Obama administration has aggressively pushed a $433-million plan to buy an experimental smallpox drug, despite uncertainty over whether it is needed or will work

By David Willman,
Los Angeles TimesNovember 13,
2011

Reporting from Washington—

Over the last year,
the Obama administration has aggressively pushed a $433-million plan to buy an
experimental smallpox drug, despite uncertainty over whether it is needed or
will work.

Senior officials have taken unusual steps to secure the
contract for New York-based Siga Technologies Inc., whose controlling
shareholder is billionaire Ronald O. Perelman, one of the world’s richest men
and a longtime Democratic
Party
donor.

When Siga complained that contracting specialists at the
Department of Health and Human Services were resisting the company’s financial
demands, senior officials replaced the government’s lead negotiator for the
deal, interviews and documents show.

When Siga was in danger of losing
its grip on the contract a year ago, the officials blocked other firms from
competing.

Siga was awarded the final contract in May through a
“sole-source” procurement in which it was the only company asked to submit a
proposal. The contract calls for Siga to deliver 1.7 million doses of the drug
for the nation’s biodefense stockpile. The price of approximately $255 per dose
is well above what the government’s specialists had earlier said was reasonable,
according to internal documents and interviews.

Once feared for its
grotesque pustules and 30% death rate, smallpox was eradicated worldwide as of
1978 and is known to exist only in the locked freezers of a Russian scientific
institute and the U.S. government. There is no credible evidence that any other
country or a terrorist group possesses smallpox.

If there were an attack,
the government could draw on $1 billion worth of smallpox vaccine it already owns to
inoculate the entire U.S. population and quickly treat people exposed to the virus.
The vaccine, which costs the government $3 per dose, can reliably prevent death
when given within four days of exposure.

Another Day, Another ‘We Can’t Wait’ Executive Order

Another Day, Another ‘We Can’t Wait’ Executive Order

By Doug Powers  •  October 31, 2011 04:34 PM

**Written by Doug Powers

The “jobs bill by executive order piecemeal” initiative continues:

This afternoon, in yet another executive action intended to boost the economy, President Obama signs an executive order that addresses prescription drug shortages.

The signing marks yet another move in the president’s “we can’t wait” campaign to grow the economy through unilateral actions while his $447 jobs bill remains stalled in Congress.

The president will direct the Food and Drug Administration to take steps to further reduce and prevent drug shortages, and price gouging.

For some reason I’ve got a feeling that prescription drug prices are about to rise.

**Written by Doug Powers

Is Herman Cain the Answer?

Is Herman Cain the Answer?

By Ron
Lipsman

Whenever I see the inane bumper sticker War Is Not
the Answer
, I always think: That depends on what the question is. If
Roosevelt had answered the real question posed to him by the Japanese 70 years
ago according to the bumper sticker, then the idiot who pasted the sticker on
his bumper would likely not have had the freedom to do so. If the Israelis had
answered the actual question posed to them by Nasser in May 1967 according to
the bumper sticker, there would be no Israel today. Similarly, the answer to the
query in the title depends on the exact question.

The short form of the question is obviously: Who
should the Republicans nominate to oppose Obama in 2012? For me — a staunch
conservative — the long and much more important and meaningful form of the
question is formulated as follows:

The US has been listing left for a hundred years,
drifting away from a constitutional Republic devoted to individual liberty, free
markets and limited government by the consent of the governed toward a statist
society of forced equality, shared economic misery and unlimited, unresponsive
government. Following a brief (and temporary) course correction under Reagan, we
have continued our inexorable slide toward socialistic oblivion under the two
Bushes, Clinton and especially under Obama. There have been signs in the last
two years that a significant percentage of the electorate has finally awakened
to the existence of the cliff toward which we are speeding. The next election
provides a chance — perhaps the final chance — to irrevocably halt the mad
dash to the edge and then to restore America back to its original
political/cultural roots and traditions. Is Herman Cain the Moses we so
desperately seek to lead us back to the promised land?

The odds may be slim, but I believe that the United
States has the opportunity to effect a fundamental course correction next year.
It is possible that the people might elect a truly conservative President and
supply him with a sufficiently conservative Congress so that together they could
halt the leftward drift and set the country on a more traditional course. It may
be that enough of the electorate is actually ready to bring this about. Reagan
would have done it a generation ago, but he lacked the requisite companion
Congress and the people had not sufficiently awakened to the gravity of the
progressive threat. Today the conditions are more ripe.

One thing is clear: Mitt Romney is not Moses. Of
course he would be immeasurably better than Obama. But it is absolutely certain
that he desires to be president not in order to answer the question in the form
that I posed it. While his instincts might be more conservative than liberal,
Romney is a “big government Republican,” another Bush or McCain, who:

  • has no appreciation for the perilous course that our
    nation has traveled in the 20thcentury;
  • thinks that Obama pushed the wrong levers rather than
    sought to radically transform the nature of the country;
  • and who will do no more than briefly arrest the
    country’s mad dash to the left, while leaving intact the socialist
    infrastructure to be further ratcheted up by the next Social Democrat that
    succeeds him.

Make no mistake — there are people out there who
understand the perilous state in which we find ourselves and who might formulate
and implement a program to rescue the nation. People like Jim DeMint or Mike
Pence come to mind. Paul Ryan perhaps. But they are not running. Who among those
actually running might be our Moses? As I said, Romney definitely is not. And
the people know it. That’s why, despite his advantage in experience,
organization, money and recognition, he can’t break away from the pack. Who then
is the answer? Certainly not Huntsman — another faux conservative. Not Paul –
an extreme libertarian whose opinions on national security and social morality
are frightening.

That leaves five: Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Perry and
Santorum. In fact, I believe that each of those five understands the horrible
drift of the country over the last century and would be determined to reverse
it. So which of them should be Moses? Well, none of them is a perfect redeemer.
And our American Idol style of selecting a nominee has exposed the warts in each
of them. Santorum is severely damaged goods. His overwhelming loss in his Senate
re-election run in 2008 makes him a sure loser. No one is taking him seriously;
his poll numbers are anemic; he would do us a favor by joining Pawlenty on the
sidelines. When the Idol process began, Bachmann raced to the front. But then,
apparently due to her relative inexperience and her permanent “deer in the
headlights” facial expression, the ardor for her cooled. Next to streak to the
front was Rick Perry. But his feeble performance in several Idol rounds knocked
him off the pedestal. Gingrich’s numbers have not oscillated up and down like
the previous two. In fact, he is clearly the sharpest tack in the bunch, but his
track record of quixotic behavior and moral ambiguity gives pause. And so that
leaves the Hermanator (a term that Cain uses for himself in his 2005 book).
People like him and for the moment at least, he has leapt to the front of the
Idol polls.

So what about Herman? Can he play the role of Moses?
He has no money, no organization and no political experience. And there is
something about him that suggests political naïveté. But his heart and, more
importantly, his head seem to be in the right place. I just finished reading the
2005 book, which he wrote following his unsuccessful run for the Senate from
Georgia in 2004. I believe that he understands what has happened to the country
and would work assiduously to bring about a course correction that conservatives
so fervently desire. Does he have the gravitas to pull it off? The last
non-politician that the country elected president was Eisenhower — who only
commanded the most formidable army in the history of the world. Somehow CEO of
Godfather’s Pizza doesn’t quite match up. But let us not forget that Reagan was
president of the Screen Actors Guild and Lincoln’s resume wasn’t all that
impressive either.

The dispatching of Obama and his replacement by a
committed conservative is a paramount task for our nation. The choice we have
for the leader who is to accomplish that task is limited to Romney and one of
Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich or Perry. Romney might defeat Obama, but it will not
herald the transformation that we seek. I believe that there is a reasonable
chance that any of the latter four, if given the spear of leadership, might be
up to the task. If Cain turns out to be the Idol selection, then I will support
him enthusiastically and pray that he can deliver. Personally, I prefer Perry
for reasons that I outlined in another
article
in this journal. But if the Hermanator gets the nod, then on the
basis of what I have seen and read thus far, I can live with that and I will
vote for him optimistically.

The Media

Barack Obama ‘Acting Stupidly’

Barack Obama ‘Acting Stupidly’

Jeannie
DeAngelis

Without saying anything, Barack Obama’s silence speaks
louder than all his empty words. The President who likes to define himself as a
champion of racial equality and promoter of civility has thus far stood by in
silence as liberals attempt to lower the stature of Herman Cain by portraying
him as a conservative version of Stepin Fetchit.

By failing to address the prejudicial remarks directed
at Herman Cain, the President of the United States is revealing a side of
himself that reeks of a form of discriminatory selectiveness that should further
discredit his claim to be the purveyor of civility and racial
justice.

Who can forget the President’s response to the
supposed prejudice leveled against Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates?
Without the benefit of all the information surrounding the incident, Barack
Obama rushed before the cameras to publicly condemn Cambridge, Massachusetts
police officer Joseph Crowley and insinuated that, due to the color of his skin,
Gates was the target of racial profiling and victimized by ‘stupidity’ on the
part of law enforcement.

Recently the President spoke at the dedication of the
Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial.  It was there that he
described
Dr.
King as “a black preacher with no official rank or title who somehow gave voice
to our deepest dreams and our most lasting ideals, a man who stirred our
conscience and thereby helped make our union more perfect.”

Yet, while Herman Cain, a man who fits a similar
description, is whacked by MSNBC analyst Karen Finney with a verbal billy club
and drenched with a fire hose of mean-spirited rhetoric that described him as
merely a “Black man who knows his place” – Barack Obama has remained
silent.

Where is the President’s usual predictable
indignation?  Why no public correction or call for mutual
respect?

At the Martin Luther King Memorial dedication, in an
attempt to portray himself as a great black leader, Obama didn’t hesitate to put
a self-referential spin on the narrative of Dr. King’s life, saying:
“Even after rising to prominence, even after winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Dr.
King was vilified by many, denounced as a rabble rouser and an agitator, a
communist and a radical.”

Barack Obama had the temerity to place himself on the
same level as Martin Luther King Jr. and yet, soon after, he stood by while
left-wing pundits with zero content of character made racially humiliating
comments about Herman Cain that were based solely on the color of his
skin.

Thus far, Obama hasn’t said a word.  He has neither
corrected, condemned, nor cited mentor Saul Alinsky, whom he
quoted
at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial dedication
when he said, “We can’t be discouraged by what is. We’ve got to keep pushing for
what ought to be.”

Maybe the President also believes that if a black
American such as Herman Cain is a conservative,  he should know his place and
that, especially in politics, they are nothing more than a stereotype, a
caricature.

When not diminishing the memory of Dr. King by
pretending to be much like him, Barack spends some of his off time making the
rounds collecting campaign contributions in Hollywood.  In the meantime, liberal
comedian David Letterman is on a mission to replace GW Bush with
Herman Cain as
the newest late-night-created Republican stammering idiot.

If any of the Letterman “Top
Ten
Signs Herman Cain’s Campaign is in Trouble” were
applied to Barack Obama, the left would be picketing the Ed Sullivan Theatre and
demanding an Imus-style resignation.  If the butt of Dave’s jokes had been named
Henry (as in Professor Henry Gates), Obama would never have stood for Letterman
implying that Henry was “less fun-crazy and more crazy-crazy.”

It doesn’t end there either.  In the name of fairness
and economic equity the President, who insulted Tea Party activists by referring
to them as
racists
and by using the vulgar sexual slang term
tea
baggers
” to describe American citizens, has yet to condemn
the behavior taking place within the ‘Occupy’ movement.

So far, Obama has not disassociated himself from a
protest infiltrated by prostitution,
public masturbation,
filth, violence,
and people fighting over money, blankets and food, nor has he called for
civility from a nationwide movement presently populated by ingrates that scream
police brutality after defecating on the bumpers of squad
cars.

Which brings us back to Obama’s disingenuous attempt
to convince people that he possesses a measure of righteousness that sets him
apart from mere mortals.

When it benefited him politically and he wanted to
paint the right as impolite, he hosted a civility conference in Tucson Arizona,
quoted Scripture, and called for a measure of tolerance he demands for himself
but is unwilling to extend to anyone else.

If Hollywood liberals promise to put cash in Obama’s
2012 campaign coffers, he casually overlooks demeaning comments directed toward
Herman Cain by asinine comedians because what would otherwise be viewed as
racially-tinged humor may instead help advance his cause.

If a group of deadbeat derelicts squat in public parks
and proceed to behave like savages, if the signs they carry support “sharing the
wealth” and condemn the wealthy, and in time for the next election hold the
promise of swaying the general public toward liberal policies, then by saying
nothing the President, America’s self-proclaimed purveyor of non-discrimination
and equal rights, is condoning rape, racism,
and barefaced anti-Semitism.

By exhibiting selective indignation and failing to
address the negative racial remarks directed at potential presidential
opponents, supporting the nationwide disgrace that is the ‘Occupy’ movement, and
choosing to associate with liberal comedians who make Herman Cain the butt of
racial jokes, President Barack Obama is proving he doesn’t understand the
responsibilities of his role, or understand his place as a
leader.

Author’s content: www.jeannie-ology.com

Is the POTUS Stirring Up a Revolution?

Is the POTUS Stirring Up a Revolution?

By Mercer
Tyson

Obama was hailed as a healing president, promising
peace and harmony.  What we have seen, however, is a president distinctively
divisive on racial issues, and instigating class warfare.  His actions are a
prescription for a violent revolution.

During his campaign Obama gave the highly acclaimed
speech on race (excerpt):

“Throughout the first year of this campaign, against
all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for
this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a
purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the
whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate
Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white
Americans.”

My, how things have changed; and it didn’t take long.
Shortly after Obama took office there was Obama’s reaction to the
incident
involving Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the Cambridge Police
Department: “President Obama said that police in Cambridge, Massachusetts,
‘acted stupidly’ in arresting a prominent black Harvard professor last week
after a confrontation at the man’s home.”  He never should have stuck his nose
into this.  And if he were going to say something, he should have understood the
situation prior to butting in.  Instead, he routinely took the professor’s side,
showing his real and sincere bias, and managing to anger folks on both sides of
the debate.

More recently the POTUS told a
group of Hispanics, “And if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying,
we’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends…”  Punish?
Enemies?  Not exactly harmonious, peace-inspiring words.

Then in his speech
before the Congressional Black Caucus he said, “I expect all of you to march
with me and press on. Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching
shoes.”

And let’s not forget the work of Eric Holder when his
Justice Department went easy in a Philadelphia voting rights case against
members of the New Black Panther Party because they are African
American.

This is our post-racial president.

And then there’s the class warfare.

In 2008, then-candidate Obama’s remarks in his
interview
with Charles Gibson should have been a clue.  When Gibson pointed out that
recently when tax rates were increased government revenues decreased and when
tax rates decreased revenues increased, Obama replied “Well, Charlie, what I’ve
said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of
fairness.”
  He has accusingly said ad nauseam that wealthy Americans should
pay their “fair share,” which means that no matter how much they are paying,
they should pay more.

Mr. Obama’s repetitive attacks on the wealthy have led
to growing divisions between them and the less fortunate, such as the current
Occupy Wall Street protestors who
“want to see the rich pay a fair share of their profits in wages, wealth and
income in taxes…”  When asked about the protestors, Obama replied: “”I think
it expresses the frustrations that the American people feel.”

Usage of words such as greed, selfish, and mean, while
always a part of the liberal description of Republicans, has escalated more in
recent years.

While most pundits seem to think of this as just
another chapter in American politics, albeit somewhat intense, I’m less blasé
about it.  I see this as a potential beginning of serious violence in our
streets and neighborhoods.  At worst, problems could escalate to a point
requiring national action — possibly a declaration of a state of emergency with
military involvement.  Is it possible we could have martial law imposed on us
around next November, and, coincidentally, have the elections postponed?  Not
likely, but possible.

More certain, however, is the extended racial and
class tension that will exist for decades.  While I never expected racism to go
away completely, racial harmony in this country has been gaining momentum and
is, essentially, more of a problem to the left-wing media and certain
race-baiting politicos than to folks on the ground.  I’m afraid the actions of
this administration may reverse the positive course that people of all races
have worked so hard to establish.  Barack Obama has done his best to delay
racial harmony.

And class warfare?  The vociferous screams from the
left have prompted normally silent, tax-paying Americans to denigrate those who
don’t pay taxes: adding their voices to the argument and elevating
hostilities.

I don’t generally subscribe to conspiracy theories,
and I’m not postulating such right now.  However, you have to wonder, given Rahm
Emanuel’s remarks at
the beginning of Obama’s administration: “You never want a serious crisis to go
to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you
could not do before.”  Do what? Fully implement socialism?  Create a
fascist-left country?  Simply elevate the problems with our economy and
instigate tension between the people, and you have the perfect storm for such a
scenario.  Even if this isn’t being done by design, it could happen
anyway.

This is one reason why so many on the right believe it
is absolutely critical that we remove Mr. Obama from office in 2012.   A GOP
president will certainly stir up anxiety on the left, and the cries of foul play
that existed during George Bush’s administration will resume.

Certainly a Republican will not be able to do much to
mend recent wounds.  But the GOP is never as hostile in its criticism of the
left, and the dissention will slow down and possibly stop.  Maybe after a few
years and if the economy improves progress in this area will again move
forward.

And yes, while there are not many high-profile,
moderate Dems, a more moderate and sensible Democrat could lessen the problem as
well.  However, it is highly unlikely that any Democrat (even Hillary) will
challenge Obama for the Democratic nomination.  And if one did, of course,
additional hostilities would generate from that.

Thanks to Barack Obama (with help from the media and
left-wing pundits) hostility in America is a high as I can recall, and close to
a breaking point.  With regard to this situation, the 2012 election represent a
break even or lose situation.  If Obama wins, we lose.  If any Republican wins,
we break even.

State Department purchases thousands of copies of Obama’s book

State Department purchases thousands of copies of Obama’s book

Rick Moran

Our literary president apparently has
a new book agent; the US State Department.

Washington
Times:

The State Department has bought more
than $70,000 worth of books authored by President Obama, sending out copies as
Christmas gratuities and stocking “key libraries” around the world with “Dreams
From My Father” more than a decade after its release.

The U.S. Embassy in Egypt, for
instance, spent $28,636 in August 2009 for copies of Mr. Obama’s best-selling
1995 memoir. Six weeks earlier, the embassy had placed another order for the
same book for more than $9,000, federal purchasing records
show.

About the same time, halfway around
the world, the U.S. Embassy in South Korea had the same idea and spent more than
$6,000 for copies of “Dreams From My Father.”

One month later, the U.S. Embassy in
Jakarta, Indonesia, spent more than $3,800 for hardcover copies of the
Indonesian version of Mr. Obama’s “The Audacity of Hope,” records
show.

A review of the expenditures in a
federal database did not reveal any examples of State Department purchases of
books by former Presidents George W. Bush or Bill Clinton. The purchases of Mr.
Obama’s literary work mostly, but not always, took place in the months after Mr.
Obama captured the White House.

Leslie Paige, a spokeswoman for
Citizens Against Government Waste, a watchdog group, said if the federal
government is looking to cut costs, eliminating purchases of Mr. Obama’s books
is a good place to start.

“It’s inappropriate for U.S. taxpayer
dollars to be spent on this,” she said. “This sounds like
propaganda.”

I can just see some poor, benighted
Egyptian diplomat’s face when some State Department flunky pushes an Obama
autobiography on him. A look of horror mixed with shock, no doubt. And can you
see some very polite South Korean diplomat smiling and bowing while accepting
this “gift” and then putting it in the burn basket when he gets back to his
office?

The White House probably didn’t know
about this but still, can’t we spend our propaganda dollars a little more
wisely?

Michelle Obama: Molding America’s Children One Menu at a Time —– bureaucratic control and socialism.

Michelle Obama: Molding America’s Children One Menu at a Time

Jeannie DeAngelis

Michelle Obama, a woman who has certainly been
‘shaped’ by what the government has provided her in the way of free meals, is
now touting the benefit of having America’s children’s bodies and minds be
manipulated by people like her husband, whose ideological bent is toward
bureaucratic control and socialism.

Mouthing words of concern over the health and well
being of school children, the First Lady said “That’s why we start with kids,
right? We can affect who they will be forever.”  These are words that should
send shivers up the spine of every concerned parent in
America.

Think of it:
Michelle Obama’s goal is to infiltrate not only the bodies but also the minds of
children who are not hers so she and her ilk can “affect who they will be
forever!”

On the South Lawn, a mere stone’s throw from where the
100 x 100 ongoing construction of a secret project
that looks like an underground bunker/possible swimming pool is taking place,
Mrs. Obama recently made her ‘nudge‘-style opinions known.  The event was a reception to
honor schools that have met the goals of the US Department of Agriculture’s
Healthier US School Challenge (HUSSC), now a subsidiary of the “Let’s Move” (our
children towards the welfare rolls) initiative.

Mrs. Obama, whose daughters attend private school,
bubbled over with exuberance about the fact that the majority of American
children are in publicly-funded incubators called public schools, where liberal
teachers and policies are standing ready to restructure “habits and preferences”
in hopes of raising up a generation of proselytes.

With a concerned smile and dressed in a sleeveless
designer top, Mom Michelle disguised government control as a child-friendly
plate of crudités and hummus.

Mrs. Obama told the rapt group, “When many kids spend
half of their waking hours and get up to half their daily calories at school,
you know that with the food you serve and, more importantly, the lessons you
teach that you’re not just shaping their habits and preferences today, you’re
affecting the choices they’re going to make for the rest of their
lives.”

“At the reception, Mrs. Obama praised the 1,273
schools that have doubled the number of students eating federally subsidized
meals that fit the program’s criteria.”  The first lady seemed thrilled about
the increased additions to the entitlement rolls because, as she said, “That’s
why we start with kids, right?”

Mrs. Obama praised the Burlington Elementary School of
North Dakota, where she said the “teachers eat two USDA-approved meals a day
with the students.”

Praising those teachers who voluntarily eat “breakfast
and lunch with students every single day,” Mrs. Obama applauded the hovering
menu monitors by saying, “Now, that’s a sacrifice. You know it. That’s
love.”

According to Mrs. Obama, “the beauty is, is that
you’re not just making this generation of kids healthier, but the next
generation as well. And that is truly, truly powerful stuff.”

The First Lady reassured the teachers who’ve dedicated
themselves to supplementing indoctrination during feeding time by saying,
“You’re affecting not just how these kids feed themselves, but how they’re going
to feed their own children,” which, if all goes according to plan, the
government can also one day mold into government-controlled mechanical
drones.

The First Lady expressed joy that children “trained”
in these schools are having a beneficial effect on their families, saying,
“They’re changing the way they think about their health and they’re trickling
that information down to their families.”  Mom and Dad beware — God forbid one
of you should indulge in an unwholesome treat under the watchful eye of Junior.
Who knows, the next day, these trickle-down kids may be asked to
report aberrant
behavior to Michelle’s brigade of meal monitors.

Granted, helping kids and their families make
healthier food choices is an admirable goal on the part of the first lady.
However, a problem arises when liberals are in charge and make broad, vague
statements that seem to connect lunch and life choices.

Choices like: not worrying about birth control because
just like free lunch, free condoms are also government-funded and available at
school. How about the “right to privacy” and the choice to disregard the moral
direction of parents?  Or the message to relax because if that complimentary
condom should happen to fail, someone in the guidance office will gladly drive
any girl over the age of 11 to the nearest available abortion clinic, just as
soon as she downs that government-approved carton of low-fat milk.
Michelle
reiterated that “we” (whoever that is) “can affect who they (we know who “they”
are) will be forever.”

The whole emphasis on the government guiding food
choices is troubling, because discussion over healthy food has the potential to
be the perfect entree for liberals to commission public schools to prod,
persuade and hold sway over other areas such as faith, political affiliation,
and morality. With that in mind, Michelle Obama’s insistence on depositing
government-funded “free” food into the stomachs of America’s children, perhaps
in hopes of transporting liberal philosophy into their hearts, should alarm any
American whose child eats breakfast and lunch in a public
school.

Author’s content:
www.jeannie-ology.com

Election Fraud Watch:Did Obama Submit Phony Ballot Petitions in 2008?

Ben Johnson,The White House Watch

A former Democratic governor of Indiana says a petition to place Barack Obama
on the state ballot during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary is not
his,raising the question of voter
fraud
. Former Governor Joe Kernan,a
Democrat,replied,“No,not
at all,”when the South Bend (Indiana) Tribune asked if the
signature,which helped qualify Obama for the ballot,belonged to him.

The newspaper reports it has spoken to at least 40 other people in St. Joseph
County,Indiana,whose names erroneously appear on petitions for either Obama or
his primary opponent,Hillary Clinton.

Indiana requires
those running for statewide office to collect 4,500 signatures from registered
voters,500 from each congressional district,before their names may appear on the
ballot for voters’consideration.

Local newspapers have reported the names appear to be copied from signatures
submitted for another statewide candidate that year.

Eric Holcomb,the Republican Party chairman for the state of Indiana,has
demanded a federal investigation,asking,“How deep does this problem go?”Indiana
Democratic Party Chairman Dan Parker said he wholeheartedly concurs. “Even an
isolated instance of misconduct,by one individual among the hundreds of
volunteers working to collect signatures for the candidates,should be thoroughly
investigated,and we support such an inquiry,”he insisted.

Allegations of voter fraud continue to dog Democrats in general and Barack
Obama,in particular. Catherine Engelbrecht,a founder of the Texas-based “True
the Vote,”investigated the Texas Democratic presidential primaries in 2008 and
announced:

There was no one checking IDs,judges would vote for people that asked for
help. It was fraud,and we watched like deer in the headlights…

The first thing we started to do was look at houses with more than six voters
in them [a common red flag for voter fraud]…Vacant lots had several voters
registered on them. An eight-bed halfway house had more than 40 voters
registered at its address.

Andrea “Andi”Pringle,a former aide to D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray,resigned from
her post after admitting
she fraudulently voted in the Washington,D.C.,primary,although she is registered
to vote in Montgomery County,Maryland.

Lessadolla Sowers,a member of the executive board of the Tunica
County,Mississippi,NAACP,received five years in prison for voting 10 times in
other people’s names.

But these cases are the exception. The vast majority of fraud goes unchecked.

Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler revealed
in March that 12,000 non-citizens were registered to vote in the state,and 5,000
had non-citizens voted in the 2010 election.

Election fraud has consequences. The conservative group Minnesota Majority discovered last summer that….

Read more.

Warren Buffett, the Keystone Pipeline, and Crony Capitalism

Warren Buffett, the Keystone Pipeline, and Crony Capitalism

By Joe
Herring

A decades-long crusade by the environmental left to
convince us that oil is evil, unsustainable, and destroying our planet has yet
to accomplish its goal of eliminating oil as a fuel, but it has succeeded in
making oil damned expensive.  However, new technologies for the extraction and
transport of previously unrecoverable oil promise to reverse that
trend.

One such project is the TransCanada Keystone XL
pipeline, which will transport bitumen from the oil sands of Alberta to the
refineries and ports along the Gulf coast.  It will also feature a spur that
will pick up oil from the vast Bakken oil formation in North Dakota.  The
benefit to our economy and energy security is obvious.

I live in Nebraska, one of the states that will be
host to a segment of the pipeline. We have witnessed a remarkably contentious
debate locally regarding the construction of the Keystone XL, revealing some
rather disturbing attitudes regarding truth and its role in public discourse.  I
suppose it was naïve to think that the wild-eyed excesses of the radical leftist
environmental movement would find little purchase in the commonsense plains of
Nebraska, but the insupportable claims and charges being tossed about by the
anti-pipeline crowd have proven that green insanity can take root even in our
generally sensible state.

The opposition, led most loudly by a group called BOLD
Nebraska, claims a catastrophic risk of contamination to the Ogallala aquifer
should the pipeline suffer a breach.  The aquifer underlies virtually all of
Nebraska, and several other states, and supplies drinking water and irrigation
to millions of people.  It is understandable that reasonable people would
express concern over potential hazards to such a valuable resource, and it is
this reasonable concern that BOLD Nebraska is exploiting with a combination of
half-truths, innuendo, and outright lies.

As required by law, an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) has been prepared for this project.  The science reflected in the
statement is sound, and it illustrates a comprehensive examination of the
project’s effects, likely risks, and reasonable alternatives.  The EIS arrives
at a conclusion supported by recognized scientific method and was conducted by
top experts in their fields.  The proposed route for the Keystone XL pipeline
is, in fact, the safest of the available routes.

The reality of the geology and hydrology underlying
the proposed pipeline route precludes any wholesale contamination of the
aquifer.  To understand why, it is important to understand what an aquifer is –
and what it isn’t.  It is a geological formation that is structured in
such a way as to hold water in quantity.  It is not an “underground
lake.”  It is a vast filter system consisting of layer upon layer of sedimentary
rock, silt, clay, and sand that in Nebraska lies much closer to the surface on
the western portion of the aquifer than on the eastern
portion.

For this reason, the water flow within the aquifer is
easterly, making it a physical impossibility for any oil leaked along the
proposed route to flow “uphill” to the 75%-80% of the aquifer that lies to the
west of the pipeline.  Additionally, both the oil and the chemical additives
that make it easier to pump are lighter than water and would not emulsify.
Leaked oil will simply migrate toward the nearest substrate, remaining
localized.

This is according to Professor James Goeke, a
hydro-geologist who retired from the University of Nebraska earlier this year
after a forty-year career of studying the Ogallala aquifer and the Sand Hills
region that overlies it.  He is the foremost expert on the aquifer,
and he informs us that the geological structure of the formation precludes any
possibility that oil could travel for more than a few hundred feet in any
direction before encountering substrate.  Quite simply, the aquifer and the land
above it are not in any real danger from this project.

Given that the science clearly shows the that pipeline
opposition is persisting in perpetuating a demonstrable falsehood, it is
reasonable to question the opposition’s motives.  According to their own website
postings and
editorializing in
newspapers across the nation, their ultimate aim is not to reroute the pipeline,
but rather to halt its construction now and forever.  The thinking is, if the
pipeline is halted, then the oil will stay in the ground, thereby protecting the
earth from the ravages of such a “filthy fuel.”  Their tactic is to suggest a
simple rerouting around the aquifer for the sake of safety.

The environmentalists well know that changing the
route at this stage will result in the invalidation of the existing EIS (the
real aim of the protests), thereby creating a need to begin the entire process
anew.  This time, leftists are confident that they will be able to demagogue and
politicize that process sufficiently to preclude another approval, resulting in
the exercise of a “green veto” despite the clear conclusions of sound
science.

So what happens if the pipeline is never built?  Well,
to fully explore that, it is instructive to look at the players in this game.
One can find the usual suspects among the hysterical left: Hollywood
environmentalists such as Daryl Hannah and progressive agenda-driven scientists
like global-warming alarmist James Hansen of NASA.  These, however, are merely
the “useful idiots” in the process, and not the actual players.  I mentioned
BOLD Nebraska earlier.  This group is funded almost entirely by Dick Holland,
who has been a close friend and business associate of Warren Buffett since the
1960s.

Holland was an original investor in Buffett’s
Berkshire Hathaway, and the two have remained close friends ever since.  Buffett
and Holland also share a similar political philosophy, both being liberal
Democrats, with Holland giving exclusively to the Democratic Party.  So why does
this matter?  It potentially answers a few questions about the recent behavior
of Buffett and Obama, and perhaps the real reason behind the Nebraska-centric
animus toward the pipeline.

A year after the election of Obama, Warren Buffett
bought a giant railroad, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe.
The BNSF has more than 32,000 miles of track and
right-of-way in this nation, running from the west coast and through the
agricultural heartland of America.  It is also hauls coal from the mines in
Montana and Wyoming and is the railroad with the best existing north-south
infrastructure.  In fact, it’s quite well-situated to perform precisely the task
for which TransCanada has proposed to build a pipeline.

Should the pipeline fail, the oil will still be
extracted, but it will then
be transported by rail
,
and Mr. Buffett, thanks to the efforts of his friend Mr. Holland, will be
uniquely situated to derive a fortune from that business, as well as enhance the
value of his holdings in Conoco-Phillips petroleum.  Is it possible that Warren
Buffett’s assistance to Obama in both policy and public relations lately may be
his way of trying to tip the regulatory scales in his favor?  After all, nothing
says “I love you” to a Democrat better than a public plea for more
taxes.

In any case, the opposition to the pipeline is not
only tainted, but intellectually and scientifically bankrupt.  BOLD Nebraska are
correct when they screech that there is an agenda being served here, but it is
not big oil, environmentalism, or even green energy; it appears to be
garden-variety crony capitalism, an Obama administration
specialty.

The author writes from Omaha, NE and welcomes comments
at his website http://www.readmorejoe.com

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers