This is a modern day lynching and it's absolutely disgraceful....where is Eric Holder going after Spike Lee and the bounty offering black panthers?...where's Obama cooling off the situation...why isn't anyone taking on Al Sharpton who's calling for civil disobedience????...why isn't everyone calling for Sharpton to get fired froom MSNBC?...why aren't folks going after his sponsors like they did with Rush? what is this?...America or the Congo???? Are we civilized and do we believe in innocent until proven guilty or is this just a banana republic?
Specifically Obama's lack of leadership just proves what a disgraceful, pathetic excuse for a President he is...and the more the Democrats respond in kind with him the more their character comes out and that will hurt them in November.
Latest News on Trayvon Martin
Friday, March 30, 2012
Schnitt Calls for Sharpton's Firing and Possible Arrest
(Schnittshow.com) Nationally syndicated radio host Todd Schnitt is calling for MSNBC to fire their host, the Rev. Al Sharpton, for his attempt at inciting violence. Schnitt has called for Sharpton's arrest if riots occur.
The Orlando Sentinel is reporting that Sharpton is calling for an escalation in civil disobedience against the city of Sanford if George Zimmerman is not arrested.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Friday, March 30, 2012
It's in the Hands of the Supreme Court....at Least for Now!
And Now the Supreme Court Must Decide
For the past three days, the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court heard a series of arguments on Obamacare -- what promises to be one of the most seminal decisions in the Court's history. Now that the dust has settled, it appears more than likely that President Obama's signature health care law is on the verge of being struck down -- perhaps even in its entirety.
The challengers to the law include more than half of the States of the Union, the National Federation of Independent Business, and private parties, while the Obama Administration is standing in defense of it. Having heard arguments on Monday on whether a law called the Anti-Injunction Act would bar the Court from considering whether Obamacare's individual mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional, the Court on Tuesday moved on to examining the mandate itself and whether Congress vaulted across the Maginot Line of constitutionality when it imposed the mandate on Americans.
The liberal justices of the Court hammered the attorneys who were challenging Obamacare, leaving little doubt where they stand on the law. In their view, it appears, the Constitution's Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the authority "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes," also empowers Congress to impose the individual mandate. As the government argued, since everyone will have to participate in the health care market at some point, the government is justified in requiring people to buy insurance today. Heritage's Todd Gaziano explains the failure of this argument:
There's a difference between regulating commerce that's already happening and forcing individual Americans to enter into commerce -- in this case, the health care market -- so that Congress can better regulate it...
If Congress were able to regulate things that people will eventually have to do, then there would be virtually no limits to its power.
That's an argument that resonated with the Court's conservative justices and with Justice Anthony Kennedy, who oftentimes votes with the conservatives but is seen as a crucial swing vote in this case. At two different times, Justice Kennedy stated that the government's theory would "fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and the state." His thinking on the issue could be a bad sign for Obamacare.
If the Court were to strike down Obamacare's individual mandate, it would also have to consider what to do with the rest of the law. Should the justices just strike down the mandate? Should they eliminate the mandate and any of the related sections (which would be difficult to identify), or should they throw out the whole law? This question is what's known as "severability," and it was one of the focuses of the third day of oral argument. And on this issue, too, the Obama Administration did not have a good day. Heritage's Todd Gaziano and Hans von Spakovsky explain:
The more liberal justices were clearly hostile to the arguments being made by Paul Clement on behalf of the challengers that the entire statute must be struck down. However, other justices, including Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, were obviously concerned that the complex scheme designed by Congress will not work as intended by Congress without the individual mandate -- which is the 'heart' of the law as Justice Scalia and others later referred to it -- and thus they may need to strike down the entire law if the mandate is unconstitutional.
One issue remained for the Court -- Obamacare's Medicaid spending provisions under which Congress relies on its "spending power" to expand the program and coerce states to do its bidding. Those challenging the law say that the Medicaid expansion effectively "commandeers" state government, thereby undermining the states' sovereignty and autonomy. On this question, it is less clear where the Court will come down. Though the liberal justices who would uphold the individual mandate will certainly uphold the Medicaid provisions, it's less clear where Justices Roberts, Scalia and Thomas stand on the issue. But if the Court chooses to strike down all of Obamacare, the Medicaid provisions will fall along with it and the justices will not have to decide this issue. A ruling on all issues is expected from the Court in June.
In making his final argument in defense of Obamacare, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli alluded to the Constitution's preamble and its call to "secure the blessings of liberty" in his justification for Congress' actions. Paul Clement, arguing on behalf of Obamacare's challengers, eloquently responded to Verrilli's call to the Constitution:
Let me just finish by saying I certainly appreciate what the solicitor general says, that when you support a policy, you think that the policy spreads the blessings of liberty. But I would respectfully suggest that it's a very funny conception of liberty that forces somebody to purchase an insurance policy whether they want it or not. And it's a very strange conception of federalism that says that we can simply give the states an offer that they can't refuse, and through the spending power which is premised on the notion that Congress can do more because it's voluntary, we can force the states to do whatever we tell them to. That is a direct threat to our federalism.
The Constitution's words are stirring, indeed, but have little meaning if Congress is to trample on the founding document's very real limitations. And so America waits for the Court to decide, two years after a severely divided Congress passed Obamacare and stretched its powers beyond the Constitution. But whether the Court upholds Obamacare or strikes it down, all or in part, it does not have the final say on this issue. It ultimately falls to the American people, through their representatives in Congress, to decide the future of health care in America and whether the federal government will live within its constitutional limits. Obamacare must be fully repealed.
For the past three days, the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court heard a series of arguments on Obamacare -- what promises to be one of the most seminal decisions in the Court's history. Now that the dust has settled, it appears more than likely that President Obama's signature health care law is on the verge of being struck down -- perhaps even in its entirety.
The challengers to the law include more than half of the States of the Union, the National Federation of Independent Business, and private parties, while the Obama Administration is standing in defense of it. Having heard arguments on Monday on whether a law called the Anti-Injunction Act would bar the Court from considering whether Obamacare's individual mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional, the Court on Tuesday moved on to examining the mandate itself and whether Congress vaulted across the Maginot Line of constitutionality when it imposed the mandate on Americans.
The liberal justices of the Court hammered the attorneys who were challenging Obamacare, leaving little doubt where they stand on the law. In their view, it appears, the Constitution's Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the authority "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes," also empowers Congress to impose the individual mandate. As the government argued, since everyone will have to participate in the health care market at some point, the government is justified in requiring people to buy insurance today. Heritage's Todd Gaziano explains the failure of this argument:
There's a difference between regulating commerce that's already happening and forcing individual Americans to enter into commerce -- in this case, the health care market -- so that Congress can better regulate it...
If Congress were able to regulate things that people will eventually have to do, then there would be virtually no limits to its power.
That's an argument that resonated with the Court's conservative justices and with Justice Anthony Kennedy, who oftentimes votes with the conservatives but is seen as a crucial swing vote in this case. At two different times, Justice Kennedy stated that the government's theory would "fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and the state." His thinking on the issue could be a bad sign for Obamacare.
If the Court were to strike down Obamacare's individual mandate, it would also have to consider what to do with the rest of the law. Should the justices just strike down the mandate? Should they eliminate the mandate and any of the related sections (which would be difficult to identify), or should they throw out the whole law? This question is what's known as "severability," and it was one of the focuses of the third day of oral argument. And on this issue, too, the Obama Administration did not have a good day. Heritage's Todd Gaziano and Hans von Spakovsky explain:
The more liberal justices were clearly hostile to the arguments being made by Paul Clement on behalf of the challengers that the entire statute must be struck down. However, other justices, including Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, were obviously concerned that the complex scheme designed by Congress will not work as intended by Congress without the individual mandate -- which is the 'heart' of the law as Justice Scalia and others later referred to it -- and thus they may need to strike down the entire law if the mandate is unconstitutional.
One issue remained for the Court -- Obamacare's Medicaid spending provisions under which Congress relies on its "spending power" to expand the program and coerce states to do its bidding. Those challenging the law say that the Medicaid expansion effectively "commandeers" state government, thereby undermining the states' sovereignty and autonomy. On this question, it is less clear where the Court will come down. Though the liberal justices who would uphold the individual mandate will certainly uphold the Medicaid provisions, it's less clear where Justices Roberts, Scalia and Thomas stand on the issue. But if the Court chooses to strike down all of Obamacare, the Medicaid provisions will fall along with it and the justices will not have to decide this issue. A ruling on all issues is expected from the Court in June.
In making his final argument in defense of Obamacare, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli alluded to the Constitution's preamble and its call to "secure the blessings of liberty" in his justification for Congress' actions. Paul Clement, arguing on behalf of Obamacare's challengers, eloquently responded to Verrilli's call to the Constitution:
Let me just finish by saying I certainly appreciate what the solicitor general says, that when you support a policy, you think that the policy spreads the blessings of liberty. But I would respectfully suggest that it's a very funny conception of liberty that forces somebody to purchase an insurance policy whether they want it or not. And it's a very strange conception of federalism that says that we can simply give the states an offer that they can't refuse, and through the spending power which is premised on the notion that Congress can do more because it's voluntary, we can force the states to do whatever we tell them to. That is a direct threat to our federalism.
The Constitution's words are stirring, indeed, but have little meaning if Congress is to trample on the founding document's very real limitations. And so America waits for the Court to decide, two years after a severely divided Congress passed Obamacare and stretched its powers beyond the Constitution. But whether the Court upholds Obamacare or strikes it down, all or in part, it does not have the final say on this issue. It ultimately falls to the American people, through their representatives in Congress, to decide the future of health care in America and whether the federal government will live within its constitutional limits. Obamacare must be fully repealed.
The Truth About Obama's Energy Rhetoric....
Did You See the Senate's Gas Price Sideshow?
In case you missed it, there was quite a performance in the U.S. Senate yesterday. Liberals put on an election-year show, with the personal encouragement of President Barack Obama, in which they attempted to impose higher taxes on the oil industry as punishment for their profits while gas prices are at an all-time high.
The Senate rejected the bill 51-47. Despite certain defeat, liberals brought up the legislation in hopes of distracting the American people from the fact that President Obama is refusing to take steps that would help increase the supply of oil in the United States, and decrease regulation, thereby bringing down costs for consumers. As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) put it, "Day after day after day, Democrats ask us all to come out here, not so we can make an actual difference in the lives of working Americans and families struggling to fill the gas tank, but so we can watch them stage votes for show."
Heritage expert David Kreutzer points out, most of what the President and his allies call "subsidies" are merely manufacturing tax credits that already put the oil and gas industry at a disadvantage:
[T]he unfair tax break that makes up nearly half of what Obama calls "subsidies" is the manufacturing tax credit. All manufacturers except the oil and gas industry get to deduct 9 percent of their revenues before calculating their tax bills...Though oil and gas producers get the deduction, they are singled out for a lower 6 percent deduction. The oil and gas industry gets a deduction that is only two-thirds as generous as for all other manufacturers ...yet the deduction is called a subsidy to oil and gas. The President's proposal does not eliminate the deduction for any other industry.
To make matters worse, if this legislation had passed and the President achieved his goal of increasing taxes on the oil industry, it would have only served to raise the price of fuel at the pump. When industry is taxed, they invariably pass on the costs to the consumers. But that fact apparently doesn't matter to the President. His plan, instead, is to take money from the oil industry and hand it to his friends in the alternative energy industry, as he described:
Instead of taxpayer giveaways to an industry that's never been more profitable, we should be using that money to double down on investments in clean energy technologies that have never been more promising. Investments in wind power and solar power and biofuels; in fuel-efficient cars and trucks and homes and buildings. That's the future.
While the President talks about the future, he glosses over the past. For over three years, he has talked about the promise of alternative energy -- and he has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in order to prop up those companies. But those efforts have failed. Solar energy company Solyndra went bankrupt, despite $535 million in taxpayer funding, along with Beacon, Ener1, Abound and others. The New York Times criticized the President's efforts and concluded that his promise to create five million "green" jobs over 10 years has proven to be nothing more than "a pipe dream." Meanwhile, The Washington Post reported, "Meant to create jobs and cut reliance on foreign oil, Obama's green-technology program was infused with politics at every level."
The President's crony capitalist devotion to the alternative energy industry -- at the expense of energy sources that work -- comes with serious consequences. Heritage's Nick Loris explains:
The reality is that when it comes to energy policy, the free market works. Indeed, the business environment for energy is robust despite seemingly endless forays by policymakers and bureaucrats into the energy industry. But those attempts to control energy markets do have an effect: They result in higher prices, fewer available energy sources, reduced competition, and stifled innovation.
But the President wants even more government involvement in the energy business -- on his own terms. In Obama's FY 2013 budget, he included billions of dollars for a hidden green stimulus -- taxpayer money to be spent by the Department of Energy to fund research on technologies that are not commercially viable. In a new paper, Loris identifies $5.5 billion of wasted money that should be cut from the President's budget, thereby removing the government--and taxpayers--from the role of subsidizing research.
Instead of picking winners and losers, the federal government should let the free market do its job. In addition to getting out of the business of funding research best left to the private sector, that also means ending targeted tax credits for oil, renewables, nuclear, alternative fuels and vehicles, and advanced coal and gasification. The next step is for the federal government to open access to domestic energy sources and end unnecessary, overly burdensome regulations that get in the way of energy production. And the President should approve the Keystone XL pipeline and open up federal lands for energy exploration.
In case you missed it, there was quite a performance in the U.S. Senate yesterday. Liberals put on an election-year show, with the personal encouragement of President Barack Obama, in which they attempted to impose higher taxes on the oil industry as punishment for their profits while gas prices are at an all-time high.
The Senate rejected the bill 51-47. Despite certain defeat, liberals brought up the legislation in hopes of distracting the American people from the fact that President Obama is refusing to take steps that would help increase the supply of oil in the United States, and decrease regulation, thereby bringing down costs for consumers. As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) put it, "Day after day after day, Democrats ask us all to come out here, not so we can make an actual difference in the lives of working Americans and families struggling to fill the gas tank, but so we can watch them stage votes for show."
Heritage expert David Kreutzer points out, most of what the President and his allies call "subsidies" are merely manufacturing tax credits that already put the oil and gas industry at a disadvantage:
[T]he unfair tax break that makes up nearly half of what Obama calls "subsidies" is the manufacturing tax credit. All manufacturers except the oil and gas industry get to deduct 9 percent of their revenues before calculating their tax bills...Though oil and gas producers get the deduction, they are singled out for a lower 6 percent deduction. The oil and gas industry gets a deduction that is only two-thirds as generous as for all other manufacturers ...yet the deduction is called a subsidy to oil and gas. The President's proposal does not eliminate the deduction for any other industry.
To make matters worse, if this legislation had passed and the President achieved his goal of increasing taxes on the oil industry, it would have only served to raise the price of fuel at the pump. When industry is taxed, they invariably pass on the costs to the consumers. But that fact apparently doesn't matter to the President. His plan, instead, is to take money from the oil industry and hand it to his friends in the alternative energy industry, as he described:
Instead of taxpayer giveaways to an industry that's never been more profitable, we should be using that money to double down on investments in clean energy technologies that have never been more promising. Investments in wind power and solar power and biofuels; in fuel-efficient cars and trucks and homes and buildings. That's the future.
While the President talks about the future, he glosses over the past. For over three years, he has talked about the promise of alternative energy -- and he has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in order to prop up those companies. But those efforts have failed. Solar energy company Solyndra went bankrupt, despite $535 million in taxpayer funding, along with Beacon, Ener1, Abound and others. The New York Times criticized the President's efforts and concluded that his promise to create five million "green" jobs over 10 years has proven to be nothing more than "a pipe dream." Meanwhile, The Washington Post reported, "Meant to create jobs and cut reliance on foreign oil, Obama's green-technology program was infused with politics at every level."
The President's crony capitalist devotion to the alternative energy industry -- at the expense of energy sources that work -- comes with serious consequences. Heritage's Nick Loris explains:
The reality is that when it comes to energy policy, the free market works. Indeed, the business environment for energy is robust despite seemingly endless forays by policymakers and bureaucrats into the energy industry. But those attempts to control energy markets do have an effect: They result in higher prices, fewer available energy sources, reduced competition, and stifled innovation.
But the President wants even more government involvement in the energy business -- on his own terms. In Obama's FY 2013 budget, he included billions of dollars for a hidden green stimulus -- taxpayer money to be spent by the Department of Energy to fund research on technologies that are not commercially viable. In a new paper, Loris identifies $5.5 billion of wasted money that should be cut from the President's budget, thereby removing the government--and taxpayers--from the role of subsidizing research.
Instead of picking winners and losers, the federal government should let the free market do its job. In addition to getting out of the business of funding research best left to the private sector, that also means ending targeted tax credits for oil, renewables, nuclear, alternative fuels and vehicles, and advanced coal and gasification. The next step is for the federal government to open access to domestic energy sources and end unnecessary, overly burdensome regulations that get in the way of energy production. And the President should approve the Keystone XL pipeline and open up federal lands for energy exploration.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Harry Reid....Determined to get NOTHING done in the Senate...
The Democrat Run "Do Nothing" Senate....Obama might have gotten what he wanted if it weren't for Harry Reid...The Tax Break money would have just been passed on to us, the consumers.....
Senate blocks proposal to end tax breaks for Big Oil
By Doug Powers • March 29, 2012 02:05 PM **Written by Doug Powers
It’s just a matter of time until Jay Carney claims Republicans are now responsible for high gas prices because they refused to raise taxes on Big Oil so the government could spend that revenue fast-tracking algae research and funding more Solyndras.
From The Hill:
The Senate on Thursday thwarted Democratic plans to strip billions of dollars in tax breaks from the largest oil companies, just an hour or so after President Obama urged the chamber to kill off the deductions.
Lawmakers voted 51-47 to block Sen. Robert Menendez’s (D-N.J.) bill. Sixty votes were needed to advance the measure.
Two Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both from Maine — crossed party lines and voted to repeal the tax breaks. Four Democrats — Sens. Mark Begich (Alaska), Mary Landrieu (La.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Jim Webb (Va.) — voted against the bill.
It sounds as if Democrats could have gotten their dream of ending Big Oil tax breaks if they’d have accepted a Republican deal sweetener, but Harry Reid made a quick kick-save to keep it out of the net:
The vote Thursday followed several days of tactical maneuvering on both sides of the aisle. Republicans oppose the Menendez plan but unexpectedly voted Monday to allow debate on the bill, saying they welcomed the chance to pit their energy plans against those of Democrats.
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) cut debate on the bill short, blocking consideration of a handful of GOP amendments, including a proposal to dramatically expand offshore oil-and-gas leasing.
Why would Reid have a problem with expanding offshore leasing considering his friend in the White House recently vowed to drill wherever we can?
Update: Jay Carney can’t explain why Obama voted for oil company tax breaks in 2005.
Senate blocks proposal to end tax breaks for Big Oil
By Doug Powers • March 29, 2012 02:05 PM **Written by Doug Powers
It’s just a matter of time until Jay Carney claims Republicans are now responsible for high gas prices because they refused to raise taxes on Big Oil so the government could spend that revenue fast-tracking algae research and funding more Solyndras.
From The Hill:
The Senate on Thursday thwarted Democratic plans to strip billions of dollars in tax breaks from the largest oil companies, just an hour or so after President Obama urged the chamber to kill off the deductions.
Lawmakers voted 51-47 to block Sen. Robert Menendez’s (D-N.J.) bill. Sixty votes were needed to advance the measure.
Two Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both from Maine — crossed party lines and voted to repeal the tax breaks. Four Democrats — Sens. Mark Begich (Alaska), Mary Landrieu (La.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Jim Webb (Va.) — voted against the bill.
It sounds as if Democrats could have gotten their dream of ending Big Oil tax breaks if they’d have accepted a Republican deal sweetener, but Harry Reid made a quick kick-save to keep it out of the net:
The vote Thursday followed several days of tactical maneuvering on both sides of the aisle. Republicans oppose the Menendez plan but unexpectedly voted Monday to allow debate on the bill, saying they welcomed the chance to pit their energy plans against those of Democrats.
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) cut debate on the bill short, blocking consideration of a handful of GOP amendments, including a proposal to dramatically expand offshore oil-and-gas leasing.
Why would Reid have a problem with expanding offshore leasing considering his friend in the White House recently vowed to drill wherever we can?
Update: Jay Carney can’t explain why Obama voted for oil company tax breaks in 2005.
Same Old Crap from Obama....Demonize Big Oil...Tax Them More...so we can pay EVEN more at the pump...
Same old crap from this guy....demonize big oil...demonize big business...tax them more....well who does he think is going to pay for the additional taxes he charges the oil companies?????? US that who....and once again it's all about alternative energy....he's already spending a lot more taxpayer dollars to subsidize alternative energy when the vast majority of American do not use it....
Fossil Fuel creates jobs....virtually all of us use fossil fuels to fill our cars, heat our homes, etc..etc.... Does he just not get that???? Alternative Energy does not create many jobs...it's not sustainable today based on any business model...
Talk about out of touch....Obama is on another planet! And he must think we are really STUPID!
Obama urges Congress to end oil tax breaks, refocus on alternative energy
Published March 29, 2012 | FoxNews.com
President Obama pressed Congress on Thursday to end $4 billion in tax subsidies to U.S. oil companies, saying he’s not concerned about them during record-high gas prices and doubling down on his vow to focus on alternative energy.
“I’m not worried about oil companies,” the president said in a Rose Garden speech. “Wind and solar power … energy-efficient cars. That’s the future.”
However, a Senate vote on repealing the tax breaks failed about 30 minutes later.
Congressional Republicans say ending the tax breaks will lead to higher fuel prices, raising costs on oil companies and affecting their spending on exploration.
Obama couldn't end the subsidies when Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress, before Republicans last year recaptured control of the House.
“Members of Congress have a choice to make,” Obama said Thursday. “They can stand with big oil or they can stand with the American people.
Fossil Fuel creates jobs....virtually all of us use fossil fuels to fill our cars, heat our homes, etc..etc.... Does he just not get that???? Alternative Energy does not create many jobs...it's not sustainable today based on any business model...
Talk about out of touch....Obama is on another planet! And he must think we are really STUPID!
Obama urges Congress to end oil tax breaks, refocus on alternative energy
Published March 29, 2012 | FoxNews.com
President Obama pressed Congress on Thursday to end $4 billion in tax subsidies to U.S. oil companies, saying he’s not concerned about them during record-high gas prices and doubling down on his vow to focus on alternative energy.
“I’m not worried about oil companies,” the president said in a Rose Garden speech. “Wind and solar power … energy-efficient cars. That’s the future.”
However, a Senate vote on repealing the tax breaks failed about 30 minutes later.
Congressional Republicans say ending the tax breaks will lead to higher fuel prices, raising costs on oil companies and affecting their spending on exploration.
Obama couldn't end the subsidies when Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress, before Republicans last year recaptured control of the House.
“Members of Congress have a choice to make,” Obama said Thursday. “They can stand with big oil or they can stand with the American people.
Obama Budget Defeated in the House 414 - 0
House rejects Bowles-Simpson, Obama budgets
By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times Wednesday, March 28, 2012
The Bowles-Simpson deficit-reduction plan went down to a crushing defeat in the House late Wednesday night in a vote that damages the one bipartisan proposal that just a few months ago had seemed like a possible solution to the country’s debt woes.
The 382-38 defeat, with just 16 Republicans and 22 Democrats voting for it, marks a bad end to what began nearly two years ago, when President Obama tapped former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, and former Sen. Alan Simpson, a Republican, to lead a deficit-reduction committee.
Their report has popped up in every deficit discussion since then, but had never gotten a vote in either chamber until this week, when opponents prevailed.
“This doesn’t go big. This doesn’t tackle the problem. This doesn’t do the big things,” said Rep. Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the Budget Committee. “You can never get the debt under control if you don’t deal with our health care entitlement programs.”
The debate came as the House worked its way through its fiscal year 2013 budget plan, which Mr. Ryan wrote.
The Bowles-Simpson plan was offered as an alternative on the chamber floor.
Minutes earlier, the House also defeated Mr. Obama’s own budget, submitted last month, on a 414-0 vote arranged by Republicans to embarrass the president and officially shelve his plan.
“It’s not a charade. It’s not a gimmick — unless what the president sent us is the same,” said Rep. Mick Mulvaney, a freshman Republican from South Carolina who sponsored Mr. Obama’s proposal for purposes of the debate. “I would encourage the Democrats to embrace this landmark Democrat document and support it. Personally, I will be voting against it.”
The House also defeated an alternative offered by the Congressional Black Caucus that would have included $4 trillion in additional tax increases on top of those Mr. Obama proposed, and used that money to boost spending on domestic programs. That plan was killed 314-107.
But the Bowles-Simpson plan was the most anticipated vote of the evening, earning its first-ever vote in either chamber.
“There’s a consensus in america we have to reduce our deficit,” said Rep. Rob Andrews, New Jersey Democrat.
“Most of it should be by cutting spending, and some of it should be in revenue contribution by the wealthiest Americans.”
The plan was sponsored by Rep. Jim Cooper, Tennessee Democrat, and Rep. Steve LaTourette, Ohio Republican, and was backed by Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson, who said it faithfully represented their goals.
But it was attacked by those on both ends of the political spectrum, leaving the two chief sponsors to defend themselves. Mr. LaTourette listed a series of attacks he said were untrue, adding after each: “False. Your pants are on fire.”
Rep. Charlie Bass, New Hampshire Republican, said he also supports House Republicans’ budget but said that plan doesn’t have a chance in the Senate, and without a final agreement on a congressional budget it will make it impossible to agree to spending limits and extending the Bush-era tax cuts.
“Compromise is not a capitulation of principle,” Mr. Bass said.
By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times Wednesday, March 28, 2012
The Bowles-Simpson deficit-reduction plan went down to a crushing defeat in the House late Wednesday night in a vote that damages the one bipartisan proposal that just a few months ago had seemed like a possible solution to the country’s debt woes.
The 382-38 defeat, with just 16 Republicans and 22 Democrats voting for it, marks a bad end to what began nearly two years ago, when President Obama tapped former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, and former Sen. Alan Simpson, a Republican, to lead a deficit-reduction committee.
Their report has popped up in every deficit discussion since then, but had never gotten a vote in either chamber until this week, when opponents prevailed.
“This doesn’t go big. This doesn’t tackle the problem. This doesn’t do the big things,” said Rep. Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the Budget Committee. “You can never get the debt under control if you don’t deal with our health care entitlement programs.”
The debate came as the House worked its way through its fiscal year 2013 budget plan, which Mr. Ryan wrote.
The Bowles-Simpson plan was offered as an alternative on the chamber floor.
Minutes earlier, the House also defeated Mr. Obama’s own budget, submitted last month, on a 414-0 vote arranged by Republicans to embarrass the president and officially shelve his plan.
“It’s not a charade. It’s not a gimmick — unless what the president sent us is the same,” said Rep. Mick Mulvaney, a freshman Republican from South Carolina who sponsored Mr. Obama’s proposal for purposes of the debate. “I would encourage the Democrats to embrace this landmark Democrat document and support it. Personally, I will be voting against it.”
The House also defeated an alternative offered by the Congressional Black Caucus that would have included $4 trillion in additional tax increases on top of those Mr. Obama proposed, and used that money to boost spending on domestic programs. That plan was killed 314-107.
But the Bowles-Simpson plan was the most anticipated vote of the evening, earning its first-ever vote in either chamber.
“There’s a consensus in america we have to reduce our deficit,” said Rep. Rob Andrews, New Jersey Democrat.
“Most of it should be by cutting spending, and some of it should be in revenue contribution by the wealthiest Americans.”
The plan was sponsored by Rep. Jim Cooper, Tennessee Democrat, and Rep. Steve LaTourette, Ohio Republican, and was backed by Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson, who said it faithfully represented their goals.
But it was attacked by those on both ends of the political spectrum, leaving the two chief sponsors to defend themselves. Mr. LaTourette listed a series of attacks he said were untrue, adding after each: “False. Your pants are on fire.”
Rep. Charlie Bass, New Hampshire Republican, said he also supports House Republicans’ budget but said that plan doesn’t have a chance in the Senate, and without a final agreement on a congressional budget it will make it impossible to agree to spending limits and extending the Bush-era tax cuts.
“Compromise is not a capitulation of principle,” Mr. Bass said.
Racial Inequality only Runs One Way for Obama!
For Barack Obama racial inequality only runs ONE WAY....and this case was the wrong way for him to get involved....What a shameful disgrace it is to have a President like this....
Parents of murdered British students criticise Barack Obama
The parents of two British students murdered in Florida have criticised President Barack Obama for his lack of compassion over their son's deaths.
By Paul Thompson in Sarasota 3:00PM BST 29 Mar 2012
His failure to respond to three letters sent to the White House was because there was no "political value" and not worthy of a few minutes of his time.
They spoke out as teenager Shawn Tyson began a life sentence after being found guilty of the murder of James Cooper and James Kouzaris last April.
The 17 year old, who shot the men as they begged for their lives, will die in prison.
His conviction of first degree murder carries an mandatory life sentence without the chance of parole.
The powerfully built teen even looked bored as emotional DVD presentations about the dead men prepared by their grieving parents were shown in court.
Tyson, who has the word 'Savage' tattooed across his chest didn't show a flicker of emotion, slumping in his seat as he was forced to watch a montage of photos showing the victims from early childhood to young men.
Two close friends of the dead men who had attended the eight day trial in Sarasota, Florida. had also delivered highly emotional impact statements to the court prior to the sentencing.
Paul Davies and Joe Hallett spoke of the "living hell" they and others who knew the men had suffered since the murders.
During the eight day trial they had been shown graphic crime scene and autopsy photos shown in court.
Later speaking after Tyson was jailed Davies and Hallett lashed out at Mr Obama saying the deaths of their friends was "not worthy of ten minutes of his time."
Davies said:"We would like to publicly express our dissatisfaction at the lack of any public or private message of support or condolence from any American governing body or indeed, President Obama himself.
"Mr Kouzaris has written to President Obama on three separate occasions and is yet to even receive the courtesy of a reply.
"It would perhaps appear that Mr Obama sees no political value in facilitating such a request or that the lives of two British tourists are not worthy of ten minutes of his time."
The rebuke follows Mr Obama's personal intervention into the shooting in Florida of a young black teenager by a white neighbourhood watch captain.
The death of 17 year old Trayvon Martin has sparked nationwide protests with his supporters claiming he was victim of a racist attack.
Mr Obama entered the controversy last week by saying if he had a son he would have looked like Martin.
The alleged assailant in Martin's death has not been charged with any crime having claimed he was attacked first and used Florida's 'stand your ground' law to shoot in self defence.
The criticism of the US President was made on behalf of the Cooper's parents Stanley and Sandy, from Warwicks, and Peter and Hazel Kouzaris, from Northampton by Davies in a statement read outside the courtroom.
The parents of the two victims did not attend the trial but they had access to the proceedings from a live video feed.
The filmed interview of the Kouzaris's was played to the court while a message from Sandy Cooper was read out by the prosecutor.
The victims close friends delivered an emotional impact statement with Hallett telling Tyson he hoped he would be haunted by his actions.
He told him: "Imagine them being killed. Now try to imagine that they died because someone creept up on them and shot them numerous times for no good reason. Welcome to our world. Every night you go to sleep, every morning you wake up, I want you to think of my friends who you murdered. Their images will be imprinted on your conscience up until your very last breath in life."
Parents of murdered British students criticise Barack Obama
The parents of two British students murdered in Florida have criticised President Barack Obama for his lack of compassion over their son's deaths.
By Paul Thompson in Sarasota 3:00PM BST 29 Mar 2012
His failure to respond to three letters sent to the White House was because there was no "political value" and not worthy of a few minutes of his time.
They spoke out as teenager Shawn Tyson began a life sentence after being found guilty of the murder of James Cooper and James Kouzaris last April.
The 17 year old, who shot the men as they begged for their lives, will die in prison.
His conviction of first degree murder carries an mandatory life sentence without the chance of parole.
The powerfully built teen even looked bored as emotional DVD presentations about the dead men prepared by their grieving parents were shown in court.
Tyson, who has the word 'Savage' tattooed across his chest didn't show a flicker of emotion, slumping in his seat as he was forced to watch a montage of photos showing the victims from early childhood to young men.
Two close friends of the dead men who had attended the eight day trial in Sarasota, Florida. had also delivered highly emotional impact statements to the court prior to the sentencing.
Paul Davies and Joe Hallett spoke of the "living hell" they and others who knew the men had suffered since the murders.
During the eight day trial they had been shown graphic crime scene and autopsy photos shown in court.
Later speaking after Tyson was jailed Davies and Hallett lashed out at Mr Obama saying the deaths of their friends was "not worthy of ten minutes of his time."
Davies said:"We would like to publicly express our dissatisfaction at the lack of any public or private message of support or condolence from any American governing body or indeed, President Obama himself.
"Mr Kouzaris has written to President Obama on three separate occasions and is yet to even receive the courtesy of a reply.
"It would perhaps appear that Mr Obama sees no political value in facilitating such a request or that the lives of two British tourists are not worthy of ten minutes of his time."
The rebuke follows Mr Obama's personal intervention into the shooting in Florida of a young black teenager by a white neighbourhood watch captain.
The death of 17 year old Trayvon Martin has sparked nationwide protests with his supporters claiming he was victim of a racist attack.
Mr Obama entered the controversy last week by saying if he had a son he would have looked like Martin.
The alleged assailant in Martin's death has not been charged with any crime having claimed he was attacked first and used Florida's 'stand your ground' law to shoot in self defence.
The criticism of the US President was made on behalf of the Cooper's parents Stanley and Sandy, from Warwicks, and Peter and Hazel Kouzaris, from Northampton by Davies in a statement read outside the courtroom.
The parents of the two victims did not attend the trial but they had access to the proceedings from a live video feed.
The filmed interview of the Kouzaris's was played to the court while a message from Sandy Cooper was read out by the prosecutor.
The victims close friends delivered an emotional impact statement with Hallett telling Tyson he hoped he would be haunted by his actions.
He told him: "Imagine them being killed. Now try to imagine that they died because someone creept up on them and shot them numerous times for no good reason. Welcome to our world. Every night you go to sleep, every morning you wake up, I want you to think of my friends who you murdered. Their images will be imprinted on your conscience up until your very last breath in life."
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Another Mature Democrat Idiot!
March 28, 2012 10:59am
Dem pulled from House floor for Trayvon hoodie
byJoel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer
Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., lost his right to speak on the House floor after he violated rules by putting on a hoodie and sunglasses in honor of Trayvon Martin, the Florida teen shot last month.
"May God bless Trayvon Martin's soul, his family and -- [inaudible]" Rush said as he was removed from the House floor this morning for wearing a hoodie.
Rush was wearing a grey hoodie under his suit jacket. He took off his jacket, pulled the hood over his head and put on sunglasses while saying "racial profiling has to stop, Mr. Speaker. Just because someone wears a hoodie does not make them a hoodlum," he said.
"The member will suspend," said a visibly frustrated Rep. Gregg Harper, R-Miss., the speaker pro tempore presiding over the morning session. "The member is no longer recognized. The chair will ask the sergeant-at-arms to enforce the rules on decorum."
Rush shouted Bible passages over the sound of the gavel as the speaker interrupted him, but he was eventually pulled from the House floor. "The chair will ask the sergeant-at-arms to enforce the rules on decorum," Harper said.
Rush's "donning of the hood" violated clause five of House Rule 17 against wearing hats on the House floor.
H/T Ric Andersen
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Union Thugs - Obama's Buddies...
And these Union Thugs are all Obama's buddies....It looks like some communist nation, not America!.....Time for a change in the White House...time for a change in the support of Unions...it's time for America to get competitive in the world market....November is just around the corner...Send Obama back to Chicago!
Obama - Wades into issues he has right to comment ....and when he doesn't have all the facts....It's Unprofessional and Divisive....
March 27, 2012 4:00 A.M.
Obama’s Demagoguery
(Page 2 of 3)
By Victor Davis Hanson
March 27, 2012 4:00 A.M..... By Victor Davis Hanson
Obama’s Demagoguery
The president has a bad habit of wading uninformed into local controversies.
The atrocity at first seemed undeniable: A white vigilante, with a Germanic name no less, hunted down and then executed a tiny black youth — who, from his published grammar-school photos, seemed about twelve — while he was walking innocently and eating candy in an exclusive gated community in northern Florida. The gunman had used a racial slur, as supposedly heard on a 911 tape, and ignored the dispatcher’s urging him to back off.
The apparently racist, or at least insensitive, white police chief and district attorney then covered up the murder. Understandable outrage followed in the black community, but the killing also brought out the usual demagogues. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, and the New Black Panther Party all alleged that the shooting death of Trayvon Martin was an indictment of a systematically racist white society. They demanded justice, and the Black Panthers announced a $10,000 bounty on the supposed killer. Even Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter got into the act, dubbing the shooting an “assassination.”
The dispute went national and was soon further sensationalized along racial lines. Others, mostly non–African Americans, countered that the facts were still in dispute and information was incomplete, while noting that just a few days earlier in Chicago ten youths were murdered and at least 40 others shot. Most of those victims and shooters were African Americans, but the carnage did not earn commensurate national attention from black leaders. President Obama himself, who had been silent about the slaughter in his adopted hometown, weighed in on the Martin case and, unfortunately, highlighted the racial undertones — lamenting that the murdered Martin looked just the way his own boy might, had he a son. The latter statement was true but also, of course, true of some of those murdered in Chicago. And given that the black minority currently commits violent crimes against the white majority more frequently than do the nation’s 70 percent whites against its 12 percent blacks, the president’s evocation of race in the Martin case seemed inappropriate to many.
But no crime proves quite as simple as initially reported in our sensationalized 24/7 media. Amid the blaring reports of a racially inspired murder, it turned out that the shooter, George Zimmerman, was actually part Hispanic, with a Latino mother (he was dubbed “white Hispanic” by the media, whereas Barack Obama is not referred to as a “white African-American”), and that he was perhaps not the quick-on-the-draw nut he was caricatured in the press as being. The 911 tape was scratchy, and it was unclear on another recording who said what, or who later was screaming for assistance.
The deceased, Trayvon Martin, was not a pre-teen, but 17 and 6′2″, and the gated community was ethnically mixed and may not have a white majority. True, the supposed vigilante had shot Martin, but he was also a neighborhood-watch designee, assigned to look for supposedly suspicious individuals. And the shooting occurred during some sort of fistfight in which Zimmerman may have been losing. The police, whom most thought should have at least filed manslaughter charges, seemed dumbfounded by a Florida law called “Stand Your Ground,” which could be stretched to mean that almost anyone could use deadly force if he believed that his life was endangered. In sum, what had seemed from media accounts to be a racist first-degree murder, horrifically covered up, on closer examination might have been either second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, some sort of criminal negligence, or even simple self-defense — the point being that we will not know the degree of Zimmerman’s guilt, if any, until all the evidence in the case is released to the public. Daily, new information has emerged, and, daily, the previous day’s narrative has changed.
In other words, the president waded into an ongoing investigation, in which the facts of the case remain murky and in dispute. And instead of playing down the racial component of the tragedy in polarized times, he seemed instead deliberately to have emphasized it.
President Obama had entered into another news story just a few weeks earlier. A law student at the Catholic Georgetown University, Sandra Fluke, had complained in testimony before a congressional committee that religious conservatives, in their wish to thwart provisions of Obamacare, would soon ensure that she, and millions of other women at Catholic institutions, would continue not to have access to free contraceptives. She noted that her present contraceptive needs were not covered by Georgetown and had cost her as much as $3,000 a year. Rush Limbaugh immediately jumped in and in crude fashion labeled Fluke a “slut.” He thundered that her sexual life should not be subsidized either by taxpayers or by reluctant Catholic institutions. Outrage followed Limbaugh’s various smears — which went on for at least three days until, under growing pressure, he apologized.
Then President Obama, sensing political advantage, entered the fray. He called Ms. Fluke to voice his support, while telling the nation that Limbaugh’s invectives were not the sort of American environment that he wished his two daughters, Sasha and Malia, to grow up in.
But, again, indecency these days never proves to be quite as simple as what is initially reported by the traditional media. Limbaugh’s regrettable attack on Ms. Fluke was not all that unusual in the world of hardball television and radio. Liberal television host Bill Maher had routinely smeared all sorts of conservative women with even worse epithets, of the sort that could not even be printed in most newspapers — and Maher never apologized. And late-night talk-show host David Letterman earlier had used the crude term “slutty” to demonize Sarah Palin, and also, in cruder fashion still, had suggested that Mrs. Palin’s 14-year-old daughter had had sex in the dugout with a New York Yankee star. Stranger still, the profane and often misogynistic Maher had just given, in a public stunt, an Obama reelection super PAC a $1 million donation, while Letterman was scheduled to have First Lady Michelle Obama on his program. Was the language of Maher and Letterman the sort that the Obama girls should have to endure?
The reactions to the presidential editorializing were predictable. Liberals applauded Obama for his public stand on behalf of feminists, while conservatives countered that he was selective in his outrage and more an opportunistic partisan than an opponent of crude speech aimed at women. The president had succeeded once more in polarizing rather than uniting the nation.
Then there was the tragedy involving Representative Gabrielle Giffords, when a deranged man shot the congresswoman and killed six bystanders. In all, he killed or wounded 19 innocent people. Even though the maniacal shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, had no consistent ideology or discernible political agenda, liberals saw the incident as proof of everything from pernicious white-male tea-party anger to the dangers in Sarah Palin’s use of metaphors such as cross-hairs and targets, and thus leaped in to condemn right-wing bombast. Soon, in response, the president used the occasion to remind the nation of the need for a new civility (“It’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds”) — the subtext being that the popular anguish over his policies had led naturally to a climate that facilitated the Gifford shooting.
But once again, the president found himself in a hole of his own digging. It turned out that while there had been lots of cruel speech, there was no connection between any of it and the Gifford shootings — and certainly no monopoly on it by conservatives. For every bombastic smear on talk radio, there was a commensurate one on MSNBC television. Obama himself later attended a Michigan labor rally in which labor leader and supporter Jimmy Hoffa Jr. bellowed out an implied death threat to conservatives: “President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these son-of-a-bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong.” Obama chose to respond to that “take these son-of-a-bitches out” threat to about half the populace with silence.
At the beginning of his presidency, Barack Obama had waded into another contentious incident, the notorious arrest and temporary detention of Professor Henry Louis Gates, the well-known head of African-American Studies at Harvard. At first this also seemed a clear-cut scandal: Gates was arrested as he simply attempted to get into his own house, after finding his door jammed — guilty of nothing other than being black.
Police were called by suspicious neighbors who noted broken glass, and then in supposedly racist fashion the officers typecast and arrested Gates. Or did they?
When the police arrived, they first routinely asked Gates for identification, which trigged from Gates a vocal barrage at the inquiring officer. Words were exchanged; Gates was detained. The president almost immediately suggested that the police had acted “stupidly,” a behavior that supposedly reflected a general national stereotyping of black males. Again, note the pattern: The president seizes on a local issue, editorializes, and ends up sowing more division. His supporters applauded; but opponents pointed out that had Gates instead politely and calmly explained his situation, the fracas could easily have been prevented. And as for stereotyping, did the president mean to suggest that the police should not be aware that black males (about 6 percent of the population) committed a majority of the nation’s murders (52 percent)?
What do all these presidential interventions teach us — other than that there are two sides to every story? First, that race and gender are flashpoints in our culture, as liberals see justice routinely denied to Americans on the basis of their sex and skin color, and conservatives believe these issues are continually trumped up to further divide the country and serve the political interests of a partisan elite.
But a larger lesson should be the president’s, because a disturbing pattern has developed in his editorializing, which is aimed exclusively at those whose policies and language he implies lead to horrific acts like the shooting of African-American teenagers, the smearing of young feminists, the shooting of Democratic congresswomen, or the jailing of African-American professors. Yet in every case, further evidence, more information, and subsequent events suggested that the president had offered either incomplete or misleading commentary to the nation, predicated not on a desire for healing or truth, but on a wish to gain partisan advantage.
With the world in recession, facing energy shortages, and on the brink of war, it is politically unwise for the president of the United States to offer commentary on contentious issues, especially before the facts of such disputes are fully known. To do so at worst can interfere with ongoing investigations, and at best pits the office of the presidency against private individuals. In every case, Barack Obama cannot conclude that his commentary created greater unity rather than further polarization.
When these national controversies arise, the president should take a deep breath, let emotions subside, and simply announce, if he must say anything, “Let’s wait and see,” and then turn his needed attention to ongoing and impending wars, near economic insolvency, and our energy dilemmas.
— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author most recently of the just-released The End of Sparta, a novel about ancient freedom.
Obama’s Demagoguery
(Page 2 of 3)
By Victor Davis Hanson
March 27, 2012 4:00 A.M..... By Victor Davis Hanson
Obama’s Demagoguery
The president has a bad habit of wading uninformed into local controversies.
The atrocity at first seemed undeniable: A white vigilante, with a Germanic name no less, hunted down and then executed a tiny black youth — who, from his published grammar-school photos, seemed about twelve — while he was walking innocently and eating candy in an exclusive gated community in northern Florida. The gunman had used a racial slur, as supposedly heard on a 911 tape, and ignored the dispatcher’s urging him to back off.
The apparently racist, or at least insensitive, white police chief and district attorney then covered up the murder. Understandable outrage followed in the black community, but the killing also brought out the usual demagogues. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, and the New Black Panther Party all alleged that the shooting death of Trayvon Martin was an indictment of a systematically racist white society. They demanded justice, and the Black Panthers announced a $10,000 bounty on the supposed killer. Even Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter got into the act, dubbing the shooting an “assassination.”
The dispute went national and was soon further sensationalized along racial lines. Others, mostly non–African Americans, countered that the facts were still in dispute and information was incomplete, while noting that just a few days earlier in Chicago ten youths were murdered and at least 40 others shot. Most of those victims and shooters were African Americans, but the carnage did not earn commensurate national attention from black leaders. President Obama himself, who had been silent about the slaughter in his adopted hometown, weighed in on the Martin case and, unfortunately, highlighted the racial undertones — lamenting that the murdered Martin looked just the way his own boy might, had he a son. The latter statement was true but also, of course, true of some of those murdered in Chicago. And given that the black minority currently commits violent crimes against the white majority more frequently than do the nation’s 70 percent whites against its 12 percent blacks, the president’s evocation of race in the Martin case seemed inappropriate to many.
But no crime proves quite as simple as initially reported in our sensationalized 24/7 media. Amid the blaring reports of a racially inspired murder, it turned out that the shooter, George Zimmerman, was actually part Hispanic, with a Latino mother (he was dubbed “white Hispanic” by the media, whereas Barack Obama is not referred to as a “white African-American”), and that he was perhaps not the quick-on-the-draw nut he was caricatured in the press as being. The 911 tape was scratchy, and it was unclear on another recording who said what, or who later was screaming for assistance.
The deceased, Trayvon Martin, was not a pre-teen, but 17 and 6′2″, and the gated community was ethnically mixed and may not have a white majority. True, the supposed vigilante had shot Martin, but he was also a neighborhood-watch designee, assigned to look for supposedly suspicious individuals. And the shooting occurred during some sort of fistfight in which Zimmerman may have been losing. The police, whom most thought should have at least filed manslaughter charges, seemed dumbfounded by a Florida law called “Stand Your Ground,” which could be stretched to mean that almost anyone could use deadly force if he believed that his life was endangered. In sum, what had seemed from media accounts to be a racist first-degree murder, horrifically covered up, on closer examination might have been either second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, some sort of criminal negligence, or even simple self-defense — the point being that we will not know the degree of Zimmerman’s guilt, if any, until all the evidence in the case is released to the public. Daily, new information has emerged, and, daily, the previous day’s narrative has changed.
In other words, the president waded into an ongoing investigation, in which the facts of the case remain murky and in dispute. And instead of playing down the racial component of the tragedy in polarized times, he seemed instead deliberately to have emphasized it.
President Obama had entered into another news story just a few weeks earlier. A law student at the Catholic Georgetown University, Sandra Fluke, had complained in testimony before a congressional committee that religious conservatives, in their wish to thwart provisions of Obamacare, would soon ensure that she, and millions of other women at Catholic institutions, would continue not to have access to free contraceptives. She noted that her present contraceptive needs were not covered by Georgetown and had cost her as much as $3,000 a year. Rush Limbaugh immediately jumped in and in crude fashion labeled Fluke a “slut.” He thundered that her sexual life should not be subsidized either by taxpayers or by reluctant Catholic institutions. Outrage followed Limbaugh’s various smears — which went on for at least three days until, under growing pressure, he apologized.
Then President Obama, sensing political advantage, entered the fray. He called Ms. Fluke to voice his support, while telling the nation that Limbaugh’s invectives were not the sort of American environment that he wished his two daughters, Sasha and Malia, to grow up in.
But, again, indecency these days never proves to be quite as simple as what is initially reported by the traditional media. Limbaugh’s regrettable attack on Ms. Fluke was not all that unusual in the world of hardball television and radio. Liberal television host Bill Maher had routinely smeared all sorts of conservative women with even worse epithets, of the sort that could not even be printed in most newspapers — and Maher never apologized. And late-night talk-show host David Letterman earlier had used the crude term “slutty” to demonize Sarah Palin, and also, in cruder fashion still, had suggested that Mrs. Palin’s 14-year-old daughter had had sex in the dugout with a New York Yankee star. Stranger still, the profane and often misogynistic Maher had just given, in a public stunt, an Obama reelection super PAC a $1 million donation, while Letterman was scheduled to have First Lady Michelle Obama on his program. Was the language of Maher and Letterman the sort that the Obama girls should have to endure?
The reactions to the presidential editorializing were predictable. Liberals applauded Obama for his public stand on behalf of feminists, while conservatives countered that he was selective in his outrage and more an opportunistic partisan than an opponent of crude speech aimed at women. The president had succeeded once more in polarizing rather than uniting the nation.
Then there was the tragedy involving Representative Gabrielle Giffords, when a deranged man shot the congresswoman and killed six bystanders. In all, he killed or wounded 19 innocent people. Even though the maniacal shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, had no consistent ideology or discernible political agenda, liberals saw the incident as proof of everything from pernicious white-male tea-party anger to the dangers in Sarah Palin’s use of metaphors such as cross-hairs and targets, and thus leaped in to condemn right-wing bombast. Soon, in response, the president used the occasion to remind the nation of the need for a new civility (“It’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds”) — the subtext being that the popular anguish over his policies had led naturally to a climate that facilitated the Gifford shooting.
But once again, the president found himself in a hole of his own digging. It turned out that while there had been lots of cruel speech, there was no connection between any of it and the Gifford shootings — and certainly no monopoly on it by conservatives. For every bombastic smear on talk radio, there was a commensurate one on MSNBC television. Obama himself later attended a Michigan labor rally in which labor leader and supporter Jimmy Hoffa Jr. bellowed out an implied death threat to conservatives: “President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these son-of-a-bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong.” Obama chose to respond to that “take these son-of-a-bitches out” threat to about half the populace with silence.
At the beginning of his presidency, Barack Obama had waded into another contentious incident, the notorious arrest and temporary detention of Professor Henry Louis Gates, the well-known head of African-American Studies at Harvard. At first this also seemed a clear-cut scandal: Gates was arrested as he simply attempted to get into his own house, after finding his door jammed — guilty of nothing other than being black.
Police were called by suspicious neighbors who noted broken glass, and then in supposedly racist fashion the officers typecast and arrested Gates. Or did they?
When the police arrived, they first routinely asked Gates for identification, which trigged from Gates a vocal barrage at the inquiring officer. Words were exchanged; Gates was detained. The president almost immediately suggested that the police had acted “stupidly,” a behavior that supposedly reflected a general national stereotyping of black males. Again, note the pattern: The president seizes on a local issue, editorializes, and ends up sowing more division. His supporters applauded; but opponents pointed out that had Gates instead politely and calmly explained his situation, the fracas could easily have been prevented. And as for stereotyping, did the president mean to suggest that the police should not be aware that black males (about 6 percent of the population) committed a majority of the nation’s murders (52 percent)?
What do all these presidential interventions teach us — other than that there are two sides to every story? First, that race and gender are flashpoints in our culture, as liberals see justice routinely denied to Americans on the basis of their sex and skin color, and conservatives believe these issues are continually trumped up to further divide the country and serve the political interests of a partisan elite.
But a larger lesson should be the president’s, because a disturbing pattern has developed in his editorializing, which is aimed exclusively at those whose policies and language he implies lead to horrific acts like the shooting of African-American teenagers, the smearing of young feminists, the shooting of Democratic congresswomen, or the jailing of African-American professors. Yet in every case, further evidence, more information, and subsequent events suggested that the president had offered either incomplete or misleading commentary to the nation, predicated not on a desire for healing or truth, but on a wish to gain partisan advantage.
With the world in recession, facing energy shortages, and on the brink of war, it is politically unwise for the president of the United States to offer commentary on contentious issues, especially before the facts of such disputes are fully known. To do so at worst can interfere with ongoing investigations, and at best pits the office of the presidency against private individuals. In every case, Barack Obama cannot conclude that his commentary created greater unity rather than further polarization.
When these national controversies arise, the president should take a deep breath, let emotions subside, and simply announce, if he must say anything, “Let’s wait and see,” and then turn his needed attention to ongoing and impending wars, near economic insolvency, and our energy dilemmas.
— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author most recently of the just-released The End of Sparta, a novel about ancient freedom.
Interesting....Michael Zimmerman is a registered Democrat!
Registered Dem Killed Trayvon
Meet registered Democrat and self-identified Hispanic American, George Zimmerman
BY: Andrew Stiles - March 27, 2012 12:28 pm
The individual at the center of the controversial Trayvon Martin shooting is a registered Democrat.
George Michael Zimmerman, born Oct. 5, 1983, registered as a Democrat in Seminole County, Fla., in August 2002, according to state voter registration documents.
It is unclear whether he voted for President Barack Obama in 2008.
Some in the media have sought to blame Republican politicians and conservative activists for Martin’s death.
“[Republican politicians] reinforce and validate old stereotypes that associate the poor and welfare as criminal behavior with African-Americans and people of color, calling us lazy, undeserving recipients of public assistance. In the case of Trayvon, those festering stereotypes had lethal consequences,” said MSNBC political analyst and Democratic fundraiser Karen Finney.
According to the document, Zimmerman’s race is officially listed as Hispanic. The son of a white father and Peruvian mother, he has been described as a “white Hispanic” in most media reports.
Following the Feb. 26 fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in a Sanford, Fla. gated community, Zimmerman has been the target of widespread outrage.
Zimmerman shot and killed Martin following a physical confrontation, but has yet to be charged with a crime. He says he acted in self-defense, a claim supported by the Sanford, Fla., Police Department investigating the case.
Protesters and activists led by professional racial justice advocates Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have suggested Martin’s killing was racially motivated, and have called for Zimmerman’s arrest.
“We want George Zimmerman in court with handcuffs behind his back,” Sharpton said last week.
Martin’s mother, Sabrina Fulton, has alleged that Zimmerman killed her son “because of the color of his skin.”
Craig Sonner, the attorney representing Zimmerman, has denied such allegations, noting that his client has acted as a mentor to a black single mother and her two children, and had helped them raise money for their all-black church.
For Zimmerman’s safety, the Free Beacon has redacted his address from the registration document. The New Black Panther Party has offered a $10,000 bounty for Zimmerman’s capture.
This entry was posted in Crime Blotter and tagged George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin. Bookmark the permalink.
HERE'S ANOTHER VIDEO THAT TELLS THE STORY...
Meet registered Democrat and self-identified Hispanic American, George Zimmerman
BY: Andrew Stiles - March 27, 2012 12:28 pm
The individual at the center of the controversial Trayvon Martin shooting is a registered Democrat.
George Michael Zimmerman, born Oct. 5, 1983, registered as a Democrat in Seminole County, Fla., in August 2002, according to state voter registration documents.
It is unclear whether he voted for President Barack Obama in 2008.
Some in the media have sought to blame Republican politicians and conservative activists for Martin’s death.
“[Republican politicians] reinforce and validate old stereotypes that associate the poor and welfare as criminal behavior with African-Americans and people of color, calling us lazy, undeserving recipients of public assistance. In the case of Trayvon, those festering stereotypes had lethal consequences,” said MSNBC political analyst and Democratic fundraiser Karen Finney.
According to the document, Zimmerman’s race is officially listed as Hispanic. The son of a white father and Peruvian mother, he has been described as a “white Hispanic” in most media reports.
Following the Feb. 26 fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in a Sanford, Fla. gated community, Zimmerman has been the target of widespread outrage.
Zimmerman shot and killed Martin following a physical confrontation, but has yet to be charged with a crime. He says he acted in self-defense, a claim supported by the Sanford, Fla., Police Department investigating the case.
Protesters and activists led by professional racial justice advocates Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have suggested Martin’s killing was racially motivated, and have called for Zimmerman’s arrest.
“We want George Zimmerman in court with handcuffs behind his back,” Sharpton said last week.
Martin’s mother, Sabrina Fulton, has alleged that Zimmerman killed her son “because of the color of his skin.”
Craig Sonner, the attorney representing Zimmerman, has denied such allegations, noting that his client has acted as a mentor to a black single mother and her two children, and had helped them raise money for their all-black church.
For Zimmerman’s safety, the Free Beacon has redacted his address from the registration document. The New Black Panther Party has offered a $10,000 bounty for Zimmerman’s capture.
This entry was posted in Crime Blotter and tagged George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin. Bookmark the permalink.
HERE'S ANOTHER VIDEO THAT TELLS THE STORY...
Obamacare in Trouble Today!
Looks like a good day for those of us that want Obamacare to go away....It needs to go away!!!
Toobin: Obama healthcare reform law 'in grave, grave trouble'
By Daniel Strauss - 03/27/12 12:20 PM ET
A top legal analyst predicted Tuesday that the Obama administration's healthcare reform legislation seemed likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court.
Jeffrey Toobin, a lawyer and legal analyst, who writes about legal topics for The New Yorker said the law looked to be in "trouble." He called it a "trainwreck for the Obama administration."
"This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions, including mine, that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong," Toobin said Tuesday on CNN. "I think this law is in grave, grave trouble."
Toobin's observation came on the second day of oral arguments at the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
Earlier that day, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who could be the deciding vote on whether to uphold the law, told Solicitor General Donald Verrilli that there appeared to be a "very heavy burden of justification" on aspects of the law, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Toobin described Kennedy as "enormously skeptical" during the arguments Tuesday.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toobin: Obama healthcare reform law 'in grave, grave trouble'
By Daniel Strauss - 03/27/12 12:20 PM ET
A top legal analyst predicted Tuesday that the Obama administration's healthcare reform legislation seemed likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court.
Jeffrey Toobin, a lawyer and legal analyst, who writes about legal topics for The New Yorker said the law looked to be in "trouble." He called it a "trainwreck for the Obama administration."
"This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions, including mine, that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong," Toobin said Tuesday on CNN. "I think this law is in grave, grave trouble."
Toobin's observation came on the second day of oral arguments at the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
Earlier that day, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who could be the deciding vote on whether to uphold the law, told Solicitor General Donald Verrilli that there appeared to be a "very heavy burden of justification" on aspects of the law, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Toobin described Kennedy as "enormously skeptical" during the arguments Tuesday.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, March 26, 2012
Obama - Caught off mike Admitting he's taking American "hard left" If he gets Reelected...We CAN'T Let that Happen!!!
Here's Obama admitting that he will take this nation "hard left" If he is reelected....He is nothing short of dangerous...he says this is his "last election" meaning he will do whatever he pleases IF reelected...We cannot afford another four years of him....you will not even recognize America IF he gets reelected...this should really motivate many, many Americans to get out and make certain he does not have a chance for reelection...Romney, Santorum OR Gingrich is significantly better than Obama for America....Pass this along to everyone you know....it's his admission that he's really to destroy America if reelected...
From Heritage Foundations' Morning Call....the complexities of the Supreme Court decisoin....
Obamacare Comes before the Supreme Court
Rare is the occasion when the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court gather to hear three days of arguments, and rarer still is when it is for a case like Obamacare -- one that cuts to the core of the Constitution and whose outcome could fundamentally alter the role of the federal government and its power over the people. But today the Court will do just that when it open its doors and begins weighing the arguments on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's seminal health care law.
Were the American people to vote on the issue, they would fall decidedly against Obamacare, as recent polls have shown. But for the Court, the decision is not as cut and dried as an up or down vote, but one that involves the interplay of a series of issues raised by those who are challenging Obamacare -- more than half the States of the Union and a collection of interested organizations and private parties -- and those brought by the Obama Administration, which is defending the law. And they come to the Supreme Court after conflicting appellate court rulings which have left undecided the question of whether Obamacare is permissible under the Constitution.
The central issue before the Court is whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause to impose the individual mandate on the American people, forcing them to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. If the Court holds that Congress was outside the bounds of its authority, it can strike down the individual mandate, leaving the justices to then decide whether all or part of Obamacare should fall along with it.
If the Court upholds the mandate, America will be in the same position it finds itself today -- facing a law that vests untold power and resources in the hands of the federal government, that transfers health care decision making from individuals to unelected bureaucrats, and that increases costs while decreasing access. In short, America's health care crisis will get worse, not better, and future generations will be left paying the tab. What's more, if the Court allows the individual mandate to stand, it will unhook Congress from its Constitutional leash, empowering it to regulate commerce and individual behavior in new ways never before imaginable.
There are other issues, too, besides the individual mandate. Even before the Court reaches that subject, it must broach the issue of the Anti-Injunction Act, a 145-year-old federal tax law which could bar the Court from even hearing a challenge to the individual mandate. Under that law, one cannot sue over a tax until they have paid it. If the penalty for violating Obamacare's individual mandate is considered a tax under that law, then the challenge could be brought at this time since the penalty has not yet taken effect. Obamacare's challengers and even the Obama Administration agree that the Anti-Injunction Act shouldn't prevent the Court from hearing the case, but the issue will still be heard, and some think that the Court could rely on the Act as a way of avoiding having to answer the question of whether the mandate is constitutional.
If the Court finds the Anti-Injunction Act doesn't apply, it will move on to the individual mandate. Its decision on that issue brings with it a whole other set of problems -- namely, if the Court finds that the mandate is unconstitutional, it must next decide the issue of severability -- whether Obamacare will operate as Congress intended if it is stripped of the mandate, or whether all or parts of the law must be struck down with the mandate. If the Court finds that the mandate is severable, the Court can strike it down and leave it up to Congress to clean up what's left, or, as the Obama administration has recommended, it can strike down the mandate and related provisions of the law that depend on it. Finally, if the justices find that the mandate is not severable, then it will throw out all of Obamacare, and it will again be up to Congress to enact real market-based health care reforms that bring down costs while increasing access to care.
There is another issue, too, tied to Obamacare, and that has to do with Congress's decision to impose new requirements on states forcing them to expand the Medicaid program and abide by the federal government's conditions, leaving them to shoulder much of the costs while operating Medicaid according to Washington's whims. If the states don't comply, they could lose all Medicaid funding, putting them in an untenable position in which both their autonomy and their sovereignty collapse under Obamacare's weight. It is up to the Court to decide whether Congress overstepped its bounds.
America waits for the Supreme Court to weigh the facts and the law, to consider the precedents and the policy, and to issue a decision that will have implications far into the future. Will Congress be limited by the Constitution, or will its authority expand beyond the limits that the Founders intended? Will Americans' liberties stand? Will Obamacare fall? No matter the outcome of the Court's ruling in June, Congress can and should act now to repeal Obamacare and rid the land of this intolerable act.
Do you stand against Obamacare? Join us as we voice our defense of liberty by signing our Repeal Obamacare petition on Facebook today.
Rare is the occasion when the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court gather to hear three days of arguments, and rarer still is when it is for a case like Obamacare -- one that cuts to the core of the Constitution and whose outcome could fundamentally alter the role of the federal government and its power over the people. But today the Court will do just that when it open its doors and begins weighing the arguments on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's seminal health care law.
Were the American people to vote on the issue, they would fall decidedly against Obamacare, as recent polls have shown. But for the Court, the decision is not as cut and dried as an up or down vote, but one that involves the interplay of a series of issues raised by those who are challenging Obamacare -- more than half the States of the Union and a collection of interested organizations and private parties -- and those brought by the Obama Administration, which is defending the law. And they come to the Supreme Court after conflicting appellate court rulings which have left undecided the question of whether Obamacare is permissible under the Constitution.
The central issue before the Court is whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause to impose the individual mandate on the American people, forcing them to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. If the Court holds that Congress was outside the bounds of its authority, it can strike down the individual mandate, leaving the justices to then decide whether all or part of Obamacare should fall along with it.
If the Court upholds the mandate, America will be in the same position it finds itself today -- facing a law that vests untold power and resources in the hands of the federal government, that transfers health care decision making from individuals to unelected bureaucrats, and that increases costs while decreasing access. In short, America's health care crisis will get worse, not better, and future generations will be left paying the tab. What's more, if the Court allows the individual mandate to stand, it will unhook Congress from its Constitutional leash, empowering it to regulate commerce and individual behavior in new ways never before imaginable.
There are other issues, too, besides the individual mandate. Even before the Court reaches that subject, it must broach the issue of the Anti-Injunction Act, a 145-year-old federal tax law which could bar the Court from even hearing a challenge to the individual mandate. Under that law, one cannot sue over a tax until they have paid it. If the penalty for violating Obamacare's individual mandate is considered a tax under that law, then the challenge could be brought at this time since the penalty has not yet taken effect. Obamacare's challengers and even the Obama Administration agree that the Anti-Injunction Act shouldn't prevent the Court from hearing the case, but the issue will still be heard, and some think that the Court could rely on the Act as a way of avoiding having to answer the question of whether the mandate is constitutional.
If the Court finds the Anti-Injunction Act doesn't apply, it will move on to the individual mandate. Its decision on that issue brings with it a whole other set of problems -- namely, if the Court finds that the mandate is unconstitutional, it must next decide the issue of severability -- whether Obamacare will operate as Congress intended if it is stripped of the mandate, or whether all or parts of the law must be struck down with the mandate. If the Court finds that the mandate is severable, the Court can strike it down and leave it up to Congress to clean up what's left, or, as the Obama administration has recommended, it can strike down the mandate and related provisions of the law that depend on it. Finally, if the justices find that the mandate is not severable, then it will throw out all of Obamacare, and it will again be up to Congress to enact real market-based health care reforms that bring down costs while increasing access to care.
There is another issue, too, tied to Obamacare, and that has to do with Congress's decision to impose new requirements on states forcing them to expand the Medicaid program and abide by the federal government's conditions, leaving them to shoulder much of the costs while operating Medicaid according to Washington's whims. If the states don't comply, they could lose all Medicaid funding, putting them in an untenable position in which both their autonomy and their sovereignty collapse under Obamacare's weight. It is up to the Court to decide whether Congress overstepped its bounds.
America waits for the Supreme Court to weigh the facts and the law, to consider the precedents and the policy, and to issue a decision that will have implications far into the future. Will Congress be limited by the Constitution, or will its authority expand beyond the limits that the Founders intended? Will Americans' liberties stand? Will Obamacare fall? No matter the outcome of the Court's ruling in June, Congress can and should act now to repeal Obamacare and rid the land of this intolerable act.
Do you stand against Obamacare? Join us as we voice our defense of liberty by signing our Repeal Obamacare petition on Facebook today.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Of Course Obama Owns they High Gas Prices...Remember Him When You Fill Up....Remember His Policies When you Vote in November...
February 24, 2012 7:38am
Morning Examiner: Obama owns these gas prices
byConn Carroll Senior Editorial Writer
With the average price of a gallon of gasoline rising 40 cents just last week, President Obama attacked Republicans yesterday, trying to distract voters from his own failed energy policy. “The American people aren’t stupid,” Obama said “You know there are no quick fixes to this problem.” And Obama is right. There are no quick fixes to this problem.
But Obama has been in office for three years now. There is plenty the federal government can do to lower gas prices in three years. Problem is, everything Obama has done on energy has been designed to increase Americans’ pain at the pump.
Immediately after taking office in 2009, Obama canceled 77 leases for oil and gas drilling in Utah.
In January 2010, Obama issued new regulations making it more difficult to develop energy resources on federal land.
After the BP oil spill, Obama needlessly instituted, not one, but two outright drilling bans in the Gulf of Mexico.
After rescinding his outright offshore drilling ban, Obama then refused to issue any new drilling permits in the Gulf, a policy that the Energy Information Administration estimated would cut domestic offshore oil production by 13% that year.
Under Obama, in 2010 the federal government issued the lowest number of onshore leases since 1984.
Under Obama the federal government has leased less than half of the offshore acres that President Clinton did.
The Obama administration held just one offshore lease sale in all of fiscal year 2011. President Bush’s energy plan called for five.
Obama is also blocking access to 19 billion barrels of oil in the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico, another 10 billion barrels estimated in the Chukchi Sea off the Alaskan coast, and another 10 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.
Yes, oil and gas production is up in the United States. But this is happening in spite of Obama, not because of him. It is being driven entirely by increased production on state and private lands, areas where Obama has little power to shut down production.
The reality is that Obama’s goal has always been higher gas prices. His Energy Secretary Steven Chu famously told The Wall Street Journal in 2008, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” And when Obama was asked by CNBC’s John Harwood that same year if high gas prices actually “helped” the United States, Obama said, “I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment.”
Americans aren’t stupid. They remember Obama’s words. They know that the only real regret Obama has about high gas prices is that he may get blamed for them at the ballot box.
Morning Examiner: Obama owns these gas prices
byConn Carroll Senior Editorial Writer
With the average price of a gallon of gasoline rising 40 cents just last week, President Obama attacked Republicans yesterday, trying to distract voters from his own failed energy policy. “The American people aren’t stupid,” Obama said “You know there are no quick fixes to this problem.” And Obama is right. There are no quick fixes to this problem.
But Obama has been in office for three years now. There is plenty the federal government can do to lower gas prices in three years. Problem is, everything Obama has done on energy has been designed to increase Americans’ pain at the pump.
Immediately after taking office in 2009, Obama canceled 77 leases for oil and gas drilling in Utah.
In January 2010, Obama issued new regulations making it more difficult to develop energy resources on federal land.
After the BP oil spill, Obama needlessly instituted, not one, but two outright drilling bans in the Gulf of Mexico.
After rescinding his outright offshore drilling ban, Obama then refused to issue any new drilling permits in the Gulf, a policy that the Energy Information Administration estimated would cut domestic offshore oil production by 13% that year.
Under Obama, in 2010 the federal government issued the lowest number of onshore leases since 1984.
Under Obama the federal government has leased less than half of the offshore acres that President Clinton did.
The Obama administration held just one offshore lease sale in all of fiscal year 2011. President Bush’s energy plan called for five.
Obama is also blocking access to 19 billion barrels of oil in the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico, another 10 billion barrels estimated in the Chukchi Sea off the Alaskan coast, and another 10 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.
Yes, oil and gas production is up in the United States. But this is happening in spite of Obama, not because of him. It is being driven entirely by increased production on state and private lands, areas where Obama has little power to shut down production.
The reality is that Obama’s goal has always been higher gas prices. His Energy Secretary Steven Chu famously told The Wall Street Journal in 2008, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” And when Obama was asked by CNBC’s John Harwood that same year if high gas prices actually “helped” the United States, Obama said, “I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment.”
Americans aren’t stupid. They remember Obama’s words. They know that the only real regret Obama has about high gas prices is that he may get blamed for them at the ballot box.
The Result of Obama and Obamacare....It's really time for a Change!
This is what Obama has brought to the country....the equivalent of death panels...when would you EVER think medical decisions of life and death consequences would be made on budget or on age???? This is AMERICA, not communist China or Russia.....
Recovering Cheney too old for transplant?
Good Morning America – 6 mins ago....
......Former Vice President Dick Cheney is recovering from heart transplant surgery as a prominent physician questions whether he was too old, keeping younger candidates from getting one.
Recovering Cheney too old for transplant?
Good Morning America – 6 mins ago....
......Former Vice President Dick Cheney is recovering from heart transplant surgery as a prominent physician questions whether he was too old, keeping younger candidates from getting one.
Embarassing Obama!
Once Again Obama sticks his nose into something he knows nothing about and he will be embarassed as the facts do come out.....He's just trying to keep America divided and create racial tension....he's no better than the Black Panthers...
Is momentum in Trayvon Martin case swinging toward George Zimmerman?
Published: 3:56 AM 03/25/2012 By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller
SANFORD, Fla. – Momentum in the political controversy surrounding the killing of unarmed 17-year-old black teenager Trayvon Martin may be shifting toward his shooter, neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman.
Many details of the case have not yet been made public, but that hasn’t stopped liberal public figures like the Rev. Al Sharpton, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Joe “The Eagle” Madison, film director Spike Lee and others from speculating about the matter.
Rachel Delinski, the editor of The Sanford Herald, told The Daily Caller that it would be unwise to rush to judgment until all the facts are in.
“It is important to keep in mind that all the facts of the Trayvon Martin case have not been released,” Delinski told TheDC. “Other than the claim of self-defense, we have yet to hear George Zimmerman’s full account of the events that took place the evening of Feb. 26.”
President Barack Obama made headlines last week for commenting on the case even as details continued to emerge.
“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said on Friday morning at the Rose Garden, after the White House had originally declined to weigh in on the issue with anything more than a statement of condolence for Martin’s family.
The Department of Justice has also launched an investigation into the case through its Civil Rights Division, to determine whether there were racial motivations behind the incident, behind the police department’s decision to not arrest Zimmerman, or both.
Ads by GoogleJ. Christian Adams, a former DOJ Civil Rights Division attorney and author of “Injustice,” a book that examines the New Black Panther Party’s influence on the Obama DOJ, told TheDC that these harsh reactions from Sharpton, the New Black Panthers and others without all the facts may prove damaging for them in the long run.
“It demonstrates the depths of their racial depravity, from the New Black Panther Party to Sharpton,” Adams said. “They were seeking to incite a mob using race. It’s Duke Lacrosse, squared.”
In another sign that momentum may be shifting, a planned New Black Panther Party rally fell through on Saturday in Sanford. Party leader Malik Zulu Shabazz was expected to come to Sanford to protest outside the local police department headquarters, but he failed to show up. A small local contingency from his organization met instead on the other side of town.
Sanford has quieted down over the weekend, too, after experiencing several days of racial tension.
And late Friday, a local Fox affiliate reported that a previously little-known witness in the case claims to have seen the physical altercation between Martin and Zimmerman.
“The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: ‘Help! Help!’ … And I told him to stop, and I was calling 911,” the new eyewitness said.
Zimmerman, who apparently suffered a bloody nose and had grass stains on the back of his clothes, was wearing a red sweater. Martin wore a hoodie.
The new eyewitness is choosing to remain anonymous for now due to the political and racial tensions surrounding the tragedy.
Follow Matthew on Twitter
Is momentum in Trayvon Martin case swinging toward George Zimmerman?
Published: 3:56 AM 03/25/2012 By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller
SANFORD, Fla. – Momentum in the political controversy surrounding the killing of unarmed 17-year-old black teenager Trayvon Martin may be shifting toward his shooter, neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman.
Many details of the case have not yet been made public, but that hasn’t stopped liberal public figures like the Rev. Al Sharpton, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Joe “The Eagle” Madison, film director Spike Lee and others from speculating about the matter.
Rachel Delinski, the editor of The Sanford Herald, told The Daily Caller that it would be unwise to rush to judgment until all the facts are in.
“It is important to keep in mind that all the facts of the Trayvon Martin case have not been released,” Delinski told TheDC. “Other than the claim of self-defense, we have yet to hear George Zimmerman’s full account of the events that took place the evening of Feb. 26.”
President Barack Obama made headlines last week for commenting on the case even as details continued to emerge.
“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said on Friday morning at the Rose Garden, after the White House had originally declined to weigh in on the issue with anything more than a statement of condolence for Martin’s family.
The Department of Justice has also launched an investigation into the case through its Civil Rights Division, to determine whether there were racial motivations behind the incident, behind the police department’s decision to not arrest Zimmerman, or both.
Ads by GoogleJ. Christian Adams, a former DOJ Civil Rights Division attorney and author of “Injustice,” a book that examines the New Black Panther Party’s influence on the Obama DOJ, told TheDC that these harsh reactions from Sharpton, the New Black Panthers and others without all the facts may prove damaging for them in the long run.
“It demonstrates the depths of their racial depravity, from the New Black Panther Party to Sharpton,” Adams said. “They were seeking to incite a mob using race. It’s Duke Lacrosse, squared.”
In another sign that momentum may be shifting, a planned New Black Panther Party rally fell through on Saturday in Sanford. Party leader Malik Zulu Shabazz was expected to come to Sanford to protest outside the local police department headquarters, but he failed to show up. A small local contingency from his organization met instead on the other side of town.
Sanford has quieted down over the weekend, too, after experiencing several days of racial tension.
And late Friday, a local Fox affiliate reported that a previously little-known witness in the case claims to have seen the physical altercation between Martin and Zimmerman.
“The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: ‘Help! Help!’ … And I told him to stop, and I was calling 911,” the new eyewitness said.
Zimmerman, who apparently suffered a bloody nose and had grass stains on the back of his clothes, was wearing a red sweater. Martin wore a hoodie.
The new eyewitness is choosing to remain anonymous for now due to the political and racial tensions surrounding the tragedy.
Follow Matthew on Twitter
Saturday, March 24, 2012
I couldn't Agree With Newt more...Obama's comments were disgraceful and just designed to divide America AGAIN and insight a Race War!....
Newt calls Obama's Trayvon Martin comments 'disgraceful'
By MAGGIE HABERMAN 3/23/12 7:11 PM EDT
Newt Gingrich accused President Obama of playing race:
Newt Gingrich called Obama's remarks about Trayvon Martin "disgraceful" in an interview with Sean Hannity, according to CBS/National Journal.
“It’s not a question of who that young man looked like. Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period. We should all be horrified no matter what the ethnic background," Gingrich said. "Is the President suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot that would be ok because it didn’t look like him?"
Earlier in the day Gingrich told reporters that he thought the case should be investigated and suggested the shooter was at fault.
"That’s just nonsense dividing this country up. It is a tragedy this young man was shot," Gingrich continued on Hannity's show. "It would have been a tragedy if he had been Puerto Rican or Cuban or if he had been white or if he had been Asian-American of if he’d been a Native American. At some point we ought to talk about being Americans. When things go wrong to an American. It is sad for all Americans. Trying to turn it into a racial issue is fundamentally wrong. I really find it appalling.”
Obama has gotten some criticism for discussing a pending legal matter. But the question of whether Martin's race was a factor in his death, in which his alleged shooter was not arrested, is very much a part of the outcry over the case, and why it's gotten so much attention.
By MAGGIE HABERMAN 3/23/12 7:11 PM EDT
Newt Gingrich accused President Obama of playing race:
Newt Gingrich called Obama's remarks about Trayvon Martin "disgraceful" in an interview with Sean Hannity, according to CBS/National Journal.
“It’s not a question of who that young man looked like. Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period. We should all be horrified no matter what the ethnic background," Gingrich said. "Is the President suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot that would be ok because it didn’t look like him?"
Earlier in the day Gingrich told reporters that he thought the case should be investigated and suggested the shooter was at fault.
"That’s just nonsense dividing this country up. It is a tragedy this young man was shot," Gingrich continued on Hannity's show. "It would have been a tragedy if he had been Puerto Rican or Cuban or if he had been white or if he had been Asian-American of if he’d been a Native American. At some point we ought to talk about being Americans. When things go wrong to an American. It is sad for all Americans. Trying to turn it into a racial issue is fundamentally wrong. I really find it appalling.”
Obama has gotten some criticism for discussing a pending legal matter. But the question of whether Martin's race was a factor in his death, in which his alleged shooter was not arrested, is very much a part of the outcry over the case, and why it's gotten so much attention.
Good to see the Tea Party is Gettting out Starting to Make a Lot of Noise....
Tea Party rallies in Washington against ObamaCare
Published March 24, 2012 | FoxNews.com
Tea Party supporters rallied Saturday in Washington to oppose President Obama's government health care law, two days before the Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of the legislation.
"We want our freedom back," former GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain told hundreds of ralliers standing in the rain in Upper Senate Park, a few hundred yards from the steps of the Supreme Court. "That's what this is about, the freedom to choose our own doctors … the freedom to choose our own health insurance plan."
Related Stories
Health care anniversary: Not such a big 'bleeping' deal?
Millions could receive insurance rebates in 2012, despite industry opposition
Cain also said that he might not have survived his battle with cancer under the new law had "some bureaucrat" learned he had only a 30 percent chance of survival.
"Stay inspired," he said, urging the crowd help defeat Obama in November.
"ObamaCare is a cancer in our government, and we’re going to rip it out," said Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator of the Tea Party Express which sponsored the "Road to Repeal" rally.
The rally largely marks the big return to Washington for the Tea Party, a loose organization of grassroots groups that helped conservative Republicans take over the House in the 2010 wave election.
"The Tea Party is back," shouted Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit Blog.
The high court will begin hearing argument Monday on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, passed by Congress in 2010.
The legislation is intended to provide health insurance to more than 30 million previously uninsured Americans.
However, opponents say the law is unconstitutional, largely because Congress does not have the power to force unwilling Americans to buy health insurance or pay a fine. They are also concerned about how the legislation will increase costs for the federal government, doctors and those who already have insurance.
Congressional Budget Office now projects the legislation will cost $1.76 trillion from 2013 to 2022.
The case was brought before the nine justices by Florida and 26 other states.
The legislation "takes a huge leap toward socialism," Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, told the Tea Party crowd, including some holding signs that read "Repeal or Revolt." "This is a government takeover masked as a health care bill."
The justices will hear arguments over three days, starting with whether the case was brought before the high court prematurely because nobody has been fined for not having health insurance. Arguments on Tuesday will focus on whether Congress overstepped its authority by requiring Americans to purchase health insurance starting in 2014 or pay a penalty.
Wednesday's arguments will be split into two parts: Justices will hear 90 minutes of debate in the morning over whether the rest of the law can take effect even if the health insurance mandate is unconstitutional and another hour Wednesday afternoon over whether the law goes too far in coercing states to expand the federal-state Medicaid program for low-income people by threatening to cut off federal aid to states that don't comply.
The justices might decide not to rule on whether the law is constitutional but are expected to deliver a decision near the end of Supreme Court session in June.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Published March 24, 2012 | FoxNews.com
Tea Party supporters rallied Saturday in Washington to oppose President Obama's government health care law, two days before the Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of the legislation.
"We want our freedom back," former GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain told hundreds of ralliers standing in the rain in Upper Senate Park, a few hundred yards from the steps of the Supreme Court. "That's what this is about, the freedom to choose our own doctors … the freedom to choose our own health insurance plan."
Related Stories
Health care anniversary: Not such a big 'bleeping' deal?
Millions could receive insurance rebates in 2012, despite industry opposition
Cain also said that he might not have survived his battle with cancer under the new law had "some bureaucrat" learned he had only a 30 percent chance of survival.
"Stay inspired," he said, urging the crowd help defeat Obama in November.
"ObamaCare is a cancer in our government, and we’re going to rip it out," said Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator of the Tea Party Express which sponsored the "Road to Repeal" rally.
The rally largely marks the big return to Washington for the Tea Party, a loose organization of grassroots groups that helped conservative Republicans take over the House in the 2010 wave election.
"The Tea Party is back," shouted Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit Blog.
The high court will begin hearing argument Monday on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, passed by Congress in 2010.
The legislation is intended to provide health insurance to more than 30 million previously uninsured Americans.
However, opponents say the law is unconstitutional, largely because Congress does not have the power to force unwilling Americans to buy health insurance or pay a fine. They are also concerned about how the legislation will increase costs for the federal government, doctors and those who already have insurance.
Congressional Budget Office now projects the legislation will cost $1.76 trillion from 2013 to 2022.
The case was brought before the nine justices by Florida and 26 other states.
The legislation "takes a huge leap toward socialism," Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, told the Tea Party crowd, including some holding signs that read "Repeal or Revolt." "This is a government takeover masked as a health care bill."
The justices will hear arguments over three days, starting with whether the case was brought before the high court prematurely because nobody has been fined for not having health insurance. Arguments on Tuesday will focus on whether Congress overstepped its authority by requiring Americans to purchase health insurance starting in 2014 or pay a penalty.
Wednesday's arguments will be split into two parts: Justices will hear 90 minutes of debate in the morning over whether the rest of the law can take effect even if the health insurance mandate is unconstitutional and another hour Wednesday afternoon over whether the law goes too far in coercing states to expand the federal-state Medicaid program for low-income people by threatening to cut off federal aid to states that don't comply.
The justices might decide not to rule on whether the law is constitutional but are expected to deliver a decision near the end of Supreme Court session in June.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Obama - A Muslim???....At Very Least Muslim Leaning!
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck then it's probably a duck...and that's why so many Americans believe Obama is really a Muslim....Just look at his actions...it certainly confuses me.....
Gingrich Suggests Obama Gives People Reason to Believe He’s Muslim
by Joy Lin | March 23, 2012
Port Fourchon, Louisiana - Newt Gingrich suggested Friday that it's President Obama's fault for leading people to believe that he's Muslim.
Gingrich has repeatedly said the president is a practicing Christian, but asked whether he's bothered by the proportion of the electorate who disagree, the candidate replied, "It should bother the president. Why does the president behave the way that people would think that? You have to ask why would they believe that? It's not cause they're stupid."
On the stump, Gingrich has been badgering the White House for taking "anti-Christian" positions while at the same time "apologizing" to Muslim extremists. Until now, however, he has stopped short of saying that the president is producing reason for people to believe he's Muslim.
"Why is it he's more sensitive to radical Islamists who are killing young Americans than he is to the Catholic church, to Baptists, to fundamentalists?" he asked Wednesday in an interview with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren. "I mean, the fact is, this is a very strange presidency."
The candidate has been ramping up his rhetoric about the Muslim faith while campaigning in southern states. In a radio interview Thursday with the American Family Association's Sandy Rios, Gingrich blamed the "elite media" for hiding the president's association with Muslims.
"It's just astonishing to me how pro-Obama they are," the candidate said. "Do you think you are going to see two pages on Obama's Muslim friends? Or two pages on the degree to which Obama is consistently apologizing to Islam while attacking the Catholic Church." Gingrich's comments came in response to a Washington Post story about Rick Santorum's association with the Catholic group Opus Dei. Gingrich, too, is Catholic, having converted after marrying his third wife, Callista.
A PPP poll conducted this month found that more than half of Mississippi Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim, while 36 percent said they were unsure. In Alabama, PPP found that 45 percent of Alabama Republicans believe he's Muslim and 41 percent aren't sure.
Gingrich drew criticism on Wednesday for failing to correct a supporter who said President Obama is a Muslim, and Gingrich said news coverage was, "total baloney."
"The guy didn't ask me a question," he said. "The guy got up and stated his opinion. I don't have an obligation to go around and correct every single voter about every single topic. I also didn't agree with him." Gingrich noted that he told a reporter after the town hall he believed the president is Christian.
Gingrich Suggests Obama Gives People Reason to Believe He’s Muslim
by Joy Lin | March 23, 2012
Port Fourchon, Louisiana - Newt Gingrich suggested Friday that it's President Obama's fault for leading people to believe that he's Muslim.
Gingrich has repeatedly said the president is a practicing Christian, but asked whether he's bothered by the proportion of the electorate who disagree, the candidate replied, "It should bother the president. Why does the president behave the way that people would think that? You have to ask why would they believe that? It's not cause they're stupid."
On the stump, Gingrich has been badgering the White House for taking "anti-Christian" positions while at the same time "apologizing" to Muslim extremists. Until now, however, he has stopped short of saying that the president is producing reason for people to believe he's Muslim.
"Why is it he's more sensitive to radical Islamists who are killing young Americans than he is to the Catholic church, to Baptists, to fundamentalists?" he asked Wednesday in an interview with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren. "I mean, the fact is, this is a very strange presidency."
The candidate has been ramping up his rhetoric about the Muslim faith while campaigning in southern states. In a radio interview Thursday with the American Family Association's Sandy Rios, Gingrich blamed the "elite media" for hiding the president's association with Muslims.
"It's just astonishing to me how pro-Obama they are," the candidate said. "Do you think you are going to see two pages on Obama's Muslim friends? Or two pages on the degree to which Obama is consistently apologizing to Islam while attacking the Catholic Church." Gingrich's comments came in response to a Washington Post story about Rick Santorum's association with the Catholic group Opus Dei. Gingrich, too, is Catholic, having converted after marrying his third wife, Callista.
A PPP poll conducted this month found that more than half of Mississippi Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim, while 36 percent said they were unsure. In Alabama, PPP found that 45 percent of Alabama Republicans believe he's Muslim and 41 percent aren't sure.
Gingrich drew criticism on Wednesday for failing to correct a supporter who said President Obama is a Muslim, and Gingrich said news coverage was, "total baloney."
"The guy didn't ask me a question," he said. "The guy got up and stated his opinion. I don't have an obligation to go around and correct every single voter about every single topic. I also didn't agree with him." Gingrich noted that he told a reporter after the town hall he believed the president is Christian.
Time for Santorum to Go back to Pennsylvania!
Santorum's gone too far with this exchange the past couple of days....it's time for him to hang it up....I did like some of what he was saying, but this comment killed any support I might have had for him...
It's time to get this contest over....Romney's going to win and we have a big job to make certain that Obama is NOT REElected!
Santorum takes back Obama-over-Romney comment
Published March 23, 2012 | Associated Press
WEST MONROE, La. – Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Friday that he will support the eventual GOP nominee, if it isn't him, despite what he insists are similarities between front-runner Mitt Romney and President Obama that make them indistinguishable on some issues.
"I will support whoever wins the Republican primary to beat Barack Obama," Santorum told supporters at a police gun range in northern Louisiana.
Poised to do well in Louisiana's primary Saturday, Santorum sought to explain his comment Thursday in Texas that Romney and Obama are so similar on the issues that Republicans might just as well vote to give the president a second term instead of casting their ballots for Romney.
Santorum argues that he is the only Republican candidate who can offer voters a stark contrast with Obama.
After testing his marksmanship with a .45 caliber semiautomatic Colt pistol, Santorum told reporters: "If you don't have a choice, then a lot of voters are going to vote for what they have. That's why we have to have a choice."
"I've said repeatedly and will continue to say, I'll vote for whoever the Republican nominee is and I will work for him," he added. "Barack Obama is a disaster, but we can't have someone who agrees with him on some of the biggest issues of the day."
While Santorum tamped down one fire, a supporter in the audience added an off-message wrinkle. As he fired the pistol, a woman in the crowd shouted: "Pretend it's Obama."
Santorum was wearing protective ear muffs. He said later that he didn't hear the remark but denounced it as "absurd."
"It's a very terrible and horrible remark and I'm glad I didn't hear it," he said.
The Secret Service, which provides security for Santorum, was trying to identify the woman.
"Typically, in an incident like this, we attempt to identify the individual, speak to them and then figure out what the next steps are," said spokesman Edwin Donovan. "People have a right to free speech but we have a right and an obligation to determine what their intent is."
It's time to get this contest over....Romney's going to win and we have a big job to make certain that Obama is NOT REElected!
Santorum takes back Obama-over-Romney comment
Published March 23, 2012 | Associated Press
WEST MONROE, La. – Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Friday that he will support the eventual GOP nominee, if it isn't him, despite what he insists are similarities between front-runner Mitt Romney and President Obama that make them indistinguishable on some issues.
"I will support whoever wins the Republican primary to beat Barack Obama," Santorum told supporters at a police gun range in northern Louisiana.
Poised to do well in Louisiana's primary Saturday, Santorum sought to explain his comment Thursday in Texas that Romney and Obama are so similar on the issues that Republicans might just as well vote to give the president a second term instead of casting their ballots for Romney.
Santorum argues that he is the only Republican candidate who can offer voters a stark contrast with Obama.
After testing his marksmanship with a .45 caliber semiautomatic Colt pistol, Santorum told reporters: "If you don't have a choice, then a lot of voters are going to vote for what they have. That's why we have to have a choice."
"I've said repeatedly and will continue to say, I'll vote for whoever the Republican nominee is and I will work for him," he added. "Barack Obama is a disaster, but we can't have someone who agrees with him on some of the biggest issues of the day."
While Santorum tamped down one fire, a supporter in the audience added an off-message wrinkle. As he fired the pistol, a woman in the crowd shouted: "Pretend it's Obama."
Santorum was wearing protective ear muffs. He said later that he didn't hear the remark but denounced it as "absurd."
"It's a very terrible and horrible remark and I'm glad I didn't hear it," he said.
The Secret Service, which provides security for Santorum, was trying to identify the woman.
"Typically, in an incident like this, we attempt to identify the individual, speak to them and then figure out what the next steps are," said spokesman Edwin Donovan. "People have a right to free speech but we have a right and an obligation to determine what their intent is."
More Details to Be Known.....
Obama, Sharpton and the Black Panthers are trying to paint this as racial profiling...this guy was hispanic and had "many black family members"....Once again this is Obama and the black activists trying to make this something it isn't...A tragedy?...Yes....more needs to be known about the details however before anyone can pass judgement.....I wonder what Obama will do after this one blows up in his face....he's already had a beer summit...what's next?
George Zimmerman's father: My son is not racist, did not confront Trayvon Martin
10:42 p.m. EST, March 15, 2012|By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel
The Sanford Neighborhood Watch volunteer who shot and killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager, did not instigate the encounter but has received death threats and moved out of his home, his father told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday.
George Zimmerman, 28, has not been arrested, something that has put him and the Sanford Police Department at the center of a firestorm. Critics say Trayvon, who was visiting family from his home in Miami, was a victim of racial profiling.
Zimmerman's father, 64-year-old Robert Zimmerman of Lake Mary, delivered a one-page letter to the Sentinel on Thursday, saying that the depiction of his son in the media has been cruel and misleading.
George Zimmerman is Hispanic and grew up in a multiracial family, the statement says.
"He would be the last to discriminate for any reason whatsoever ...," the letter says. "The media portrayal of George as a racist could not be further from the truth."
The letter does not provide details about what happened Feb. 26 on a walkway in the gated community where George Zimmerman lives and where Trayvon was visiting. But it does challenge one basic assumption of the family's lawyers: that Zimmerman's intent when he got out of his sport utility vehicle was to confront Trayvon after calling police to report a suspicious person.
"At no time did George follow or confront Mr. Martin. When the true details of the event became public, and I hope that will be soon," the letter said, "everyone should be outraged by the treatment of George Zimmerman in the media."
Police have released little information about what happened that night and no details about how Trayvon and Zimmerman came to be face to face.
No one disputes that Zimmerman called police from his SUV, then left it and encountered Trayvon on foot as the teenager returned from a 7-Eleven candy run.
Before an officer arrived, Trayvon and Zimmerman got into a fight, according to police, and witnesses heard one or both calling for help, and Zimmerman shot Trayvon once with a 9 mm handgun.
Zimmerman told police he acted in self-defense. Police found blood on his face and the back of his head as well as grass on the back of his shirt.
That jibes with what Cheryl Brown's teenage son witnessed while walking his dog that night. Thirteen-year-old Austin stepped out his front door and heard people fighting, he told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday.
"I heard screaming and crying for help," he said. "I heard, 'Help me.' "
It was dark, and the boy did not see how the fight started, in fact, he only saw one person, a man in a red shirt — Zimmerman — who was on the ground.
The boy said he is not sure who called for help. After a moment, his dog escaped, and he turned to catch it and a few seconds later heard a gunshot, he said.
"When I heard the shot, the screaming stopped," he said.
He then rushed inside and told his sister to call police.
In his letter, Robert Zimmerman wrote that what happened that night was "tragic … and very sad for all concerned. The Martin family, our family and the entire community have been forever changed."
George Zimmerman has not talked publicly about what happened, his father said, because that's the advice police gave him. Both Zimmerman families have moved out of their homes, at least temporarily, Robert Zimmerman said, because they've received death threats.
Police on Tuesday turned the case over to the State Attorney's Office, saying they did not have evidence to justify George Zimmerman's arrest on a charge of manslaughter.
Prosecutors will now likely spend several weeks studying the case before making a decision on whether to charge Zimmerman.
Sanford police Chief Bill Lee Jr. told the Sentinel on Thursday night that he has invited the U.S. Department of Justice and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to review the investigation.
"It's an open book," Lee said. "If they want to look at what we did and how we did it and what information we have, they're welcome to it."
The FDLE has received a letter from the State Attorney's Office asking agents to review the case, spokeswoman Gretl Plessinger said.
Sanford police on Thursday also challenged a WFTV-Channel 9 report, in which Mary Cutcher said police largely ignored her even though she told them, "I know this was not self-defense. There was no punching, no hitting going on at the time, no wrestling."
Police said they twice tried to interview her without success, and the third time, she wrote a very short sworn statement for her roommate that was consistent with Zimmerman's account.
More than 400 people gathered Wednesday at a Sanford church, where black community leaders and Baltimore evangelist Jamal Bryant again demanded that Zimmerman be arrested.
Some of Trayvon's family members are expected to be a news conference this morning called by Orlando attorney Natalie Jackson, who is representing the family.
Another rally is scheduled for Monday outside the Seminole County Courthouse. And a call has been issued for people to rally March 26 during the Sanford City Council meeting.
Staff writers Susan Jacobson and Jeff Weiner contributed to this report.
Statement of Robert Zimmerman, father of Neighborhood Watch volunteer:
“The tragic events of February 26 are very sad for all concerned. The Martin family, our family, and the entire community have been forever changed.
The portrayal of George Zimmerman in the media, as well as the series of events that led to the tragic shooting are false and extremely misleading. Unfortunately, some individuals and organizations have used this tragedy to further their own causes and agendas.
George is a Spanish speaking minority with many black family members and friends. He would be the last to discriminate for any reason whatsoever. One black neighbor recently interviewed said she knew everything in the media was untrue and that she would trust George with her life. Another black neighbor said that George was the only one, black or white, who came and welcomed her to the community, offering any assistance he could provide. Recently, I met two black children George invited to a social event. I asked where they met George. They responded that he was their mentor. They said George visited them routinely, took them places, helped them, and taught them things and that they really loved George. The media portrayal of George as a racist could not be further from the truth.
The events of February 26 reported in the media are also totally inaccurate. Out of respect for the on-going investigation, I will not discuss specifics. However, the media reports of the events are imaginary at best. At no time did George follow or confront Mr. Martin. When the true details of the event become public, and I hope that will be soon, everyone should be outraged by the treatment of George Zimmerman in the media.
Our entire family is deeply sorry for the loss of Trayvon. We pray for the Martin family daily. We also pray that the community will grieve together and not be divided by more unwarranted hate.
The Zimmerman family will have no further contact with the media prior to the resolution of the investigation. It would be greatly appreciated if the media would respect our privacy.”
George Zimmerman's father: My son is not racist, did not confront Trayvon Martin
10:42 p.m. EST, March 15, 2012|By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel
The Sanford Neighborhood Watch volunteer who shot and killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager, did not instigate the encounter but has received death threats and moved out of his home, his father told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday.
George Zimmerman, 28, has not been arrested, something that has put him and the Sanford Police Department at the center of a firestorm. Critics say Trayvon, who was visiting family from his home in Miami, was a victim of racial profiling.
Zimmerman's father, 64-year-old Robert Zimmerman of Lake Mary, delivered a one-page letter to the Sentinel on Thursday, saying that the depiction of his son in the media has been cruel and misleading.
George Zimmerman is Hispanic and grew up in a multiracial family, the statement says.
"He would be the last to discriminate for any reason whatsoever ...," the letter says. "The media portrayal of George as a racist could not be further from the truth."
The letter does not provide details about what happened Feb. 26 on a walkway in the gated community where George Zimmerman lives and where Trayvon was visiting. But it does challenge one basic assumption of the family's lawyers: that Zimmerman's intent when he got out of his sport utility vehicle was to confront Trayvon after calling police to report a suspicious person.
"At no time did George follow or confront Mr. Martin. When the true details of the event became public, and I hope that will be soon," the letter said, "everyone should be outraged by the treatment of George Zimmerman in the media."
Police have released little information about what happened that night and no details about how Trayvon and Zimmerman came to be face to face.
No one disputes that Zimmerman called police from his SUV, then left it and encountered Trayvon on foot as the teenager returned from a 7-Eleven candy run.
Before an officer arrived, Trayvon and Zimmerman got into a fight, according to police, and witnesses heard one or both calling for help, and Zimmerman shot Trayvon once with a 9 mm handgun.
Zimmerman told police he acted in self-defense. Police found blood on his face and the back of his head as well as grass on the back of his shirt.
That jibes with what Cheryl Brown's teenage son witnessed while walking his dog that night. Thirteen-year-old Austin stepped out his front door and heard people fighting, he told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday.
"I heard screaming and crying for help," he said. "I heard, 'Help me.' "
It was dark, and the boy did not see how the fight started, in fact, he only saw one person, a man in a red shirt — Zimmerman — who was on the ground.
The boy said he is not sure who called for help. After a moment, his dog escaped, and he turned to catch it and a few seconds later heard a gunshot, he said.
"When I heard the shot, the screaming stopped," he said.
He then rushed inside and told his sister to call police.
In his letter, Robert Zimmerman wrote that what happened that night was "tragic … and very sad for all concerned. The Martin family, our family and the entire community have been forever changed."
George Zimmerman has not talked publicly about what happened, his father said, because that's the advice police gave him. Both Zimmerman families have moved out of their homes, at least temporarily, Robert Zimmerman said, because they've received death threats.
Police on Tuesday turned the case over to the State Attorney's Office, saying they did not have evidence to justify George Zimmerman's arrest on a charge of manslaughter.
Prosecutors will now likely spend several weeks studying the case before making a decision on whether to charge Zimmerman.
Sanford police Chief Bill Lee Jr. told the Sentinel on Thursday night that he has invited the U.S. Department of Justice and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to review the investigation.
"It's an open book," Lee said. "If they want to look at what we did and how we did it and what information we have, they're welcome to it."
The FDLE has received a letter from the State Attorney's Office asking agents to review the case, spokeswoman Gretl Plessinger said.
Sanford police on Thursday also challenged a WFTV-Channel 9 report, in which Mary Cutcher said police largely ignored her even though she told them, "I know this was not self-defense. There was no punching, no hitting going on at the time, no wrestling."
Police said they twice tried to interview her without success, and the third time, she wrote a very short sworn statement for her roommate that was consistent with Zimmerman's account.
More than 400 people gathered Wednesday at a Sanford church, where black community leaders and Baltimore evangelist Jamal Bryant again demanded that Zimmerman be arrested.
Some of Trayvon's family members are expected to be a news conference this morning called by Orlando attorney Natalie Jackson, who is representing the family.
Another rally is scheduled for Monday outside the Seminole County Courthouse. And a call has been issued for people to rally March 26 during the Sanford City Council meeting.
Staff writers Susan Jacobson and Jeff Weiner contributed to this report.
Statement of Robert Zimmerman, father of Neighborhood Watch volunteer:
“The tragic events of February 26 are very sad for all concerned. The Martin family, our family, and the entire community have been forever changed.
The portrayal of George Zimmerman in the media, as well as the series of events that led to the tragic shooting are false and extremely misleading. Unfortunately, some individuals and organizations have used this tragedy to further their own causes and agendas.
George is a Spanish speaking minority with many black family members and friends. He would be the last to discriminate for any reason whatsoever. One black neighbor recently interviewed said she knew everything in the media was untrue and that she would trust George with her life. Another black neighbor said that George was the only one, black or white, who came and welcomed her to the community, offering any assistance he could provide. Recently, I met two black children George invited to a social event. I asked where they met George. They responded that he was their mentor. They said George visited them routinely, took them places, helped them, and taught them things and that they really loved George. The media portrayal of George as a racist could not be further from the truth.
The events of February 26 reported in the media are also totally inaccurate. Out of respect for the on-going investigation, I will not discuss specifics. However, the media reports of the events are imaginary at best. At no time did George follow or confront Mr. Martin. When the true details of the event become public, and I hope that will be soon, everyone should be outraged by the treatment of George Zimmerman in the media.
Our entire family is deeply sorry for the loss of Trayvon. We pray for the Martin family daily. We also pray that the community will grieve together and not be divided by more unwarranted hate.
The Zimmerman family will have no further contact with the media prior to the resolution of the investigation. It would be greatly appreciated if the media would respect our privacy.”
Well Put by Charles.....Obamacare is Just Bad!
March 22, 2012 8:00 P.M. By Charles Krauthammer
Obamacare: The Reckoning
The stakes could not be higher.
Charles Krauthammer Obamacare dominated the 2010 midterms, driving its Democratic authors to a historic electoral shellacking. But since then, the issue has slipped quietly underground.
Now it’s back, summoned to the national stage by the confluence of three disparate events: the release of new Congressional Budget Office cost estimates, the approach of Supreme Court hearings on the law’s constitutionality, and the issuance of a compulsory contraception mandate.
Cost
Obamacare was carefully constructed to manipulate the standard ten-year cost projections of the CBO. Because benefits would not fully kick in for four years, President Obama could trumpet ten-year gross costs of less than $1 trillion — $938 billion, to be exact.
But now that the near-costless years 2010 and 2011 have elapsed, the true ten-year price tag comes into focus. From 2013 through 2022, the CBO reports, the costs of Obamacare come to $1.76 trillion — almost twice the phony original number.
It gets worse. Annual gross costs after 2021 are more than a quarter of a trillion dollars every year — until the end of time. That, for a new entitlement in a country already drowning in $16 trillion of debt.
Constitutionality
Beginning March 26, the Supreme Court will hear challenges to the law. The American people, by an astonishing two-thirds majority, want the law and/or the individual mandate tossed out by the Court. In practice, however, questions this momentous are generally decided 5 to 4, i.e., they depend on whatever side of the bed Justice Anthony Kennedy gets out of that morning.
Ultimately, the question will hinge on whether the Commerce Clause has any limits. If the federal government can compel a private citizen, under threat of a federally imposed penalty, to engage in a private contract with a private entity (to buy health insurance), is there anything the federal government cannot compel the citizen to do?
If Obamacare is upheld, it fundamentally changes the nature of the American social contract. It means the effective end of a government of enumerated powers — i.e., finite, delineated powers beyond which the government may not go, beyond which lies the free realm of the people and their voluntary institutions. The new post-Obamacare dispensation is a central government of unlimited power from which citizen and civil society struggle to carve out and maintain spheres of autonomy.
Figure becomes ground; ground becomes figure. The stakes could not be higher.
Coerciveness
Serendipitously, the recently issued regulation on contraceptive coverage has allowed us to see exactly how this new power works. All institutions — excepting only churches, but not church-run charities, hospitals, etc. — will be required to offer health care that must include free contraception, sterilization, and drugs that cause abortion.
Consider the cascade of arbitrary bureaucratic decisions that resulted in this edict:
1) Contraception, sterilization, and abortion pills are classified as medical prevention. On whose authority? The secretary of health and human services, invoking the Institute of Medicine. But surely categorizing pregnancy as a disease equivalent is a value decision, disguised as scientific. If contraception is prevention, what are fertility clinics? Disease inducers? And if contraception is prevention because it lessens morbidity and saves money, by that logic, mass sterilization would be the greatest boon to public health since the pasteurization of milk.
2) This type of prevention is free — no co-pay. Why? Is contraception morally superior to or more socially vital than — and thus more of a “right” than — penicillin for a child with pneumonia?
3) “Religious” exemptions to this edict extend only to churches, places where the faithful worship God, and not to church-run hospitals and charities, places where the faithful do God’s work. Who promulgated this definition, so subversive of the whole notion of godliness, so stunningly ignorant of the very idea of religious vocation? The almighty HHS secretary.
Today, it’s the Catholic Church whose free-exercise powers are under assault from this cascade of diktats sanctioned by — indeed required by — Obamacare. Tomorrow it will be the turn of other institutions of civil society that dare stand between unfettered state and atomized citizen.
Rarely has one law so exemplified the worst of the Leviathan state — grotesque cost, questionable constitutionality, and arbitrary bureaucratic coerciveness. Little wonder the president barely mentioned it in his latest State of the Union address. He wants to be reelected. He’d rather talk about other things.
But there’s no escaping it now. Oral arguments begin Monday at 10 a.m.
— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2012 the Washington Post Writers Group.
Obamacare: The Reckoning
The stakes could not be higher.
Charles Krauthammer Obamacare dominated the 2010 midterms, driving its Democratic authors to a historic electoral shellacking. But since then, the issue has slipped quietly underground.
Now it’s back, summoned to the national stage by the confluence of three disparate events: the release of new Congressional Budget Office cost estimates, the approach of Supreme Court hearings on the law’s constitutionality, and the issuance of a compulsory contraception mandate.
Cost
Obamacare was carefully constructed to manipulate the standard ten-year cost projections of the CBO. Because benefits would not fully kick in for four years, President Obama could trumpet ten-year gross costs of less than $1 trillion — $938 billion, to be exact.
But now that the near-costless years 2010 and 2011 have elapsed, the true ten-year price tag comes into focus. From 2013 through 2022, the CBO reports, the costs of Obamacare come to $1.76 trillion — almost twice the phony original number.
It gets worse. Annual gross costs after 2021 are more than a quarter of a trillion dollars every year — until the end of time. That, for a new entitlement in a country already drowning in $16 trillion of debt.
Constitutionality
Beginning March 26, the Supreme Court will hear challenges to the law. The American people, by an astonishing two-thirds majority, want the law and/or the individual mandate tossed out by the Court. In practice, however, questions this momentous are generally decided 5 to 4, i.e., they depend on whatever side of the bed Justice Anthony Kennedy gets out of that morning.
Ultimately, the question will hinge on whether the Commerce Clause has any limits. If the federal government can compel a private citizen, under threat of a federally imposed penalty, to engage in a private contract with a private entity (to buy health insurance), is there anything the federal government cannot compel the citizen to do?
If Obamacare is upheld, it fundamentally changes the nature of the American social contract. It means the effective end of a government of enumerated powers — i.e., finite, delineated powers beyond which the government may not go, beyond which lies the free realm of the people and their voluntary institutions. The new post-Obamacare dispensation is a central government of unlimited power from which citizen and civil society struggle to carve out and maintain spheres of autonomy.
Figure becomes ground; ground becomes figure. The stakes could not be higher.
Coerciveness
Serendipitously, the recently issued regulation on contraceptive coverage has allowed us to see exactly how this new power works. All institutions — excepting only churches, but not church-run charities, hospitals, etc. — will be required to offer health care that must include free contraception, sterilization, and drugs that cause abortion.
Consider the cascade of arbitrary bureaucratic decisions that resulted in this edict:
1) Contraception, sterilization, and abortion pills are classified as medical prevention. On whose authority? The secretary of health and human services, invoking the Institute of Medicine. But surely categorizing pregnancy as a disease equivalent is a value decision, disguised as scientific. If contraception is prevention, what are fertility clinics? Disease inducers? And if contraception is prevention because it lessens morbidity and saves money, by that logic, mass sterilization would be the greatest boon to public health since the pasteurization of milk.
2) This type of prevention is free — no co-pay. Why? Is contraception morally superior to or more socially vital than — and thus more of a “right” than — penicillin for a child with pneumonia?
3) “Religious” exemptions to this edict extend only to churches, places where the faithful worship God, and not to church-run hospitals and charities, places where the faithful do God’s work. Who promulgated this definition, so subversive of the whole notion of godliness, so stunningly ignorant of the very idea of religious vocation? The almighty HHS secretary.
Today, it’s the Catholic Church whose free-exercise powers are under assault from this cascade of diktats sanctioned by — indeed required by — Obamacare. Tomorrow it will be the turn of other institutions of civil society that dare stand between unfettered state and atomized citizen.
Rarely has one law so exemplified the worst of the Leviathan state — grotesque cost, questionable constitutionality, and arbitrary bureaucratic coerciveness. Little wonder the president barely mentioned it in his latest State of the Union address. He wants to be reelected. He’d rather talk about other things.
But there’s no escaping it now. Oral arguments begin Monday at 10 a.m.
— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2012 the Washington Post Writers Group.
Sharpton, Black Panthers, Obama....No Difference!
Obama's NO better than Sharpton or the Black Panthers....he and they are trying to make this out to be a racial issue...It isn't...Zimmerman is hispanic....what a shame it is that we have a Community Organizer for a President....I thought he was to be the President for ALL THE PEOPLE! Obama's Disgusting!
Obama comments on Trayvon Martin case after Black Panthers, Sharpton ralliers bemoan WH silence [VIDEO]
Published: 12:04 PM 03/23/2012 By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller
Matthew Boyle is a reporter at The Daily Caller. He studied journalism at Flagler College in St. Augustine, Florida, where he worked as an editor at the school's newspaper, The Gargoyle.
Ads by GooglePeopleSoft SupportSupport Services for PeopleSoft. Best-in-Class. Get a Free Quote Now RiminiStreet.comPresident Barack Obama urged law enforcement officials involved with the case of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin’s killing at all levels – up through the federal government – to conduct a thorough investigation on Friday.
“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said in answer to a question on the issue following his remarks in the White House Rose Garden Friday morning. “And I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this.”
“I think all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how something like this happened,” Obama added.
Obama prefaced his comments on the Martin case by saying, “I’m head of the executive branch and the Attorney General reports to me, and I’ve got to be careful about my statements to make sure we not impair any investigation that’s taking place right now.”
Obama and the White House have previously refrained from commenting on the case thus far. Following demands by the New Black Panthers and others on scene in Sanford, Fla. that the White House get involved, Obama jumped into the fight. When first asked about the case, White House press secretary Jay Carney essentially declined comment, offering a boilerplate statement of condolence to Martin’s family.
On Thursday, the New Black Panthers and other left-wing political figures including the Rev. Al Shartpon rallied in Sanford, Fla., demanding justice for Martin – and that police arrest the man who shot him, George Zimmerman. The Panthers, Sharpton and other left-wing political figures on scene invoked the racial components of the fight, with some alleging this was a “hate crime” and others claiming this was “racism perpetrated by violence.” They riled up the thousands in attendance, but urged them to avoid resorting to violence of their own.
In recent days, Martin’s death has also attracted the attention of Republican leader including Florida Rep. Allen West and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. “It is an incredible tragedy of huge proportions, and I’m glad it is being investigated and we’ll take a look at it as the investigation moves along,” McConnell said Friday.
Obama comments on Trayvon Martin case after Black Panthers, Sharpton ralliers bemoan WH silence [VIDEO]
Published: 12:04 PM 03/23/2012 By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller
Matthew Boyle is a reporter at The Daily Caller. He studied journalism at Flagler College in St. Augustine, Florida, where he worked as an editor at the school's newspaper, The Gargoyle.
Ads by GooglePeopleSoft SupportSupport Services for PeopleSoft. Best-in-Class. Get a Free Quote Now RiminiStreet.comPresident Barack Obama urged law enforcement officials involved with the case of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin’s killing at all levels – up through the federal government – to conduct a thorough investigation on Friday.
“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said in answer to a question on the issue following his remarks in the White House Rose Garden Friday morning. “And I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this.”
“I think all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how something like this happened,” Obama added.
Obama prefaced his comments on the Martin case by saying, “I’m head of the executive branch and the Attorney General reports to me, and I’ve got to be careful about my statements to make sure we not impair any investigation that’s taking place right now.”
Obama and the White House have previously refrained from commenting on the case thus far. Following demands by the New Black Panthers and others on scene in Sanford, Fla. that the White House get involved, Obama jumped into the fight. When first asked about the case, White House press secretary Jay Carney essentially declined comment, offering a boilerplate statement of condolence to Martin’s family.
On Thursday, the New Black Panthers and other left-wing political figures including the Rev. Al Shartpon rallied in Sanford, Fla., demanding justice for Martin – and that police arrest the man who shot him, George Zimmerman. The Panthers, Sharpton and other left-wing political figures on scene invoked the racial components of the fight, with some alleging this was a “hate crime” and others claiming this was “racism perpetrated by violence.” They riled up the thousands in attendance, but urged them to avoid resorting to violence of their own.
In recent days, Martin’s death has also attracted the attention of Republican leader including Florida Rep. Allen West and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. “It is an incredible tragedy of huge proportions, and I’m glad it is being investigated and we’ll take a look at it as the investigation moves along,” McConnell said Friday.
The Oil Industry Needs to Tell the American People the Truth About What Obama and His Goons have done to Oil Production.....
It's time for the Oil Industry to come out in mass and show that Obama's rhetoric is nothing but lies...that we have a lot more oil in this country than he says we do and we that because of him and the federal government we are NOT exploiting all the opportunities we have and that IS causing higher gas prices than necessary....Now is the time for them to come forward and take on Obama.
Louisiana oil companies decry 'abusive' rash of lawsuits, say industry hurting
By Judson Berger Published March 23, 2012 | FoxNews.com
Against a backdrop of rising gasoline prices and a presidential campaign tapping into consumer fears, Louisiana oil producers are pointing to a rare breed of legal sludge they say is choking their business, costing the state thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in lost investment.
The complaints from one of the Gulf Coast's most vital industries come as energy-focused Republican presidential candidates court Louisiana voters ahead of Saturday's primary. President Obama has been pushing his own message in the run-up to that contest, traveling around the country in an effort to demonstrate his friendliness to America's energy producers.
The administration continues to faces charges that it is slow-walking drilling permits in the wake of the 2010 BP spill. The Louisiana lawsuits, though, compound those concerns.
The lawsuits started to explode several years before the BP disaster and have shown no sign of abating . The oil industry is trying to draw attention to their charge that trial lawyers are running rampant through the state courts in a bid to milk energy producers regardless of whether the producers did anything wrong.
"This is what I call legalized extortion," Don Briggs, president of the Louisiana Oil & Gas Association, told FoxNews.com.
The claims in question are known as "legacy lawsuits."
They're not your typical lawsuits. In these cases, a plaintiff can bring a claim against an oil company for alleged environmental damage that occurred decades ago, long before the defendants were at the site. They are based on the "legacy" of alleged environmental damage inflicted by prior oil producers who can also be held liable.
Attorneys defend the suits, arguing that landowners would otherwise have to cope with costly environmental damage inflicted by the industry.
The claims were encouraged following a 2003 state Supreme Court decision that upheld a $33 million judgment for clean-up costs for a property worth a fraction of that amount. The ruling included a couple critical findings: The award did not have to be tied to the market value of the property and did not have to be used to fix up the property.
The decision created a lawsuit bonanza, according to the industry.
"That's like throwing blood into the water, and all the sharks started swimming," Briggs said.
Industry representatives say the looming cloud of lawsuits has chilled investment and that many smaller companies opt to settle because they don't have the money to sustain a drawn-out legal battle.
The industry has recently touted a new study out of the Louisiana State University Center for Energy Studies, which claimed the lawsuits are cutting down on Louisiana oil and gas drilling.
The study estimated that over eight years, the suits "led to a loss of some 1,200 new wells" -- translating to $6.8 billion in lost drilling investments for the state. The total economic loss was estimated at more than $10 billion. The study estimated the suits have cost roughly 30,000 jobs.
The research also showed the number of suits has spiked every year since 2005. A separate state study found that as of early 2012, there were at least 271 "legacy" suits filed in Louisiana.
Lawyers representing landowners in the state sharply contested the Louisiana State University study and plan to depose the author later this month. Attorney Don Carmouche said in a statement that the research was "flawed, erroneous and prejudiced."
But Scott Sinclair, a local oilman and president of Tensas Delta Exploration Company, said the claims have stifled his business. He's faced four suits in recent years.
"These are not only abusive but baseless claims," Sinclair said, adding that they've had "an effect on my relationship with my bankers."
Sinclair said his company, which has a 50 percent stake on 126,000 acres in the state, is looking at as many as 10 "drilling prospects" on the land but hasn't drilled there because of the suits. In total, he estimated the company can count 30 or more wells that haven't been drilled "solely" because of legacy lawsuits.
The lawsuits generally pertain to claims that oil companies decades ago stored waste material in unlined pits on Louisiana land, which released chemicals into the environment.
While industry representatives downplay the long-term damage caused by this practice, attorneys say it's heavily impacted landowners.
"These environmental conditions create long-term ... liabilities for the landowners and they don't go away," said Stuart Smith, a New Orleans-based attorney who represents more than 100 landowners in cases against major oil companies.
Smith said the landowners are liable for any hazardous substances on their property, meaning they could be sued by the Environmental Protection Agency if it's not cleaned up and could run into problems selling the land since they'd have to disclose those problems.
He said chemicals ranging from lead to Benzene to radioactive radium-226 have been found at these sites. Smith said one of his clients, with a $5 million piece of property, found it would cost more than that to clean up -- making the property "essentially worthless."
As for the Louisiana State University study, Smith charged that it was pushed out by the oil industry "to affect ongoing litigation."
"They're using it to try to taint the jury pool," he said.
Briggs denied that the industry financed the study.
Oil companies, in making their case that the suits are baseless, lately have pointed to a 2006 lecture given by Texas-based consultant W.D. Griffin, before a gathering at South Texas College of Law.
In a video of the lecture, obtained by FoxNews.com, Griffin tells the audience that the lawsuits are "like winning the lottery."
"Those type (of) lawsuits are big money," he said in the lecture.
Griffin urged lawyers to look for defendants with money to spare.
"Southern Louisiana has a rich crop of deep pockets," he said. "We've got to look for those deep pockets."
His slide show urged lawyers to make sure "at least one deep pocket is on the hook. If not, place project on shelf for later consideration, if any."
Griffin did not return a call from FoxNews.com.
Briggs said his group is trying to persuade the state legislature to step in and staunch the flow of claims. Lawmakers pushed through a reform law in 2006, but the industry claims it was not strong enough. Briggs' group is pushing a new proposal that would allow oil companies to take responsibility for any environmental cleanup without being liable for financial claims.
Environmental details about the cases are spotty. An early February report from the state's Department of Natural Resources showed that of 271 cases the office was reviewing, environmental data had not been received on 210 of them. But for the 61 cases in which the data was available, the report found 59 of the sites were deemed to pose "no demonstrable long-term threat" to safety or health.
Louisiana oil companies decry 'abusive' rash of lawsuits, say industry hurting
By Judson Berger Published March 23, 2012 | FoxNews.com
Against a backdrop of rising gasoline prices and a presidential campaign tapping into consumer fears, Louisiana oil producers are pointing to a rare breed of legal sludge they say is choking their business, costing the state thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in lost investment.
The complaints from one of the Gulf Coast's most vital industries come as energy-focused Republican presidential candidates court Louisiana voters ahead of Saturday's primary. President Obama has been pushing his own message in the run-up to that contest, traveling around the country in an effort to demonstrate his friendliness to America's energy producers.
The administration continues to faces charges that it is slow-walking drilling permits in the wake of the 2010 BP spill. The Louisiana lawsuits, though, compound those concerns.
The lawsuits started to explode several years before the BP disaster and have shown no sign of abating . The oil industry is trying to draw attention to their charge that trial lawyers are running rampant through the state courts in a bid to milk energy producers regardless of whether the producers did anything wrong.
"This is what I call legalized extortion," Don Briggs, president of the Louisiana Oil & Gas Association, told FoxNews.com.
The claims in question are known as "legacy lawsuits."
They're not your typical lawsuits. In these cases, a plaintiff can bring a claim against an oil company for alleged environmental damage that occurred decades ago, long before the defendants were at the site. They are based on the "legacy" of alleged environmental damage inflicted by prior oil producers who can also be held liable.
Attorneys defend the suits, arguing that landowners would otherwise have to cope with costly environmental damage inflicted by the industry.
The claims were encouraged following a 2003 state Supreme Court decision that upheld a $33 million judgment for clean-up costs for a property worth a fraction of that amount. The ruling included a couple critical findings: The award did not have to be tied to the market value of the property and did not have to be used to fix up the property.
The decision created a lawsuit bonanza, according to the industry.
"That's like throwing blood into the water, and all the sharks started swimming," Briggs said.
Industry representatives say the looming cloud of lawsuits has chilled investment and that many smaller companies opt to settle because they don't have the money to sustain a drawn-out legal battle.
The industry has recently touted a new study out of the Louisiana State University Center for Energy Studies, which claimed the lawsuits are cutting down on Louisiana oil and gas drilling.
The study estimated that over eight years, the suits "led to a loss of some 1,200 new wells" -- translating to $6.8 billion in lost drilling investments for the state. The total economic loss was estimated at more than $10 billion. The study estimated the suits have cost roughly 30,000 jobs.
The research also showed the number of suits has spiked every year since 2005. A separate state study found that as of early 2012, there were at least 271 "legacy" suits filed in Louisiana.
Lawyers representing landowners in the state sharply contested the Louisiana State University study and plan to depose the author later this month. Attorney Don Carmouche said in a statement that the research was "flawed, erroneous and prejudiced."
But Scott Sinclair, a local oilman and president of Tensas Delta Exploration Company, said the claims have stifled his business. He's faced four suits in recent years.
"These are not only abusive but baseless claims," Sinclair said, adding that they've had "an effect on my relationship with my bankers."
Sinclair said his company, which has a 50 percent stake on 126,000 acres in the state, is looking at as many as 10 "drilling prospects" on the land but hasn't drilled there because of the suits. In total, he estimated the company can count 30 or more wells that haven't been drilled "solely" because of legacy lawsuits.
The lawsuits generally pertain to claims that oil companies decades ago stored waste material in unlined pits on Louisiana land, which released chemicals into the environment.
While industry representatives downplay the long-term damage caused by this practice, attorneys say it's heavily impacted landowners.
"These environmental conditions create long-term ... liabilities for the landowners and they don't go away," said Stuart Smith, a New Orleans-based attorney who represents more than 100 landowners in cases against major oil companies.
Smith said the landowners are liable for any hazardous substances on their property, meaning they could be sued by the Environmental Protection Agency if it's not cleaned up and could run into problems selling the land since they'd have to disclose those problems.
He said chemicals ranging from lead to Benzene to radioactive radium-226 have been found at these sites. Smith said one of his clients, with a $5 million piece of property, found it would cost more than that to clean up -- making the property "essentially worthless."
As for the Louisiana State University study, Smith charged that it was pushed out by the oil industry "to affect ongoing litigation."
"They're using it to try to taint the jury pool," he said.
Briggs denied that the industry financed the study.
Oil companies, in making their case that the suits are baseless, lately have pointed to a 2006 lecture given by Texas-based consultant W.D. Griffin, before a gathering at South Texas College of Law.
In a video of the lecture, obtained by FoxNews.com, Griffin tells the audience that the lawsuits are "like winning the lottery."
"Those type (of) lawsuits are big money," he said in the lecture.
Griffin urged lawyers to look for defendants with money to spare.
"Southern Louisiana has a rich crop of deep pockets," he said. "We've got to look for those deep pockets."
His slide show urged lawyers to make sure "at least one deep pocket is on the hook. If not, place project on shelf for later consideration, if any."
Griffin did not return a call from FoxNews.com.
Briggs said his group is trying to persuade the state legislature to step in and staunch the flow of claims. Lawmakers pushed through a reform law in 2006, but the industry claims it was not strong enough. Briggs' group is pushing a new proposal that would allow oil companies to take responsibility for any environmental cleanup without being liable for financial claims.
Environmental details about the cases are spotty. An early February report from the state's Department of Natural Resources showed that of 271 cases the office was reviewing, environmental data had not been received on 210 of them. But for the 61 cases in which the data was available, the report found 59 of the sites were deemed to pose "no demonstrable long-term threat" to safety or health.
The Hypocrisy of Obama and his Crew of Goons....
The American Public sees right through this spin...
Obama - YOUR Blamer in Chief....
I don't know about you, but I'm getting pretty tired of Obama blaming everything and everyone else for the problems he has created....IT's time HE takes some responsibility.....But he won't so we have to send him home in November...
.President Obama’s Hall of Blame
by Keith Koffler on March 23, 2012, 9:18 am
President Obama has passed the buck to others – mainly George W. Bush – for no less than 13 problems that characterize his presidency, suggesting time and again that his own policies are not to blame for his difficulties and he is simply doing the best that can be done with the cards he was dealt.
Even so, Obama is aggressively staking a claim for successes for which Bush shares significant or nearly all responsibility, including increased drilling for oil and natural gas, the end of the Iraq War, and the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
What follows is a roster of Obama’s efforts to assign blame for 13 problems that prevail or have faced him during his presidency. In several cases, the quotes here are just one or two of many that show Obama passing the buck on a particular issue.
Oil Prices
“The key thing that is driving higher gas prices is actually the world’s oil markets and uncertainty about what’s going on in Iran and the Middle East, and that’s adding a $20 or $30 premium to oil prices.”
- March 23, 2012
Solyndra
“Obviously, we wish Solyndra hadn’t gone bankrupt. Part of the reason they did was because the Chinese were subsidizing their solar industry and flooding the market in ways that Solyndra couldn’t compete. But understand, this was not our program per se. Congress–Democrats and Republicans–put together a loan guarantee program.”
- March 22, 2012
Afghanistan
“When I came into office there has been drift in the Afghanistan strategy, in part because we had spent a lot of time focusing on Iraq instead. Over the last three years we have refocused attention on getting Afghanistan right. Would my preference had been that we started some of that earlier? Absolutely. But that’s not the cards that were dealt. We’re now in a position where, given our starting point, we’re making progress.”
- March 14, 2012
Iran
“When I took office, the efforts to apply pressure on Iran were in tatters. Iran had gone from zero centrifuges spinning to thousands, without facing broad pushback from the world. In the region, Iran was ascendant.”
- March 4, 2012
The Economy
“We’ve made sure to do everything we can to dig ourselves out of this incredible hole that I inherited.”
- February 23, 2012
The Deficit:
“We thought that it was entirely appropriate for our governments and our agencies to try to root out waste, large and small, in a systematic way. Obviously, this is even more important given the deficits that we’ve inherited and that have grown as a consequence of this recession.”
- November 9, 2011
“When I first walked through the door, the deficit stood at $1.3 trillion, with projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. If we had taken office during ordinary times, we would have started bringing down these deficits immediately.”
- February 1, 2010
The Debt:
“Look, we do have a serious problem in terms of debt and deficit, and much of it I inherited when I showed up.”
- August 8, 2011
“I inherited a big debt.”
- March 29, 2011
Unemployment:
“We inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression, a banking system on the verge of meltdown. We had lost 4 million jobs by the time I was sworn in and would then lose another 4 million in the few months right after I was sworn in before our economic policies had a chance to take root.”
- May 10, 2011
The BP Gulf Oil Spill
“In this instance, the oil industry’s cozy and sometimes corrupt relationship with government regulators meant little or no regulation at all. When Secretary Salazar took office, he found a Minerals and Management Service that had been plagued by corruption for years –- this was the agency charged with not only providing permits, but also enforcing laws governing oil drilling.”
- May 27, 2010
Decline of the nuclear stockpile
“Among the many challenges our administration inherited was the slow but steady decline in support for our nuclear stockpile and infrastructure, and for our highly trained nuclear work force.” (This one was offered up on Obama’s behalf by Vice President Biden).
- January 29, 2010
The Election of Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.)
“The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they’re frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”
- January 20, 2010
Anti-Americanism
“I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. And this has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for collective inaction.”
- September 23, 2009
The Financial Crisis
“We inherited a financial crisis unlike any that we’ve seen in our time. This crisis crippled private capital markets and forced us to take steps in our financial system — and with our auto companies — that we would not have otherwise even considered.”
- June 1, 2009
.President Obama’s Hall of Blame
by Keith Koffler on March 23, 2012, 9:18 am
President Obama has passed the buck to others – mainly George W. Bush – for no less than 13 problems that characterize his presidency, suggesting time and again that his own policies are not to blame for his difficulties and he is simply doing the best that can be done with the cards he was dealt.
Even so, Obama is aggressively staking a claim for successes for which Bush shares significant or nearly all responsibility, including increased drilling for oil and natural gas, the end of the Iraq War, and the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
What follows is a roster of Obama’s efforts to assign blame for 13 problems that prevail or have faced him during his presidency. In several cases, the quotes here are just one or two of many that show Obama passing the buck on a particular issue.
Oil Prices
“The key thing that is driving higher gas prices is actually the world’s oil markets and uncertainty about what’s going on in Iran and the Middle East, and that’s adding a $20 or $30 premium to oil prices.”
- March 23, 2012
Solyndra
“Obviously, we wish Solyndra hadn’t gone bankrupt. Part of the reason they did was because the Chinese were subsidizing their solar industry and flooding the market in ways that Solyndra couldn’t compete. But understand, this was not our program per se. Congress–Democrats and Republicans–put together a loan guarantee program.”
- March 22, 2012
Afghanistan
“When I came into office there has been drift in the Afghanistan strategy, in part because we had spent a lot of time focusing on Iraq instead. Over the last three years we have refocused attention on getting Afghanistan right. Would my preference had been that we started some of that earlier? Absolutely. But that’s not the cards that were dealt. We’re now in a position where, given our starting point, we’re making progress.”
- March 14, 2012
Iran
“When I took office, the efforts to apply pressure on Iran were in tatters. Iran had gone from zero centrifuges spinning to thousands, without facing broad pushback from the world. In the region, Iran was ascendant.”
- March 4, 2012
The Economy
“We’ve made sure to do everything we can to dig ourselves out of this incredible hole that I inherited.”
- February 23, 2012
The Deficit:
“We thought that it was entirely appropriate for our governments and our agencies to try to root out waste, large and small, in a systematic way. Obviously, this is even more important given the deficits that we’ve inherited and that have grown as a consequence of this recession.”
- November 9, 2011
“When I first walked through the door, the deficit stood at $1.3 trillion, with projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. If we had taken office during ordinary times, we would have started bringing down these deficits immediately.”
- February 1, 2010
The Debt:
“Look, we do have a serious problem in terms of debt and deficit, and much of it I inherited when I showed up.”
- August 8, 2011
“I inherited a big debt.”
- March 29, 2011
Unemployment:
“We inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression, a banking system on the verge of meltdown. We had lost 4 million jobs by the time I was sworn in and would then lose another 4 million in the few months right after I was sworn in before our economic policies had a chance to take root.”
- May 10, 2011
The BP Gulf Oil Spill
“In this instance, the oil industry’s cozy and sometimes corrupt relationship with government regulators meant little or no regulation at all. When Secretary Salazar took office, he found a Minerals and Management Service that had been plagued by corruption for years –- this was the agency charged with not only providing permits, but also enforcing laws governing oil drilling.”
- May 27, 2010
Decline of the nuclear stockpile
“Among the many challenges our administration inherited was the slow but steady decline in support for our nuclear stockpile and infrastructure, and for our highly trained nuclear work force.” (This one was offered up on Obama’s behalf by Vice President Biden).
- January 29, 2010
The Election of Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.)
“The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they’re frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”
- January 20, 2010
Anti-Americanism
“I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. And this has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for collective inaction.”
- September 23, 2009
The Financial Crisis
“We inherited a financial crisis unlike any that we’ve seen in our time. This crisis crippled private capital markets and forced us to take steps in our financial system — and with our auto companies — that we would not have otherwise even considered.”
- June 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)