Obama, DOMA and Soros...Where to begin?

Articles Of Impeachment

The following subject is solely that of the blog administrator, and does not reflect the thoughts and/or political beliefs of the Central California Conservatives.

Over this past weekend, we read and heard several GOP pundits discuss Pres. Obama's ill-advised "distancing" from the Defense of Marriage Act, (DOMA). Some of them declared this to be an impeachable offense, as the POTUS, under no circumstances can make law or decide arbitrarily which laws to uphold, but is mandated by the Constitution to uphold it, an oath he took on January 20, 2009. Even Newt Gingrich weighed in on the topic in an interview with Newsmax:

http://www.salon.com/news/newt_gingrich/?story=/politics/war_room/2011/02/27/gingrich_religious_right_republican_nomination

The "I" word has been used on a couple of occasions since Barack took office back in January 2009, but the preponderance of websites/blogs dealing with this matter are mainly focused on his place of birth, and not more substantive issues. This is not to declare that a candidate does not need to fulfill all the requirements for the highest office in this land, but simply an admission that if the Clinton Political Machine could not uncover the discrepancies in his place of birth, the argument is probably moot.

But where were these same pundits when Obama fired Rick Wagoner? Where were these same politicos when the UAW was placed ahead of the primary bond holders in the bankruptcy judgements of GM and Chrysler? Where in the Constitution does it grant the POTUS the ability to fire a CEO of a privately held company and circumvent the laws pertaining to bankruptcy? I fully understand that a judge ruled in favor of the Obama administrations' decision to rig the bankruptcy decision in favor of the UAW, but does that make the ruling right...does it absolve Pres. Obama?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=awCyiNlvcfUA

And just where were these talking heads when the worst environmental disaster in our lifetime occured in the Gulf of Mexico? [administrators note-this topic will be further explored in another blog topic]

Certainly, Darryl Issa (R) Ca., chairman of the House Congressional Oversight Board, has his work cut out for him, and is currently involved in many investigations at the moment. But his efforts, so far, are being stonewalled and/or ignored by the Obama administration:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48717.html

Further, it appears that Issa's efforts are striking too close to home, as the Democrat machine is in full attack mode against Cong. Issa:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49521.html

Now I will add my "two cents" worth in speculation and dot connecting and by doing so, add fuel to the fire without necessarily mentioning the "I" word.

As many of you may know, Glenn Beck ran a three part series describing in great detail the type of man George Soros really is. It was an interesting expose/exposure of a man that has collapsed several other economies, while personally profiting enormously. Soros' 'New World Order' is possible because of a global economy, but also because it appears he believes he's God and enjoys crushing people/countries..it's all a game to him. Beck did a very good job of using Soros' own words through interviews, manuscripts and videotapes to describe Soros' intent. Although I knew for quite some time that Soros was the puppetmaster, Beck solidified my perceptions. 

What I discovered on my own, as far back as early Spring of 2009, is a very interesting sequence of events…actually, the connections of several known pieces of information, that when viewed in a different light, makes for some rather interesting speculation. Remember when after Obama was elected Nov 2008,  he began holding Press conferences as "President Elect" and he went on a two month tirade about how bad our economy was? Obama, on an almost weekly basis, was hammering our economic plight and in doing so, the Dow Jones reacted in a very calculated way…it dropped another ~20-25%. So why was Obama beating the pulp out of the Dow? Why did he use his bully pulpit to daily demean, belittle and degrade our economic plight? No one, including the talking heads at Fox could understand. Some speculated that he was just trying to get his Stimulus Package rammed through before anyone actually read it. But he continued his assault even after he knew the Bill's passage was a done deal. Also consider that he really didn’t need to convince Congress…he had the votes in the House, and all he needed was one or two GOP Senators to vote for the ARRA and it would pass. He basically knew that Olympia Snow and Susan Collins were on board, and that Arlen Specter was an easy target, especially considering the extra “pork” written into the SP for Pennsylvania…so he knew he had the votes in both houses to pass the Bill. So why did he hammer our economy? Because Soros was shorting the US stock market, and a 20-25% fall meant hundreds of millions of dollars of profit..if not more. Soros makes his money and is “paid back” for his anonymous campaign donations, and could continue to fund his shadow media outlets…all at the expense of US citizens…the money bilked from us out of our 401K’s. Pretty slick, huh? The President purposely manipulated the stock market to benefit a political campaign contributor...the puppetmaster.

Soros shorting the US stock market in 2008:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ajkPSW_domB4

"Soros has bet on declines in the dollar, 10-year Treasuries and U.S. and European stocks this year." Interestingly, he went on to state this at the end of the article: [Asked if such moves would make it impossible to achieve returns like those of his pre-2000 days, Soros laughed. "Since I'm designing these regulations, they would not hurt me,'' he said] Oh Really?!

Now, my conjecture continues. Remember after Obama's Invesco Field acceptance speech in Colorado on August 28th? The media was totally enamored with his rhetorical skills, his suave, debonair presentation, his supposed high intellect and his command of the English language, not to mention his Harvard Law School pedigree. His poll ratings went very high after that speech, as the media pushed Obamamania. Then, six days later, an unknown Governor from Alaska comes along, a newcomer to the political scene, a "country bumpkin" without the Ivy League credentials, and takes the stage in Minneapolis and completely blows away Obama's speech and with it, the media as well. The polls reversed. Check the dates.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107674/gallup-daily-election-2008.aspx

I believe the Progressives were in full panic mode, and Soros came to their rescue. How? I'm now of the belief that he, and a "few" of his friends helped accelerate the crash of our financial markets...the timing was just WAY too convenient. Certainly Bear-Stearns and Lehman Bros were toast at that point, but the big tipping point had yet to surface... Fannie and Freddie. Dumping Fannie/Freddie's MBS paper on the market would have done it, a fact that was well known, even by Vladimir Putin. Soros' Hedge Funds were implicated in the demise of our market:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=afbSjYv3v814

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/investmenttrusts/3454463/Soros-faces-Congress-over-hedge-funds-role-in-meltdown.html

http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/11/13/text-george-soros-testimony-to-us-house-committee-on-oversight-and-government-reform-november-13-2008/

Click on the pdf file to read his prepared statements. And having Henry Waxman conduct this "investigation" is analogous to having Mr. Magoo perform your root canal surgery. Of note...neither Fannie or Freddie were part of the Financial Reform Act/Law and neither was hedge fund regulation addressed. Is that what Soros meant in the statement above when he stated he was writing the regulations? Having Chris Dodd and Barney Frank write the Finance Reform Bill is like having Jeffrey Dahmer and John Gacy watch your kids for the weekend. Soros' buddy, John Paulson made billions off of the sub-prime market, and Soros was "all ears":

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120036645057290423.html

Market manipulation in order to further tank the economy, and thus get "their boy", Barack Obama, elected is what I suspect. Whether through bond dumping, naked shorting, derivatives market manipulation...it all stinks from my chair.  But purposeful manipulation of the stock market in order to reward a major campaign contributor...well, as hard as it is to prove, it certainly makes sense, considering what I've read so far, the dots I've connected and Obama's actions since that time. More on this later.

March 5th Update:

Just this past week, a report written by Kevin Freeman for the Dept of Defense was released entitled "Economic Warfare: Risks and Responses". The publication was generated in 2009, but just now released. The report can be viewed and read at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49755779/Economic-Warfare-Risks-and-Responses-by-Kevin-D-Freeman

It is an informative, if not chilling account describing our economic collapse in 2008 and how this occurence may have been expedited by outside "influences". To a great degree, it mirrors my speculation written above, (to all you nattering naybobs of disbelief)...conjecture I began to formulate back in the Spring of 2009. I suggest that anyone reading this blog, read the above link...all 111 pages.

Page 35:

"Upon reaching the rational conclusion that bear raids did take place and that these

directly triggered the economic turmoil, the next logical question become, ―Who Did It?

Unfortunately, this is a much more difficult question to answer with conclusiveness. Thereason is that there has been a serious lack of transparency in regard to the primaryinstruments used in bear raids, notably credit default swaps and naked short sales.Complicating the matter further is the fact that those who initiate the trades are typicallyhidden behind brokerage firms, hedge funds, foundations, and other client pools."

Considering that Soros has hedge funds located offshore, it would be impossible to trace his transactions. Mr. Freeman's speculation that the ChiCom military and Russia were also involved in the bear raids makes perfect sense to me. Read the last two paragraphs on page 35, and you will begin to see what I speculated two years ago. More on this later.

Central California water wars.

Of Smelts and Smolts: A Cursory Internet Review of the NOAA’s Biologic Opinion Limiting Water Deliveries To The San Joaquin Valley

References reviewed in completing this overview include, but were not limited to:

1) US Dept of Interior memorandum Fish and Wildlife Service

 http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/documents/SWP-CVP_OPs_BO_12-15_final_OCR.pdf

2) Draft ESA, National Marine Fisheries Service 12-11-08

http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/sac/myweb8/BiOpFiles/2009/Draft_OCAP_Opinion.pdf

3) NOAA’s Peer Review and associated supporting documents

http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/ocap.htm

4) NOAA’s RPA Overview

http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/ocap/Executive_summary_to_NMFS'_CVP-SWP_operations_BO_RPA.pdf

5) Dr. Peter Moyle’s article on historical through present Chinook salmon distribution

http://wfcb.ucdavis.edu/www/Faculty/Peter/petermoyle/publications/CentralValleyChinook.pdf

      6) Judge Oliver Wanger’s ruling 12-15-10

http://www.eenews.net/assets/2010/12/15/document_gw_01.pdf

7) NOAA’s Recovery Plan for the Southern Resident Killer Whale

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/whale_killer.pdf

This review is being generated in the hopes that an alternative perspective will be helpful to anyone interested in determining how the U.S. Department of the Interior can place the existence of a small forage fish over the livelihood of thousands of people, and block water delivery to 500-750K acres of the most arable farmland in the world.

While attempting to “wade through” these voluminous scientific papers and opinions, one thing became abundantly clear. While the biologic needs of Chinook salmon are well known, well documented and relatively simple, the science behind the demise of Oncorhynchus tshawytscha in central California waterways, as it is elsewhere, is convoluted, complex and subject to misinterpretation. The definition of the scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." Science can be made to be as difficult, or as simple as one wants, but while preparing research papers to be published, or used for legal review, one must not be inclined to work backwards from a conclusion and thus bias the study by excluding data and ignoring other researchers’ work that doesn’t support the previously ascertained conclusion. It is my opinion that several important studies were omitted and facts were ignored when the BiOp was written, whether purposely or not, that are crucial to consider in any review of this important subject. Further, the far reaching BiOp of the NOAA made many assumptions based on erroneous, and I believe refutable evidence.

It appears to this observer that data points and findings were “cherry picked” in order to substantiate a pre-formed conclusion linking the demise of the Delta smelt, to the severe decline in Chinook salmon population in central California and to the overall health of the Southern resident Orca pods, while ultimately blaming the SWP and CVP.

First, let’s examine the evidence about the Chinook salmon decline in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system. I can think of no one fisheries biologist that has devoted as much time and energy into studying the central California Chinook salmon, than Dr. Peter Moyle at UC@Davis.

http://wfcb.ucdavis.edu/www/Faculty/Peter/petermoyle/Resume.html

In reference #5 above, Moyle et al., reviewed historical literature while performing his own research in an attempt to determine the extent of present day spawning habitat in the entire Sacramento-San Joaquin River system. According to Reynolds et al, in a 1993 DFG publication cited in Dr. Moyle’s paper, 95% of the salmon’s spawning habitat has been either destroyed or made inaccessible. Dr. Moyle did not refute those numbers when he wrote: “Thus, the DFG’s most recent assessment that about 95% of the original spawning habitat has been lost is perhaps somewhat high but probably roughly accurate.” The question of whether a wild population of any fish can sustain itself with only 5-10% of spawning beds being available, especially in an environment of increased predation, increased pollution, decreased forage for smolts, etc., has never been fully discussed in any of the studies or opinions I read.

Further, the situation in central California waterways in regards to salmon shortages does not appear to be a unique event. Indeed, the river systems to the north of the Delta are experiencing similar drastic declines in returning adult salmon. “Consider the following facts: in California, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and southern British Columbia, many runs are reduced to less than 10% of their historical numbers; some have disappeared. Many salmon runs are dominated by hatchery-bred fish. Even for the Columbia River, once the mightiest salmon-producing river south of Canada, over 80% of the total run is now comprised of hatchery-bred fish.”

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Salmon_decline_in_western_North_America:_historical_context

In regards to the Columbia River salmon population, there is certainly conjecture that lack of access to traditional spawning grounds is the root cause of the salmon population decline, with other factors contributing.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1999/es202/l11.html

This could mirror what has occurred in California to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River salmon populations, which obviously cannot be traced to Delta smelt population/availability.

The entrainment of the Delta smelt, (along with salmon smolts), appears to be the crux of the federal governments’ argument against running the water pumps delivering water to the aqueduct. The fact that the NOAA included the Chinook salmon as being adversely effected by the decrease in the Delta smelt, (and thus, the Southern resident Killer Whale pods), is an extreme stretch of biologic food chain relationships that might make for tantalizing reading, but negates other salient research while attempting to simplify a fairly complex set of circumstances. Ammonia discharge from the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant has been implicated in converting the Delta from a nitrate to an ammonia dominated waterway.

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5/water_issues/delta_water_quality/ambient_ammonia_concentrations/foe_nutrient_conc_bio_effects.pdf

Ammonia and pyrethoid insecticides, largely from residential usage, have been connected to toxicity in plankton and copepod populations.

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/deltaflow/docs/exhibits/sac_rcsd/srcsd_exh1t.pdf

Lethal effects of pyrethoids are listed, beginning on page 19 of the following research paper.

http://www.sfbaymsi.org/instructorresources/Delta/DRERIP_pyrethroids_conceptual_model_final_022508.pdf

Urban runoff, (i.e. non-agricultural sources), of pyrethoids has been demonstrated to be the primary source of these contaminants.

http://science.calwater.ca.gov/publications/sci_news_0810_pyrethroid.html

Dr. James Hobbs, professor at UC@Davis, has connected loss of zooplankton to the demise of the Delta smelt populations, as he describes at 5:10 in his presentation on March 15, 2010.

http://webcast.ucdavis.edu/flashv2/?file=CABA/2010/Hobbs_03-15.flv

Further, Dr. Hobbs’ research indicated that the times of greatest Delta smelt populations, coincide with greater than normal fresh water discharge, and prior population crashes conversely coincide with drought years, as he describes, beginning at 6:22 into his presentation, listed above. While ammonia and pyrethoid discharge into the Sacramento River was probably not contributory to the prior Delta smelt population crashes as noted by Dr. Hobbs’ graph in the mid 1970’s and early 1990’s, one could easily predict that drought conditions combined with increased pollution from a much expanded population since those periods, would have dire consequences.

In Judge Wanger’s 2010 ruling, (ref #6 above, page 61, line 11), he alludes to errors made by the defendants in their inconsistency in reporting smelt salvage numbers vs. population size, when he wrote: “This was arbitrary, capricious, and represents a failure to utilize the best available science in light of universal recognition that salvage data must be normalized. This significant error must be corrected on remand”.

Further, Judge Wanger correctly recognized the BiOp defendants own conclusions that: “when relating salvage data to population-level significance [ ] the total number salvaged at the facilities does not necessarily indicate a negative impact upon the overall delta smelt population.”

Additionally, although the FWS suggests that in constructing the BiOp, the best possible science available was utilized to formulate this opinion, studies that linked ammonia pollution to the demise of the Delta smelt and the food source they utilize were ignored. Dugdale’s findings were available, beginning in 2006:

Wilkerson, F.P. R.C. Dugdale, V.E. Hogue, and A. Marchi. Phytoplankton blooms and nitrogen

productivity in the San Francisco Bay. Estuaries and Coasts 29: 401-416 (2006).

Dugdale, R.C., F.P. Wilkerson, V.E. Hogue, and A. March. 2007. The role of ammonium and nitrate in spring bloom development in San Francisco Bay. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 73: 17-29.

A more recent study, by Dr. Patricia Glibert from Univ. of Maryland, is fairly conclusive: “The overwhelming conclusion here is the fact that relationships between nutrients and fish are stronger than those of flow and fish…”. Although this statement contradicts some of the previous studies' findings at first read, she may very well have a point about the need for further study on the impact of man's activities on food-chain dynamics in the rivers where these fish live.

http://aquadoc.typepad.com/files/glibert-reviews-in-fisheries-sci-pre-publication-copy.pdf

Even more striking is her statement beginning on page 25, line 611: “Water restrictions are thought to be required to reduce further loss of these fish by entrainment in export pumps. However, management strategies to date have not reversed fish declines because they have not addressed the ultimate cause of the change at the base of the food web and the complex role of nutrient form and quantity”.

Page 25, line 620: “The present study supports the premise that reduction of the NH4 + effluent into the Bay Delta is essential to restoring historic pelagic fish populations and that until such reductions occur, other measures, including regulation of water pumping or manipulations of salinity, as has been the current strategy, will likely show little beneficial effect”.

Dr. Glibert’s credentials are impeccable, and shortly after releasing this study was asked to step down from her position as committee member on the National Research Council.

http://www.umces.edu/sites/default/files/hpl/pdfs/GlibertCV.pdf

http://fresnobeehive.com/news/NAS%20Ltr%20to%20Locke%20Salazar%20re.%20Glibert%20removal%2025%20May%202010.pdf

Was this a true “conflict of interest” removal of an esteemed colleague on the NRC, or payback from Ken Salazar’s office? Salazar is not only Secretary of the Interior, but a defendant in the lawsuit currently being heard in regards to this matter.

Finally, I would like to address the National Marine Fisheries Service’s lengthy, detailed, but in my opinion, flawed assessment of the Southern Resident Orca pods population collapse as written in reference #7 listed above.

In this 250+ page paper, the NMFS does a very good job of describing the Orca natural history, including details of species range, genetics, morphology, diet, life cycles and behavior. The NMFS paper attempts to describe the possibility of sub-species existence, but acknowledges that more study is required. The article describes the Northern and Southern resident Orca populations dietary preferences, (II-20), although the data is recent. While definitive data on dietary preferences is difficult to obtain on any aquatic predator, the Orca is even more so, due to the limited numbers of individuals and difficulty obtaining fresh specimens. Even Orca fecal samples are not easily obtained. Most studies on the Resident Orca diet are recent publications because historical data is almost non-existent. Both the Northern and Southern resident orca populations, by all recent accounts, “prefer” salmon as their main dietary source. Considering the once prodigious salmon populations that existed along the Northeast Pacific coastline from Alaska to Central California, it is not difficult to imagine that salmon would make up a great percentage of the diet of any Orca pod residing in these waters.

However, Orcas in the Pacific Northeast waters are also known as marine mammal predators, and have historically hunted baleen whales in well coordinated attacks on Blue and Grey whales. A recent article describes a very plausible explanation for the possible dietary shift of Orcas from large marine mammals to salmon.

http://www2.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF16/1693.html

Considering that Orcas have incredibly large teeth, 40-56 conical teeth that are used for tearing and slashing, it is difficult to imagine that these types of formidable weapons would evolve if salmon were the primary hunted species. The article above describes the teeth as analogous to T. rex’s dentition, and rightly so.

http://www.mclaren.gs/whales_teeth.htm

The Orca, being the very highest predator in the sea, doesn’t need these teeth for self-defense against any other species, or against each other. The Orca has no natural enemies and is not aggressive towards other members of its own species. Those teeth have evolved and are designed to hunt large game species, not fish. It is highly plausible that man’s whaling activities has caused a shift of resident Orcas away from marine mammals to salmon to fulfill their prodigious dietary requirements.

Another factor that needs to be considered in the demise of the Orca pod populations in Puget Sound is again a result of man’s activities. Pollution of the waterways from lumber and pulp mills has increased PCB contamination to exceedingly high levels. The following article indicates that salmon can concentrate these toxins to 159,000 times of that from the surrounding water.

http://www.rense.com/general41/pcb.htm

The shift from a baleen whale diet to salmon, which concentrate PCB’s at an exceedingly high rate, could be the reason for the demise of the Southern resident Orca pods.

http://www.cascadiaresearch.org/robin/Krahnetal2007.pdf

The following study from the NOAA themselves in 2000, indicates that even transient Orcas residing in the waters of the northeast Pacific ocean have high PCB levels that, although may be sub-toxic, are potentially endocrine disrupting and immunotoxic.

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/cbd/marine_mammal/kwworkshops/preypubs/pcbpacifickw.pdf

Although the NOAA reference #7 above, discusses the organochloride contamination levels and toxicity extensively, it offers no clear cut solution in the difficult task of eliminating these persistent chemicals from the waters inhabited by the three pods of resident orcas. It appears to this reader that it’s simply easier, and far cheaper to turn off the federal pumps of the CWP in the delta of California, than it is to clean up the mess in Puget Sound and correct the demise of the salmon in the Columbia River system which may be the real culprits. And it’s much easier and cheaper to blame the farmers in central California for the demise of a three inch fish, than to retrofit the Sacramento Waste Treatment Facility to remove NH4+ from the human sewage discharge.

Something certainly smells fishy with the entire NOAA “Delta smelt” BiOp, and it’s not the smell of these fish being sucked through the federal pumps that I’m detecting. Cherry picked research, exclusion of vital and current contrarian studies, bad data presentation, inclusion of the Southern Resident pods of Orcas and suspect treatment of scientists with alternative views…it all adds up to a biologic opinion that was generated to support a conclusion, not to test a hypothesis.

Central California Conservatives

Since we live in a time when there are a myriad of social and economic problems and, seemingly, a paucity of problem solvers, a group of men from all walks of life have formed to meet monthly and discuss ideas and strategies to promote conservative values in an effort to address these problems.

The CCC...

-operates without fanfare and does not seek notoriety or publicity.

-discusses a multitude of issues such as water, unions, taxes, politics and how best to survive and reverse the liberal/progressive/socialist agenda.
-supports the tea party but is not affiliated.

-supports the constitution and the fundamental belief that our nation was founded on Christian principles, but, like our nation's Founders, acknowledges the existence of other religions, as set forth by the First Amendment to our Constitution.

-smoking cigars is tolerated as a small protest to those who would take away our civil liberties. Also, we like them.

-not just an outlet to gripe (although whining is allowed) but a forum to discuss helpful ideas with a group of like-minded conservatives and generate solutions.

-Our focus, in descending order of importance, is local, State and national issues. 

What we want to accomplish...

-By careful and tedious research, combined with thoughtful and time consuming editorial contributions, we aim to bring forward to this site conservative solutions to correct decades of complacency on the part of our citizenry and elected officials. The words of Thomas Jefferson ring true: "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent". Further, "Educate and inform the whole mass of the people...They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our Liberty".