel, and creating more management, at greater expense. Final results are not due until 2014—four years after Congress requested a simple study. Lisa Jackson’s EPA has expanded the study’s scope to encompass numerous peripheral elements related to oil and gas exploration and production activities; a full lifecycle analysis of everything remotely associated with unconventional recovery.
Congress requested a report based on “best available science,” not opinion, yet the EPA has included items such as “environmental justice”—which has nothing to do with science, and “discharges to publicly owned water treatment plants”—which are no longer a part of the hydraulic fracturing process.
The additional elements exponentially exacerbate the study’s potential complications.
Meanwhile, America could be undergoing a robust development of our resources. Instead, as Congressman Mike Conaway (R-TX) explained, “Industry is holding back because it is not sure what the regulatory future holds.” He called the study’s evolution beyond the scope of what was requested: “mission creep.” Until a definitive answer on “the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water” is produced, a constant cloud of legal threat hangs over possible development, and potential jobs, such as in New York’s Marcellus Shale, are deferred.
These concerns, plus many others, prompted industry to independently engage, at their own expense, Battelle Memorial Institute to conduct a collaborative, side-by-side study with the EPA. Congressman Andy Harris (R-MD), Chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, says that Battelle is “a highly respected independent science and technology organization.” (It is important to note that Battelle’s business is heavily dependent on government contracts, so accepting the responsibility of doing a collaborative study held risks for the company—coming out with a different result from that of the EPA could mean the loss of future contracts. Additionally, they do a lot of work with the EPA, so their opinions should be trusted by the EPA.) Despite the EPA’s rejection of industry’s offer, Battelle moved forward with a scientific review of the EPA’s study plan to ensure that the EPA is taking a rigorous and adequate approach, as quality cannot be built into the back end of a science-based project.
Battelle’s report is complete. On Thursday, Battelle’s team provided a briefing on Capitol Hill that was attended by more than 30 Representatives and/or staffers from the Natural Gas and Marcellus Shale Caucuses. Numerous concerns were presented. The EPA’s study plan reflects a deadly combination of arrogance and incompetence.
Hydraulic Fracturing is a highly technical process that has evolved since its initial use more than 60 years ago—continuously undergoing improvements. Hundreds of thousands of wells have been drilled. The expertise and experience lies within the industry, yet the EPA has specially rejected industry’s attempts to collaborate—despite the fact that the original mandate requires: “a transparent, peer-reviewed process that will ensure the validity and accuracy of the data.” In a letter to the EPA, Marty Durbin, Executive Vice President, American Petroleum Institute (API), says: “We have repeatedly offered the expertise of our members to both the agency and the Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) peer review process and, unfortunately, have been disappointed by the lack of follow through and acceptance.” Battelle’s report states: “Industry collaboration is not envisioned.”
Additionally, the requirements, published in the Federal Register calling for nominations, for the SAB, are set so that they specifically exclude experts from industry. “Selection criteria” includes “absence of financial conflicts of interest.” The call for SAB nominations continues: “government officials” will “determine whether there is a statutory conflict between a person’s public responsibilities and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a lack of impartiality.” Presumably those from academia and NGO’s would be acceptable. However, as the API letter points out, the “EPA should recognize that most individuals nominating themselves for potential SAB membership have some financial stake in the business—academics seek grants, NGOs seek donations, regulators seek programmatic funding, consultants seek contracts from government, as well as industry.”
Industry representatives with direct history of working in the modern oil and gas industry have a long record of valuable, unbiased participation in many other SAB committees and panels, yet for this watershed study, they have been excluded.
Additionally, the Congressional study request calls for consultation “with other Federal agencies as well as appropriate State and interstate regulatory agencies.” To date, there is no evidence of working with Pennsylvania, Texas, Colorado—or any other state with extensive hydraulic fracturing experience. Numerous studies have been done, but the EPA doesn’t appear to be incorporating their discoveries. For example, in August 2011, the Groundwater Protection Council published its own study of “state determinations regarding causes of groundwater contamination resulting from oil and gas industry E&P activities,” examining nearly 400 contamination incidents over 25 years in Ohio and Texas, and concluding that “[n]either state has documented a single occurrence of groundwater pollution during site preparation or well stimulation.”
Obviously, the arrogance of the EPA believes they know best and they don’t want input from anyone who might disagree with their preconceived bias.
According to Battelle’s report, the EPA has a rigorous Data Quality Assessment process established for internal studies, but is not using it when setting up this study—which can impact the data quality and scientific rigor. If strict standards are not met, the entire report can be brought into question, as was the case with the Pavillion, Wyoming, study released a year ago. The results must be defensible to achieve the study’s goals.
The sites selected for study show a bias with the potential to skew the data and therefore the study. Instead of using a representative sampling of well sites from the hundreds of thousands of wells that have been drilled, the EPA has chosen to focus on only seven sites—a statistically insignificant number. Of the seven, five have known contamination problems, but no baseline data. Therefore, there is no way to tell whether the complaints are in any way related to hydraulic fracturing or to any specific thing. There are known examples of naturally occurring drinking water contamination—as was found with the widely publicized Dimock, Pennsylvania, case. The five retrospective sites are the subject of complaints by individuals who may now be stakeholders in potentially lucrative litigation against operators. The concern is that the “it has problems, so let’s study it to see if it has problems” approach will limit the scientific validity and usefulness of case study findings. At Thursday’s briefing, the limited sampling was likened to using five traffic accidents in some parts of America to draw conclusions about how to construct and regulate traffic and road safety in all of the country to avoid future accidents.
Instead, the study should focus more heavily on prospective sites where baseline data is gathered before drilling and before the use of hydraulic fracturing. The Battelle report states: “Two prospective sites cannot deliver the range of data required for scientifically rigorous treatment of all the research questions asked.”
Focusing primarily on sites with known issues also ignores the current state of the technology. Chemicals used now are very different from what was used five years ago. Analysis from these sites will be virtually useless in making a meaningful recommendation regarding current or future hydraulic fracturing activities. Battelle’s report points out that “the site data collected from the companies are from 2006-2010, and the final report will be in 2014. The changes occurring at these sites in the intervening years will likely render the data obsolete for purposes of the study.”
All of this may seem of little relevance to the person struggling to fill up their tank at today’s high gasoline prices. However, it is of utmost importance.
All sides benefit from a study that can withstand intense scrutiny. If there are foundational problems and the overall study results prove that hydraulic fracturing is safe and doesn’t contaminate drinking water, as the industry believes they will, the environmentalists, who oppose hydraulic fracturing, will appeal it. If the reverse is proven, industry will seek an appeal. In either case, appeals will delay the much-needed robust development of American resources—not to mention the waste of time and taxpayer dollars spent on the study.
If the events that have erupted in the Middle East over the past few days show us anything, it is that the US dependence on Middle Eastern oil must come to an expeditious end. With America’s new-found oil and gas reserves, recovered through hydraulic fracturing, we now know that energy independence is possible, if, as Congressman Olson told me, “We reign in the EPA.”
The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.

Obama's Executive Orders Reveal A Pattern of the Federal Government assuming dicatatorial power.

President Barack Hussein "kill list" Obama has offered over 900 Executive Orders (EO), and he is not even through his first term. 

 He is creating a wonderland of government controls covering everything imaginable, including a list of "Emergency Powers" and martial law EOs.  And while Obama is busy issuing EOs to control everything inside the US, he has been issuing EOs to force us to submit to international regulations instead of our US Constitution.
And comments by North Carolina governor Beverly Perdue and former OMB director Peter Orszag only contribute to this pattern.
Is it now time to start connecting the dots?  Obama signed EO 13603 on March 22, 2012.  Then he signed EO 13617 on June 25, 2012, declaring a national emergency.  Then he signed EO 13618 on July 6, 2012.
In EO 13603, entitled, "National Defense Resources Preparedness," Obama says (among other things) that [we must]:
be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;
Obama has the power, through this EO, to "nationalize" (not seize) private assets in order to protect national interests.  Further, the EO effectively states that he can:
1.   "identify" requirements for emergencies
2.   "assess" the capability of the country's industrial and technological base
3.   "be prepared" to ensure the availability of critical resources in time of national threat
4.   "improve the efficiency" of the industrial base to support national defense
5.   "foster cooperation" between commercial and defense sectors
There are pundits that suggest that by signing  EO 13603, Obama has given himself power to declare martial law and suspend elections.
The main problem with EO 13603 is that the words/phrases in quotes can be interpreted in many ways, including ways that favor Obama and Democrats.  Wait, we can have our Supreme Court decide what they mean.  But that won't work since we know four of them to be Democrat hacks, and one justice can be influenced by the MSM.
In EO 13617, entitled "Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted From Nuclear Weapons," Obama says (among other things)that"
the risk of nuclear proliferation created by the accumulation of a large volume of weapons-usable fissile material in the territory of the Russian Federation continues to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.
Obama, by signing this EO, actually declared a national emergency.  I guess that President Theodore Roosevelt's famous saying, "Speak softly and carry a big stick," can't apply in this case because we don't want to offend the Russians by having them honor treaties they signed (the "HEU" Agreement).  But what's more important is that Obama can now "justify" any action he wants to take by citing EO 13617 since it declares a national emergency.
Then, in EO 13618, entitled, "Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions," Obama states (among other things) that:

The Federal Government must have the ability to communicate at all times and under all circumstances to carry out its most critical and time sensitive missions. ...  Such communications must be possible under all circumstances to ensure national security, effectively manage emergencies, and improve national resilience.

Obama cites "national security" in this EO.  I guess Obama sees ANY excuse for declaring a national security emergency will appear better than taking over the nation's communications assets by force
Want more examples of what Obama is doing?
  • EO 10990 allows the Government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
  • EO 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.
  • EO 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision
  • EO 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
  • EO 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
  • EO 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate and establish new locations for populations.
  • EO 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.
Are we beginning to see a pattern here?  We're being prepared  for a national emergency.  Then there's taking control.  I personally think that what Obama is doing goes way beyond being prepared.
North Carolina governor Beverly Perdue (Democrat), on September 28, 2011, suggested that perhaps elections should be suspended for two years by canceling, until the economy recovers, the 2012 elections. After that remark got the reception it deserved, Pardue's staff tried to pass it off as a joke.
Former White House director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag, who, on September 14, 2011, in a The New Republic article entitled "Too Much of a Good Thing: Why we need less democracy," said that we are that we are hampered by too much democracy, that the constitutional system (not really a democracy) is too slow to react, and the deliberations and negotiations are simply too cumbersome. Orszag suggests that the constitutional rules of limiting government offers impediments to autocratic, dictatorial actions, and are just too great.
That North Carolina governor Perdue would even joke (if it was a joke) about canceling an election is frightening enough, but that Orszag, a former official in Obama's administration, believes that doing away with the US Constitution is a viable solution should cause every AT reader to quake.
I'm never comfortable with laws that give the government broad reaching powers in the event of a "national emergency," especially when there is no clear, set, unchangeable definition of what actually constitutes a "national emergency."
Circumvention of the US Constitution by any means possible is the ultimate goal of Democrats and the Obama administration because the 2012 election is shaping up to be a repeat of the 2010 election.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but these three latest EOs and previous EOs Obama signed, coupled with Perdue's and Orszag's comments, suggest that something besides coincidence is going on.
Dr. Beatty earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and statistics from Florida State University.  He was a (very conservative) professor of quantitative management specializing in using statistics to assist/support decision making. He has been a consultant to many small businesses and is now retired.  Dr. Beatty is a veteran who served in the U.S. Army for 22 years.  He blogs at: