SHOCKING! Uncanny 1958 Prediction coming true; America’s Destruction

In 1958 Robert Welch founder of John Birch Society disclosed in a speech that America is going to be destroyed from within. Mr Welch goes on to tell how this will be done and destroying our liberties.

Halloween Nightmares in Mississippi

Watch with the lights on

 

EPA serves as arresting officer, judge, jury, and executioner in cases involving alleged violations of environmental laws

The EPA rules by edict, rules, and creative interpretations
of the laws governing its responsibilities.

In 2002, James V. DeLong, a scholar with the Progress and Freedom
Foundation, published a booklet entitled “Out Of Bounds, Out Of
Control: Regulatory Enforcement At The EPA.” In it, DeLong notes that
the EPA enforces a wide range of environmental statutes, which are
outlined in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40 is 27
volumes long with more than 20,000 pages.

Through Title 40, the EPA can “interpret” the language of various laws
to control nearly every aspect of our existence. This includes such things
as cosmetics, insecticides, shoreline erosion, solid waste disposal, leadpaint
poisoning, hazardous materials transportation, asbestos, toxic

substances, nuclear waste, emergency planning, medical waste, ocean
dumping, safe drinking water, endangered species, etc.
Businesses face constant uncertainties about how to
comply with the blizzard of EPA regulations,
directives, memos and interpretations of various laws.
In fact, according to DeLong, an EPA enforcer can use
the same evidence of alleged wrong doing to require an
informational negotiation with the business owner,
create administrative penalties, impose civil penalties,
or pursue vigorous criminal prosecution. In other
words, “EPA can choose any level of action, from a
verbal warning to full criminal indictment, on the basis
of the same set of facts,” said DeLong.

The EPA serves as arresting officer, judge, jury, and executioner in
cases involving alleged violations of environmental laws. In addition, a
business owner’s intent to cause harm isn’t usually considered in
enforcing a law. Moreover, an EPA enforcer can charge a company with
an environmental violation not only if an actual crime was committed,
but if there’s a “threat” of significant harm or by a “threatened” release
of toxic substances. These vague descriptions are outlined in the EPA’s
document, “The Exercise Of Investigative Discretion.”

Badge of a “Special Agent” of the EPA. The power that these enforcers
have taken upon themselves is outrageous.

This document also tells EPA enforcers that they can cite a company for
“harm” if there’s a failure to report a release of a toxic substance or by
illegal conduct that represents a “trend or common attitude within the
regulated community.”

In most law enforcement cases, a person’s intent is considered in
determining the extent of punishment. But not with the EPA. A business
owner’s intent is irrelevant.

The EPA is also guilty of creatively reinterpreting laws passed by
Congress in order to expand its control over new areas of our
environment. One of the most egregious examples of this is Lisa
Jackson’s decision in December, 2009 to declare carbon dioxide to be a
dangerous greenhouse gas that had to be
regulated through the EPA. Her
announcement came conveniently just
days before President Obama was giving
a speech at the U.N. climate change
conference in Copenhagen.

Jackson claimed that the Clean Air Act really
gives her no authority to regulate greenhouse gases, but she did it anyway by claiming that her EPA
science advisory board had issued a “finding” that carbon dioxide is a
pollutant that must be controlled.  When did Congress give the EPA the right
to declare CO2 a pollutant? The Answer: Never!

Carbon dioxide is one of the basic building blocks of life on this planet –
both plant and animal life. Every human exhales carbon dioxide and
plants use it during photosynthesis in the production of oxygen. The
EPA’s “finding” that CO2 is a pollutant is about as rational as saying
that water is a pollutant.

When did Congress give the EPA the right to declare CO2 a pollutant?

While you read this remember ratepayers are paying for an experimental CO2 capturing device on the Mississippi Power’s Kemper County Coal Plant. 

Jackson claimed that the Clean Air Act really
gives her no authority to regulate greenhouse gases, but she did it anyway by claiming that her EPA
science advisory board had issued a “finding” that carbon dioxide is a
pollutant that must be controlled.  When did Congress give the EPA the right
to declare CO2 a pollutant? The Answer: Never!

Carbon dioxide is one of the basic building blocks of life on this planet –
both plant and animal life. Every human exhales carbon dioxide and
plants use it during photosynthesis in the production of oxygen. The
EPA’s “finding” that CO2 is a pollutant is about as rational as saying
that water is a pollutant.

308 New EPA Rules Waiting to be Implemented Against Businesses

The EPA destroys jobs by imposing draconian

demands on American businesses.

At present, there are 308 new EPA rules waiting to be implemented against businesses. One of these rules was going to tighten restrictions on the emission of ozone. Due to political considerations, however, President Obama ordered the EPA to withdraw the ozone recommendations.

Non Attainment Maps

Map of all counties that would not attain proposed 60 ppb Standard

If the ozone rule had been enforced, it would have made 85% of the counties in America in violation of the new standard! The costs would have been astronomical. The EPA has openly admitted that such restrictions would have cost counties between $20 billion to $90 billion! The EPA estimates are probably understated.

A 2010 study by the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI on the EPA ozone standard warned that this extreme standard would have killed 7.3 million jobs and added $1 trillion in business costs annually beginning in 2020. The ozone standard has only been shelved not rejected; presumably it will be implemented after the presidential election in 2012. [William F. Shughart II, “How EPA Could Destroy 7.3 Million Jobs,” The Examiner, November 12, 2010]

Other pending rules include forcing pesticide companies to change their container labels. This means that every company that produces pesticides must submit their labels to the EPA for approval! Some producers will fear selling their products with the old labels for fear of being fined. Changing labels will cost millions to implement. Another pending EPA rule forces farms in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed to change how they feed their cattle and dispose of cattle manure. The impact of this rule, once enforced will be felt nationally. [Diana Furchtgott-Roth, “Don’t Forget The Job Killing EPA, Mr. Obama,” RealClearMarket.com, September 8, 2011]  

Coal Plants have been shut down across America because of excessive EPA regulations. EPA’s new regulations on coal are forcing several utilities such as American Electric Power, Duke Energy, and Southern Company to shut down their coal-fired power plants because of the excessive costs involved in complying.

In addition, a study done by National Economic Research Associates reported that the EPA’s Cross-State Air Rule and Utility MACT Rule will result in the loss of 53,500 job-years in Ohio by 2020. That’s just one state. Coal Plants have been shut down across America because of excessive EPA regulations. The EPA is also blocking development of such important projects as the Keystone XL pipeline, which would pump oil from Canada to refineries in Texas. This pipeline would produce billions in revenue and thousands of construction jobs! [“EPA Causing Job Losses, Blocking Job Growth,” Texas Insider, August 25, 2011]

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s Republican minority issued a report in September 2010 on the devastating impact the EPA is having on job growth. According to the report, EPA restrictions on commercial and industrial boilers put nearly 800,000 jobs at risk! EPA standards for Portland Cement Plants put up to 18 cement plants at risk of shutting down, threatening 1,800 jobs directly and 9,000 indirectly.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The EPA is a job killer and Lisa Jackson is one of President Obama’s favorites in the administration. She can be expected to implement his anti-energy policies – policies he can’t get approved through Congress.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTS

Sustainable Development click to see short video.

How exciting to be a part of this age of sustainable developments.  Learn it now, don’t delay.

http://woody36060.blogspot.com/

Mississippi Power sells $300 million in 2 parts

New Issue-Mississippi Power sells $300 mln in 2 parts

REUTERS — 10/11/11
Mississippi Power Co , a unit
of Southern Company (Symbol : SO) on Tuesday sold $300 million of
senior unsecured notes in two parts, said IFR, a Thomson
Reuters service.
     Barclays Capital, Deutsche Bank, and Mitsubishi were the
joint bookrunning managers of the five-year issue. Barclays
Capital, Deutsche Bank, and Scotia Capital were the joint
bookrunners of the 30-year tranche.
BORROWER: MISSISSIPPI POWER CO
TRANCHE 1
AMT $150 MLN      COUPON 2.35 PCT     MATURITY 10/15/2016
TYPE SR NTS       ISS PRICE 99.832    FIRST PAY 4/15/2012
MOODY'S A2        YIELD 2.386 PCT     SETTLEMENT 10/19/2011
S&P SINGLE-A      SPREAD 125 BPS      PAY FREQ SEMI-ANNUAL
FITCH A-PLUS      MORE THAN TREAS     MAKE-WHOLE CALL 20 BPS
TRANCHE 2
AMT $150 MLN      COUPON 4.75 PCT     MATURITY 10/15/2041
TYPE SR NTS       ISS PRICE 99.921    FIRST PAY 4/15/2012
MOODY'S A2        YIELD 4.755 PCT     SETTLEMENT 10/19/2011
S&P SINGLE-A      SPREAD 165 BPS      PAY FREQ SEMI-ANNUAL
FITCH A-PLUS       MORE THAN TREAS    MAKE-WHOLE CALL 25 BPS

Affordable and Reliable Energy

Senior Vice President for the Institute for Energy Research explains why access to affordable and reliable energy is essential to an economy. It might also surprise some Americans that we are an energy rich nation. We are home to the world’s largest coal reserves and we are the third largest oil producer. Sadly, not everyone is happy about our energy wealth and use government agency to restrict access to our tax-payer owned energy resources. Watch our latest video below and leave your comments below.

 

 

Mississippi Power Company’s Underwriting Agreements

Form 8-K for MISSISSIPPI POWER CO


19-Oct-2011

Other Events, Financial Statements and Exhibits

Item 8.01. Other Events.
On October 11, 2011, Mississippi Power Company (the “Company”) entered into Underwriting Agreements covering the issue and sale by the Company of $150,000,000 aggregate principal amount of its Series 2011A 2.35% Senior Notes due October 15, 2016 (the “Series 2011A Senior Notes”) and $150,000,000 aggregate principal amount of its Series 2011B 4.75% Senior Notes due October 15, 2041 (the “Series 2011B Senior Notes”). Both the Series 2011A Senior Notes and the Series 2011B Senior Notes were registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, pursuant to the shelf registration statement, as amended (Registration No. 333-161168), of the Company. 

 

Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits. (c) Exhibits.

 

1.3(a)  Underwriting Agreement, dated October 11, 2011,
        relating to the Series 2011A Senior Notes among
        the Company and Barclays Capital Inc., Deutsche
        Bank Securities Inc. and Mitsubishi UFJ
        Securities (USA), Inc., as representatives of
        the several Underwriters named in Schedule I to
        such Underwriting Agreement.

1.3(b)  Underwriting Agreement, dated October 11, 2011,
        relating to the Series 2011B Senior Notes among
        the Company and Barclays Capital Inc., Deutsche
        Bank Securities Inc. and Scotia Capital (USA)
        Inc., as representatives of the several
        Underwriters named in Schedule I to such
        Underwriting Agreement.

4.2(a)  Eleventh Supplemental Indenture to Senior Note
        Indenture dated as of October 19, 2011,
        providing for the issuance of the Series 2011A
        Senior Notes.

4.2(b)  Twelfth Supplemental Indenture to Senior Note
        Indenture dated as of October 19, 2011,
        providing for the issuance of the Series 2011B
        Senior Notes.

4.8(a)  Form of Series 2011A Senior Note (included in
        Exhibit 4.2(a) above).

4.8(b)  Form of Series 2011B Senior Note (included in
        Exhibit 4.2(b) above).

 


 

5.1(a)  Opinion of Troutman Sanders LLP relating to the
        Series 2011A Senior Notes.

5.1(b)  Opinion of Troutman Sanders LLP relating to the
        Series 2011B Senior Notes.

12.1    Computation of ratio of earnings to fixed
        charges.

Another Green Dream NIGHTMARE

The Green movement with the support of the EPA and stimulus dollars has somehow convinced us that Solar, Biomass, and Lignite were somehow going to save the earth from a doomsday created by humans.  The Green movement brought campaign-style promises of solutions to green house gasses for our world’s survival and jobs for economic justice.  Where are the successes?  Most CO2 capturing plants are problem laden with budgeting problems that can no longer be justified.  That will never happen to the Mississippi lignite plant because the ratepayers have their wallets open to this conceptual dreamy nightmare.

USC’s biomass plant debacle

How the university’s green dream went bust after three ‘potentially lethal accidents’ and a host of other problems

By WAYNE WASHINGTON (The State Newspaper)

biomass        Quinton Bolin, USC’s energy facilities superintendent describes how the turbine generator works as he gives a tour of USC’s idle Biomass Energy Center. Columbia, S.C. 10-05-2011.

On June 28, 2009, an explosion rocked the biomass-fueled power plant on the campus of the University of South Carolina.

The force of the blast sent a metal panel some 60 feet toward the control office of the plant at Whaley and Sumter streets, according to documents obtained from USC by The State newspaper through a Freedom of Information Act request.

No one was hurt, but USC officials were concerned enough about the “potentially lethal accident” that they ordered an independent safety review and, in a strongly worded letter to the company that had built the plant, made it clear that university staff would not be allowed back into the building until the review was completed.

The blast underscored what some USC officials privately grumbled about for years: That the plant has been a $20 million disaster, a money pit that was poorly planned and built by a company that had never constructed such a cutting-edge “green energy” power plant before.

Interviews with USC officials and a spokeswoman for the company as well as a review of more than 1,800 pages of documents show that:

• USC, whose officials touted the plant “as the cat’s meow” before its startup in December 2007, closed it in March of this year after it had been shut down more than three dozen times. In one two-year period, the plant only provided steam – its purpose – on 98 out of 534 days, according to a USC review.

• There was no separate bidding process for the construction of the plant. The firm that built it, Johnson Controls Inc. of Wisconsin, was the only firm that included the construction of a biomass plant as part of its effort to win a competitively bid energy services contract. JCI won that $33.6 million energy services contract, then alone negotiated with USC the added cost of the biomass plant.

• USC paid JCI an additional $19.6 million for the plant. The university was to get its money back in energy savings or payments from JCI. So far, JCI has paid USC $4.3 million because the plant did not perform as promised. As things stand now, USC will recoup its $19.6 million investment by 2020 from payments by JCI.

• Despite a relationship that was, at one point, so acrimonious that USC hired outside legal counsel, the university continues to work with JCI. One option that USC now is considering is putting natural gas-fired turbines in the closed biomass plant to produce power, and JCI may be involved, a USC official says.

• Most substantively, however, the biomass experience led USC to change its structure of governance, giving a reformulated committee of its board of trustees responsibility for overseeing and vetting projects.

Now sitting idle, with spider webs and a thin film of dust replacing a plant’s hard-hat hustle and bustle, the biomass plant stands as a monument to the university’s failed push toward new, “green” technology, inadequate oversight and naïveté, some of its own officials acknowledge in internal documents.

The plant blemishes the legacy of the late Andrew Sorensen, the beloved, bow-tied president who was in charge of USC when the plant was conceived and constructed. And it also raises questions about whether USC’s revised system of oversight will be able to prevent future instances of idealism gone wrong that marred the biomass project from the beginning.

“A (expletive) mess with many layers,” is how William “Ted” Moore, a former USC vice president of finance and planning, described the plant in an email to Ed Walton, USC’s chief financial officer.

In another email, this one to USC president Harris Pastides, who succeeded Sorensen, Moore said: “The value of this thing may be scrap metal.”

That’s not the way JCI sees the project.

“We remain committed to the long-term success of the USC project, and the university has been supportive and appreciative of Johnson Controls’ efforts to fulfill its commitment,” said Karen Conrad, the company’s director of marketing communications.

Full story:  http://www.thestate.com/2011/10/09/2001993/uscs-biomass-plant-debacle.html#ixzz1aKeVXkUU

==========================================================

At least they finally (weeks late) complied with FOIA requests, unlike some public agencies we know:

About this story

More than 1,800 pages of records obtained by The State show the biomass project collapsed into delays, recriminations and frustration.

Click here to read excerpts of those documents

State senior reporter Wayne Washington requested documents, via the S.C. Freedom of Information Act, concerning USC’s biomass plant on June 29 from the University of South Carolina. That law allows public agencies 15 working days to respond to a request for public information.

University officials responded they would need additional time to fulfill the request. They also said, because USC is getting an increasing number of requests for public information, the university would exercise its legal right to charge for document production and copying.

USC supplied 1,816 pages of documents concerning the $20 million facility to The State Sept. 22, charging $255.80 to provide the information.

%d bloggers like this: