RANDOM SHOTS - Obama Finds Out Al Qaeda Not Dead, Guns Sales Explode As Election Nears, Obama Wants Federal Holiday For Prophet Mohammed, and More!

FIRST SHOT!

Obama Finds Out Al Qaeda Not Dead! 

Republican lawmakers are saying, "We have not been told the truth about Libya."

Obama and Biden are finding out that the terrorist must have been watching them celebrate their demise at the Democrat Convention. And now, well now their message for Obama and America is that they ain't dead yet.

Yesterday Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the deadly consulate attack in Libya involved the Al Qaeda affiliate in North Africa, going further than any other Obama administration official in acknowledging the assault was the work of hardened terrorists.

It wasn't the first time Clinton had referred to the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, as a terrorist attack. But her reference to the group Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb was notable, especially as President Obama still has yet to publicly refer to the attack as terrorism.

Republicans have pounced on the administration's shifting explanation for the latest Sept. 11 attack, which left U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead.

The Obama administration initially described it as "spontaneous" violence, certain that it was related to protests against an anti-Islam film produced in the U.S., but the administration has had to eat crow while acknowledging that the attack was in fact an act of terror.

It was nice to hear that the White House said Obama, too,considers the deadly assault an act of terror.

The White House acknowledgement came after Republican Mitt Romney accused Obama of failing to "level with the American people" about the nature of the attack.

Obama has declined several chances to call the incident a terrorist attack. He said last week that extremists used an anti-Islam video as an excuse to assault U.S. interests, and in an interview this week on ABC's "The View," he would only say that it clearly "wasn't just a mob action."

For some very odd reason, Barack Obama keeps making excuses for the Muslim terrorists who killed 4 Americans. Even at the UN, Obama still focused his speech on a little known cheaply put together YouTube video - blaming it for the violence in the Muslim world.
On Capitol Hill, eight Republicans who head House committees sent a letter to Obama saying they were disturbed by statements from administration officials suggesting that the attack was a protest gone wrong rather than a terrorist attack.

They said they would be willing to return to Washington from Congress' nearly two-month recess if the administration scheduled another briefing on Libya.

No word if that is going to happen, Obama has other more important priorities as a Campaigner for re-election.  Obama's actions have signified by his actions that he does not find national security or the economy important enough to stop attending fund raisers.

Late Edit:

No threat assessment in Benghazi consulate prior to Ambassador's arrival, source says


Today, September 28, 2012

So Republicans are challenging the Obama administration description of the Libyan consulate attack, but that is expected as they look into what really did in fact take place.

But now there is bigger news, an intelligence source on the ground in Libya told Fox News today that no threat assessment was conducted before U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team began "taking up residence" at the Benghazi compound - describing the security lapses as a "total failure."

This is incredible on the face of it. This means the Obama administration felt that terrorism in the region is not a concern and susequently decided to hang our people out there like lambs to a slaughter.

This claim comes more than two weeks after Stevens and three other Americans were killed in what is now being described officially as a terror attack possibly tied to Al Qaeda.

But it doesn't stop with there!

The source told Fox News that there were no real security equipment installed in the villas on the compound except for a few video cameras.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the worst, the intelligence source said the security lapses were a 10 - a "total failure" because Benghazi was known to be a major area for extremist activity.

Fact is that there had been four attacks or attempted attacks on diplomatic and western targets leading up to the Sept. 11 strike on the U.S. Consulate.

Based on that information, a former regional security officer for diplomatic security told Fox News, the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi had to have been classified or assessed by the State Department as a "critical threat terrorism or civil unrest posting."

State Department standards for diplomatic missions overseas dictate physical security standards for this classification.

There are two sets - classified and unclassified requirements. The unclassified standards include a 100-foot setback for the buildings from the exterior walls which should be three meters high, in addition to reinforced ballistic doors and windows which can withstand an hour of sustained assault.

None were present to protect our people! Looking at the video and photos, anyone can see that none of those security measures were in place at the consulate.

The former regional security officer, who has worked in the Middle East, told Fox News that the standards are designed to give an ambassador, his or her team and diplomatic security that "golden hour" to burn classified dockets and call in military help for an emergency evacuation.

They had zero time!

The mounting questions regarding security at the compound prompted all members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday to write to the State Department asking for additional details about security at U.S. diplomatic posts and for a fuller explanation of the attacks on U.S. compounds in Libya, Egypt and Yemen.

Lawmakers have raised concern about the administration's changing story.

First the Obama White House described the attack as a "spontaneous" assault triggered by protests in Cairo over some goofy an anti-Islam film - which now we're finding out was the start of a cover-up for their dropping the ball.

Then the Obama administration later described the attack as terrorism after being outed. 

And now, now we're finding out that besides nothing being done to prepare for any sort of attack on the anniversary of 9/11, other breaches of security took place.

Among them, we are finding out that the idiots in the White House have taken the terror threat so lightly that they ignored intelligence officials who knew that a terror attack within 24 hours.  And now, now we find out that neither a basic foundamental security assessment of the situation was not done - along with having absolutely no physical security measures in place to protect our people there.

That, my friends, means that the Obama people literally stake them out like lambs for the slaughter. And yes, now I truly see why Stevens own journal says that he was concerned about being killed there.

But hey, don't expect to find any information about any of what one Republican lawmaker is calling "Benghazi-gate" in the liberal media. The media is running cover for Obama by not reporting any of this.

Fact is that both the public and Congress were lied to. It was a cover-up at the highest levels of our government. It was started for self-serving political reasons, and this needs to be investigated. 


SECOND SHOT!

Gun Sales Soar As Election Nears!

Sales of handguns and ammunition are booming across the country, and retailers say it’s all about the November election.

Gun shop owners around the nation says sales have been good ever since President Obama was elected, but they have exploded in recent months.

Manufacturers are having so much trouble keeping up with the demand that one, Sturm, Ruger & Co., can’t keep up with demand. The Southport, Conn.-based company has had to suspend new orders after taking orders for more than 1 Million guns in the first three months of the year. Smith & Wesson sales are way up as well.

Back in March of this years, Mike Weeks, owner of Georgia Gun Store in Gainesville told Fox News, "Sales usually increase this time of year with tax returns, but this year has been higher than most. People are scared their gun rights are going to be curtailed after the election."

Weeks said his sales were up around 30% in March.

It's All About Fear and Obama!

Industry experts and gun shop owners alike say the factor driving gun sales is the Nov. 6 election. There was a similar spike before President Obama was elected to his first term, and many gun buyers are saying they fear Obama’s re-election could mean more regulations on firearms.

Obama famously told fundraisers in 2008 that many Americans “cling to guns or religion,” and gun owners believe he does not respect the Second Amendment.

A lot of people are worried that their votes won't count and that Obama will be elected to a second term. Many feel that that is when Obama will wage a war on their gun rights. And yes, they are stocking up.

Where usually people would buy three or four boxes for target practice, these days they are buying by the case.

One reason for the spike in sales is that they’re also worried that the economy is not getting any better and that they need to protect themselves.

In 2009, gun sales had shot up after Obama took office and firearm enthusiasts rushed to stores, fearing he would tighten gun control. Sales have continued to grow throughout his administration.

This year’s uptick comes on top of a record 2011, when nearly 11 million firearms were sold in the U.S., according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry.

The group notes the $4 Billion firearms business has bucked the weak economy, with robust sales since 2008.

One of the best indicators of firearms sales is the FBI's National Instant Background Check System, which federally licensed firearm retailers use to conduct the mandatory background check on purchasers of new and used firearms.

Statistics through December showed an unprecedented 19th straight month of background check increases when tabulated year over year. "Black Friday," Nov. 25, 2011, saw a record for the most background checks in a single day --129,166.

Another strong indicator comes from Wall Street. In March, Smith& Wesson shares are up a whopping 125 percent over the past year, while Sturm, Ruger’s are up about 112 percent. Even Taser, which makes non-lethal weapons, has seen its sales surge.

In April, shares of firearms maker Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. hit a new 52-week high.

Sales of tactical rifles have been extremely strong, as well as personal defense handguns which have had a steady rise since 2008. The kind of stuff that fits in the waistband for when someone tries to rob you.

My fear is that the Obama administration will try to tamper with the Second Amendment during his next term. And yes, like others, I am buying guns and ammo just in case he does.

THIRD SHOT!

Red States' Income Growing Faster Than Blue States'

An article in the USA TODAY reported that income is growing much faster in Republican-leaning "red states" than in Democratic-tilting "blue states" or the pivotal swing states that will decide the 2012 presidential election.

Personal income in 23 red states has risen 4.6% since the recession began in December 2007, after adjusting for inflation.

Income is up just 0.5% in 15 blue states and Washington, D.C., during that time.

In the dozen swing states identified by USA TODAY that could vote either way Nov. 6, income has inched ahead 1.4% in 4 ½ years.

The big drivers of red state income growth: energy and government benefit payments such as food stamps.

By contrast, Democrat blue states such Connecticut, dependent on the financial industry, suffered the largest income drop except swing-state Nevada. Yet Connecticut residents still make $10,000 a year more on average than people in fast-growing North Dakota.

When averaged nationally, the robust gains in red states and meager gains in blue states produced a national growth rate remarkably similar to that in the swing states.

USA TODAY analyzed income data released this week by the Bureau of Economic Analysis to compare how red, blue and swing states have fared through June 30.

The difference in income gains is partly because blue states are richer and more populated than red states — 42% of the nation's income vs. 30% in red states. Also, the economic recovery since the recession officially ended in June 2009 has been distributed unequally around the country.

North Dakota, a red state, tops the nation in income growth thanks to an oil boom. Other major energy states — Alaska, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas — are solidly Republican, polls show. Poor, southern red states depend heavily on government transfers for income and benefited from increases in Medicaid and other federal programs.

The 12 swing states are diverse, but combined, they are remarkably average. Annual income per person is closer to the U.S. average than that in red or blue states. Last year, income rose 1.5% in swing states and 1.6% in the USA. Since Obama took office, income growth is up 1.9% in swing states and 2.0% in the USA.

Michael Ettinger of the liberal Center for American Progress, says, "Polls show more people blame former president Bush for a recovery that hasn't been satisfying and Mitt Romney is very Bush-esque."

Jonathan Williams at the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council says income growth in red states shows that low taxes and business-friendly regulation produce economic growth.

Columbia University statistician Andrew Gelman, author of Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State, says local conditions matter less than people think. "People vote based on what they think is good for the country, not what's good for themselves."

Key swing state findings:

•Declines. Four of the 10 slowest growing are swing states: New Hampshire, Michigan, Florida and Nevada. The Silver State's income plunge is in a class of its own, down 10.8% because of its real estate collapse.

•Gains. Eight of the top 10 states in income growth lean Republican.

•Working. Compensation has fallen 2.1% in swing states and 1.8% in blue states since December 2007. It's up 1.7% in red states. Keeping income afloat everywhere: a 25% increase in government payments nationwide.


FOURTH SHOT!

Obama Wants A Gun Buy Back Program From Mexican Drug Cartels

I've received word that supposedly the Obama administration is working to do a Gun Buy Back Program with the Mexican Drug Cartels.

The Cartels were the recipients of over 2,000 assault weapons when Eric Holder and others in the Justice Department allowed those 2,000 guns to be smuggled into Mexico.

The guns have been used in hundreds of murders, including the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Of the Obama administration people involved in the gun smuggling, none have been prosecuted for these deaths.

Now Obama wants to end the investigation into the gun running DOJ operation known as Fast & Furious by buying back the guns from the murderers who have been using them. The idea being floated is that if he gets the guns back, than nothing more can be said or done about the matter.

The Cartels have already been contacted and want $1.2 Billion from the United States to buy back the guns.

The funds are said to be authorized under the ObamaCare as a health risk. It appears that funds allocated for health services can be used for Gun Buy Back Programs.

I have not been able to verify this, but I wouldn't but it pass this administration.

FIFTH SHOT!

Obama Supports Effort To Make The Prophet Mohammad’s Birthday A Federal Holiday

An American Muslim Imam in New York has been campaigning to make April 26, the birthday of the Prophet Mohammad, a national holiday.

Now Obama is said to be on board with the idea.

Supposedly, the reason Obama is supporting this legalization of Mohammad's Birthday is to once and for all demonstrate to Muslims in the Middle-East that he sympathizes with them and that America is not a Christian Country.

It is being bantered about that Obama will finally come out of the closet and admit to being a practicing Muslim. Something he supposedly did not want to admit to until well after he is elected to a second term.

Mohd Qayyoom, head of the Muhammadi Community Center, at 37-46 72nd St., said he believes having a national celebration for the prophet’s birthday would enable the growing Muslim population in America to have an annual celebration and would foster a spirit of cooperation with those of other faiths.

“We’ll give the message of peace, we’ll give the message of interfaith harmony,” Qayyoom said.

Since the Islamic calendar is lunar, Muslim holidays are never held at the same time in the Gregorian calendar, which is solar-based. Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting, can be held in the summer one year but take place in the winter years later.

When the Prophet Mohammad’s birthday should be celebrated in the Islamic calendar differs depending on the denomination. Sunni Muslims observe the holiday on the 12th of the Islamic month Rabi’ al-awwal, while Shi’ites observe it on the 17th.

Unlike many Muslims, one of Qayyoom’s primary focus has been fighting and speaking out against terrorism.

He said if Muslims have a holiday when they can hold parades and games every year and their non-Muslim neighbors can celebrate, it can bring an understanding between the peoples.

“Prophet Muhammad said, ‘I am not the prophet of only Muslims. I am the prophet of all human beings,’” he said.

Since the historical birthday of Mohammad is April 26, 570. Qayyoom said holding a national celebration on that day will allow American Muslims to celebrate at the same time every year.

"We want one day, an annual holiday like Christmas,” he said.

President Obama is said to be in favor of enacting that date as a federal holiday and may do so by Executive Order after being re-elected.

We can only wait and see if it happens.

SIXTH SHOT!

According to New Book: Taxpayers Spent $1.4 Billion On Obama Family Last Year

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, that's according to a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.

In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.

Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.

Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”

“The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election,” Gray, who worked in the Eisenhower administration and for other Republican presidents, said in an interview with TheDC on Wednesday.

“The press has been so slow in picking up on this extraordinary increase in the president’s expenses,” Gray told TheDC.

Specifically, Gray said taxpayer dollars are subsidizing Obama’s re-election effort when he uses Air Force One to jet across the country campaigning.

When the trip is deemed political, it’s customary for the president to pay the equivalent of a first class commercial ticket for certain passengers. But Gray says that hardly covers the taxpayer cost of flying the president and his staffers around on Air Force One.

“When the United States’ billion-dollar air armada is being used politically, is it fair to taxpayers that we only be reimbursed by the president’s campaign committee for the value of one first-class commercial ticket for each passenger who is deemed aboard ‘for political purposes?’” Gray asks in the book.

“And is that bargain-price advantage fair to those opposing an incumbent president?”

In his book, Gray admits Americans want their president to be safe and comfortable but argues the system should be reformed to stop the amount of unquestioned perks given to the president.

“There is no mechanism for anyone’s objection if a president were to pay his chief of staff $5,000,000 a year,” he told TheDC. “And nothing but a president’s conscience can dissuade him from buying his own reelection with use of some public money.”

Aside from a salary, the president gets a $50,000 a year expense account, a $100,000 travel account, $19,000 entertainment budget and an additional million for “unanticipated needs,” he notes.

Here is a sample of other pricey taxpayer funded perks exclusively reserved for the President of the United States.

The president can to appoint high-paid staffers without Senate confirmation: Obama has 469 senior staffers and 226 are paid more than $100,000 a year, according to the book. Seventy-seven are paid as much as $172,000 per year. He also has appointed 43 “czars.”

The president can vacation for free at Camp David: Gray writes that each round trip made to Camp David costs the taxpayers $25,350. It’s also estimated that the combined transportation and personnel costs for a Camp David visit are $295,000 per night.

The president has a full-time movie projectionist in the White House theater: Projectionists sleep at the White House and are there 24 hours a day in case anyone needs to see a movie. “Compared to the 450 times President Carter used the movie theater in his four years in the White House, the average American citizen, according to industry statistics, goes out to see a movie slightly less than five times a year,” Gray writes.

The president’s family’s gets certain travel and security expenses paid while vacationing: “First Lady Michelle Obama drew flack from the media and irate citizens when it was disclosed that, not counting Saturdays and Sundays, she spent 42 days on vacation — within the span of one year.”

The president’s dog gets its own high-paid staffer: “Bo made the news when he and his handler were flown to join the president on vacation in Maine,” Gray wrote about the Obama family dog. “It has been reported that the first family’s dog handler was paid $102,000, last year.”

Is it no wonder that Obama wants to keep his day job while he works with Letterman at night.

Story by Tom Correa

RANDOM SHOTS - Californians Escape California, Pastors Pledge To Defy Obama's IRS, Hollywood's Queer Democrats, And More!

FIRST SHOT!

Californians Escaping California For Citizen Friendly States

A report out yesterday talked about a study that was conducted recently. Its findings: Californians are fleeing in droves to live in better-managed states. This is according to The Manhattan Institute research group.

The long-running exodus from cash-strapped citizen unfriendly California is an old story, but a new study by The Manhattan Institute finds that the biggest beneficiaries of the population drain are Texas, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Idaho, Utah, Georgia and South Carolina.

The reasons folks are leaving are a few: Lower cost of living, less government debt, and a more business-friendly culture are the main drivers, according to the study.

"States that have gained the most at California’s expense are rated as having better business climates," the study concluded.

"The data suggest that many cost drivers - taxes, regulations, the high price of housing and commercial real estate, costly electricity, Union power, and high labor costs - are prompting businesses to locate outside California, thus helping to drive the mass exodus."

Census data shows that more Americans have left California since 2005 than have come to live in here. The finding is a sharp contrast to earlier decades. Between 1960 and 1990, a staggering 4.2 Million Americans moved to California from other states.

The report found that since 1990, the state has lost nearly 3.4 Million residents through migration to other states, like Texas, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Idaho, Utah, Georgia and South Carolina.

The average number of residents leaving the state of California each year over the last decade is 225,000, the report found.

"States that have gained the most at California’s expense are rated as having better business climates."
- Manhattan Institute study

There are many reasons for the exodus, including economic hardship and population density, according to the study, titled "The Great California Exodus: A Closer Look."

Many people are driven out of California in search of work in other states with lower unemployment rates, like say Texas and North Dakota.

The data also found high housing prices and high business taxes in the state to be factors. And no, the state government is not helping matters by trying to impose more taxes on an already tax strapped population.

The U.S. Census reported last year that residents of California are fleeing the state at a faster rate than people leaving any other state. The most common state-to-state move in 2010 was California to Texas, according to the Census.

A study earlier this year by the University of Southern California found that California's population growth has slowed to about 1 percent annually, mainly due to fewer immigrants and an increasing number of Californians heading to other states.

Demographer Joel Kotkin told The Wall Street Journal that a major problem is that parts of California are simply out of reach for the Middle-Class.

"Basically, if you don’t own a piece of Facebook or Google and you haven’t robbed a bank and don't have rich parents, then your chances of being able to buy a house or raise a family in the Bay Area or in most of coastal California is pretty weak," Kotkin told the paper.

He added that in his estimation, the state is run for the benefit of the very rich, the very poor, and public employees.

The Manhattan Institute says it based its findings on recent data from the U.S. Census, the IRS, California’s Department of Finance, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

There is only one thing to add to this report that really should be noted.

For you folks in other states, don't let escaping Californians turn your state into the place they left! 

What am I talking about? Well, back in the early 1990s, I was in and out of Washington state for work fairly regularly. At the time, there was a problem with a growing resentment to people from California who were moving there - especially to the Seattle-Tacoma area.

While there on one particular job, I got an earful from guys there who were angry because Californians were moving up there after selling their expensive homes in places like San Jose. From those sales, those California refugees brought lots of cash - and soon the area had an inflated housing market no different than San Jose.

It got so bad that the Seattle-Tacoma housing market was such that locals could not afford to live there.

But then, to add insult to injury, those same Californians who wanted to get away from California decided to get on the School Boards and Local Government.

Before the locals knew it, those Californians were telling the locals how to run their schools. And yes, in many cases they were also running the local government by being on the different boards and committees.
Basically, those Californians tried to liberalize and "Californicate" the sate of Washington by trying to turn it into the very place they escaped from.

So my advice is to beware of those coming in. But remember this, its not all Californians.

Its the liberal Californians to be weary of. They screwed up California, now they are moving on. And yes, those are the ones who will certainly try to change your way of life.

And yes, liberal Californians are notorious for thinking they know what's good for others. So be aware!

Get involved and don't hand over your city, or your community, or your state government to liberals coming in from California.

If they turn your state into California, you'll be in the same lousy position we here in California are in right now. You could end up being just another California with government over-regulation, out of sight taxes, and criminals with more rights than citizens.

SECOND SHOT!

Pastors Pledge To Defy IRS - Preach Politics From Pulpit Ahead Of Presidential Election

Some pastors believe they have a First Amendment right to preach politics. It appears that the Obama White House may be using the IRS to put pressure on Pastors to shut up or be investigated.

More than 1,000 pastors are planning to challenge the IRS next month by deliberately preaching politics ahead of the presidential election despite a federal ban on endorsements from the pulpit.

The defiant move, they hope, will prompt the IRS to enforce a 1954 tax code amendment that prohibits tax-exempt organizations, such as churches, from making political endorsements. Alliance Defending Freedom, which is holding the October summit, said it wants the IRS to press the matter so it can be decided in court. The group believes the law violates the First Amendment by “muzzling” preachers.

“The purpose is to make sure that the pastor - and not the IRS - decides what is said from the pulpit."
- Erik Stanley, Alliance Defending Freedom

“The purpose is to make sure that the pastor -- and not the IRS -- decides what is said from the pulpit,” Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the group, told Fox News. “It is a head-on constitutional challenge.”

Stanley said pastors attending the Oct. 7 “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” will “preach sermons that will talk about the candidates running for office” and then “make a specific recommendation.” The sermons will be recorded and sent to the IRS.

“We’re hoping the IRS will respond by doing what they have threatened,” he said. “We have to wait for it to be applied to a particular church or pastor so that we can challenge it in court. We don’t think it’s going to take long for a judge to strike this down as unconstitutional.”

An amendment was made to the IRS tax code in 1954, stating that tax-exempt organizations are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”

“Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax,” the IRS says in its online guide for churches and religious organizations seeking tax exemption.

The Obama White House may be using the IRS to put pressure on Pastors to shut up.

Stanley and others, like San Diego pastor Jim Garlow, say the IRS regularly threatens churches that they will lose their tax-exempt status if they preach politics. But Stanley and Garlow claim the government never acts on the threat because it wants to avoid a court battle.

“It is blatantly unconstitutional,” said Stanley. “They just prefer to put out these vague statements and regulations and enforce it through a system of intimidation … Pastors are afraid to address anything political from the pulpit.”

“The IRS will send out notices from time to time and say you crossed the line,” added Garlow, a senior pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego. “But when it’s time to go to court, they close the case.”

Garlow and other pastors say their concerns over the code extend well beyond the law.

“I’m very concerned about the spiritual side of this,” Garlow told FoxNews.com. “There’s a phenomenon occurring in America and that’s a loss of religious liberty.”

“If I would have said 50 years that ‘Tearing up a baby in the womb is a bad thing,’ people would have said ‘Of course it is,’” Garlow said. “But If I said that today, people would say ‘Pastor, you’re being too political.”
THIRD SHOT!

White House Can't Answer Why Obama's UN Itinerary Doesn't Include Meetings With World Leaders

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney faced pressure to explain Monday why President Obama has made no public plans to meet one on one with world leaders on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly.

Asked repeatedly at the briefing about the president's plans, Carney said that Obama likely would run into foreign leaders at a reception Monday evening and continues to stay in contact with them. He urged Americans to tune in to the president's U.N. speech on Tuesday.

"The president's obviously got a busy schedule. He has a busy schedule all the time," Carney said at one point.

But Carney did not appear to give a direct answer when asked why Obama was able to fit in 13 one-on-one meetings on the sidelines of last year's summit and none this year.

Instead of doing his job as our President, Obama had Hillary Clinton meet with world leaders while he and first lady Michelle Obama sat down Monday for a taping of ABC's "The View."

Why Can't Obama The Job Of President?

He is putting the election campaign above such issues as Iran's quest for nuclear capability and the violent, deadly protests in the Middle East and North Africa.

And yes, there is a wave of criticism about Obama allegedly putting his election efforts first began earlier this month with news that the White House had declined a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu because the president would be on the campaign trail.

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has repeatedly accused Obama of "throwing Israel under the bus" and most recently said the president's decision not to meet with Netanyahu was "confusing and troubling."

Romney backed up his comments Sunday by saying that declining the meeting was a "mistake" - as Netanyahu looks to the United States for assurance that it will stand tough or draw a "red line" that Iran cannot cross in its efforts to build a nuclear weapon.

"It sends a message throughout the Middle East that somehow we distance ourselves from our friends," Romney said in a CBS "60 Minutes" interview.

FOURTH SHOT

Union hypocrisy?

Labor Union pickets fellow Union’s construction project

Members of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades have started to picket in front of the construction site of a new Credit Union banking location in Pittston, PA that is using non-union labor.

A Pennsylvania construction local has found an unlikely target for its latest picket - a Credit Union run by a fellow local.

The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT) was carrying signs and chanting slogans in front of the future site of the United Food and Commercial Workers federal credit union in downtown Pittston. They even have the ubiquitous inflatable rat, the attention-grabbing icon labor locals use to draw attention to employers who use non-union labor.

IUPAT union representative Bob Griffiths said he never expected a fellow union to bypass organized labor to save a buck. The local's members have done work at the UFCW’s three other locations in neighboring towns, and Griffiths said his own local's 260 members have banked with the UFCW's credit union. Now he's told them to take their business elsewhere.

“When we asked why they were not using union workers, they [UFCW] told us that they did not own the building,” Griffiths told FoxNews.com. “We’ve found another credit union that is all-union. We are going to recommend that our members transfer their accounts.”

Griffiths speculates that the non-union work is a cost-cutting measure and that the credit union circumvented using union work by claiming that the building, which will be a fully operational banking location, will be sold or leased to the UFCW upon completion.

“It’s about the principal, not losing the work,” he added.

Members of IUPAT intend to keep picketing while construction continues. And no, it's not good to see such things going on - before you know it Americans might have a right to work!


FIFTH SHOT!

Rep. Griffith: Obama Eroding Nation’s Economic Power

Four more years of President Barack Obama will bring a “real loss of economic power in this country,” Virginia Rep. Morgan Griffith said.

“We would see not just a few thousand layoffs, but tens of thousands of layoffs across the coal country of this nation – and then it would start to ripple out to other areas as well,” the Republican congressman, whose district includes one of the nation’s largest coal manufacturers.

“It affects the railroads. It affects the ports. We’re going to see a real loss of economic power in this country.

“Coal usage in the world is going up, and other countries are using it and other countries are digging it. We’ve actually slipped to number two in coal production. China has passed us. Why does this administration think it’s good when China passes us on something that’s as important coal or any other industry?”

Griffith is facing a challenge from Democrat Anthony Flaccavento in Virginia's 9th District. Griffith won election in 2010, defeating longtime incumbent Rick Boucher.

The district suffered a major blow this week when Alpha Natural Resources Inc. said that it would close eight mines and eliminate 1,200 jobs — including 400 immediately — in Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

The company, which cited “a regulatory environment that's aggressively aimed at constraining the use of coal” as part of its decision, is based in Abingdon, located in Griffith’s district.

“This is not the first set of job cuts that we’ve had in the coal industry,” Griffith began. “It’s certainly the largest. We were very sad to see that, but when you have all of the factors coming together, it really is going to cost a lot of jobs – and it’s not just the coal jobs themselves.

“It affects the small businesses in those communities. It affects the people who provide the equipment for the mines. We’re seeing a lot of layoffs in my district.”

The Alpha layoffs also will raise energy prices.

“Electricity will cost more. Everybody says to switch to other fuels, but the truth is even with natural gas prices going down, it will cost the utilities a lot of money to switch over to natural gas –and then, naturally, the price of natural gas is expected to go up. And when that happens, they’re not going to switch back to the more affordable coal. The consumer is the one who takes it on the chin.”

“What’s interesting is the president knows that, but he doesn’t seem to care,” Griffith observed.

He then referenced a 2008 interview in which President Barack Obama said his energy policies would make prices “skyrocket” and those costs would be passed on to consumers.

“Well, who does he think the consumer is?” the first-term representative asked.

“It’s the middle-class people of the United States of America. It’s the people who are working and struggling to make ends meet in an economy that he’s created that’s so bad that we have more than eight percent of our people not working – and those are the ones who are still looking.”

This is why Griffith backed the “Stop the War on Coal Bill,” that passed the House on Friday. The legislation seeks to ease EPA regulations on the industry.

“We’re sending the message that we want the administration to stop their War on Coal, and the people in my district – and in West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania – they all need to realize that we’re going to lose a lot of jobs because of the president and the Environmental Protection Agency.

“They’re just out there trying to put coal out of business every time they get a chance, and it’s unfortunate,” Griffith added. “There are a lot of jobs on the line.”

Its folks like Rep. Morgan Griffith who make me proud of being a Conservative and a Republican. He is fighting the good fight against Obama on behalf of blue-collar Middle-Class Americans. And yes, that says a lot about his character.

SIXTH SHOT!

Influential Democrat Editor Calls Obama Campaign "Dishonest, Divisive"

The influential Democrat editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report, Mortimer Zuckerman, called the Obama campaign "dishonest, divisive" in an article published in the online edition of the magazine.

Zuckerman wrote, "It is a dishonest, divisive campaign. It's discouraging of enterprise. It does the opposite of uniting the country to deal with the current economic crisis."

Zuckerman, who is also the publisher and owner of the New York Daily News, said that Obama’s argument on taxes "is not just about whether the super-rich should pay more," which he said he would support.

His argument is that Obama's tax plans also include Middle-Class Americans who can't afford higher taxes.

"It is about whether individuals, households, and small businesses should now be seen to cross the threshold into a plutocracy when earnings reach $250,000 a year — which buys much less in metropolitan areas than in the heartland," according to Zuckerman.

"It is outrageous to infer that aspiring to reach such a level is somehow un-American, and the Obama campaign surely must know that. Shame on them if they don't!"

Zuckerman blames "careless remarks" from Mitt Romney for allowing Obama to "get away with a program that pits 'the millionaires and billionaires' against the people."

He said that Romney’s gaffes have put his entire candidacy at risk "to the point where he may not even qualify for the dismissive equation of Barack Obama that Marco Rubio formulated for the Republican faithful: "Our problem is not that he's a bad person. Our problem is that he's a bad president."

Zuckerman said that Romney’s "47%" remarks handed the Obama campaign a new line of attack.

"Voters can forgive a candidate who stumbles in the heat of an election, trapped by ‘gotcha’ questions from journalists, being quoted out of context in cunning TV attack commercials, and in the Twitter age, failing to appreciate that nothing that is said is secret anymore," said Zuckerman.

"We all know the game, and Romney has demonstrated that he is not perfect at this game."

But despite Mitt Romney's mistakes, Zuckerman believes that the campaign can still be salvaged.

"Romney's new language talks about appealing to the 100 percent. He will be doing well to reach 50 percent," Zuckerman noted.

"But he still has a chance at reversing the weak position if he will go all out on the economy, discourage personal attacks on the president (who is well liked anyway), and always remember the injunction the British were faced with every day when World War II started, ‘Loose talk costs lives. Think before you talk.’"

It's very good advice from a Democrat, but I can't help but wonder if Obama gives a damn about what people in his own party think of him and what he's doing? I'm betting Obama doesn't care.

It seems to me that Obama and his campaign are using a scorched earth policy  that

LAST SHOT!

Hollywood Democrat Queers Jeer Republicans At Liberal Love Fest Called Emmy Night

Let's talk about being queer!

Though I really enjoyed Robert Downey Jr as Sherlock Holmes, when I think of Sherlock Holmes, the movies starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce come to mind.

Besides the suspense, the language, the British accents, were always fun to listen to. In fact, it was from those old movies that I first heard the word "Queer."

I learned from those old Holmes and Watson movies that "queer" meant strange, or not normal as in "a queer situation."  I learned that the word "queer" meant odd or strange behavior, a questionable attitude or character, suspicious actions, "very queer behavior."

Of course during college, I had a Criminal Justice teacher who would call counterfeit money - "queer notes."

Because I grew up in Hawaii in a very Blue Collar family, we referred to homosexuals as Mahus. The word mahu (mah-who) is the traditional word for a male who assumes female roles in his daily life.

I didn't hear the term "queer" to refer to homosexuals until I first arrived in California in 1972. Like many others, I remember hearing one guy call another guy "queer." It didn't make any sense right away, until later when I saw for myself that the guy labeled "queer" really did in fact act strange.

Over the years, I've referred to strange behavior as acting queer. And yes, I know real well that the homosexual community has put their copyright on the term "queer". But I don't see how they can. 

Sure I call homosexuals "queer" just as I call them "gay" and even "mahus" at times. But homosexuals aren't the only strange acting folks in the Democrat party. There's a lot of queer behavior in that party.

Queer behavior is strange behavior. Acting queer is not the norm. Having a queer attitude is not OK. And yes, people recognize queers for what they are: strange people.

The 64th Primetime Emmy Awards on Sunday night brought out droves of Hollywood's small screen "stars", if there really is such a thing.

And yes, for the most part, they are a queer lot! It was a Democrat liberal love fest, as queer as the day is long!

Host Jimmy Kimmel set the stage for every queer there. Fakes all, in a business of make believe, the telecast ended up focusing as much on their own hypocrisy as it did on Presidential Politics.  Forget the fact that they were supposedly there competing for awards for best TV shows etc etc etc, they wanted to use their time at the microphone to make their liberal politics known.

They all did the same thing, one by one, the queer group that they are, all marched to the microphone to tell their audience how they loathed Republicans, Conservatives, Middle-America, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney. And no, it doesn't matter that Sarah Palin is not running for office. They just hate her guts.

The news said that Jimmy Kimmel "peppered the show with a handful of somewhat predictable political jokes."

"Are any of you voting for Mitt Romney? Oh good, only 40 Republicans, and the rest godless liberal homosexuals... Being a Republican in Hollywood is like being a Chick-fil-A sandwich on the snack table at 'Glee," he said, throwing in a jab at Republican supporter Kelsey Grammer, and comparing the PBS series on English aristocrats "Downtown Abbey" to what life was like for Mitt Romney growing up.

Both winners and presenters, including Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Stephen Colbert and Julianne Moore, who won Outstanding Actress for her portrayal of Sarah Palin in the HBO movie "Game Change," also used their moment in the limelight to put forth their own personal political hatred for anything Conservative and Republican.

"I feel so validated since Sarah Palin gave me a big thumbs down," Moore told the audience. "Game Change" won four Emmys in total. Of course, queer Hollywood would never say how much of a flop it was.

"Game Change" director Jay Roach avoided the fact that this little film was all promotion and no audience. And of course there was no mention how the movie has been met with criticism by Sarah Palin and aids for the McCain-Palin ticket.

The "Game Change" liberals conveniently leave out how the truth was not presented in the film, or how former Alaska governor Sarah Palin called the trashy movie "Hollywood lies."

While accepting the Outstanding Movie statue on behalf of the film, of which he was credited as producer, ultra-left Tom Hanks decided to make cracks about America's Founding Fathers.

Hanks said that he wanted to thank "our Founding Fathers for the process they came up with that has provided not only us and HBO and all the comedy series here a plethora of material, seems to just go on and on."

In my opinion, Tom Hanks is a queer bird. I mean, doesn't anyone else find it queer that Tom Hanks' "plethora of material" only ridicules Conservatives and Republicans? But then again, what should I accept from a queer group as those from Hollywood.

It's no wonder very few see Hollywood in the same light as it did years ago when they were pro-American.

It's no wonder most see Tom Hanks and others as all living in some queer place that many now refer to as "Hollyweird." 

In addition to "Game Change," the other winner in the Liberal Love Fest was another politically-themed show, the national security Showtime thriller "Homeland." I know many of my readers are shocked that another hate America film would win an award, but honestly - look at those queer people who are voting.

And no, it wasn't just in front of the camera. Backstage, our so-called "stars" and wannabe important queer acting Hollyweird types got their chance to speak of their liberal political opinions. As if anyone gives a shit!

Louis-Dreyfus talked of how the current political climate influenced her role in some film that no one saw.
The creator of "Modern Family,"  Steve Levitan noted his hope for "all political candidates to support marriage equality."

Claire Danes spoke enthusiastically about President Obama's affection for her show "Homeland." Ultra-violent "Breaking Bad" lead actor winner Damian Lewis detailed his "insightful" political views on the "polarization" of the political landscape and the impact of 9/11.

Weak minds and queer behavior!

Strange, very queer indeed, but no one mentioned how Obama has done nothing to help the economy, stop the EPA's assault on farms and businesses, stop the attacks on Christians here and abroad, find the time to appear on "The View" yet not find time to meet with the Prime Minister of Israel?
It is very queer that some of those in Hollywood, did not take the time to condemn their own industry for its prolific violence and immorality, or their incessant attacks on Christianity?

Why can't ultra-left guys like Tom Hanks find the cojones to condemn Muslim violence, or the Muslim world's queer behavior like abusing their women, or even criticize Obama skipping out on his own National Security Intel Briefings?

No, not one liberal at the Democrat Love Fest got up there to use their microphone time to condemn Hollywood for advocating the use of drugs and random senseless violence.

Hollywood is a whorehouse, and most of those there that night are whores and pimps. They compromise any sort of principle for personal gain, even if that means sucking up to the political left in America.

If not, then why didn't any of those so-called "stars" and other libs care about the real problems that America is facing right now.

Why aren't these wannabe intellectuals talking about Obama spending SIX TRILLION DOLLARS in 3 years and America has nothing to show for it?

And no, I don't think giving $10 Billion to Brazil to explore for oil, or Stimulus Fund contract to China is OK? But the liberals at the Emmys must have, because after all, it wasn't mentioned at all.

Where are these liberals on Fast & Furious and how Obama's Justice Department armed the Mexican Drug Cartels with over 2,000 weapons and is directly responsible for hundreds of murders?

How come no one there talked about the National Security Intelligence leaks from the Obama White House, or the global instability brought on by a lack of leadership from the White House?

Strange isn't it that no one Hollywood liberal, including that ultra-left poster boy Tom Hanks, mentioned the rise in poverty or the huge increase in food stamps or the high number of businesses that are closing after almost 4 years of Obama?

Not one liberal at the Emmy Awards stood up and asked why Obama has given $1.5 Billion of taxpayer money to Egypt for no reason, or why Obama and Hillary Clinton attacked a YouTube film and took its director into custody? 

I would think that that would hit home? But then again, it just shows that Hollywood has no loyalty - not even to other film makers.

Instead of focusing on the real issues, Hollyweird is worried about gay marriage and pushing a liberal agenda that is against everything that most of America believes in. And yes, American ain't buying what Hollywood is selling.

Want evidence of that? Well, the politically-charged telecast - which aired on ABC - was not embraced by all those outside the Tinseltown bubble.

"If I wanted to hear vapid people talking about politics, I would read half my friends' Facebook walls," tweeted one. Another wrote that the Kimmel's political hate speech was "unnecessary."

One commented that the political chatter during an awards show was "just non-sense," and another noted that "Hollywood is delusional" in response to the proclamation by Kevin Costner that night.

In what was an unbelievable statement, Costner, who won an award for lead actor in a TV movie/miniseries for his role History's "Hatfields and McCoys," said that "everyone talks about politics, but it's so freaking hard to get films made about politics."

That was a very odd comment, an absolute queer statement to make, since several of this year's Emmys nominees from "Game Change" to "Homeland" to "Veep" to his own film were based on political themes.

Costner's comment sparked one viewer to tweet, "It is hard to make movies about politics? Then why are there 40,000,000 of them?"

Politics aside, the Emmy ceremony was widely panned by reviewers and industry watchers. TheWrap.com called it "hideous" and Kimmel's hosting performance "bad".

The Chicago Tribune referred to the show as being "far from a ringing endorsement of Hollywood's ability to produce anything but an eye-rolling awards show."

There is one thing that I find really interesting about all of their awful behavior. Its about the business end of making films.

Why would anyone selling a product, in this case wanting to get people to watch your film, go out of their way to offend as many people as possible in the process?

Why offend the vast majority of Americans outside of Hollywood if you need them as viewers?

The answer probably rests in their very strange way of thinking. It's probably the same reasoning they use when they make shows that insult most Americans, or Christians or Conservatives in general.

It most likely goes straight to their queer behavior of not caring if they make television shows that people are not going to watch. 

It's probably the same reason that Hollywood and its liberals like Tom Hanks think they can stick their finger in your eye. They figure they have a captured audience and we will watch what they put out no matter what.

But honestly, that's queer thinking on their part.

Story by Tom Correa

Stop Obama's War On Coal

The Presidency is an extremely powerful position. And like any position of power, it is a double edged sword. If used wisely it can be used to do great things to enhance the world around you.

One really good example of that was Franklin Roosevelt's Rural Electrification project.

The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 provided federal loans for the installation of electrical distribution systems to rural areas of the United States.

When the Rural Electrification Act was passed, not all Americans enjoyed the conveniences that having something like electricity brings. And though it might be hard to imagine now, there was a time when great expanses of America simply did not have even the smallest power that it took to light a 60 watt bulb.

Electricity was commonplace in cities, but it was largely unavailable in rural America. Farms and ranches, mines and lumber mills, small towns and bergs like Glencoe where I live now simply did not have electricity.

Rural America was in need, and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt saw the need.

He issued Executive Order 7037 on May 11, 1935, which established the Rural Electrification Administration.

Technically, in the 1930s, the provision of power to remote areas was not thought to be economically feasible. A 2300 volt distribution system was used in cities back then. This relatively low voltage could only be carried about 4 miles before the voltage would drop and became unacceptable.

The Rural Electrification Administration cooperatives was the economic answer answer.  Funding was channeled through cooperative electric power companies, most of which still exist today.

These member-owned cooperatives purchased power on a wholesale basis and distributed it using their own network of transmission and distribution lines.

Using a 6900 volt distribution network, which could support much longer runs up to about 40 miles, the overall system cost became manageable. That's even despite requiring more expensive transformers at each home.

Rural America was about to get light, and wiring homes and farms and ranches and everything out beyond the cities was the task at hand. Small towns were about to get electricity for the first time. That meant stores, and schools, and fire stations, and hospitals would move from the dark to the light and more.

Besides light, electrical equipment could be used in many instances for the very first time. It was a great undertaking where resolve and commitment worked hand in hand to get the job done.

Rural Electrification Administration crews travelled through the American countryside, bringing teams of electricians and workmen along with them. Many times, the Rural Electrification Administration would hire local workers hard hit by the Great Depression to work as well.

The electricians added wiring to houses and barns, mines and mills, stores and others places, all to utilize the newly available power provided by the line crews.

A standard Rural Electrification Administration installation in a house consisted of a single 60 amp, 230 volt fuse panel, with a 60 amp range circuit, a 20 amp kitchen circuit, and two or three 15 amp lighting circuits.

A ceiling-mounted light fixture was installed in each room, usually controlled by a single switch mounted near a door. At most, one outlet was installed per room. Since plug-connected appliances were expensive and uncommon, it was believed that only one electrical outlet was needed in any one room.

Wiring was performed using type NM nonmetallic sheathed cable, insulated with asbestos-reinforced rubber covered with jute and tar. Many of these installations still exist today in some of the farmhouses that dot rural America.

Back in the early 1980s, I worked with a man who was about the same age as my father. He was from Arkansas. And yes, he remembered the year that his family's home in Arkansas got it's first electric light. It was 1942, during World War II.

After coming back from the war, like many others, he added more outlets to support a greater number and variety of appliances.

Later amendments to the Rural Electrification Act included one in 1944 to make loan terms increase to 35 years. Another that same year made the act permanent. One amendment in 1949 extended the act to allow loans to telephone companies wishing to extend their connections to unconnected rural areas in the same why that electric companies did.

Yes, the Rural Electrification Act is a perfect example of a president using his powerful position to make America better than he found it. It gave light and electricity to places that had never had such a convenience, it created jobs to build the substations and plants and dams to generate the power. And yes, it enhanced America. It made America better.

On the other hand, the president can use his powerful position to stifle progress, hurt America's economy, and bring horrors unimagined by Americans who have been brought up to respect our government.

It is a tough thing see it happen, because it is really unbelievable.

I mean really, how many people would really think that the President of the United States would wage war on Americans and an industry that has created much of the power that has fueled our economy since its conception more than 200 years ago.

Coal has many important uses worldwide. The most significant uses are in electricity generation, steel production, cement manufacturing, and as a liquid fuel.

Throughout history, coal has been a useful resource. It is primarily burned for the production of electricity and for heat.

It is also used for industrial purposes such as refining metals. Without American coal, besides America's Energy Industry becoming totally reliant on other sources already stretched to their limits, America's steel manufacturers will have to buy it's coal from overseas. 

Steel is an essential material for modern life. From building highway overpasses to buildings to towers to vehicles to trains, just name it, the manufacture of steels delivers the goods and services that our societies needs. 

Global steel production is dependent on coal. It is a fact that 70% of the steel produced today uses coal.

The largest coal producing countries are not confined to one region - the top five hard coal producers are China, the USA, India, Australia and South Africa. Much of global coal production is used in the country in which it was produced; only around 15% of hard coal production is destined for the international coal market.

Besides steel production, coal is the largest source of energy for the generation of electricity worldwide

Coal is primarily used as a solid fuel to produce electricity and heat through combustion. World coal consumption was about 7.99 billion short tons in 2010 (7.25 billion tonnes) and is expected to increase 48% to 9.98 billion short tons (9.05 billion tonnes) by 2030.

China produced 3.83 billion short tons (3.47 billion tonnes) in 2011. India produced about 637.1 million short tons (578 million tonnes) in 2011. 68.7% of China's electricity comes from coal.

America consumed about 13% of the world total in 2010, i.e. 1.05 billion short tons (951 million tonnes), using 93% of it for generation of electricity. Right now, 46% of total power generated in the USA is done using coal.

Modern life is unimaginable without electricity.

It lights houses, buildings, streets, provides domestic and industrial heat, and powers most equipment used in homes, offices and machinery in factories. Fact is, improving access to electricity worldwide is critical to alleviating poverty.

Coal plays a vital role in electricity generation worldwide. Coal-fired power plants currently fuel 41% of global electricity. In some countries, coal fuels a higher percentage of electricity.

So why is President Obama waging war on the American coal industry?

Because of Obama's power and sense of allegiance to radical environmentalist groups, he has instructed the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to overtly impose impossible to meet regulations and restrictions on the mining and use of coal in America.

For Obama, the EPA has become his weapon of choice to achieve the unrealistic agenda of radical environmentalist groups financially supportive of re-election campaign.

The EPA is being used by President Obama, and because of the green light given by the White House - the EPA is in a position of unbridled power while it force its will on the American people.

Among those being adversely effected: farmers, ranchers, manufacturing, the energy industry, and yes coal producers among others.

In 2008, Obama, then just a presidential candidate, signaled his intent to bankrupt the coal industry. Now almost 4 years later, the President's energy policies is a "War on Coal." And yes, he is having the exact effect on the industry that he said he wanted back in 2008.

On January 26th of this year, 2012, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who is the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said that FirstEnergy’s announcement that it will shut down six power plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Maryland due to EPA's Utility MACT rule.

It is a prime example of President Obama aggressively working to shut down American oil, gas, and coal development.

"Today, hundreds of Americans learned that they will be losing their good-paying jobs because of the Obama EPA’s destructive regulatory agenda," Senator Inhofe said.

"Due to EPA’s forthcoming Utility MACT rule, FirstEnergy will be closing six power plants, which will put 529 Americans out of work in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland - states that have already been hit hard by the recession."

“Meanwhile, President Obama has been taking his State of the Union campaign speech on the road in an effort to distance himself from his cap-and-trade agenda, which no longer sells. Knowing that Americans want the good-paying jobs, the increased energy security, and the stronger economy that domestic fossil fuel development brings, the President has begun peddling an ‘all-of-the-above’ energy approach - but today’s announcement tells us the real story."

Senator Inhofe continued, "President Obama’s regulatory agenda is the most harmful, aggressive and expensive in history and it is aimed squarely at shutting down the development of oil, gas and coal. That’s why the EPA’s Utility MACT rule is unnecessarily burdensome and costly - it’s intended to undermine the viability of coal, one of our country’s most abundant and reliable energy sources."

“The 529 jobs lost today are just the tip of the iceberg, as economic analyses predict up to 1.4 million American jobs will be lost by EPA’s rules for power plants. Utility MACT will cost $11 billion, which contrasts sharply with the mere $6 million in direct benefits EPA projects will be gained from the rule’s implementation.

“In the weeks ahead I will be introducing a resolution under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) that will give Congress the ability to stop EPA from destroying jobs with Utility MACT. Several Democratic members of the Senate have said that they would like to rein in EPA - with my CRA, they will have the chance to do so.”

In July, not surprisingly, the Patriot Coal Company filed for bankruptcy. It was a move prompted in part by the impact that regulations instituted by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) had on the company.

According to the Institute for Energy Research (IER), EPA rules targeting the coal industry helped to account for a dramatic drop in Patriot's share price.

Those rules have also contributed to the slide in the share price of coal other companies, such as Alpha Natural Resources, Inc., Arch Coal, Inc., and Peabody Energy Corp, says the IER.

Alpha Natural Resources, Inc., has indicated its intent to cease mining at various sites in Kentucky, and lay off about 150 workers.

In July, in Pennsylvania, layoffs were also announced by two coal companies which also blamed Obama's "War on Coal" for the job losses.

"The escalating costs and uncertainty generated by recently advanced EPA regulations and interpretations have created a challenging business climate for the entire coal industry," said the President and CEO of PBS Coals, Inc., D. Lynn Shanks, in a statement to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Meanwhile, July also saw the announcement by the Ohio Valley Coal Co. that it would be laying off workers.

Ohio Valley Coal's General Manager Ronald Koontz accused the Obama administration of engaging in "a war on coal seeking to destroy the coal industry and the jobs of our own employees and the livelihoods of their families."

By the end of July, Ohio American Energy, Inc., a subsidiary of Murray Energy, announced that it would be closing down mining operations that employed over 200 workers.

The founder of Ohio American attributed the layoffs to Obama policies affecting the coal industry, and predicted that more job losses would occur as a result of them.

“There will be additional layoffs, not only at Murray Energy, but also throughout the United States coal industry due to Mr. Obama’s ‘War on Coal’ and the destruction that it has caused to so many jobs and families in the Ohio Valley area and elsewhere,” said Robert Murray.

According to Andrew Morriss, a University of Alabama law professor, the effects of these job losses might be more grave than the Obama administration has anticipated.

Setting aside the inexpensiveness and ready availability of coal as an energy source, Morriss notes that according to National Mining Association data, a typical coal miner earns in excess of $70,000 per year. Moreover, about 60,000 people work in high-skilled, well-paying jobs in US coal-fired power plants.

Those statistics hint at the economic impact that coal workers have as consumers within their own communities, as well as wage-earners in their own right.

A more immediate concern for Obama, however, may be their geographical location - after all, Obama is all about getting money and votes.

Even though coal-heavy states like West Virginia and Kentucky are not in play this Presidential Election year, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia are expected to be among the most hotly contested.

That my friends, means that Obama's coal policies could end up having unintended effects, beyond the layoffs of well-paid, high-skilled workers. It make come back at him!

Yesterday, September 22nd, a report came out saying that the Republican controlled half of Congress, the House of Representatives, passed 5 bills to stop Obama's war on coal.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a group of five bills collectively referred to as H.R. 3409, and known informally as the “Stop the War on Coal Act,” on Friday. They passed the bill with a 233 to 175 vote.

Yes, Democrats see nothing wrong with lay-offs and Obama's war on coal.

"It took some time, but it’s done," Jason Bostic, vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association said. "This bill now becomes our main focus in the Senate as we move forward."

H.R. 3409 is made up of five separate bills including the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act, a bill introduced in 2011 by U.S. Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va.

In addition, other provisions of the Stop the War on Coal Act include provisions to prevent the Interior Department from instituting new regulations that would eliminate coal mining jobs, language that would push back EPA Clean Air Act regulations and more.

"The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has run roughshod over my state and others in central Appalachia to impose its own ideological agenda," Rep Rahall was quoted as saying in a news release concerning H.R. 3409.

Talking about the EPA, Rahall said, "It usurped the legal authorities of other federal agencies. It brazenly misused and abused its regulatory powers to put a stranglehold on coal mine permitting.”

U.S. Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., was also among the 233 House members who voted for H.R. 3409.

"It’s important that the American people are made aware of the fact that this assault, though aimed at the coal industry, affects us all," Rep Griffith was quoted as stating in a press release.

"When coal jobs are cut, the people who supply materials to the coal mines, the people who operate the trains, that carry the coal, and the people who work in the ports that ship the coal are all impacted.

"Current EPA regulations for coal-fired power plants are not even commercially available today and are threatening to send our electricity rates skyrocketing," Morgan was quoted as stating.

Jason Bostic, vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association, took a more philosophical look at the House’s action on Friday saying, "I think this vote that attempts to control the EPA and the Office of Surface Mining shows that these agencies are unworthy of the public trust."

He went on to say, "The EPA has been trampling the states rights in the process. Our charge, as the Coal Association, is to protect our industry from the regulatory coma that that is holding our industry back."

He expressed the fear that if that situation persists, the coal industry’s infrastructure may experience challenges similar to the problems that crippled the U.S. steel industry several years ago.

Americans can only hope that the effort to stop Obama is a success. The President has an extremely powerful position, but like other elected officials - we must make sure that he does not abuse his power to install an agenda contrary to the good of the American people.

In my opinion, we must hold Obama in check because he has proven himself to work against what is good for America.

Story by Tom Correa