Home invasion . . . it happens anywhere, anytime, are you prepared?

On June 23, 2013 at approximately 10:30 am, a nanny cam video from a home surveillance system demonstrates just what happens when a robber decides to kick your door down . . . in broad daylight.

The community was Millburn, NJ. A liberal town in a liberal state with strict gun control laws that protect the criminal.

Video link:
http://www.myfoxny.com/video?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=9025554

A young woman with two small children was watching cartoons on TV in living room when a black male 5 ft 11 in, 210 lbs with a salt and pepper beard kicked in the front door and began beating her demanding to know where her valuables were. The video speaks for itself.

Liberal gun control advocates who believe that her beating was deserved, because she was white and middle class, probably applaud the fact that criminal was not harmed.

President Obama is probably pleased that the woman took the beating like a woman and survived. In 2005, as an Illinois state senator he voted to bar the use of a firearm for self defense, even in the case of the threat of death. Incredibly, in the face of this record of no sympathy for those women, men, and children who have been killed, maimed, injured and traumatized in criminal home invasions, over 80% of women 18-26 years of age voted for Obama’s reelection.
NJ is a liberal state with gun control laws that discourage the Second Amendment right of self-protection with a firearm in violation of the Second Amendment and the SCOTUS rulings in Heller
and McDonald, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Moore.

What you see in the video could have been much, much worse.

America, you need to awaken and understand that the only person in that video who was not under threat of losing their life was the black male beating the woman in the presence of her child . . .
Note that the police did not make an appearance and save the day. They respond to a call, they do not magically appear, and they usually appear . . . after the fact. Worse is the reality of the law concerning police protection. You have no right to police protection. Hence, the Second Amendment right of self-protection with a firearm.

Unfortunately, the May 25, 2013 home invasion in Mt. View in Anchorage showed that bad things happen to good people when they happen, without rhyme or reason. The elderly grandparents had been watching one of the grandchildren while the parents were at a movie with their four year old. The grandfather was killed, the grandmother mother was raped and killed, the great-grandmother who was there was raped, and the two year old child were raped by Jerry Andrew Active who had been released from jail that day. Active was unarmed.

Alaskans, we have solid gun laws that give us the right to self-protection. We do not need to live like a sheep, die like a sheep, as they do in liberal states. Your duty to your loved ones is to protect them, the cops come after the fact. Good locks and a handy firearm that you have trained to use to protect yourself and your family in your home is only common sense.
Americans were endowed with the right to self-protection with a firearm, not making use of the Second Amendment right is simply failing in one's responsibility to family and self.

Was the Benghazi attack a Machiavellian plot that went wrong?

With the 4 June, 2013 Washington Times article by Bill Gertz it was revealed that the Al Qaeda attack on Benghazi may have been more than an attempt to strike back at America for the killing of Al Qaeda’s commander in Libya by a drone strike while he was in Pakistan. The claim of Abdalluh Dhu al-Bajadin, an Al Qaeda weapons expert, was that Ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed by lethal injection during a botched attempt to kidnap him. The attack on the embassy being a cover for the real objective, the taking of Stevens prisoner. Al-Bajadin hinted at a high level prisoner exchange as being the motive.

This story supports and lends credibility to the allegations of ADM James Lyons (RET) made in his 7 March, 2013 op-ed piece in the Washington Times titled: "Lyons: Benghazi cover-up continues, nearly six months later". Lyons wrote then "Was Stevens targeted to be killed, or was he supposed to be taken hostage in exchange for the return of the Blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman?" His surmising was prophetic . . . or, did Lyons have information from intelligence sources that gave rise to his question? Further, ADM Lyons confirmed the ability of the U.S. military to respond in a timely manner to the Benghazi attack.

ADM Lyons stated that there were two F16s on alert at the Aviano, AB in northern Italy that could have responded within 90 minutes of launch. With KC135 tanker support, the aircraft could have remained on station over the Mission at Benghazi all night, if necessary. ADM Lyons further confirmed the availability and existence of Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force 12, comprising 125-130 Force Recon Marines, at Sigonella NAS, Sicily. ADM Lyons further revealed the existence of a British security team at Tripoli that could have been called upon to aid the Tripoli security team led by LTC Gibson that was ordered to stand down before they could board a C130 to Benghazi. ADM Lyons further questioned the downgrading of security at the Benghazi Mission in the face of increasing intelligence and activity by even Libyan security personnel contracted for the Mission’s security.

Given the Obama Administration’s clear support of the Muslim Brotherhood’s destabilization of Northern and, now, western Africa, was there a Machiavellian plot to use Ambassador Stevens in a prisoner swap for the Blind Sheikh? Was this a "work around" to eliminate Congressional and public sentiment against the Blind Sheikh’s release from prison?

Given the Administration’s silence and obstruction over the Benghazi attack, including the sequestration and refusal to provide the location and availability of the Benghazi Mission survivors, the lack of transparency in the Administrations response to requests for records and testimony by Administration officials, the retribution against those State Department employees that did testify before Congress, the admission by Al Qaeda that the attack was cover for an attempt to kidnap the U.S. Ambassador for a high level prisoner exchange, and the allegations made on the part of ADM James Lyons (RET) predating the admission by Al Qaeda reported in the Washington Times on 4 June by 3 months lends an uncomfortable credibility to the allegations made by ADM Lyons. It certainly appears that there is a correlation between the diminished security at the Mission at Benghazi in the face of Ambassador Stevens requesting additional security in mid August, and the revelations of al-Bajadin on 4 June regarding the attack as a cover to kidnap Ambassador Stevens to effect a high level prisoner exchange.

Did President Barack Obama and SECSTATE Hillary Clinton conspire with the Muslim Brotherhood to deliver the Blind Sheikh to Al Qaeda by setting up an exchange resulting from a planned attack on the Mission at Benghazi to avoid Congressional and public scrutiny? By doing so, did our President and the Secretary of State violate their oath of office, conspire to aid and abet an enemy of the United States, cause the unnecessary deaths of 4 Americans, including Ambassador Stevens, and then lie to the American public and Congress as to the cause of the attack on the Mission at Benghazi? Was this all part of a cover up planned well ahead of time?

Note that the same day 9/11/2012 demonstrations at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt were allegedly protesting the same video. Who controls Egypt? The Muslim Brotherhood. There are too many correlations between what Gertz reports of al-Bajadin’s revelations about a kidnap plot and prisoner exchange, and what ADM Lyons alleges.

ADM Lyons and Mr. Bill Gertz have illuminated the real reason behind the Benghazi attack.

Now, the American public has to hold Congress responsible for revealing the truth by appointing a special prosecutor with full investigative and subpoena powers to force the production and interview of the survivors of Benghazi, Libyan and Egyptian officials, State Department and CIA personnel, including GEN David Petraeus and SECSTATE Hillary Clinton, all documents relating to Benghazi and the Cairo demonstrations, and any contact with the Muslim Brotherhood. Four dead Americans, and to date there is nothing other than Hillary Clinton’s facetious, arrogant retort to Congress: SECSTATE Hillary Clinton in response to questioning by Sen. Ron Johnson, R WI: "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

SECSTATE Clinton has yet to ask the families of those who were killed and injured that night "what difference does it make?"

To keep faith with the American people and one’s oath and to honor our fallen heroes of that attack, that’s what "difference" it makes.

　

For more information:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/7/lyons-benghazi-cover-continues-nearly-six-months-l/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/4/al-qaeda-weapons-expert-us-ambassador-libya-killed/?page=all#pagebreak

Part III Obama's Watergates: Benghazi, lies, deception, cover up--but why?

On September 11, 2012, something unprecedented in recent American foreign policy occurred. The United States Mission at Benghazi came under armed assault by jihadists of the Ansar Al-Sharia faction of the Libyan militias without any response on the part of the United States government or our military forces in the region. Not since the seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran on 4 November, 1979 has the United States seemed so powerless to respond to an armed attack against what is considered U.S. territory.

At least 30 jihadis took part in the attack that started after 9 pm local time using AK47s, RPDs, RPGs and 82 mm mortars. The CIA annex about a block away also came under attack by the same group with the ensuing firefight lasting until after sunrise the next day. The jihadi militia personnel were ill-trained, but well armed with a decided superiority in numbers.

Ambassador Christopher J. Stevens was raped and killed by the jihadists. Sean Smith, U.S. Foreign Service Information Management, and CIA Global Response Staff members ex-Seals Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were also killed. Doherty and Woods were killed by a mortar round while defending the CIA complex later that same night. Another 10 State Department employees were wounded or injured in the attack. What followed in the immediate aftermath was a surrealistic rejection of reality and an attempt by the Obama Administration to cover up the event as being a spontaneous protest against an unknown and heretofore unknown You Tube video allegedly insulting the prophet Mohammed.

There was no military or other government response that night to Ambassador Stevens notification made to Gregory Hicks, Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya who was at Tripoli, that the U.S. Mission at Benghazi was under attack by armed jihadis: "Greg, we are under attack." Deputy Chief Hicks then contacted his superiors in Washington, D.C. and informed the State Department duty officer of the attack. Security camera feeds and the retasking of a British operated surveillance drone allowed real time visual transmission of the attack to the State Department, DOD, and the White House.

The attack happened very shortly after the 7:30 pm dinner with the Turkish Consel Ali Sait Akin. Post the notification by Ambassador Stevens to Deputy Chief of Mission Hicks, several requests for aid were made by the CIA personnel under attack at the CIA Annex just down the street from the Mission. The CIA personnel were repeatedly told to stand down by a still unidentified CIA superior and not to attempt rescue of the Mission personnel. Doherty and Woods disobeyed that order and rescued the State Department Mission personnel and the wounded and recovered Sean Smith’s body back to the CIA annex. Doherty and Woods were killed later that night while on the roof of the CIA annex returning fire and acting to spot the mortar emplacement that killed them.

It is alleged recently by some sources that the Turkish Consel was aware of the impending attack and failed to notify Ambassador Stevens demonstrating the Muslim Brotherhood has influence into NATO.

Very recently, Al Qaeda has claimed that the Ambassador Stevens was marked for death in retaliation for a drone strike against Abu Yahya al-Libi, the Libyan Al Qaeda leader in Libya. Al-Libi was killed by a drone strike on 4 June, 2012 in Waziristan, Pakistan. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Osama Bin Ladin’s successor, called for retaliation against the Americans for the death of al-Libi. The U.S. had placed a $1 million bounty on Al-Libi. An Al Qaeda website posting by Abdallah Dhu-al-Bajadin, a known Al Qaeda weapons expert, conveyed that Ambassador Stevens had been killed by lethal injection. The rape of Ambassador Stevens has never been denied by the State Department or the Obama Administration.

A 12 man security military security team led by COL Andrew Wood provided security for State Department personnel in Tripoli and sent personnel to the Benghazi Mission as required from 12 February to 14 August, 2012. They were withdrawn at the end of their tour and not replaced. The decision to discontinue U.S. armed personnel as security was made by SECSTATE Hillary Clinton. COL Wood testified to Congress that he had 24/7 communications capability with Special Operations Command, Africa (SOCAFRICA) and reported three times daily to SOCAFRICA superiors on his team’s activities in support of the State Department personnel. He further testified: "The security in Benghazi was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there. The situation remained uncertain and reports from some Libyans indicated it was getting worse. Diplomatic security remained weak. In April there was only one US diplomatic security agent stationed there. The RSO struggled to obtain additional personnel there but was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with."

The Ansar al-Sharia militia included individuals who were employed at the time by the State Department as contract security for the facility, giving the jihadis insider knowledge of the layout, personnel numbers, and security systems. COL Andrew Wood had warned the State Department of the likelihood of an attack in the near future when his security detail was relieved at the end of July, 2012. Even in the face of intelligence from several sources, including the interim Libyan government that indicated that further attacks against U.S. and British personnel were likely, the security at the Mission in Benghazi was allowed to become the responsibility of hired Libyan jihadi militia personnel, many of whom were known to be associated with Al Qaeda affiliated Ansar al-Sharia. U.S. security personnel were withdrawn.

The Administration’s Response

The Obama Administration’s response has been without credibility. The first response was by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the day after the attack on the U.S. Mission at Benghazi. SECSTATE Clinton claimed that the attack had been a protest that got out of hand over an unknown You Tube video of a parody on Islam by an unknown film maker in the U.S. For the next two weeks, this claim was repeated by the President and by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice who was pressed into service to give Hillary’s incredible claim credibility. President Obama followed through and continued what became obvious as an outright lie. Even SECDEF Leon Panetta supported the outright lie being promoted by the Administration regarding the Benghazi attack. The CIA, in its initial press release claimed that the attack on the Benghazi Mission was a terrorist attack, but retracted its position to conform to the President’s, Clinton’s and Rice’s outright lies. In the face of four Americans in service to this country being killed, the Obama Administration, as it did in Fast and Furious, chose to lie and to cover up the attack. Since, the Administration has continued its obfuscation, lies and innuendo, choosing to attack those who have come forward to testify and to single them out for retribution for testifying to Congress.

Congressional Hearings have revealed that there were orders given at the highest levels to stand down any attempted U.S. military response to the attack at the time of the attack. The identity of those giving the orders has not been forthcoming. As with Fast and Furious, documents have not been forthcoming, and those that have been provided are so heavily redacted that there are unintelligible. This is the response from the "most transparent" Presidential Administration in history.

What were the military options available for any military response to the attack on the Mission at Benghazi?

How long would it have taken to get assistance there from the nearest U.S. military presence in the region?

Only the President of the United States can order American troops to cross the border from one country to another. Only the President. Given that authority, the order to stand down had to come from either the White House directly, or through SECDEF Leon Panetta.

Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks has testified that his pleas for assistance for Benghazi were met with silence on the part of the State Department, his plea to AFRICOM was met with an intent to respond, but someone ordered AFRICOM to stand down as well. Only orders from the President of United States can cause U.S. troops to be moved across the border of one country to another. Therefore, the order to stand down any military response had to come from the White House. Hicks testified before Congress that he requested a military response to the attack by a Special Operations team led by LTC Gibson, which was located in Tripoli at the time. Special Operations Command Africa (SOCAFRICA) ordered LTC Gibson to stand down and not to respond to the attack. It is reported that LTC Gibson was "furious" with the stand down order.

No member the United States military, no matter the branch or the MOS, would have refused a mission to go to the aid of those under attack in Benghazi.

Those who have served in any capacity in the military know that when push comes to shove, and the excrement hits the proverbial fan, all become infantry. That means, mechanics, cooks, typists, whatever, they grab a rifle and go to fill the gap in the line. Any Marine at NAS Sigonella would have been more than qualified to answer the attack on the Mission at Benghazi, no matter whether mechanic, cook or clerk typist. All Marines are infantry.

NAS Sigonella has Marine security and infantry elements assigned to AFRICOM. In October, 2011 Marines assigned to Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force 12 comprising 125 Marines tasked with training militaries in the Sahel, a region of northern Africa, deployed from Camp Lejune, NC to their new barracks at NAS Sigonella. SPMAGTF 12 is comprised of combat ready, infantry qualified Marines who would be deployed in their training role in platoon sized elements. How many of the 125 Marines were available to respond from NAS Sigonella, Sicily on the night of September 11, 2012 is unknown. NAS Sigonella is about 460 miles from Benghazi, or two hours by C130.

Aviano, AFB in central Italy is home to the 31^st Security Squadron equipped with standard infantry weapons and trained in combat tactics. The personnel of the 31^st should have been considered in the response, although, by C130, they would have taken the longest to land at Benghazi airport being over 1,000 miles from Benghazi, taking perhaps 6 hours by C130, including aircraft and personnel prep time.

The U.S. Army Italy has several bases with deployed units. At Vinceza in central Italy there is the 66^th Military Intelligence Group and two Army transportation units between Vinceza and Livorno, not to mention the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts of America(!) . (Nothing is more frightening than a bunch of Girl Scouts armed who have not made their cookie sale quota and who are armed with M4s.) All kidding aside, there are combat qualified personnel at either of these installations who could have been tapped for an emergency relief mission.

The U.S. had military tactical strike aircraft available. A squadron of F16s are stationed at Aviano, AFB, which could have been on station over the Benghazi Mission within 2 hours of launch. Marine or Navy F18 Hornet fighter/attack aircraft stationed at NAS Sigonella could have been on-station overhead in Benghazi within the hour from time of launch. On afterburners, even less time for both Aviano’s F16s and NAS Sigonella’s F18s.

Given the relatively undisciplined nature of the jihadist militias, two F16s or F18s making low altitude high speed passes may have been sufficient to cause the jihadis to retreat. Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks testified his belief that the presence of U.S. military aircraft overhead would have been effective in causing the militias to break off their attack.

Therefore, the claim that any response to the jihadi attack had to be made by SOF units that were allegedly unavailable is specious and a red herring designed to detract from the fact that there were several "regular" military assets actually available. The SOF team in Tripoli led by LTC Gibson, the USAF 31^st Security Forces Squadron at Aviano, members of at least two Army transportation and logistics battalions at Livorno and Vinceza, and the SPMAGTF 12 Marines. Any of which could have been cobbled together as a relief force of platoon size (36 troops) with vehicles and moved by C130 to Benghazi before the battle for the Mission and the CIA Annex had petered out.

It has been alleged that LTG Carter Ham, then CO of AFRICOM, was summarily relieved of his command and placed under house arrest for his refusal to follow orders to stand down any attempt at relief of the Benghazi Mission and the CIA personnel under attack. It is known that LTG Ham was relieved of his command shortly thereafter and denied the command of NATO that he was to be his next assignment. LTG Ham retired after his return stateside. His testimony has yet to be heard by Congress.

It is known that the State Department in D.C. was watching the attack unfold from the beginning through security feeds throughout the Mission complex. There was a drone tasked to overwatch within the first hour of the attack. Drones were on station throughout the night. Were the visual feeds extended to the White House Situation Room? Is there any reason to believe that given the nature of the situation that the visual feeds were not extended to the White House?

What was the purpose of the U.S. Mission at Benghazi?

Although not admitted directly by the Administration, it was reported in the NY Times and by Sharyl Attkisson of CBS that the U.S. Mission in Benghazi was engaged in . . . gun running. The U.S. was supplying weapons paid for by Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia to the Sunni militias in Libya and Syria. These weapons were also making their way into western Africa to Mali and further south. It is believed that the dinner meeting between Ambassador Stevens and the Turkish Consel Ali Sait Akin concerned weapons shipments. It is now known that amongst the weapons being provided to the various Sunni, Al Qaeda affliated militias were older model SA-7 Strella and more advanced SA-24 MANPADs, Russian man portable anti-aircraft missiles out of Libyan stores. The missiles were being infiltrated into Syria through the Turkish border.

The CIA personnel at Benghazi were involved in accounting for the Libyan MANPAD stores to prevent them from from falling into the militia’s hands wholesale. The CIA is trying to control the proliferation of MANPADs, and the State Department under SECSTATE Hillary Clinton and her successor John Kerry are proliferating use of the missiles to extreme Al Qaeda jihadist militias throughout northern and western Africa and the conflict in Syria.

Russian General Nikolai Makarov has been stirring the pot by alleging that the Obama Administration has been supplying Stingers to the Syrian Rebels.

In the mean time, the Chicago Tribune dutifully reports that the Obama Administration is not supplying U.S. made Stinger MANPADs to the Syrian rebels, quoting SECDEF Panetta and others of the Obama Administration who were careful not to say that they were supplying Russian made MANPADs from Libyan stores.

Does the right hand know what the left is doing in the Obama Administration?

What did the President know, and when did he know it?

 President Obama has feigned ignorance of what happened at Benghazi. Yet, he was one of the first to mouth the lies of the attack merely being a protest that evolved into something much worse. This President, who had to be fully informed, in this day and age it is simply not credible to believe that he was not immediately informed of and continually updated on the events unfolding at Benghazi, let American personnel . . . die.

There is no other way to put it. He is the Commander-in-Chief. You do not leave your people hanging. Yet, this President did exactly that and made excuses. He expects Americans to believe that he was not informed, that he did not know, that he went to bed early while Americans were under armed attack at a U.S. diplomatic mission in a foreign country. Yet, he makes the personal decision as to whom the drones target for killing and when the killing is to be done.

His position is simply without substance, logic, truth, merit, or basis in fact. He is the President. It is his job to "take charge", no matter the time of day or night.

Is it believable that SECSTATE Hillary Clinton or SECDEF Leon Panetta left the President out of the information loop on Benghazi?

No more so that his good friend Eric Holder left Obama out of the loop regarding Fast and Furious.

Between Fast and Furious, dead U.S. personnel now number 4 for Benghazi. The body count for Fast and Furious is 2 dead U.S. law enforcement personnel as a result of illegal gun running. This does not count the dozens of dead innocents in Mexico who have died from the illegal gun running and the violation of Mexico’s sovereignty with the illegal gun running. For Fast and Furious, the Mexican casualty count is still ongoing. This Administration is covered in blood.

Was SECSTATE Hillary Clinton responsible for Benghazi?

This Administration has pursued a policy of accommodation and non-confrontation with the Islamic states and movements. This Administration has ignored the slavery that is rampant in the ME under Islam. This Administration, like Bush, has ignored the fate of Christians who have become the targets of hate and violence all through the Middle East without one word of objection or concern expressed by the Obama Administration.

This Administration has sought accommodation with our enemies, has provided weapons to Al Qaeda affiliated militias in Libya, Syria and northern and western Africa.

This Administration’s policy of accommodation with the Muslim Brotherhood, Islam and radical Islamic militias actively engaged in fighting U.S. forces or opposed to the U.S. and openly allied with Al Qaeda has resulted in destabilizing every country from Afghanistan West to Nigeria.

Who has been responsible for this policy? President Barack Obama. SECSTATE Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State who promotes the President’s foreign policy. This is not to state that she is not responsible, this is simply recognizing that President Obama is in charge and ultimately responsible for his policies.

SECSTATE Hillary Clinton in response to questioning by Sen. Ron Johnson, R WI: "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

SECSTATE Clinton has yet to ask the families of those who were killed and injured that night "what difference does it make?"

Clinton could not even provide an accurate count of the personnel evacuated from the Mission at Benghazi in her testimony before Congress. Her answers demonstrated her arrogance and self assurance that she would be protected by the press and by Obama. Clinton holds herself unaccountable, as do the rest of the Obama Administration officials, above the law and unaccountable for their decisions and conduct. It was SECSTATE Hillary Clinton’s decision not to continue the armed security contingent that was commanded by COL Andrew Wood in the face of recommendations by former Libya Ambassador Cretz to the contrary and warnings by him of the potential for attacks against U.S. personnel in Benghazi.

This is the contempt that this Administration has for the rule of law, for its personnel in harm’s way, for our military, for our Constitution, and for us, the American People. This is an Administration that holds itself above the law, an Administration that aids and abets our enemies by giving them weapons and material aid, an Administration that ignores the sovereignty of our neighbors and causes the murder of Mexico’s citizens through its illegal acts.

This Administration is now up to its arm pits in blood. The blood of Americans it abandoned to die, and the blood of Americans and Mexicans who died as a result of illegal gun running into Mexico to the drug cartels with the full knowledge of the DOJ and BATF.

For more information:

http://www.stripes.com/news/marines-in-support-of-africom-establish-task-force-in-sigonella-1.156957

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

http://freebeacon.com/possible-poisoning/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june13/benghazi_05-08.html

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/11/turkish-ambassador-who-dined-with-stevens-on-9-11-knew-of-benghazi-attack-failed-to-warn/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/10/24/breaking-news-white-house-watched-benghazi-attacked-and-didnt-respond/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/08/who-is-lt-col-gibson-and-does-he-hold-the-key-to-who-gave-stand-down-order-in-benghazi/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-benghazi-hearings-whats-new-and-whats-not/2013/05/08/d0953a28-b831-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_blog.html

http://rt.com/news/syria-rebels-aircraft-manpad-732/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/28/syria-middleeast

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-24/news/sns-rt-us-syria-crisis-stingersbre89n1j7-20121024_1_stingers-syrian-rebels-manpads

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2012/10/26/us-coordinates-manpads-supplies-to-syrian-rebels-russia.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-admin-admits-to-covertly-sending-heavy-weapons-to-syrian-rebels-2012-12

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443684104578062842929673074.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/28/general-losing-his-job-over-benghazi/

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/was-africom-general-replaced-for-his-efforts-to-save-benghazi-security-officials/

http://www.africom.mil/about-the-command/past-leaders/general-carter-f-ham

http://www.africom.mil/Newsroom/Article/9157/panetta-strongly-condemns-benghazi-attack

http://www.africom.mil/Newsroom/Article/9154/official-details-benghazi-attack-vows-to-support-l

http://www.africom.mil/Newsroom/Article/9164/us-says-small-minority-behind-mideast-protests

http://www.africom.mil/Newsroom/Article/9180/hateful-speech-does-not-excuse-violence-obama-says

http://www.africom.mil/Newsroom/Article/9043/africom-commander-details-current-emerging-threats

http://www.africom.mil/Newsroom/Article/9153/statement-by-the-president-on-the-attack-in-bengha

http://www.africom.mil/Newsroom/Article/9152/statement-on-the-death-of-american-personnel-in-be

http://www.africom.mil/Newsroom/Article/9151/statement-by-secretary-clinton-on-the-attack-in-be

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/05/susan-rice-national-security-adviser-benghazi

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/06/Benghazi-Mom-Calls-Susan-Rice-A-Liar

http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/benghazi-investigation/

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/contractors-benghazi

http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/susan-rice-taking-over-for-tom-donilon-despite-benghazi-mess-20130605

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/11/16/flashback-what-susan-rice-said-about-benghazi/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-us-ambassador-united-nations-susan-rice/story?id=17240933#.UKQD2GfSnpg

　

　

　

Part I Obama's Watergates: The President is not above the law

Watergate, June 17, 1972-August 8, 1974. Watergate was a simple matter. On June 17, 1972, y five men where were caught during an attempted break-in at the Democratic Party Headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. What brought down President Richard Nixon’s presidency was the attempted cover-up of the events. The purpose of the break-in was to wiretap the Democratic National Headquarters. Eleven advisors and aides to then President Richard Nixon were indicted by a Grand Jury on various charges including burglary, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury.

John Mitchell, a former Attorney General was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and perjury and fined $42,000. He was imprisoned for 19 months.

H.R. Halderman, White House Chief of Staff, was convicted of conspiracy and obstruction of justice and fined $16,000. He was imprisoned for 18 months.

Charles Colson, former White House counsel, was convicted of obstruction of justice, he was fined $5,000 and was imprisoned for 7 months.

John Erlichman, Assistant to the President for political affairs, was convicted of perjury, and obstruction of justice and fined $40,000. He was imprisoned for 18 months.

Gordon Strachan, White House Aide to H. R. Halderman, had his charges dropped before trial. He had been facing up to 15 years in federal prison and $20,000 in fines.

Robert Mardian, aid to John Mitchell, was exonerated on appeal.

Kenneth Parkinson, counsel to the President’s reelection committee, faced 10 years in prison and $10,00 in fines, but was acquitted at trial.

Jeb Magruder, Deputy Director of the President’s reelection committee, was convicted of conspiracy and was imprisoned for 7 months.

Frederick LaRue, a Presidential Aide, was convicted of obstruction of justice and was imprisoned for four and half months.

Maurice Stans, finance chairman of the President’s reelection committee, was convicted of three counts of violating the Federal Election Campaign Act and two counts of accepting illegal campaign contributions. He was fined $5,000. Two earlier charges of perjury and obstruction of justice were dropped.

Egil Krogh, Jr., White House Advisor and counsel, was indicted for obstruction of justice and imprisoned for 4 months. He was part of the White House Plumbers unit under G. Gordon Liddy. Although he was convicted for a break-in regarding Daniel Ellsberg’s disclosures of the Pentagon Papers, his role was discovered as part of the Watergate investigation.

G. Gordon Liddy, counsel to President Nixon’s reelection campaign, a White House Aide, and a former FBI agent, served 52 months in federal prisons for burglary and refusing to testify before a Senate committee that was investigating Watergate.

Today, in some of America’s big cities, especially in high crime areas, the police would not even bother investigating the break-in. Yet, this non-violent act of breaking of the law destroyed a presidency.

On August 8, 1974, President Richard Nixon resigned as President of the United States. His presidency was brought to an end by the mere attempt at cover-up of an attempted break-in of the DNC to place wiretaps in those offices. The President lied, as did others in an attempt to cover-up the break-in. In many jurisdictions what was attempted that night in 1972 would have been a misdemeanor or class C felony at the worst. No Americans died, nor was anyone injured. No acts of illegal aiding and abetting an enemy were accomplished. Yet, a presidency was brought down, because of the attempted cover-up.

What was the lesson of Watergate? Don’t lie to the American people, and no one, including the President of the United States is above the law. No one.

Tomorrow: part II, Barack Hussein Obama’s Watergates.

The personnel at the Benghazi U.S. Mission were abandoned while under attack with military resources available and able to come to their aid in a timely manner, but left to die by this President for political reasons. At least one drone was overhead the entire time sending video to the DOD and State, and undoubtedly, with a feed to the WH Situation Room.

The U.S. Mission in Benghazi was running guns to Islamic jihadists, including Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria. Our President authorized arming our enemies. Americans were abandoned on the battlefield, American soil--that's what the Mission was--was violated by armed hostiles. President Barrack Hussein Obama, then SecState Hillary Clinton, and then SecDef Leon Panetta are all complicit in the failure to act to protect U.S. personnel under attack and complicit in their knowledge of aiding and abetting enemies of the United States, even going so far as to hire members of Ansar al-Sharia, a known Al Qaeda affiliated jihadist militia as . . . security personnel for the mission. A U.S. Ambassador was sodomized and killed in the attack, and another State Dept. employee was killed, along with two CIA ex-Navy Seals trying to defend against the attack.

Then, there is Fast and Furious, in which our government illegally ran guns into Mexico arming the drug cartels in a perverted attempt to undermine the Second Amendment through public backlash over the carnage these illegally smuggled weapons brought to the citizens of Mexico. A DEA agent was killed in Mexico and a Border Patrol officer was killed in the U.S. by these weapons. AG Eric Holder and President Barrack Hussein Obama are culpable for this intentional violation of Mexican national sovereignty and the arming of enemies of the United States and complicit in the deaths of two U.S. law enforcement officers as a result of their illegal acts.

Then, there is the IRS scandal which is incredible in of itself. Prior knowledge of the President, complicit in his allowing the supression of political opponents fund raising ability while fast tracking friendly organizations. This has never happened to this degree. 500 organizations were impacted negatively, with prejudicial delays openly admitted. All concerned at the IRS need to be fired. They all took an oath to serve. President Barrack Hussein Obama is complicit in his knowledge and his silence.

The AP scandal is another harbinger of things to come with the assault on the AP. Even if the press is hostile to the right, it should still be free to exercise its 1st Amendment rights. AG Eric Holder did not act without his President's approval. This was a politically motivated assault on the Fourth Estate.

All of the above serve as notice to we the people that the Constitution and our Constitutional Republic are in peril by a tyrannical, cynical, self-serving President and his appointees.

If we let this continue, we have only ourselves to blame.

Call and write your congressional delegation, call the governor and have that office stand up to the President. Then, in 2014 and 2016, end this liberal tyranny and assault upon our Constitution by voting for conservatives who will honor and obey the Constitution of the United States as the Supreme Law of the Land.

HB4 is a bad idea and a slap in the voters' faces

HB4 creating the Alaska Gas Development Corporation was passed by the Alaska House on 2 April, 2013 by a vote of 30-9. This bill is the culmination of over 10 years of effort on the part of the Legislature and the Governor to end the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority created by 138,000 votes for Proposition 3 in 2002. HB4 is now before the Alaska Senate, where it will probably pass, given the list of sponsors in the Senate: Senators Dyson, Huggins, Giessel, McGuire, and Micciche. There are only 20 members of the Alaska Senate. Senator Charlie Huggins is the Senate President. Therefore, the likelihood of this legislation failing to pass is nil.

Alaska’s history of attempting to get a natural gas pipeline built to move natural gas from the North Slope to market has been convoluted. HB4 further complicates this confusing and contradictory history.

Prop 3 passed in 2002 mandated the State to create a natural gas development authority (AS 41.41) to build the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline from Prudhoe to Valdez, with a 250 mmcf spur to south central. The capacity of the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline (AANGPV) to be built was approximately 2.5-3.0 bcf/da with most of the gas converted to LNG and then shipped to market in the U.S. or to foreign markets. Proposition 3 created the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority (ANGDA), which was to be have been the vehicle that would oversea the natural gas development potential for Alaska. From the very start, ANGDA was vehemently opposed, disrespected, and diminished by Governor Frank Murkowski, Governor Sarah Palin, Governor Sean Parnell and the Legislature from 2002 forward. With their opposition to ANGDA, the aforementioned belied any intention of respecting the peoples’ will where building a natural gas pipeline was concerned. This disrespect has been amplified in the creation of the Alaska Gas Development Corporation (AGDC) and the Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline (ASAP).

Governor Frank Murkowski rejected the will of the voters with his churlish opposition to ANGDA and the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline (AANGPV). Murkowski funded ANGDA with an initial appropriation of $50,000 and the Legislature gave more money later in 2003. ANGDA’s yearly budgets then and since barely covered the cost of the few positions created. Compare this situation with the $400 million that will be shoveled into the AGDC’s Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline (ASAP) by the Legislature under HB4 and the $214 million previously appropriated for the various iterations of the ASAP line. Today, ANGDA’s website lists four on the ANGDA Board and one employee as Executive Director. Harold Heinze, a former CEO of ARCO, was the previous Chief Executive Director until he stepped down on December 8, 2011.

ANGDA accomplished much during its colored history. ANGDA explored moving gas south by truck to Fairbanks, permitting of the 250 mmcf spur line from Glennallen to Palmer’s Enstar natural gas hub, and building a natural gas pipeline from the Kenai Penninsula north to communities along the Parks Highway, which would have provided an incentive for further exploration and development of the Cook Inlet oil and gas fields. Given the dearth of resources and the failure by the Legislature and the Governors, and their opposition to ANGDA, to provide for bonding capacity, as has been done for the AGDC through Alaska Housing Finance Corporation and the Alaska Rail Road, ANGDA’s accomplishments were not insignificant. Under Harold Heinze and Scott Heyworth, ANGDA moved to meet its statutory mandate as was allowed by hostile administrations and an indifferent and, since the 2009, an increasingly hostile Legislature.

During his term, Governor Frank Murkowski had promised a natural gas pipeline and worked diligently on a 4.0 bcf/da pipeline proposal to make his promise reality. His efforts allegedly culminated in a contract with Exxon, Conoco and British Petroleum Alaska to build his pipe dream. The Palin campaign was able to successfully promote the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline in opposition to Murkowski’s efforts. It was revealed that what Murkowski called a contract was nothing more than an intent on the part of the oil companies to study the viability of building a 4.0 bcf natural gas pipeline to Alberta.

The size of any pipeline has also been an interesting side issue, and one often overlooked in any debate. The natural gas pipeline strategy effected under Murkowski, Palin and Parnell has been for a 4.0 bcf/day natural gas pipeline from the North Slope to Alberta. The theory being that there must be sufficient volume to replace declining revenues produced by the North Slope’s declining oil production. The all-Alaska natural gas pipeline proposed in 2002 was to be a 2.5 bcf with Bill Walker expanding that to 3.0 bcf under his campaign proposal. The AANGPV would terminate at an LNG train to convert the methane to Liquid Natural Gas (LNG).

Bill Walker’s AANGPV proposal would have provided for use of the gas liquids in-state to grow Alaska’s private sector, whereas Palin/Parnell’s AGIA, both the Canadian route and the LNG proposal under consideration to Valdez, and Murkowski’s proposal intended that the gas and gas liquids be shipped out of state for consumption and use elsewhere with little benefit to Alaskans beyond the in-state pipeline and LNG train construction and a direct infusion of cash at the State level.

The Alaska Oil Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) has set a limit on the amount of natural gas that is available for sale in order to maintain sufficient pressure on North Slope legacy fields to allow production of remaining oil reserves. AOGCC has set a limit of 2.5-3.0 bcf available per day to deliver to a pipeline. Over 8 bcf per day is now reinjected back into the oil fields on the North Slope in order to maintain pressurization of the fields to make oil production feasible. AOGCC has been pretty consistent in its requirement that at least 5 bcf of the 8 bcf of gas produced per day be reinjected. The priority is in maintaining the State’s oil revenues.

During her 2006 campaign, Sarah Palin supported the mandate imposed by Proposition 3 and the construction of the AANGPV. Upon taking her oath of office, then Governor Sarah Palin turned her back on her support for that mandate and project, and moved forward with her Alaska Gas Inducement Act, which, to date, has produced nothing. AGIA was almost a mirror of Murkowski’s proposed pipeline plan. Instead of relying upon the Producers (Exxon, BP and Conoco), AGIA granted an exclusive to the winner of the competition promoted by the Palin Administration. Unfortunately, there was only one competitor, and that was TransCanada. Her successor, Governor Sean Parnell has not been able to move the proverbial natural gas pipeline football forward one inch towards a commitment for construction, a timeline to do anything, or even claim a successful open season.

During the 2010 campaign for governor in the Republican Primary, Bill Walker championed the AANGPV in his bid for the Republican nomination for Governor. Walker added a new dimension to the pipeline conversation that has been ignored since Parnell’s victory in the Republican Primary. That new dimension was the idea of value added resource development in the use of some of the gas to provide cheaper energy for the agriculture, timber, and mineral industries. Walker’s proposal would have seen take offs to communities down the Richardson Highway and at Glennallen. There was discussion regarding another spur across the Denali Highway to Cantwell. Fairbanks would have benefitted from the pipeline as the pipeline would have gone through with the gas liquids stripped at Fairbanks. The propane and butane would have been used as alternative fuels, with the ethane, hexane and other components being used to provide the building blocks for a plastics and petrochemical industry, giving a benefit to Alaska’s economy well beyond just the construction of the AANGPV. Walker’s proposal was the only proposal for a natural gas pipeline that went beyond just exporting Alaska’s gas to a foreign or domestic market.

The ASAP proposal was previously known as Harry Noah’s pipeline under Sarah Palin/Sean Parnell. The economics were never viable, but $14 million in State funding was appropriated to Noah’s pipeline study group for what was then known as the Bullet Line. Rep. Mike Hawker and Rep. Mike Chennault brokered deals to create the Alaska Gas Development Corporation by creating a frankenmonster of an entity to end the public’s mandate represented by ANGDA, but doing what the Legislature never did for ANGDA: providing for the ability to bond to finance any gasline projects using the resources of the Alaska Rail Road and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation.

The Republican Primary in 2010 saw three competing natural gas pipeline projects: former Rep. Ralph Samuels promoted the ‘Bullet Line’ (ASAP), Governor Sean Parnell promoted AGIA, and former Mayor of Valdez Bill Walker promoted the AANGPV.

For some reason, it was fine by the Republican legislative majority and voters to support the Bullet Line, even though it was to be 100% state financed, and limited to a maximum volume of 500 mmcf/da under AGIA, but having the State of Alaska buy into the AANGPV for a 20% interest in order to control the timeline for construction was ‘socialist’ and a subject of great controversy. The estimated cost of the Bullet Line was $4B-$7B at that time, and the estimated cost of the AANGPV was $20B-$24B. Since, the ‘Bullet Line’ cost estimates have grown to almost $8B, but the AGIA version of the AANGPV costs have increased from the 2010 AANGPV estimates to $45B-$65B according to the October 1, 2012 letter to Governor Sean Parnell from Exxon, BP and Conoco.

Note the disparity in cost increases between the two pipelines. Does it make sense that the estimated costs of the AANGPV should increase by three times over the cost factors of the ‘Bullet Line’/ASAP pipeline? Is this a case of TransCanada/Exxon, BP and Conoco inflating the AANGPV to reinforce their reluctance towards moving North Slope natural gas to market?

The upswing in shale gas production has eliminated the domestic U.S. natural gas. A projected 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves in continental U.S. shale deposits made the idea of shipping Alaska natural gas to a U.S. market moot. Now, Alaska natural gas will have to compete with domestically produced U.S. shale gas on the world market, given the export permits applied for to move shale gas as LNG to Asian markets.

One of the greatest errors on the part of the Parnell Administration was ignoring the needs of Japan after the 2011 earth quake. A delegation came to Alaska seeking an audience with our governor. They did not meet with him. Another delegation came last year in June and met with DNR Commissioner Dan Sullivan. After leaving Alaska, the delegation comprising four Japanese companies, including Mitsubishi, travelled to British Columbia and Louisiana where they invested almost $4 billion between Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass LNG export expansion project and in Shell’s LNG export facility at Kitimat, B.C.

Alaska has a long term (43 years) relationship with Japan with respect to LNG exports. Conoco’s LNG train at Nikiski has been producing LNG for export to Japan since before the completion of the TAPS.

It certainly appears that AGIA has cost Alaska in lost business opportunities.

The ASAP’s primary purpose is no longer just the idea of supplementing Cook Inlet/Kenai gas production until storage and new exploration and development activities eliminate the specter of natural gas shortages that saw the closure of the Agrium ammonium nitrate fertilizer plant in Nikiski several years ago with the loss of 65 jobs. The ASAP will provide natural gas for Conoco’s LNG train at Nikiski for export to Asia. Given that the ASAP will be constructed at State of Alaska expense and its operation subsidized by the State, that is a very good deal for Conoco. At lease some of Alaska’s natural gas will make it Asia’s LNG market.

Cook Inlet has approximately 19 trillion cubic feet of estimated reserves remaining to be discovered. Exploration and development has picked up over the last two years, with more drilling planned this year. Unfortunately, there needs to be an upgrade in transportation infrastructure and storage to get the natural gas from the producing field to sufficient storage to carry south central’s demand through increasingly colder winters. It is not a declining production that is the issue, it is the lack of a suitable intra-field pipeline system to get the gas to the storage facility. As a result, Alaska may see the first importation of natural gas from Russia later this Spring.

With the 2014 gubernatorial elections looming, Governor Sean Parnell is in much the same situation as former Governor Frank Murkowski was at the time of his reelection bid against Sarah Palin. Under Parnell, the AGIA 4.0 bcf pipeline option to Canada is dead. The only viable option is the AGIA LNG option similar in size and scope to the AANGPV, excepting for no spur to Palmer and no in-state use of the gas liquids. Given the conflicts of interest on the part of Exxon, BP, Conoco and TransCanada, LNG from Alaska is unwelcome in the Asian market, because of competing developments on the part of the aforementioned.

Given that his administration cannot state any firm date for the construction of a pipeline, could it be that Governor Sean Parnell is exploring the possibility of running against Senator Mark Begich with the intent of bailing from the Governor’s office before the house of cards that is AGIA falls in on itself?

Such could be inferred from the remarks made by Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell today. Treadwell commented on the recent upheavals in the Alaska Republican Party and its ability to promote and support the campaign against Democrate Senator Mark Begich. Treadwell stated that it may not be him running against Begich, but possibly Governor Sean Parnell. Treadwell had previously announced his intent to explore a run against Senator Mark Begich on November 30, 2012. If so, Treadwell will certainly run for governor in Parnell’s stead.

Bill Walker may have another shot at the Governor’s mansion if Parnell runs for the U.S. Senate. Under Parnell, Treadwell has not been terribly prominent in the public eye.

It should be noted that Governor Sean Parnell has not opposed theAGDC/ASAP proposal of Rep. Mike Hawker and Rep. Mike Chennault as demonstrated by HB4, nor did he oppose the previous iteration of that project proposed by Harry Noah under then Governor Sarah Palin. This lack of opposition leaves him in a position of being able to claim some degree of success with respect to moving Alaska’s North Slope natural gas to market. Ignoring of course, the fact that the ASAP project is limited to 500mmcf under AGIA, meaning the cost of transport to market will have to be subsidized by the State for the life of the pipeline. The cost of constructing the pipeline would also be borne by the State of Alaska.

Bill Walker’s AANGPV was the best option to date, as his plan provided for instate use of the gas liquids and natural gas to provide for cheap energy for agriculture and industry, alternative fuels for the Bush, and a petrochemical industry for Alaska. TransCanada and Exxon will send the gas and the gas liquids to Asia, if they bother to build a pipeline at all. Further, the AANGPV provided for a 250 mmcf/da spur into the Enstar Hub at Palmer to help mitigate the anticipated storage shortfalls from Cook Inlet natural gas production. A spur from Paxon west to Cantwell was also anticipated providing for a spur feeding to Nenana and connecting to any ANGDA pipeline from Nikiski north to Cantwell.

Competing with any potential Alaska LNG exports, Exxon has several large scale natural gas development LNG projects in the Pacific (Australia, Indonesia, New Guinea), and also needs a market for its portion of Qatar gas with the loss of the U.S. domestic natural gas market to domestically produced shale gas.

TransCanada is part of the Foothills Pipeline Company, which is involved in the Kitimat LNG port project. TransCanada was recently awarded a contract by Shell for a 2.4bcf pipeline to Kitimat, B.C.

Conoco has its portion of Qatar natural gas to move to market, now in Asia, because of the loss of the domestic U.S. market to shale gas. Conoco also has two Australia LNG projects that will compete with Alaska LNG for the Asian market.

Given the conflicts of interest on the part of Exxon Mobil, Conoco Phillips and TransCanada, is it any wonder why there has been no forward movement on AGIA?

Given the conflicts of interest on the part of Exxon and TransCanada, Governor Parnell has to be either totally brain dead, or simply ignoring reality, given his insistence on pursuing AGIA in the face of competing projects on the part of the TransCanada, Exxon, Conoco and BP. There is no provision under AGIA to declare breach of contract based upon a conflict of interest.

Given the increasing availability of natural gas in the world market, it may be better for the State to pay $500 million to $1.5 billion in penalties get out of AGIA. The lost opportunities will cost the state several orders of magnitude of any penalty under AGIA.

What are the differences between the ASAP natural gas pipeline and the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline option to Valdez?

Cost of construction is borne by the State: ASAP–100%; AANGPV–20% State ownership interest

Capacity: ASAP–500 mmcf/da; AANGPV–2.5-3.0 bcf/da

Benefits: ASAP will increase south central consumer gas costs by up to 13%; AANGVP will reduce or maintain present consumer costs, provide for growth in the private sector, because of in-state use of gas liquids, benefit beyond Alaska for growth in Asian customer’s economies

Cost of construction: ASAP–$8B; AANGPV–up to $45B-$65B (oil companies’ estimate) with LNG train and harbor improvements

Route: ASAP–North Slope to Nikiski across several salmon streams, Denali National Park and Denali State Park, but will not go through Fairbanks with no spur for consumers down the Richardson Highway south to Valdez; AANGVP–TAPS corridor from Prudhoe to Valdez covering all communities along the route through Fairbanks, with a 250 mmcf/da spur from Glennallen to Palmer and passing through Fairbanks down the Richardson Highway with a potential spur across the Denali Highway, LNG route--Valdez to Asia

Permitting status: ASAP–no permits issued; AANGVP–existing permits from Yukon Pacific Corp.

Estimated completion: ASAP–2019; AANGVP–two-three years from funding

Cost of gas to delivery per million cubic feet: ASAP–$9-$11.25/mmcf for Anchorage consumers (p13 of ASAP Project Plan); AANGVP–<$10/mmcf from the North Slope to Japan, including TAPS, LNG conversion costs, and LNG tanker costs (p15 of Wood-Mac study)

Gas liquids: ASAP–stripped at North Slope and reinjected; AANGVP–stripped at Fairbanks for use in Alaska

Testimony on HB4 was heard before the Senate Finance Committee today. HB4 is expected to pass out of the committee.

For more information:

ASAP Project Plan, Dec. 20, 2011–Joint In-state Gas Caucus

http://housemajority.org/neuman/pdfs/27/Gas_Caucus_New_Scenario_20121220.pdf

Wood MacKenzie Alaskan LNG Exports Competitiveness Study

http://www.arcticgas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/11-07-alaska-lng-competitiveness-study.pdf

Exxon Mobil LNG:

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_production_lng.aspx

Conoco Phillips LNG:

http://lnglicensing.conocophillips.com/EN/lngprojects/Pages/index.aspx

British Petroleum LNG:

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9015376&contentId=7028020

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9015513&contentId=7043288

TransCanada:

http://www.transcanada.com/coastal-gaslink.html

Other related articles:

http://www.examiner.com/article/agia-transcanada-s-conflict-of-interest

http://www.examiner.com/article/agia-exxon-s-conflict-of-interest

http://www.examiner.com/article/senator-lisa-murkowski-is-selling-lng-to-japan-when-parnell-will-not

http://www.examiner.com/article/support-for-the-all-alaska-natural-gas-pipeline-appears-local-campaigns

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-legislature-and-the-governor-neither-of-whom-can-make-a-decision

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/denali-is-dead-now-what