Friday, November 30, 2012

( The Boeing Report ) Patcnews: The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network The Boeing Report © All copyrights reserved By Patcnews

Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network  © All copyrights reserved By Mark Eberle:


FAA sees no major problems with commercial flights at Paine Field

by KING 5 News

Posted on September 14, 2012 at 7:55 AM

Updated Friday, Sep 14 at 6:16 PM

Adding commercial flight operations to Everett's Paine Field would not pose a significant noise problem or worsen traffic near the airport, the Federal Aviation Administration concludes in a final environmental assessment report released Friday morning.
Supporters want to build a passenger terminal at the airport that would service Horizon and Allegiant airline flights to Portland, Spokane and Las Vegas.
No public hearings are planned, but the public will have 30 days to submit comments about the new report. 
Some Everett residents aren't happy about the prospect of more air traffic near local neighborhoods.
"When I heard it on the news this morning, I'm sure that FAA is going to, it's a done deal. And I don't think there's anything we can do about it," said Jeri Sackett.
"We like it here, yeah. But who knows,” said Dave Peterson. “If this goes through we'll probably make some other arrangements.”
Others said they were excited to have passenger service nearby.
"It's worth it to us,” said Tatyana Bateyko, who has several frequent fliers in her family.
Bateyko and her sister have eight young kids between them, and she said they’re already used to airplane noise. “We're kind of use to the sound, the Boeing sound. So it's not going to make a difference for us. So I like this idea.”
The FAA report states there would be no significant change to noise as a result of adding commercial flights at the airport, which is home to Boeing's largest assembly line and is used by private plane owners.
The report also says the impact on traffic in the area would be less than 1/10th of a mile per hour,
Supporters say the commercial flights could be an economic driver in the area, while others worry about the impact and potential conflict with Boeing.

The FAA is expected to give a final answer about commercial flights at Paine Field at the end of November.
To read the report or leave a comment, visit the Paine Field website.
Reporting by KING 5's Elisa Hahn and Jake Whittenberg, and's Elizabeth Wiley.

( The obama regime closing down Guantanamo Bay Cuba ) Patcnews: The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network Reports the obama regime closing Guantanamo Bay © All copyrights reserved By Mark Eberle

Mr. Patriot Conservative:

Gitmo North Returns: Obama’s Shady Prison Deal

If you thought President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder had given up on closing Guantanamo Bay and bringing jihadists to American soil, think again. Two troubling developments on the Gitmo front should have every American on edge.
The first White House maneuver took place in October, while much of the public and the media were preoccupied with election news. On Oct. 2, Obama’s cash-strapped Illinois pals announced that the federal government bought out the Thomson Correctional Center in western Illinois for $165 million. According to, a recent appraisal put the value of the facility at $220 million.
Democratic Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin led the lobbying campaign for the deal, along with Illinois Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn, who is overseeing an overall $43 billion state budget deficit and scraping for every available penny. The Thomson campus has been an empty Taj Mahal for more than a decade because profligate state officials had no money for operations. Economic development gurus (using the same phony math of federal stimulus peddlers) claim the newly federalized project will bring in $1 billion.
Durbin told a local Illinois paper that “the decision to move ahead came directly from President Barack Obama” and that he had secured the green light during a discussion on Air Force One earlier in the spring. But this gift to Obama’s Illinois homeboys wasn’t just a run-of-the-mill campaign favor.
Obama’s unilateral and unprecedented decision steamrolled over bipartisan congressional opposition to the purchase. That opposition dates back to 2009, when the White House first floated the idea of using Thomson to house jihadi enemy combatants detained in Cuba. As you may recall, the scheme caused a national uproar. Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department’s budget, blocked the administration from using unspent DOJ funds for the deal. With bipartisan support, Congress passed a law barring the transfer of Gitmo detainees to Thomson or any other civilian prison.
The message was clear: Taxpayers don’t want manipulative Gitmo detainees or their three-ring circuses of transnationalist sympathizers and left-wing lawyers on American soil. Period.
But when this imperial presidency can’t get its way in the court of public opinion, it simply circumvents the deliberative process. As Wolf noted: The shady deal “directly violates the clear objection of the House Appropriations Committee and goes against the bipartisan objections of members in the House and Senate, who have noted that approving this request would allow Thomson to take precedence over previously funded prisons in Alabama, Mississippi, West Virginia and New Hampshire.”

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

( Sweethearts of the Rodeo ) Patcnews: Aug 13, 2011 The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network Reports Sweethearts of the Rodeo © All copyrights reserved By Patcnews


Content and Programming Copyright 2011 By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network © LLC UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE All copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network Copyright 2011 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.  © All Copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network

( The obama regime Report ) Patcnews: The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network Reports The obama regime © All copyrights reserved By Patcnews

( The HAARP Report ) Patcnews: The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network Reports US Navy Deploying HAARP Tesla Weapon © All copyrights reserved By Patcnews

( Facebook Welcomes isis and porn ) Patcnews: The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network Reports Facebook on breast © All copyrights reserved By Patcnews

You and Facebook Mistakenly Confuse an Elbow for a Nipple

PHOTO: A photo of a woman's elbow was mistaken for a breast and pulled by Facebook.
Look again at that photo. Yes, we know, the first thing you think you see is a breast or a nipple. But look again. It's very clearly an elbow.
You looked closely. Facebook, however, didn't.
Last week a website called "Theories of The Deep Understandings of Things" came across the photo and decided to test Facebook.
"We post lots of art and also funny stuff on our Facebook page. Some of them, naturally, have some skin -- art and the non-art. We have discovered that Facebook standards are pretty much Bible-esque," the CEO of "Theories of The Deep Understandings of Things" told ABC News. He said he preferred not to reveal his name.
But this was a good way to test Facebook system, he thought. Last week he posted the photo that goes with this story. Facebook, as he expected, removed the photo.
"If we post a Renaissance painting consisting of a lady with, God forbid, a nipple, they'll remove it and block our personal account," he said via instant message. "We thought it would be a good idea to check on their standards, to make people ask themselves what exactly it is that is bothering them so much."
Yesterday, Facebook lifted the ban. "This photo does not violate our content standards and we have already restored the photo. We made a mistake removing the picture and apologized to the page admin," Facebook said in a statement. (ABC News could not track down the original owner of the photo.)
Facebook clarified to ABC News that it removes all exposed breasts from Facebook. Photos of breastfeeding women are allowed, just as long as nipples are obscured. Real-world works of art, however, including paintings, are permitted and shouldn't be removed.
Facebook, as we have reported before, has a User Operations Team -- a real team of humans -- monitoring photos and content on the site. It's not done by a computer. Last year, the site removed a photo of a child with Down Syndrome by mistake and provided more information on what happens when you click the "report" button.
But all that doesn't seem to impress the CEO of the site. "It's nice to know that tons of media-exposure can actually make FB be a little more sensible, or maybe a little more worried," he wrote on its Facebook page. "We can't wait for the next FB alertness test."
We hope Facebook is looking closely.

 © All copyrights reserved By Patcnews

Monday, November 26, 2012

( The Ice Road Truckers Report ) Patcnews: November 26, 2012 The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network Reports Ice Road Truckers © All copyrights reserved By Patcnews

The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network

      liberalism + Socialism = Terrorism 
           Thanks for your Support


 © All copyrights reserved By Patcnews
     liberalism + Socialism = Terrorism


Content and Programming Copyright 2014 By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network © LLC UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE All copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network Copyright 2014 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.  © All Copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network

( The Blaze Report Now has Laurie Dhue From Fox News Ho No Not that ) Patcnews: November 26, 2012 The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network Reports The Blaze and Facebook as (Suckface) © All copyrights reserved By Patcnews

"In response to the new Facebook guidelines, I hereby declare that my copyright is attached to all of my personal details, illustrations, comics, paintings, professional photos and videos, etc. (as a result of the Berner Convention). For commercial use of the above my written consent is needed at all times!"
You may have seen that very message pop up -- perhaps time and time again -- in your Facebook feed. The message has been making the rounds on the social network. It encourages people to copy and paste the text and post it on their own walls if they want to be placed "under protection of copyright laws."
It's a frightful message and those worried that Facebook will own their photos or other media are posting it -- unaware that it is a hoax. Here's the truth: Facebook doesn't own your media and there is no such thing as the Berner Convention. (There is a Berne Convention!)

 FB has a intern Jobs right now and FB has a lack of security and allowing people who are on death Row come into fb Where is the FBI on this and why is KFYI 550, KVI 570 Talk,  Radio 1350,  freedom 970, Talk Radio 640, Talk Radio 880.  Nobody want to talk about this news story. only Patcnews and Mike Gallagher is only to people  talking about this you can't find this on Mark Levin show,  Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck. Patcnews found out there is no News  report on Facebook.

Not even the Blaze or  Daily Caller or Town has return my phone calls.  The Hill does not want to comment about this matter. Patcnews has learn the Examiner is pushing from more advertisement on there website.  WSJ is getting founds from facbook and so is Fox News  BBC ABC CBS NBC MTV CNBC MSNBC. This news report  on Mike Gallagher and Patcnews exclusively Read More.... (
Joanna Stern/ABC News
A false message spread on Facebook about... View Full Size
Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook and Privacy Watch Video
Facebook, Linkedin Face Privacy Concerns Watch Video
"We have noticed some statements that suggest otherwise and we wanted to take a moment to remind you of the facts -- when you post things like photos to Facebook, we do not own them," Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said in a statement. "Under our terms (, you grant Facebook permission to use, distribute, and share the things you post, subject to the terms and applicable privacy settings."
Brad Shear, a Washington-area attorney and blogger who is an expert on social media, said the message was "misleading and not true." He said that when you agree to Facebook's terms of use you provide Facebook a "non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any content you post. You do not need to make any declarations about copyright issues since the law already protects you.  The privacy declaration [in this message] is worthless and does not mean anything.", a site dedicated to clearing up fallacies on the Internet, reminds Facebook users of that same thing. "Facebook users cannot retroactively negate any of the privacy or copyright terms they agreed to when they signed up for their Facebook accounts nor can they unilaterally alter or contradict terms instituted by Facebook simply by posting a contrary legal notice on their Facebook walls."
This isn't the first time a message like this has popped up on Facebook. A similar message made the rounds in June and a few years ago as well.
Bottom line? Don't bother copying, pasting, and posting. It was a hoax before and is still a hoax now.

Facebook poised to roll out more privacy controls

Facebook poised to roll out more privacy controls

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Facebook is trying to make its privacy controls easier to find and understand in an effort to turn the world's largest social network in to a more discreet place.

The fine-tuning announced Wednesday will include several revisions that will start rolling out to Facebook's more than 1 billion users during the next few weeks and continue into early next year.

The most visible, and perhaps most appreciated, change will be a new "privacy shortcuts" section that appears as a tiny lock on the right-hand side at the top of people's news feeds. This feature offers a drop-down box where users can get answers to common questions such as "Who can see my stuff?" and "How do I stop someone from bothering me?"

Other updates will include a tool that enables individuals to review all the publicly available pictures identifying them on Facebook and suggestions on how to request that an embarrassing or unflattering photograph be removed. Facebook also plans to plant a privacy education page at the top of its users' news feeds within the next month or so to help them better manage their online identities.

This marks the most extensive overhaul of Facebook's privacy controls in about 15 months.

The new controls are an implicit acknowledgement by Facebook that the nearly 9-year-old service hasn't always done the best job providing its users with easily accessible ways to corral the information and photos being posted on the website.

Facebook's critics suspect the social network deliberately obfuscated its privacy controls as part of a scheme to expose as much personal information as possible to help the company attract more advertisers.

But that has never been the case, according to Samuel Lessin, Facebook's director of product management. "Our number one priority is to not surprise users with our controls," he said.

Facebook Inc., which is based in Menlo Park, Calif., began paying more attention to its privacy controls and reputation as it matured into one of the world's best-known companies. The scrutiny has intensified since Facebook became a publicly traded company seven months ago.

Some of the upcoming changes reflect Facebook's ambition to establish its website as a digital scrapbook that will contain key moments spanning many decades of its users' lives.

The new photo-reviewing tool is designed to make it easier for someone to flag old pictures that might not seem as cool as they once did. For instance, a Facebook user who didn't mind being shown quaffing beer from a keg as an 18-year-old in college might not feel comfortable having that image publicly available as a 30-year-old looking for a job or starting a family.

Facebook rarely will remove a photo on its own, but one of its new features helps users ask a friend who posted the image to take it down.

Facebook is reshuffling its privacy controls the same week that it revoked its users' right to vote on changes to the social network's privacy policies. Lessin said the timing is purely coincidental.

Kevin Price


Why Both Sides Might Want to Go Off the Fiscal Cliff

Posted: 12/13/2012 2:07 pm

The so-called "fiscal cliff" has dominated the news ever since the election ended, but it has hung over heads as a threat to the economy for much longer. The "cliff" is a combination of tax increases (created by not extending tax cuts that currently exist) and several deep spending cuts (passed by the Congress and signed into law by President Obama last year). The tax increases will be over $500 billion and the cuts in spending will be in the billions and will potentially affect every area of government. Most economists on the left and right believe they could be a cause of economic ruin, but both the president and Speaker Boehner, oddly, have their own reasons why they might like to see it happen.
During the debates, the president told the audience flatly that the "fiscal cliff would not happen." In the last few weeks, he has begun playing a bold game of chicken and has made it clear he is ready to jump. Meanwhile, House Speaker Boehner has consistently said such a thing cannot happen. He has offered several counter proposals, including one endorsed by moderate Democrat Erskine Bowles, the former Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton and best known recently as the co-chair (with former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY)) of Barack Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform that was formed to provide a serious attack against the problem of government spending. That proposal by Boehner -- as well as all the others -- was rejected by President Obama. Obama is committed to making sure the most affluent have a tax increase and seems willing to do it regardless of the consequences.
So Obama has shown his willingness to face the cliff, but why would Boehner want to do it? It is certainly contrarian for the GOP to acquiesce on such tax increases, but one of the biggest complaints Republicans have had in recent years and particularly in the last election is the huge number of voters who do not pay federal taxes directly (although they certainly do in the costs of goods and services they buy from companies that pay taxes). If the problem is a lack of "skin in the game" by many voters, what better way of accomplishing that than tax increases that not only will affect the most affluent, but even the middle class? With the fiscal cliff, individuals making as little as $33,000 and couples making around $50,000 could find themselves subject to the Annual Minimum Tax, which has only been for the most affluent in recent years. Sure, this increase would also be on the wealthy and could, as Republicans have argued, have a negative impact on job creation and could lead to an exodus of revenue from the country; but it would also get the attention of all voters when it comes to taxes and might translate into electoral success.
The problem with this is the role of public perception. The president is winning both the traditional and social media battles. The GOP almost seems decades behind in its deployment of Facebook, Twitter and other social media (I know such isn't possible, but it seems that way). The jury is out on the impact of social media when it comes to changing the debate, but organizations of all sizes are investing substantially in such efforts. The president himself has his own hash tag specifically for the Fiscal cliff debate with #My2k. You can use that one too or #fiscalcliff in your Twitter conversations.

Kevin Price is Publisher and Editor in Chief of US Daily Review and Host of the Price of Business on 1110 AM KTEK in Houston, Texas. He is the author of Empowerment to the People and has twice received the George Washington Honor Medal in Communications from the Freedom Foundation at Valley Forge. His column is nationally syndicated and he is a frequent guest on major media around the country, being found on Fox News, Fox Business, and other networks. For more see at

This post is part of a series co-produced by The Huffington Post and Blogworld, in conjunction with the latter's NMX BusinessNext Social 2013. That event will feature some of the world's leading social-business luminaries and influencers, each of whom will be speaking at the event to provide an up-close look at how the world's most successful businesses harness the power of social.


Call in 1-888-321-9158

Soros Now Owns Facebook Why is That ???

Currency speculator and billionaire philanthropist George Soros’ most recent 13-F report reveals two very intriguing facts:
1) He has abandoned his stake in major financials
2) He holds thousands of shares of Facebook stock
“Soros completely dumped his stakes in Citigroup (420,000 shares), JP Morgan (701,400 shares) and Goldman Sachs (120,000 shares), leaving him with no position in any major financials at all,” writes Business Insider’s Linette Lopez.
He also ditched tech stocks: “He got rid of minor stakes in Dell (3,100) and Intel (10,600).”
And as for his position in Facebook, Soros owns 341,000 shares.
Surprise! Soros Has Big Stake in Facebook
Considering the fact that Facebook’s stock has been struggling ever since its disastrous initial public offering, and the fact that he’s ordinarily a savvy investor, one can’t help but wonder what’s driving Soros’ interest in the seemingly unprofitable social network.
Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter
Click here to view the 13-F report.


Content and Programming Copyright 2014 By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network © LLC UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE All copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network Copyright 2014 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. 
© All Copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network

Patcnews: The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network Reports obamacare Cargo Cult Economics © All copyrights reserved By Patcnews

obamacare Meets Reality. Reality Wins.

Another Adventure In Cargo Cult Economics

For years the Democrat party has derided the GOP’s view of economics. Our view, essentially, is that your money is yours, not the government’s, and the decisions you make on how to spend it will inevitably be more lucid than anything the government comes up with. The corollary to this is that income redistribution is nothing more or less than theft which characterizes garden variety covetousness as fairness. They call this “trickle down” economics.
The Democrats have their own operating principle: Cargo cult economics. It has many facets but the basis idea is that if the government creates something that is associated with a vibrant middle class then a vibrant middle class will spring from that program as inevitably as Athena sprang from the forehead of Zeus.
Though the term has been around for a while, I first encountered it while riding with a good friend through a dystopic steel town outside Pittsburgh where right in the middle of boarded up store fronts some governmental agency had plopped down an “arts center.” The idea being that somehow funding an arts center in a mostly deserted downtown would revive the downtown area because affluent downtowns all have arts centers.
Over the past months, we’ve chronicled the Obama regime’s slavish devotion to cargo cult economics (here | here | here | here | here | here). Now the slow motion implementation of Obamacare is giving us a rich laboratory for observing cargo cult economics in full flower.
What Obamacare has done is create a series of perverse incentives that encourage businesses to stop providing health insurance. As a business you have the choice of providing a rather gaudy health care plan to your employees or paying a tax. I say gaudy because the the basic requirements of the package, providing enough birth control pills to satisfy Sandra Fluke’s appetites, for instance, adds cost on to the plan. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to believe the health care plan provided by your employer is not YOUR health plan, it is your employer’s.
So by paying a tax, a business can avoid the human resources head ache of managing a health plan and reduce costs. What option do you think many businesses will choose.
But wait there is more.
An employer only has to provide a health plan for full time employees. There is no penalty for not providing health coverage to part-time workers. And there are no penalties if you employ fewer than 50 persons (by person I mean full-time equivalents: if you have part time workers and your average number of hours worked exceed 50 x 120 (4 weeks x 30hr/week). You can read more on the nuances of calculating what is a full time equivalent worker courtesy of RedState member jayp.
Faced with the prospect of paying as much as $40,000/year some employers are reducing both full time positions and total number of employees.
Companies as diverse as Papa John’s, St Jude’s Hospital, and Murray Energy have all announced layoffs that are linked to Obamacare.
What Obamacare has done in the name of providing universal health care is to make it advantageous to employers to provide no health care whatsoever. This isn’t necessarily bad, in my view one of the major shortfalls of our current system is that the policy is owned by the employer rather than the employee, but what is bad is when such a sea change occurs when the actual operational concept was to expand the scope of coverage provided by employers.
By gold plating the minimum policy, employers are encouraged to carry no policy at all. To avoid the fines associated with not providing coverage employers have an incentive to reduce a vast majority of employees to working less than 30 hours per week. If you are a waiter, your employer now has an incentive to reduce your tip income to avoid health care costs:
Bob McAdam, Spokesperson for Darden, parent company of Olive Garden and Red Lobster restaurants, stated that they were still in a test stage back in October. The company had made plans to reduce hours and require tip-sharing from waitstaff to the remainder of employees, which would eliminate the owners from having to provide tip-credit*. (*A set hourly pay amount for waitstaff established by the local government and is divided into two parts. If the waiter doesn’t earn tips then they receive the whole amount of both parts. If the waiter does receive tips then they only receive half of the hourly amount.)
On the subject of employers wanting to reduce the incomes of waitstaff for his own benefit, it certainly isn’t going to encourage staff members to purchase food at his restaurant.
One issue that concerns career waiters is that they choose the field because they can earn up to $200 per day in tips, having to share their income with remaining employees reduces their own income.
When is a waiter responsible for paying for the wages of his co-workers? For that matter why is the paying consumer responsible for paying for the wages of a business above and beyond the price of his meal? The tip has always been a gratuity, a thank you, an appreciation, not meant as a subsidy for business owners to underpay their employees.
Since the government assumes that the waiter is earning at least 8 percent in tips figured on his gross sales for the day; reporting less could trigger audits.
In the view of Obama and his minions companies are in business to provide free stuff to their employees (so his view on economics parallels his view on governance) and since a vibrant middle class has health care provided by their employer if the government merely mandated this to happen we would suddenly be prosperous.
Now the demographic Obamacare sought to help is finding itself not only without health coverage, it is also required to work two jobs to make ends meet. Well played, President Obama.