Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Which Democrats Benefit From Keystone XL Pipeline Delays?
Washington Free Beacon via Fox ^ | 2014/02/12 | Lachlan Markay

Posted on 02/17/2014 5:15:01 AM PST by thackney

Democrats who oppose the Keystone XL pipeline have thousands of dollars invested in direct competitors to the company looking to build the pipeline, public records show.

A recent environmental assessment by the State Department was seen as a step toward the pipeline’s approval, but Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va.) remains opposed to its construction.

“In my view, there is now enough evidence to conclude that construction of this pipeline is not in America’s long-term interest,” Kaine said in a statement on the review.

The freshman Democrat has between $15,000 and $50,000 invested in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, according to his most recent financial disclosure. Kinder Morgan is looking to build a pipeline that would directly compete with Keystone.

Kinder Morgan is considering expanding its Canadian pipeline infrastructure with an expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline, which carries oil sands crude from Alberta to refineries and export terminals on Canada’s west coast.

(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Canada; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Montana; US: Nebraska; US: South Dakota; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 2014election; 2016election; alberta; canada; election2014; election2016; energy; keystone; keystonexl; kindermorgan; montana; nebraska; oil; opec; pipeline; southdakota; timkaine; virginia

1 posted on 02/17/2014 5:15:01 AM PST by thackney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: thackney

It’s a done deal. The Obama apologists on talk radio got the memo last week and started providing cover for when he approves it. Suddenly the pipeline isn’t such a bad thing after all.


2 posted on 02/17/2014 5:21:46 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

The primary moneyed democrat supporter would have to be Warren Buffett who owns/controls a lot of the rail shipping support.


3 posted on 02/17/2014 5:23:17 AM PST by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

Done deal? When? Certainly not before the midterms.


4 posted on 02/17/2014 5:23:52 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thackney; All

” - - - Lowenthal has been less outspoken then Kaine on Keystone, but he voted against legislation last year that would have approved the pipeline without sign-off from the administration, which has repeatedly put off a decision on the project. - - - “

What does the Official House Ethics Committee Report conclude about these two violators with obvious Conflict of Interests?

If there has been no such Report, then does that mean that Speaker Boehner has blocked the Report because he too has a financial Conflict of Interest?


5 posted on 02/17/2014 5:30:43 AM PST by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

I don’t know about RATs benefiting but ‘poor’ Warren Buffet benefits very nicely as HIS Burlington Northern railroad continues to transport crude down their line.


6 posted on 02/17/2014 5:31:53 AM PST by harpu ( "...it's better to be hated for who you are than loved for someone you're not!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Oh it’s still a political football. He has to fool treehuggers and global warming doofuses, but he’s going to approve it before he goes.


7 posted on 02/17/2014 5:37:22 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf

Since the approval does not lie with the Senate, but with the State Department, it is not a direct conflict.


8 posted on 02/17/2014 5:46:03 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Then how is this:
“- - - Kaine on Keystone, but he voted against legislation last year that would have approved the pipeline without sign-off from the administration, - - - “
NOT a House Ethics Conflict of Interest?

Hmmmmmmmmm ?


9 posted on 02/17/2014 5:57:05 AM PST by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RJS1950
The primary moneyed democrat supporter would have to be Warren Buffett who owns/controls a lot of the rail shipping support.

Perhaps this was why Berkshire Hathaway bought BNSF Railroad in 2009? Buffett knew that President Obama was not exactly in support of the Keystone XL pipeline, but the BNSF Railroad could easily ship oil out of the Bakken oil fields since BNSF has an extensive railrroad infrastructure in the Dakotas.

10 posted on 02/17/2014 6:00:23 AM PST by RayChuang88 (FairTax: America's economic cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

The Canadians may not wait that long.


11 posted on 02/17/2014 6:01:55 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: thackney

The approval lies with the WH. The State Department report found no environmental problems.


12 posted on 02/17/2014 6:03:16 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kabar

The State Department has not approved it. The environmental report was part of their review process. It is controlled by the White House only in that the State Department reports to the President.

http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221135.pdf

For proposed petroleum pipelines that cross
international borders of the United States, the President,
through Executive Order (EO) 13337, directs the
Secretary of State to decide whether a project serves the
national interest before granting a Presidential Permit.

To make this decision (i.e., the National Interest
Determination), the Secretary of State, through the
Department, considers many factors, including energy
security; environmental, cultural, and economic
impacts; foreign policy; and compliance with relevant
state and federal regulations. This Supplemental EIS
was produced consistent with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will help inform
that determination. Before making such a decision, the
Department also asks for the views of eight federal
agencies identified in EO 13337: the Departments of
Energy, Defense, Transportation, Homeland Security,
Justice, Interior, and Commerce, as well as the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

If the proposed Project is determined to serve the
national interest, it will be granted a Presidential Permit
that authorizes the construction, connection, operation,
and maintenance of the facilities at the border between
the United States and Canada. The applicant would be
required to abide by certain conditions listed in this
Supplemental EIS and the Presidential Permit. The
Department’s primary role is to make a National
Interest Determination. Its jurisdiction does not include
selection of specific pipeline routes within the
United States.


13 posted on 02/17/2014 6:07:59 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: thackney
The decision is made in the WH. I worked for the State Department for 28 years. This is a Kabuki dance.

The State Department released a report on Friday concluding that the Keystone XL pipeline would not substantially worsen carbon pollution, leaving an opening for President Obama to approve the politically divisive project.

The department’s long-awaited environmental impact statement appears to indicate that the project could pass the criteria Mr. Obama set forth in a speech last summer when he said he would approve the 1,700-mile pipeline if it would not “significantly exacerbate” the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. Although the pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada to the Gulf Coast, the report appears to indicate that if it were not built, carbon-heavy oil would still be extracted at the same rate from pristine Alberta forest and transported to refineries by rail instead.

The report sets up a difficult decision for Secretary of State John Kerry, who now must make a recommendation on the international project to Mr. Obama. Mr. Kerry, who hopes to make action on climate change a key part of his legacy, has never publicly offered his personal views on the pipeline. Aides said Mr. Kerry was preparing to “dive into” the 11-volume report and would give high priority to the issue of global warming in making the decision. His aides offered no timetable."

Anyone who thinks that Kerry has any real input into the decision is living in a fantasy world. These multiple reports from the State Department are just delaying tactics. Obama will decide, not the State Department.

14 posted on 02/17/2014 6:20:42 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...
Thanks thackney.
A recent environmental assessment by the State Department was seen as a step toward the pipeline’s approval, but Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va.) remains opposed to its construction. “In my view, there is now enough evidence to conclude that construction of this pipeline is not in America’s long-term interest,” ...The freshman Democrat has between $15,000 and $50,000 invested in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, according to his most recent financial disclosure. Kinder Morgan is looking to build a pipeline that would directly compete with Keystone.

15 posted on 02/17/2014 6:31:35 AM PST by SunkenCiv (http://www.freerepublic.com/~mestamachine/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kabar

I don’t deny the State Department will do the WH bidding on this. But the formal approval is with the State Department.


16 posted on 02/17/2014 6:33:19 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf
For one thing Kaine is a Senator, so the House ethics committee has nothing to say about him.
17 posted on 02/17/2014 6:34:15 AM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RayChuang88

Absolutely, I wouldn’t put it beyond either Buffett or der Fuehrer to set this up as a payoff for old Warren’s support for democrats. I have long considered Buffett to be as big a coniver and oil-railroad-insurance-etc baron as the old robber barons who also had strong political ties. He, Oprah, Ellifson (Oracle) and the other democrat billionaires should have their assets seized to pay for the mess they’ve financed through the democrat party for their own gain.


18 posted on 02/17/2014 7:19:34 AM PST by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: thackney
I don’t deny the State Department will do the WH bidding on this. But the formal approval is with the State Department.

The report sets up a difficult decision for Secretary of State John Kerry, who now must make a recommendation on the international project to Mr. Obama.

President Obama said in June that he would sign off on the proposal only if it “does not significantly exacerbate the climate problem.”

Environmentalists said that if Mr. Obama were to approve the pipeline, it would destroy his efforts to make progress on climate change.

The WH is making the decision period. The Kerry "review" is just a way to delay a decision. This is a political decision that will be made solely in the WH.

19 posted on 02/17/2014 7:34:53 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kabar

While lots of lame stream media write it up that way. The Presidential Permit is actually issued by the State Department.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/02/221643.htm#KEYSTONEXL

So this environmental impact statement is only one factor that the Secretary will take into account as he weighs many other elements in making a decision. Obviously, for the Secretary, climate and environmental priorities are part of his decision making, quite frankly. So again, we’ve talked a lot publicly about it. That’s where the process is right now, that there is this document that has been put out. Agencies have 90 days, public has 30 days, and the Secretary will take into account all of that as he makes a decision.

- - - - - -
http://www.state.gov/e/enr/applicant/index.htm

The Secretary of State has the authority to issue Presidential Permits for cross-border liquid (water as well as petroleum product) pipelines and other cross-border infrastructure. The Bureau of Energy Resources Office of Energy Diplomacy receives and processes permit applications.


20 posted on 02/17/2014 7:48:45 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: thackney

It’s an easier question to answer if you just follow the money from Warren Buffett.

Who got money from Buffett?

Buffett is the ONLY reason the pipeline doesn’t go through.

It’s funny - he’s trying to rewrite history so that Vanderbilt wins, not Rockefeller. Rockefeller built pipelines in order to break his dependency on the railroads for shipping oil.

Buffett’s just taking us all back to the century previous to this is all. Expect more train accidents.


21 posted on 02/17/2014 7:55:33 AM PST by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: thackney
It is called a Presidential permit for a reason. It goes to the President to make a decision.

Executive Order (EO) 13337 delegates to the Department of State (the Department) the authority to receive applications for Presidential permits for cross-border facilities and outlines a process for the Department to determine whether granting such permits would be in the national interest. On November 10, 2011, the Department concluded that it required more information before a determination could be made regarding the Keystone XL pipeline application for a Presidential permit. The time period provided in the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 is not adequate for the Department to conduct the necessary analysis to gain the additional information.

The Department therefore recommended that the President determine that the permit application for the Keystone XL pipeline filed on September 19, 2008 (including amendments) be denied and that he determine the Keystone XL pipeline, as presented and analyzed at this time, does not serve the national interest. The President concurred with the Department’s recommendation and made that determination on January 18, 2012.

22 posted on 02/17/2014 8:08:37 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: kabar

from the April 1, 2013 issue of the National Law Journal
http://www.pipelinelaw.com/files/2014/02/After_Keystone_A_question_of_presidential_permits.pdf

As the name suggests, presidential permits are a creation of the executive branch alone, with no
legislative authorization and limited judicial review to date. Presidential permits are intended to
provide executive branch review of trans-border facilities and commercial activities between the
United States and either Canada or Mexico. No statute authorizes their creation or use, and few
regulations govern their review or issuance.

...

In 1968, permitting authority for oil pipelines, among other facilities, was officially delegated to the State Department under President Lyndon Johnson’s Executive Order 11,423 and amended by another executive order in 1994 to include requirements to consult with various federal departments. In 2004, an executive order by President George W. Bush established the State Department’s procedures for reviewing presidential permit applications for oil pipelines. Those procedures include referral of the application and request for consulting agency reviews within 90 days and directions to approve those applications that serve the national interest.

The State Department is currently responsible for issuing presidential permits for oil pipelines, -while the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issues such permits for natural gas pipelines, and the Department of Energy (DOE) issues presidential permits for electric transmission lines. Both FERC and DOE have promulgated regulations governing their presidential permit process.


23 posted on 02/17/2014 8:11:32 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Executive Order 13337—Issuance of Permits With Respect to Certain Energy-Related Facilities and Land Transportation Crossings on the International Boundaries of the United States
April 30, 2004
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/WCPD-2004-05-10/pdf/WCPD-2004-05-10-Pg723.pdf

Section 1. (i)
The Secretary of State shall issue or deny the permit in accordance with the proposed determination...

24 posted on 02/17/2014 8:19:54 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Democrats who oppose the Keystone XL pipeline have **thousands of dollars** invested in direct competitors.

How much do they earn a year? and wouldn’t that fall into the insider trading ranks?.


25 posted on 02/17/2014 8:30:46 AM PST by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney
I don't understand your fixation on who signs the permit for the US when the decision is made in the WH. The State Department acknowledges that they recommend a course of action, but the decision is made in the WH. And Obama has said that he makes the decision. There is no way that the State Department signs a permit without WH approval.

Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues

The executive branch has exercised permitting authority over the construction and operation of “pipelines, conveyor belts, and similar facilities for the exportation or importation of petroleum, petroleum products” and other products at least since the promulgation of Executive Order 11423 in 1968.

Executive Order 13337 amended this authority and the procedures associated with the review, but did not substantially alter the exercise of authority or the delegation to the Secretary in E.O. 11423.

However, the source of the executive branch’s permitting authority is not entirely clear from the text of these Executive Orders. Generally, powers exercised by the executive branch are authorized by legislation or are inherent presidential powers based in the Constitution. E.O. 11423 makes no mention of any authority, and E.O. 13337 refers only to the “Constitution and the Laws of the United States of America, including Section 301 of title 3, United States Code.”

Section 301 simply provides that the President is empowered to delegate authority to the head of any department or agency of the executive branch. The legitimacy of this permitting authority has been addressed by federal courts. In Sisseton v. United States Department of State , the plaintiff Tribes filed suit and asked the court to suspend or revoke the Presidential Permit issued under E.O. 13337 for the TransCanada Keystone Pipeline.

The U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota found that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they would be unable to prove their injury could be redressed by a favorable decision.

The court determined that even if the plaintiff’s injury could be redressed, “the President would be free to disregard the court’s judgment,” as the case concerned the President’s “inherent Constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy,” as opposed to statutory authority granted to the President by Congress.

The court further found that even if the Tribes had standing, the issuance of the Presidential Permit was a presidential action, not an agency action subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The court stated that the authority to regulate the cross-border pipeline lies with either Congress or the President.

The court found that “Congress has failed to create a federal regulatory scheme for the construction of oil pipelines, and has delegated this authority to the states. Therefore, the President has the sole authority to allow oil pipeline border crossings under his inherent constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs.”

The President could delegate his permitting authority to the U.S. Department of State, but delegation did not transform the permit’s issuance into an agency action reviewable under the APA.

In Sierra Club v. Clinton , the plaintiff Sierra Club challenged the Secretary’s decision to issue a Presidential Permit authorizing the Alberta Clipper pipeline. Among the plaintiff’s claims was an allegation that issuance of the permit was unconstitutional because the President had no authority to issue the permits referenced in E.O. 13337 (in this case, for the importation of crude oil from Canada via pipeline).

The defendant responded that the authority to issue Presidential Permits for these border-crossing facilities “does not derive from a delegation of congressional authority ... but rather from the President’s constitutional authority over foreign affairs and his authority as Commander in Chief.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota agreed, noting that the defendant’s assertion regarding the source of the President’s authority has been “well recognized” in a series of Attorney General opinions, as well as a 2009 judicial opinion.

The court also noted that these permits had been issued many times before and that “Congress has not attempted to exercise any exclusive authority over the permitting process. Congress’s inaction suggests that Congress has accepted the authority of the President to issue cross-border permits.”

Based on the historical recognition of the President’s authority to issue these permits and Congress’s implied approval through inaction, the court found the Presidential Permit requirement for border facilities constitutional.

26 posted on 02/17/2014 8:35:27 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Have the past Presidential pipeline border crossing permits been issued by the State Department, or by the President?


27 posted on 02/17/2014 9:06:03 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: thackney
Have the past Presidential pipeline border crossing permits been issued by the State Department, or by the President?

Do you mean who signed them or who approved them? There is a clearance process and it goes thru the WH, which has the final say. And something as controversial as the Keystone pipeline will be managed and directed from the WH. These are Presidential decisions, which is why the courts ruled that they are not subject to judicial review.

The court further found that even if the Tribes had standing, the issuance of the Presidential Permit was a presidential action, not an agency action subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Again, I don't understand your point. John Kerry is going to make a recommendation to the WH, a recommendation that will be the product of an intra-agency review. But the WH, and only the WH, will decide the issue. The President can disregard the recommendation, if he so chooses. Of course, we know that the WH will have a major role in writing the State Department recommendation so that Obama has the cover he needs politically to make the call.

This is a political decision. There have been five different studies to string the process along. The State Department is the puppet and Obama is the puppeteer.

28 posted on 02/17/2014 9:20:57 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Again, I don't understand your point.

Dittos.

29 posted on 02/17/2014 9:36:43 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: thackney

The State Department is the puppet and Obama is the puppeteer.


30 posted on 02/17/2014 11:08:59 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Isn’t that essentially what I said in post #16?


31 posted on 02/17/2014 11:12:40 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: thackney
No, you seem to think that the State Department has the final decision just because their name appears at the bottom of the Presidential permit. It is not just a matter of the State Department doing Obama's bidding. It is a matter of the President making the final decision period.

Report to Congress Concerning the Presidential Permit Application of the Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline

The Department therefore recommended that the President determine that the permit application for the Keystone XL pipeline filed on September 19, 2008 (including amendments) be denied and that he determine the Keystone XL pipeline, as presented and analyzed at this time, does not serve the national interest. The President concurred with the Department’s recommendation and made that determination on January 18, 2012.

The formal approval lies with the President. He determines the course of action.

32 posted on 02/17/2014 11:24:44 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: kabar

I see, and have posted, several items from the State Department and from the Executive Order that directly contradicts that.

I see conflicting statements from the same sources. But the language of the executive order seems clear.

I have to wonder on this pipeline, at this time, both are trying to use the other as blame when the approval goes through.


33 posted on 02/17/2014 11:35:01 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: thackney
I see, and have posted, several items from the State Department and from the Executive Order that directly contradicts that.

They don't contradict what I posted. The State Department has been designated the lead agency to receive applications for Presidential permits and to coordinate review by the national security agencies.

I provided you with State Department report to Congress on the Keystone pipeline that clearly indicates that the State Department provides recommendations, but the President makes the determination.

The courts have determined that the President has the right to make these decisions stemming from his “inherent Constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy,” as opposed to statutory authority granted to the President by Congress. "The President could delegate his permitting authority to the U.S. Department of State, but delegation did not transform the permit’s issuance into an agency action reviewable under the APA."

These cross-border permits are considered as part of national security, which means that the President as CIC can make such decisions rather than Congress. Do you dispute that the President makes the final determination? If not, then what is his role?

have to wonder on this pipeline, at this time, both are trying to use the other as blame when the approval goes through.

I assume by "both" you mean the State Department and the WH. I have a profound disagreement with your statement. The WH and the State Department are working together to execute whatever the President wants. Again, the State Department is the puppet and the President the puppeteer. The puppet doesn't do anything the puppeteer doesn't want it to do.

34 posted on 02/17/2014 1:56:36 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: kabar

The Secretary of State has the authority to issue Presidential Permits for cross-border liquid (water as well as petroleum product) pipelines and other cross-border infrastructure.

http://www.state.gov/e/enr/applicant/index.htm

I see that as a clear statement; they have the authority.

I agree that on THIS pipeline, they have done a CYA recommendation, but that is not how the rules are written, nor has been done on past projects. But following the rules is not a strong point of this administration.

I suspect at this point, neither of us are going to convince they other. God Bless.


35 posted on 02/17/2014 2:01:08 PM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: thackney
I see that as a clear statement; they have the authority.

The only authority they have is what the WH gives them. They don't have the authority to make a decision on the Keystone Pipeline. The President has clearly arrogated that decision to himself.

I agree that on THIS pipeline, they have done a CYA recommendation, but that is not how the rules are written, nor has been done on past projects. But following the rules is not a strong point of this administration.

LOL. Please, it is not a CYA recommendation. The President will make the decision or non-decision. Whatever the State Department does is at the direction of the President. The State Department is not a free agent. It works for the President. Maybe you have more insight into how this process works since I only have 28 years working for the State Department and 36 years total as a federal employee.

I suspect at this point, neither of us are going to convince they other.

I confirm your observation.

36 posted on 02/17/2014 2:13:59 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson