Archive for March, 2012
Cold Fusion Experiment: Major Success or Complex Hoax?
Posted on November 3, 2011 by Conservative Byte
A physicist in Italy claims to have demonstrated a new type of power plant that provides safe, cheap and virtually unlimited nuclear power to the world, without fossil fuels or radiation concerns.
The only hitch: Scientists say the method — cold fusion — is patently impossible. They say it defies the laws of physics.
Andrea Rossi doesn’t seem to care. He told FoxNews.com that his new device takes in nickel and hydrogen and fuses them in a low-grade nuclear reaction that essentially spits out sheer power, validating the strange science.
TREASON DEFINED: (Wikipedia excerpt)
To avoid the abuses of the English law (including executions by Henry VIII of those who criticized his repeated marriages), treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
[To further clarify, this from: http://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treason ]
Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.
The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of Espionage committed on behalf of an ally constitute treason. For example, julius and ethel rosenberg were convicted of espionage, in 1951, for helping the Soviet Union steal atomic secrets from the United States during World War II. The Rosenbergs were not tried for treason because the United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II.
Under Article III a person can levy war against the United States without the use of arms, weapons, or military equipment. Persons who play only a peripheral role in a conspiracy to levy war are still considered traitors under the Constitution if an armed rebellion against the United States results. After the U.S. Civil War, for example, all Confederate soldiers were vulnerable to charges of treason, regardless of their role in the secession or insurrection of the Southern states. No treason charges were filed against these soldiers, however, because President Andrew Johnson issued a universal Amnesty.
The crime of treason requires a traitorous intent. If a person unwittingly or unintentionally gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during wartime, treason has not occurred. Similarly, a person who pursues a course of action that is intended to benefit the United States but mistakenly helps an enemy is not guilty of treason. Inadvertent disloyalty is never punishable as treason, no matter how much damage the United States suffers.
Continued from wikipedia:
However, Congress has, at times, passed statutes creating related offenses that undermine the government or the national security, such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sedition in the 1917 Espionage Act, which do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason. For example, some well-known spies have been convicted of espionage rather than treason.
The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition (the first paragraph), permits Congress to create the offense, and restricts any punishment for treason to only the convicted (the second paragraph). The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states “whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” The requirement of testimony of two witnesses was inherited from the British Treason Act 1695
Considering today’s America:
THANKS TO Cry and Howl, from his post http://cryandhowl.com/2012/03/15/barack-obama-and-the-2012-election/
Obama’s Justice Department of which actions he is ultimately responsible for, has facilitated the murder of hundreds of innocent people and the death of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent though his and Eric Holder’s Fast and Furious gun running program.
Obama’s Justice Department sues states that enforce immigration laws when he illegally refuses to enforce existing federal laws. [ Did I miss something, or don’t these qualify under Article III, Section 3 ? “X”]
He isn’t eligible to be president and this is coming back to haunt him.
Most people don’t want to be arrested and detained indefinitely at the whim of Barack Obama and his band of thugs.
Obama’s opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline.
President Obama’s national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.
He has increased the national debt more than all other presidents up to Reagan … combined.
Barack Obama has committed numerous impeachable offenses (if he was legally president).
WAKE UP IN NOVEMBER BECAUSE:
A vote for another 4 years of a fraud squatting in the White House
A vote for more people like Eric Holder, Nancy Pelosi, Janet Napolotino, etc
A vote for higher crime
A vote for less individual sovereignty
A vote for less American pride
A vote for the destruction of the United States
A vote for the destruction of the American way of life
A vote for making America like any other nation
A vote for more senseless gun control
A vote for elimination of the middle class
A vote for population control
A vote for “after-birth” abortion …
A vote for more government control
A vote for more fraud
A vote for Sharia Law
A vote for more scandals like Fast and Furious
A vote for more innocents murdered
A vote for more disease
A vote for more poverty
A vote for blacks being more dependent on the government
A vote to keep poor people poor
A vote for higher taxes
A vote for a weaker military
A vote for less home ownership
A vote for more government regulations
A vote for more apologies to the enemies of America
A vote for more illegal immigration
A vote for socialized medicine
A vote for higher gas and energy prices
A vote for higher unemployment
A vote for less religious freedom for Christians
A vote for less freedom of speech
A vote for more national debt
A vote for higher deficit spending
A vote for dumbing down of our educational system
A vote for public support of unions
A vote for more racism
A vote for more tax payer paid vacations for Michelle
A vote for more fraud in the media
A vote for worse teachers
A vote for lousy doctors
A vote for more law enforcement corruption
A vote for more pornography
A vote for immorality
A vote for homosexuals teaching homosexuality to our kids
A vote for a weaker national defense
A vote for more uncertainty
A vote for the demise of our children’s future
A vote to surrender the sovereignty of the United States to the “global community”
A vote for the global citizen
A vote for more fraud such as the Osama Bin Laden murder
A vote for less state sovereignty
A vote for another 4 years of an arrogant s.o.b. and his wife squatting in the White House, living and vacationing off the tax payers …
I just found this, so I add it as well. I don’t agree with all of the statements, but he is on target.
Crucifixion: Our Dying Constitution
Published by Fred Soto• February 12th, 2008 RSS News Feed
the American spirit is dead thanks to disgraceful congressional leadership
I can fairly say now, that I’ve never been more ashamed to be an American. In addition to being subject to the leadership of the worst presidential administration in American history, the Senate just voted to grant immunity to telecommunications companies that were complicit in illegal surveillance activity against Americans. Of course, because this criminal activity occurred over the tenure of the Bush Administration, Congress will gladly give them a pass because they were acting based on a sense of “patriotic duty”.
In his closing speech on the Senate floor, Chris Dodd brought up September 28, 2007, what he calls the darkest day in the Congressional chamber. If the date doesn’t ring a bell, it was the day that the not-so-honorable Senators voted to deny Habeas Corpus and allow torture to take place at the hands of our agents. Senator Dodd argued that today, February 12, 2008, is a close second, as the action taken today further serves to deny the constitutional safeguards that our founders intended to protect our citizens.
What Chris Dodd’s entire argument revolved around was simply allowing lawsuits to go forward and be decided by the appropriate branch, the judiciary. President Bush insisted that he would veto any FISA legislation that didn’t include telecommunications immunity for his top secret surveillance activity. Instead, what the legislature is doing is denying Americans the right to know what is going on in our government. Today, government secrecy emerged victorious.
America’s Shame and why I’m proud to be “un-American”
Americans no longer have an understanding of what it means to be free, we’ve become so accustomed to big brother’s hand that torture, spying without warrants, and engaging in illegal wars of aggression are to be expected. Many of the candidates running for president campaigned hard on these issues, insisting that we would “remain on offense” in the propaganda-ridden war on terror. What Americans need now is a miracle, we need a hero or group of heroes to stand up in our legislature and fight for them. We don’t need more government parenting and rules that cater to corporations and fear.
Terrorism should be a tool that only the enemy is allowed to use. Illegal government activity should not be tolerated in its current form. Soon, we will lose a part of ourselves, the American spirit will die. This country is no longer FDR’s America, it isn’t JFK’s or Reagan’s America. It most definitely is not Bill Clinton’s America, yet his wife was curiously absent from the Senate floor on this most important matter. Unless our voters and elected officials stand up and fight for freedom, we’re going to lose this fight for our country. If you feel even a modicum of pride and love left for this nation that people the world over once admired, equip yourself with knowledge and do your part so that our country won’t slip away into the dark abyss of fascism.
I’m afraid we’re already there, but there may be hope and that hope begins with you.
Jim Kirwan 6-28-9
During World War II the crime of Treason in a time of war, was a hanging offence. As most Americans might remember, as Cheney Bush & Rumsfeld told us daily during their collective reign at the helm, that “this nation is at war!” Or “In this time of war, sacrifices must be made.” Okay, so what is the penalty for traitors that commit treason in this “Time of War”? What about those who collaborate with traitors that are committing acts of treason in the current “time of war”?
It’s a serious question, but those who would have been charged with investigating these actions [congress] are themselves part of the treasonable collaboration, with those particular figureheads that did indeed commit treason, thousands of times, in this time of war: So where does that leave us now?
Who shall be held to answer for all the maimed, the displaced, and the dead on all sides of these totally criminal wars over the last eight years that have in fact had no national or international justification whatsoever? How will we ever explain our actions to our children, provided of course that we survive these Wars of the New Millennium long enough for our children to reach the age where they can question anything at all?
What about those that have been guilty of war-profiteering, in this “time of war”? George Bush’s grand-daddy; Prescott Bush was found guilty of trading with the enemy, and funding the Nazi War Machine during WWII-yet while Prescott was charged and found guilty he did not go to jail-is this how we are going to allow this current crop of New Millennium War Criminals to be treated, or will we ever be able to hold anyone, to any accountability, for anything at all-ever? (1)
Our cities are beginning to resemble the back-lot-sets of low-budget films; and the strays from the herd that wander through what’s left of our streets, begin to look more and more like extras from a Fellini production of something called “No Way Out”! As the days grow shorter the cast of characters behaves with ever more abandon on the one hand, and yet so many remain totally disconnected from the hard-bitten truths that have
consumed the landscape and blurred all the definitions between everything that lives amid the ruins-like a rancid-blanket suspended in a toxic-fog that wraps us all in stultifying silence. Throughout this scene from an un-written Twilight Zone, the herd waits patiently for the final cut from the axe of this fascist government that will end so many lives, while it will just prolong the agony for millions of others.
There was a time when formal education had to be tempered by the experience that came with having lived an active life. There were limits on how much lawlessness would be tolerated, and consequences were required of every leader. All that is apparently gone now because there is no room in the new equation, for any of those ancient guiding principles, by which whole societies once lived. But Hey – Things ‘CHANGE,’ you know! But do they really change, or will this too just be more “business as usual” when it comes to the rich and powerful that pull the strings and create the plays designed by the Illuminati and the New World Order?
On June 26, congress slammed home another trident into the corpse of American society with their passage of HR 2454: The American Clean Air & Security Act. ‘The security aspect is hidden in the way in which this crime came into being. May 15 it was introduced to congress and is about 400 pages long. By June 19 after going to many committees, it emerges as 946 pages of legislation. When it’s presented to Congress on Monday the 22nd, it’s 1201 pages long. The legislation that was voted on (June 26) was reportedly over 1400 pages long. Oddly enough this is exactly the same size legislation that was passed on the Stimulus Package that your congressman never read either, and now has one-half of one-percent of that trillion dollars that is in our economy, supposedly stimulating it. Where’s the rest of it-who knows!
Congress gets a 1400 page document that they don’t know what’s in it. They don’t know where this money’s going. Rumor has it that 80% of it is going to special interest groups, who twisted arms to get your congressman to vote for this thing. “All I know is this; in the middle of the world’s worst economic collapse in its history, we are proposing and passing legislation that is absolutely guaranteed to turn this country into a third world nation-at best! I want to talk about the term” systemic”, because this term is bantered about and used constantly, and its probably accurate; and you should get used to the word because in very short order-look at what your government has done. You’re about to pass a piece of legislation that says everything that comes out of your house, everything that comes out of your mouth, out of your car, out of the factory you work in is SYSTEMIC to the environment-so we need to tax it and control it. They’re about to give the Federal Reserve the Shadow Government of this country, the power to regulate ANYTHING that is SYSTEMIC to the economy: Which includes anything that you do, the place where you do go to work.
So now you got them controlling the dollars coming in, the dollars going out, the carbon coming in, the carbon going out. And oh yeah-let’s do this too, let’s pass legislation to the tune of ten trillion dollars over the next decade, that says that the government needs to take care of your health care as well. Now what’s going to happen? When you’re in the last six months of your life, when 80% of your health care is spent-all of a sudden you become a SYSTEMIC-RISK to the health care system, and to the economic system and to the environmental system! Don’t you see it-it’s right in front of your face? (2) It’s a power grab, it’s on three fronts and they’re winning. No. Strike that-they’ve won! There’s no stopping this tide, there’s no stopping this Tsunami, that’s washing over this country right now.
The only thing you can do for it is prepare. Prepare mentally, prepare your friends and family as best you can and let them know not to believe the crap they see on TV-Don’t worry about the dead celebrities-worry about the living humans that are in your life. This is happening and any of amount of denial isn’t going to change that. That’s all I got ~” (3)
Is this form of fascism not a war-crime; is this designed-destruction of all that most people hold dear-not treason? Or does treason only involve illegal and unilateral war-making upon nations that have done nothing militarily to the USA? Whatever the answer to that question might be, it is clear that America has been under direct attack on all fronts for the last nine years-and it is also clear that the public has aided and abetted the criminal powers that undertook these attacks in every conceivable way. When shall we say “Enough is Enough-let’s hang the bastards now!”
OK; the number designation is shown; however, ally AFVET is likely one of a select few to be able to I.D. this aircraft’s name; the last one to be developed as a pure interceptor. It served 28 yrs in the U.S.A.F.
Here is its name – Recall “Top Gun”? an actual flat spin result:
Had one of “those days” -nights for me since I work Gyd- then I get home; before I even open my inbox to check the latest blogs, I see this bit of effluent from Yahoo:
Some 44% of guys surveyed see one trait before anything else — and it’s not what you think. » Guys’ favorite lipstick
What men and women notice on dates … that hair was the first thing they notice about a woman… even before her clothes (26%), legs (25%) and makeup (4%). yahoo.match.com/ y/ article.aspx?articleid=12717 &TrackingID=526103 &BannerID=1099738- View by Ixquick Proxy – Highlight
Sigh… I had to calm down a tad before starting this blog in order to be more coherent. However, ladies, sit back and enjoy as I decidedly trash my gender.
“1. Men say that having gorgeous hair trumps a curvy figure.”
Really. Hmmm… is the Milennium generation so different from Boomers or Gen X? I -omitted- doubt it. Speaking from life experience, overall, men are largely the same creatures they always were. I still remember Bill Cosby’s account of Adam… LOL
I think this is somewhat inadequately covered by the expression “Viva la differance”. Not all that long ago, I observed that women’s common -and valid- complaint was “my eyes are up here” or something to that effect. Excuse me if I find the majority of guys are still fixated about breasts. I will not say I’m totally immune; if a woman is so endowed that she might be accused of having enough “superstructure” for three women, no matter HOW advanced a male might be, guess what will draw the eyes? Want to bet, it isn’t her hair? Believe it. BTW; even as a child, when so-called “innocent youth” is supposed to be in effect, I remember that after her EYES -the eyes have it folks, the proverbial windows to the soul- I would observe her legs. You got that right. Seven yrs old, and I was a “leg man”. Still am… (blush) So there!
“2. Guys find pink or red lips more alluring than the sexiest pair of stilettos.” I’d get tired of elaborating my opinion on the perverts who design women’s shoes. Suffice to say, they defeat balance, shorten the achilles tendon, and are unhealthy for the foot. As for this statement, I disliked dark red lipstick; and for that matter, continual overuse of rouge on the cheeks. I will admit being somewhat attracted by frosted, lighter color lipstick. Long time since that stuff was around. There is something to be said for natural skin tone with makeup used as an accent, not a mask. ‘Nuff said about that.
“3. Women looking for real relationships are more impressed by traditional love tokens than an expensive ride.” Ok; if the guy is a real nerd, the attraction of a fancy car wears off fast. Their statement “So if you’re looking for something more than a fling, don’t worry what you’re chauffeuring your cutie around in — focus on making her feel special instead.” rings true for me; but if you haven’t noticed, it isn’t just “my g, g, generation” [to paraphrase “The Who”] that notes womens attraction to “dangerous guys”, as apposed to the “real deal”. Nice guys, unfortunately do “finish last” all to often. ( yes, a stereotype- blame our amoral society on this persistant attitude)
“4. Men and women agree: being physically fit makes someone more attractive and relationship-worthy to them.” Briefly, no amount of exercise in my youth would promote a “six pack”; -thank you much later diagnosed scoliosis- and I was not that superficial. Their statement: “if you’re thinking of having something more than just a fling, spend your dollars getting rid of your doughy middle and strive for six-pack abs instead.” This is a good example of the “mating game” that I avoided. I wasn’t fat, but toned as I was, I always had a bit of a “pot”. “Dat ole debble sex” as a young adult, was enough of a trap without being overly concerned with the “greek god” B.S.
“5. Bad hygiene is a universal turn-off, regardless of what you’re wearing.” Thank God, a glimmer of truth breaks through the hype. I must agree: “While Mark Twain famously said that “clothes make the man” (or woman, as the case may be), all the designer duds in the world won’t impress your date if you haven’t had a shower first.” No comment on a generation of “children having children”. I was taught differently; a very respected woman supervisor of my peers, commented that many women were far worse at proper hygiene. A bit of a shock to my system, noting how many men fail to wash their ******* hands after using the restroom. A simple, common sense, health measure.
I SUGGEST YOU ALL GO THROUGH YOUR ARCHIVES. I THINK YOU WILL NOT LIKE THE FINDINGS. I WILL NEED TO MAKE SOME CHANGES, AND DELETIONS, THOUGH IT GALLS ME NO END. SOME WERE MADE INVALID BY USERS ON YOUTUBE REMOVING THEIR VIDEOS. WHETHER THEY WERE PRESSURED OR NOT IS UNKNOWN TO THIS BLOGGER, BUT IF I’VE FOUND THIS TO BE TRUE ON MY PG, I’M SURE ALL OF US WILL NEED TO DO SOME HOUSECLEANING. NOT AMUSED! “X’
Supreme Court rules against feds!
Takes stinging power away from Obama’s EPA
Published: 1 day ago
The Environmental Protection Agency cannot issue a “drive-by” decision that a parcel of land is a protected wetlands and prohibit the owner from using it, and then refuse to hear any challenges to such decisions.
So says the U.S. Supreme Court.
The decision today came in the case of the Sackett family of Priest Lake, Idaho. Mike and Chantell Sackett bought a piece of land in a residential subdivision that was about two-thirds of an acre, purchased the appropriate building permits and started work on their dream home.
Then the EPA arrived, ordered them to restore the land to its pristine condition, protect it for years and then go through a ruinously expensive application process to request permission to use their own land.
Further, the EPA, in collusion with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, told the couple they could not even challenge the decision unless they went through that expensive process.
The high court today said the EPA must provide a process through which a challenge to its decision can be addressed in a meaningful way. The law firm working on behalf of the Sacketts called the decision a “precedent-setting victory for the rights of all property owners.”
The EPA previously had threatened the couple with fines of up to $75,000 per day for failing to follow the agency’s intrusive “compliance” plan through which federal officials not only effectively seized control of the land, but also the couple, by demanding their paperwork records and other detailed information.
Damien Schiff, principal attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented the couple without charge, had argued the case at the Supreme Court on Jan. 9.
He said the implications of the decision are clear.
“EPA is not above the law,” he said. “That’s the bottom line with today’s ruling. This is a great day for Mike and Chantell Sackett, because it confirms that EPA can’t deny them access to justice. EPA can’t repeal the Sacketts’ fundamental right to their day in court. And for that reason, it is a great day for all Americans, for all property owners, and for the rule of law.”
He continued, “The justices have made it clear that EPA bureaucrats are answerable to the law and the courts just like the rest of us. EPA can’t try to micromanage people and their property – it can’t order property owners to dance like marionettes – while denying them any meaningful right to appeal to the courts. It can’t threaten property owners with financial ruin and not have to justify its threats to a judge. And it can’t issue lazy, drive-by ‘wetlands’ edicts about private property. It will have to put in some honest work and use credible science, because the regulators must be able to justify their wetlands orders in a court of law,” he said.
Schiff said, “Rest assured, while today’s ruling strengthens everyone’s individual rights and property rights, and everyone’s access to justice, it does not weaken legitimate environmental protection one iota. Regulators will simply have to be professional and thorough, not careless and slipshod, when they issue wetlands orders.
“In the case of urgent pollution threats, EPA will still have the power, as it does now, to seek an immediate court injunction. But when there is no emergency, EPA can’t start ordering property owners around – and threatening them with tens of millions of dollars in fines, as with the Sacketts – without first doing some genuine due diligence. EPA will have to be prepared to show a reviewing court that its wetlands regulations are really necessary – not just a power trip.”
Mike Sackett said he and his wife were subjected to “hell” by federal bureaucrats.
“We are very thankful to the Supreme Court for affirming that we have rights, and that the EPA is not a law unto itself and that the EPA is not beyond the control of the courts and the Constitution,” he said. “The EPA used bullying and threats of terrifying fines, and has made our life hell for the past five years. It said we could not go to court and challenge their bogus claim that our small lot had ‘wetlands’ on it. As this nightmare went on, we rubbed our eyes and started to wonder if we were living in some totalitarian country.
“Now, the Supreme Court has come to our rescue, and reminded the EPA – and everyone – that this is still America, and Americans still have rights under the Constitution. We want to thank Pacific Legal Foundation for defending us, without charge! Without Pacific Legal Foundation, this day would have not come, and this court ruling that vindicated the rights of all Americans against bureaucratic bullying, would not have happened.”
The family bought the small parcel in 2005 in an area surrounded by other homes. The EPA’s decision, without hearings or notice, that it was a “wetlands” was accompanied by threats of fines and penalties.
The Sacketts wanted to challenge the EPA’s decision, but the agency refused to hold a hearing, and then the 9th Circuit Court said they had no right to judicial review at that point. The court said the couple would have to pay for a years-long “wetlands” permit process first.
That process could have cost 12 times the value of the land, the legal team working for the Sacketts said.
When the case was argued in January, justices suggested the EPA actions were “outrageous” and “very strange.”
Samuel Alito said that the scenario was one that most homeowners would say “can’t happen in the United States.”
And Elena Kagan said it was a “strange position” for the government to adopt in insisting that the property owner has no right to a hearing on such an order.
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. turned the question back on Malcolm Stewart, the government attorney assigned to defend the EPA’s actions.
“What would you do if you received this order?” he asked.
Stewart wouldn’t answer.
Alito also noted it was “very strange” for a system that would require a party to apply for a permit to build on “wetlands” when the fact being challenged was whether the land was “wetlands.”
Mike and Chantell Sackett
Justice Antonin Scalia called it the “high-handedness of the agency” when the EPA demanded the couple turn their land into a protected preserve, installing vegetation that wasn’t there before they started their project.
The government did not contest the recitation when Alito summarized what had happened:
You buy property to build a house. You think maybe there is a little drainage problem in part of your lot, so you start to build the house and then you get an order from the EPA which says you have filled in wetlands, so you can’t build your house. Remove the fill. Put in all kinds of plants. and now you have to let us on your premises whenever we want to … you have to turn over to us all sorts of documents, and for every day that you don’t do all this you are accumulating a potential fine of $75,000 and by the way, there is no way you can go to court to challenge our determination that this is a wetlands until such time as we choose to sue you.
Justice Ruth Ginsburg noted that the couple had sought a hearing from the EPA over the controversy, “and the EPA said no.”
Chantell Sackett had described for a congressional hearing recently the shock when they found federal EPA agents on their land, ordering them to stop foundation work, “restore” the land with non-native species, fence it, guard it for several years and then request a permission to continue their home project that in all likelihood would be denied.
“Bullying,” Chantell said.
“That’s what the EPA does. They came into our life, took our property, put us in limbo, told us we can’t do anything with it, and then threatened us with fines,” she said. “They use intimidation and we as American people, my husband and I, are fed up. We’re scared.
“They can’t be allowed to do this,” she continued. “It’s wrong. This is why we are suing the government, the EPA.”
Officials with the EPA repeatedly declined to respond to a WND request for comment. WND was referred to a Justice Department office, which also declined to respond.
The congressional hearing testimony:
We all have our “hot buttons”; when we reach the breaking point. My valued conservative ally at Cry and Howl apparently reached his; he is usually more… circumspect with his language. Posted as is.
I was listening to Sean Hannity briefly and I heard him say something like this towards the beginning of his radio show today:
“The big news is that Barack Obama claims his low approval ratings is because of FOX News calling him a Muslim 24/7.” and: that Paul Ryan’s new budget proposal is going to put him under a lot of fire from the Democrats. Those things are “big news” to Sean Hannity. Gawd! You have got to be kidding me! The more I listened to Mr. Hannity the more I realized just how pathetic the conservative movement really is while we have ball-less, spineless, limp-wristed, Kotex wearing freaks like Hannity representing it. My little dog Sandy has more balls than this guy. I mean you talk about a socially safe and protected agenda that for sure won’t create any significant waves with the Obama regime, it’s conservative talk radio. Especially Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin etc. etc. Pa-freaking-thetic.
When we have stuff that really counts like: Forgery Gate: Media Threatened With Investigations If Obama Birth Certificate Story Reported.
Here is part of that story:
Individuals and member organizations of the American media were threatened with FTC and FCC investigation if information gathered by Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse concerning the forgery of Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate were passed on to the American public.
It was Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo who made this stunning revelation, stating “During our investigation, we actually were told [that media] had been threatened with FTC investigations. Commentators [had been] threatened with their jobs.”
And Jerome Corsi, author of “Where’s the birth certificate,” the book whose imminent publication was responsible for forcing Barack Obama to quickly create and place the fraudulent long form birth certificate on the White House web site, has said that “Testimony is being developed that the White House is intimidating, in a systematic way, the mainstream media and if any broadcasters dare go into this birther story, they’re going to risk FCC investigations… people are going to have careers ruined… thrown off the air.”
Zullo went on to say the threats actually caused some individuals to “…quit their positions over safety concerns for their families.”
The rest right HERE.
Every one of those I named have “pimped out” their salaries and exalted positions to sell this nation out, and as Devvy Kidd puts it … checked their manhood at the door. They tuck their ‘cods’ back in when they go to their comfortable homes at the end of a hard day at “work”.