While politics is a low down, dirty business, there was a time when politicians and major news outlets behaved with dignity, respect and diplomacy. We all knew the politicians did not like each other, but they would never stoop to using common language, that common people on the street would use, to express their disdain for each other, nor create an atmosphere pregnant with the most base street environment, where you would fear for your very existence, at expressing your difference.
But, here we are today. In their lust for power and to appeal to the masses and the lowest common denominator, and to get the most basic, uneducated voter to even understand what is going on, politicians now use street language and the news parrots it, to get the most base man and woman to side with them.
Hey they talk like me. I suddenly understand everything they say. Or, at least that's what the democrats think the most crass of the public says to themselves.
They also have cultivated tribalism, us vs them, to the extreme. No longer can the voter, potentially deviate in voting for different candidates based on the merits of the topics, they must be made to utterly despise all other political parties, no matter the cost. Even to the point where the other candidate might be proposing the best solution to the problems facing the nation, they must be made to vote against their own self interest, because they are the enemy.
As democrats keep using base, crass language, and employing tribalism as a political strategy, they keep going down this path of not only hating all opposition, but also promoting the idea that all other political thought hates them.
This creates a tense environment where you end up with liberal groups showing up to political speeches to beat up the audience, calling the listeners all sorts of crazy names. Because, that's what the democrats and the news media says they are.
An audience has come to attend a speech, and instead they are presented with, not protesters, but an insane mob, out for a physical showdown. It's not a matter how did we get here. We all know how we got here. But, I will answer the question, no one wants to know. Why are democrats so disgusting now?
During the lead up to the 2nd term of President Barack Obama, the democratic party was poised to be dissolved. Not only was Obama not going to make his 2nd term, but democrats weren't going to be a party any longer.
Various groups had formed which attracted people away from the democratic party, and they were fleeing like rats from a sinking ship. It got to a point where there were desperate cries from the main stream media, to stop the hemorrhaging. If the demoratic party failed, so did the main stream media, because, they might actually have to report the real news, without a democratic bend to all of their stories.
Obama presented the only strategy they had, to rally the Black vote. With the Black superstars going full hog on the Black vote, others fell in line. If Blacks were still going to vote democrat, surely I'll vote with them. And so the entire party was saved by a voting block that the democrats have never paid attention to, a voting block that democrats have paid nothing more than lip service to.
Imagine their horror, when Trump won the nomination of the republican party. Trump was an icon in the Black community. He was a boss. He was rich. He took no prisoners and he promoted Black people over the years. He was the coolest rich guy they knew and he donated to Black causes from time to time, winning him awards from Black political, social and religious groups over the years.
Democrats went into overdrive. They made sure to smear him, to the very Black people that admired him. And, it would have worked, if it weren't for the fact that when he first said he was running, a ton of Black rappers made Trump raps for him. No one expected him to win, so making rap songs about him, was brushed under the rug.
Those rap songs came back to bite the democrats late in the presidential campaign. Because their smear tactics kinda failed, when there were recent rap songs singing his praises and saying how awesome he was. Also remember, he was a democrat, right up until the moment he announced for the republican party.
So, for Black rappers, he was still a rich, no holds barred, democrat.
He got millions of Blacks to vote for him, mostly Black men. The female strategy of the democrats still worked on Black women.
As democrats went into overdrive denouncing and smearing Trump, more and more Black men have seen the democrats for what they are. Very slowly, Black women are too.
And so, as the Blacks leave the sinking ship of the democratic party, so too do others.
Democrats aren't dumb. They see the writing on the wall. But, unfortunately, that has made them even more desperate. They have gone into full beast mode, smearing people left and right, full tribalism and full of very bad, rude and disrespectful language in their mouth.
I am unapologetic in my view, but coming from an upper class family, we do not discuss personal matters in public. Why is America now infatuated with what people do in their bedroom? Why do people willingly, publicly tell about their fetishes to the world?
Gov. Gary Johnson
For a nacent political party, trying to win over the masses of people, albeit correctly based upon the tenets of the foundation of the country, to put themselves on a weak political foot by identifying itself with an unpopular label such as gay, bi, lesbian is political suicide.
There is no honor in labeling yourself and identifying yourself. Nor is it even remotely in the best interest of the Libertarian party.
I have constantly, this agenda aside, made speeches and videos and written articles talking about the complete lack of understanding of politics in the Libertarian party. I constantly am shocked at Libertarian candidates who have no idea how the political game is played. We shoot ourselves in the foot constantly and wonder why we aren't as successful, as we think we should be.
While everyone rushes to put their business in the street, it would be wiser to not discuss it at all. It is a political party, not a cause. The two are very much different.
I would hope and think that all LP members would seek to further the party first, and put aside their own personal causes. But this entire forced openess will make the very people we are trying to gather into the fold, meaning the general public, to run for cover. And, if you think "we don't need them", you are very much wrong.
The general public has a fragile psyche, are sheltered, are very traditional. Keep in mind a vast majority of the voting public is over the age of 40.
We need to be wiser than the wise in this party. We need to run congressmen and senators galor. Having a Libertarian president, standing alone in the white house, would nearly serve no purpose. Not that it wouldn't be great, but without congressional support or a solid base, he'd probably get nothing done, and would be blamed for all failures of congress and only be there one term.
A political party is not a cause. It's just politics. We will not further the Libertarian party by trying to promote rainbow libertarians. It will simply chase people away, who would otherwise stop, listen and maybe vote for the party. The party comes first. Your own personal agenda comes second. And frankly, if you want your own personal agenda to supersede the party, then you're not a very good libertarian to begin with, because the party stands for freedom, which also means privacy.
I AM BLACK. But, I am not a Black Libertarian. I am just a Libertarian.
Libertarians are you aware that all these children are students of the almighty media? They learn at its feet and worship the words of NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN. To them every word spoken is gospel and none can besmirch its holy rhetoric.
You dare challenge their menial mental tasks that believe that SS, medicare, etc is somehow laudable You dare challenge their concept of Americanism by bringing up the US constitution and its promise that if we keep the government small that we can enjoy a tax free society? You dare challenge the almighty Obama, upon who's hopes and yes we cansians have placed their halo?
So what is the dollar is set to be completely annihilated as soon as Germany gets tired of the shenanigans or the Chinese buy that last bit of gold to make them the only asset backed currency on the planet? So what if the UN is poised to initiate the final stages of global governance, in whom hands Obama is placing America.
No, it will not be until the very end that these mewling sheep will wake up and realize that the very messiah, in whom they placed much favor, was the very instrument that delivered them into the belly of the beast.
These, have no idea how close we are to destruction. They think it is just a case of choosing a good versus an evil or a better of the same. That day is long past. We have played into the hands of the globalist and put a fox in charge of the hen house.
I fear, if we actually chose a real president it would mean a real world war, because the rest of the world will not want a purely sovereign and independent United States. The globalist will not stand for it. And they will not give up without a real live fight.
A guy asks, "what state governor runs the Federal Reserve Bank"? The question is like asking "what rifle does the pope use when he goes hunting?" I think we can all safely agree the pope doesn't go hunting, and probably is forbidden from hunting.
President Jackson Made it His Life's Work to Kill the Central Bank
The Federal Reserve Bank is not a federal entity, nor is it publicly funded "in theory". It is a private bank, just like Bank of America, Chase Bank and Wells Fargo.
No politician has anything to do with it, nor can they even be present in their private meetings. In fact the government has about as much to do with the Fed as they do with my local credit union, which has far more privacy than Wells Fargo.
In 1798, Thomas Jefferson said the following....
"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution - taking from the federal government their power of borrowing."
So your question is completely wrong. Sorry to say. No state governor is over any part of the Federal Reserve bank, nor its regional banks. The entire system is completely privately owned banks. They have tried their best to acquire banks into their system. If your bank uses them to verify funds before cashing checks, they are hooked into the system. If your bank sends checks for them to verify the check itself, they are hooked in the system. If you can imagine, banks get hundreds of checks each day, directly and indirectly.
Gouverneur Morris, one of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, solemnly warned us in 1787 that we must not allow the bankers to enslave us....
"The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did. They always will... They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by (the power of) government, keep them in their proper spheres."
The only way local banks can avoid being under the Fed is by not using any of their programs or by not selling to a larger bank that is already under the Fed.
Rich Bankers Drafted the Federal Reserve Act in Secret
The Fed runs as any corporation. They have a board and a chairman. The current chairman is Ben Bernanke. By statute the president is allowed to pick the chairman. However, this is merely ceremonial, as everyone on the board and the chairman are picked for him. You can see this clearly, by the fact that Bernanke, who was chosen by a Republican president, was also kept by a Democrat president. Normally, in politics, any political candidate for a position is always picked based upon the political party of the politician in question, i.e. liberal judges are picked by Democrat presidents and legislature and visa versa for conservative judges.
Clearly the Fed is outside of that political system, altogether.
The word is thrown around by people who want to get attention all the time. They claim this and that person is racist or this and that organization is racist. Normally it is thrown about the media by some uneducated buffoon who doesn't even know what the term racism even means or where it started. Case in point, Samuel Jackson. In this case he called the entire Tea Party movement racist. What he and probably most of you doesn't know, the Tea Party is now composed of both Libertarians, and Democrats and Republicans. That's right, the Tea Party movement, is just that, a movement of the people.
Libertarian Originated the Tea Party
Well hell, I'm Black and Libertarian. We, Libertarians, actually started the movement. Fox and other corporate shills co-opted the movement to shut out the Libertarian party once again, and we let them, somehow. Now instead of it being a freedom, grassroots movement, it is considered a Republican movement, with some of the worst crooks from the Bush administration, who ought to be tried for treason, being leaders of various splinter groups.
Jackson is just terribly misinformed. Oh, I'm sure there are racist in the tea party. It doesn't hand out social edumacation classes to the members. But, equally, I'm sure there are entire tea party groups filled with effete classists.
Just like Uncle Remus of Boondocks doesn't represent Black Americans, nor does a few racists going to a tea party rally. I think we're all adults capable of complicated thought, and can see that not everything is "black and white".
Ann Coulter Speaks Out Against Libertarians and Ron Paul
Political pundit and conservative author, Ann Coulter spoke out against Ron Paul and continued to rant and rave against Libertarians. He was very taken aback about the entire issue of marriage. Not that the Libertarian view of lessez faire was good enough, but that it was "cowardly" in her opinion. He said she wants to punch Libertarians. He says Libertarians "dodge the tough questions".
Political Pundit Ann Coulter
I personally just think he is just angry about something. He is always going on about how he wishes he could do something to someone who is against him. He has also been known to walk off of Fox News.
In an unscripted move that resembles that of Ronald Reagan's dramatic "I paid for this microphone" moment in a 1980 New Hampshire debate, Romney declared he would refuse to raise taxes. This led to the following quick exchange:
Liberal Protestor: "Tax corporations!" Romney: "Corporations are people, my friend."
The governor then turned to the audience and asked if they wanted taxes raised, which was greeted with a loud chorus of boos.
Mitt Romney
Before the afternoon was out, NPR was jumping on Romney, running this story from reporter Frank James headlined:
Romney's 'Corporations Are People' A Gift To Political Foes
The story said that Romney, whom all the world knows made his success in the business world:
gave his Democratic opponents an early Christmas gift by uttering those words. He just made their goal of pushing the narrative that he is a tool of corporate America much easier by providing them with that handy piece of video…. Liz Halloran of NPR was in the crowd at the state fair for Romney's "corporations are people" line. "Not his best moment," she tells us.
The story also said:
These words could haunt him all the way to Election Day if he becomes the nominee. They could follow him the way President Obama's line about rural folks clinging to their guns and religion tagged along behind the Democrat.
NPR's Corporate Funding
On November 6, 2003, NPR accepted a grant of over $225 million from the estate of the late Joan Kroc. Kroc, of course, was famous as the wife of Ray Kroc -- the founder of McDonald's. Joan Kroc had no independent wealth of her own. History records that she met her future (and already married) husband when he walked into a bar where she was the piano player. They hit it off and the rest, as they might say, was history.
The point, of course, is that Joan Kroc's ability to leave behind over $235 million for NPR is precisely because of the corporation formally known as McDonald's Corporation. And sure enough, just as Mitt Romney said, McDonald's turns out to be filled with people. Specifically:
McDonald's employs 1.7 million people with private sector jobs
McDonald's has 33,000 outlets in 118 countries where those 1.7 million people have those jobs
McDonald's, as described here by the company, provides health care for its employees.
NPR Funding
What does this illustrate? That quite aside from the issue of government funding, NPR itself exists as the result of corporate funding. Says NPR of how it gets its money:
NPR's revenue comes primarily from fees paid by
our member stations,
contributions from corporate sponsors,
institutional foundation grants,
gifts from major donors,
and fees paid by users of The Public Radio Satellite System.
And sources like foundations -- the Ford Foundation, for example -- got their money from the success of corporations. Not Ford Motor Company -- no money for Edsel Ford to set up the Ford Foundation.
With 25 million now unemployed precisely as Romney said, NPR, literally on the air by its own admission because it takes corporate money, is now insisting corporations and the jobs they create will be an issue in this campaign. Giving Romney and any other conservative out there a priceless opportunity to make Obamanomics the central issue of 2012.
If NPR has such a dim view of corporations, will they stop taking corporate money?
Libertarian Response
As an outsider looking in, on the duopoly that is the democrat / republican trick, I have clarity that most do not have, i.e. the ability to see the plans within plans and the motives of the lesser men that make them. Not to call the author out or anything, but apparently he is trying to bring Mitt Romney back into the spotlight, given Gov. Perry's usurping of the supposed republican lead, contrary to what the Ron Paul campaign would suggest.
I think everyone is in agreement that a Ron Paul administration would be a bad thing, FOR BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS. And, it would definitely spell the end of federal funding of NPR to begin with.
However, given that the media and the duopoly butter each others' bread, it is no wonder they ignore the people, i.e. tea party, Ron Paul supporters, libertarian supporters. This "minority" is now a majority of the actual voters.
Mitt Romney of course would be a 3rd generation GW Bush administration, right behind GW and Obama himself. I know the duopoly tries to make GW and Obama look like different people, what with him being half black and all, but all 3 are corporatist and not card carrying members of neither the democrat nor republican party.
The two party system throws a lot of dust into the air and tries to make sure you are missing 3rd parties. The reality is between democrat and republican, there is no real option or choice between the two. They might say one is liberal and one is conservative, but the reality is that YOU the followers of these parties are the liberal or conservatives. The truth of the matter is that, once in office, the candidates do absolutely nothing different. A republican or democrat spends spends spends and makes sure they get re-elected. A democrat is for big government and a republican is for big government. Where is your choice exactly?
The Old Boy's Club of Democrats and Republicans
Well, there are far more choices now than say 20 years ago. We have a true choice in the Libertarian party. Let me clarify something before you automatically assume you understand the Libertarian platform. Notice any derogatory comments made about the Libertarian party all come from republican / democrat shills. They are never going to tell you fairly and squarely that the Libertarian party is what every candidate and politician should be after. Government is supposed to be there simply to protect us from outside invaders and to smooth things out between parties, through judges, and criminals, through the police. But in their zeal to make a bigger grander government, the democrats and republicans are trying to keep and control you form cradle to grave. You don't like an issue, take it to the government. It is the ultimate in mind control.
The reality is that the current parties wish nothing more than to control you and make sure you hand over your money to their nice wall street buddies that got them elected. It is the ultimate class warfare, with us on the other side. There cannot be now said that our government is not corrupt. They cannot deny that they handed over trillions of our dollars, and debt, over to wall street, with the nice name of bail out attached to it.
But, the Libertarian party is here and is strong. We stand for the constitution. Imagine a world where you had no taxes whatsoever. Imagine that you could open up a little shop of your own without having to pay exorbitant licenses and other secret taxes to keep your out of the market. Our country to return to producing things instead of consuming what other people produced. We were one of the best manufacturer of goods on the planet, but through the 2 party system America has been gutted.
Every election period we scream throw the bums out. But the only thing everyone does is ends up electing the same damn person. Who cares that it's a republican "woman". She is the same thing as the democrat male. There is no difference. But the propaganda machine works over-time to make sure you don't see it.
Here are you local Libertarian candidates. Contact them and get to know them. America does not have to go down in a ball of flames. America does not have to default on our own dollars. It is a new day and we can see the sun behind these very very gloomy clouds that the democrats and republicans paint.
Met your Libertarians candidates, greet them, love them. For, they are your best hope for a real future in America.
Local Libertarian Candidates
Thane Eichenauer
Phoenix Mayor, Arizona Bill Barker
Phoenix City Council, Arizona Maclyn Stringer
Centennial City Council, District 4, Colorado Rich Lion
Manchester City Council, Connecticut Brent Hatley
Saint Petersburg City Council, District 3, Florida Lance Lamberton
Austell City Council, Ward 4, Georgia Richard Segal
Douglasville City Council, Ward 5, Georgia Amanda Swafford
Flowery Branch City Council, Georgia Daniel de Gracia
Honolulu County Neighborhood Board, Hawaii Karen Green
Bloomington City Council Ward 2, Illinois Jeff Ready
Bloomington City Council Ward 6, Illinois Doug Marks
Carpentersville Village Trustee, Illinois J.D. Horton
Grayville Mayor, Illinois Don Stover
Greenville City Council, Illinois Brian Sasso
Lincoln-Way High School Board, Illinois Karin Vermillion
Mahomet Library Board, Illinois Steve Hellin
O'Fallon District 90 School Board, Illinois Edwin Everly
Rantoul Township High School Board, Illinois Rob Jozwiak
Anderson Mayor, Indiana Oscar Gibson
Elkhart Mayor, Indiana Phil Miller
Greenfield Mayor, Indiana Jeff Spoonamore
Greenwood Mayor, Indiana Chris Bowen
Indianapolis Mayor, Indiana Ed Coleman
Indianapolis City-County Council, Indiana Bob Isgrigg
Jeffersonville Mayor, Indiana Thomas Keister
New Albany Mayor, Indiana Debbie O'Neal
Rushville Mayor, Indiana Pat Farrell
South Bend Mayor, Indiana Mike Waite
Westfield Mayor, Indiana Ken Moellman
State Treasurer, Kentucky Robert Walsh
Lynn City Council, At-large, Massachusetts Brian Runne
Lynn City Council, Ward 4, Massachusetts Lorenzo Gaztanaga
Baltimore City Council President, Maryland Doug McNeil
Baltimore City Council, District 11, Maryland Scott Spencer
Baltimore City Council, District 12, Maryland Ron Owens-Bey
Baltimore City Council, District 13, Maryland Calvin Kattola
Royal Oak City Commissioner, Michigan Tylor Slinger
Saint Paul City Council, Minnesota Jeff Foli
Chillicothe City Council, Missouri Doug Burlison
Springfield City Council, Missouri Donna Knezevich
State Representative, Mississippi Harold M. Taylor
State Representative, Mississippi Jan "Jay" Butler
State Representative, Mississippi Sean Holmes
State Representative, Mississippi Brendan Kelly
State Representative, Rockingham District 14, New Hampshire Darren Young
State Assembly, District 21, New Jersey Dave Schneck
State Assembly, District 30, New Jersey Julian Heicklen
State Assembly, District 37, New Jersey Vinko Grskovic
State Assembly, District 38, New Jersey Chris Edes
Monroe County Legislature, District 24, New York Drew Beeman
Monroe County Legislature, District 25, New York Max Kessler
Monroe County Legislature, District 27, New York John Cain
Suffolk County Executive, New York Peter Nichols
Huntington Town Councilmember, New York Vivinne Wong
Huntington Town Councilmember, New York Stephen Mayo
New Rochelle City Councilmember, New York Howard Arden
North Castle Town Supervisor, New York Kerry Lutz
North Castle Town Councilmember, New York Matthew Rice
North Castle Town Councilmember, New York Greg Fischer
Riverhead Town Supervisor, New York Bob Bridges
Columbus City Council, Ohio Mark Noble
Columbus City Council, Ohio Ken Sharp
Toledo City Council, District 1, Ohio Mike Burkholder
Troy City Auditor, Ohio Tim Mullen
Luzerne County Council, Pennsylvania Erik Viker
Selinsgrove Borough Council, Pennsylvania Brenda Fabian
Selinsgrove School Board, Pennsylvania David Moser
York School Board, Pennsylvania Stan Smith
State Senator, District 16, South Carolina Kris Bailey
Austin City Council, Texas Kooper Caraway
Mount Pleasant Mayor, Texas Courtney White
Ogden City Council, Ward 2, Utah
Libertarians hold the most elected offices of all 3rd parties combined. We aren't throwing any votes away.
The stranglehold that democrats and republicans have over the media and political marketing is the same propaganda you just regurgitated, i.e. don't vote 3rd party because xyz is terrible and you'll just be doing a disservice to the country. That would be great if it weren't so patently clear that democrats and republicans feed from the same trough. Succinctly, there is no actual choice between the two, they are one and the same. They are both big government.
It's like this. I was standing at the door of a club one night, talking to the doorman. Over the course of an hour 1,000 people showed up to the door. They all went inside, and looked around and said noone was there and left. I pointed this out to the doorman after the hour was up. He gave me a shocked look and nodded. Had they stayed, the club would have had the busiest night ever and on a night when nothing else in the city was going on.
Not to be a fool, I encourage my Libertarian brothers and sisters to do the same. Vote for our candidates, because the polling and evidence is clear, Libertarian is the closest to the constitution there is and the country is fed up with the big government parties. If we stay the course, like the club, we will continually pick up those who think they are conservative and those who are fed up with the system that both taxes them to death and is only out to increase the government.
Libertarians started the tea party. Fox news and other governmental organizations snatched it away from us when they saw people migrating to it EN MASSE. It was never a republican thing, it was a Libertarian thing.
So, look at the tea party. Look at the numbers. Again the republicans, trying to shut out libertarians, arrested the movement before it "got out of hand". They put spin on it and claimed it was a republican thing.
Let's look at the tea party: Gallup reports that 28% of Americans consider themselves to be supporters of the Tea Party. 26% oppose it and the remainder – a full 46% of the population – either doesn’t know or doesn’t care.
Many Libertarians, when considering whom to vote for president, a position they think is actually important, feel it is throwing away your vote if you vote for the Libertarian candidate.
It would not be very constructive for people who want to be in the Libertarian party to vote for people outside of the Libertarian party.
Ron Paul is a Republican. He always has been, and always will be. He has made statements that show sympathy for the Libertarian and Constitution parties, but he is not a member of either one. Do not ever put the Libertarian party in a position like the Black vote is today withe Obama in office. That means, the Black vote is already spoken for as being for Obama, without any concessions nor any dialogue of what they want in the outcome. Essentially the Black vote is taken for granted in the upcoming election for Obama. Do not think that because Ron Paul says some conservative things, that he is somehow an adopted Libertarian and our votes become taken for granted as well. It is dangerous territory to simply put your feather in someone else's cap without so much as an overture to them. The only presidential candidate a Libertarian should be voting for, is the best possible representative of the Libertarian platform. Ron Paul has not espoused the Libertarian platform and votes against it time and again. Only a Libertarian candidate should be getting your Libertarian vote.
Membership in each party is as follows:
Democrat - 72 million registered members [ 2004 ]
Republican - 55 million registered members
Constitution party - 438,222 registered members [ 2008 ]
Green party - 305,000 registered members [ 2005 ]
Libertarian party - 200,000 registered members and more than 600 people in public office. including mayors, county executives, county-council members, school-board members, and other local officials. It has more people in office than all other minor parties combined.
As far as registering so that you can vote in primaries, a lot of states have changed their voting policies since Obama's election. A lot of states have instituted OPEN primaries, meaning everyone can vote. I expect more changes will come as tea party mania increases.
Some Libertarians feel it is imperative that they vote for Ron Paul instead of voting for the Libertarian Candidate. Although these are all adults, they do not understand politics nor the environment they find themselves in. While they might believe in everything Libertarians stand for, they are still under the tremendous propaganda the democrat and republican party puts out: a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. This is a mantra that is spoken OVER AND OVER by the media and the 2 political parties. It has one objective at the end of the day, to quash 3rd parties. What people do not understand is, if you vote for a third party, it gives an honest look at what the country actually feels. Once you vote Libertarian, others might come out of the closet and also vote Libertarian.
Some people are just too afraid to be the first ones to vote for a third party.. As you can see by the list above, the other third parties have nowhere near the actual seat holders that the Libertarian party does. Obviously, people feel confident and comfortable with actually voting Libertarian. Now, we simply have to get people to register Libertarian so that national polls can reflect what the country feels.
I have always said that all Black people in America should register / vote Libertarian. It is the only party that would give Black Americans a fair chance to go where we need to go and do what we need to do unhindered. As it stands now, most Blacks cannot open their own business because of the tremendous road blocks government puts in our way. Under a Libertarian government, most, if not all, of those road blocks would be removed.
This year's list of 2012 Libertarian Presidential Candidates looks like this so far:
Roger Gary (right)
Roger Gary - elected to the San Antonio River Authority where he served as Director. Serving as State Chair of the Libertarian Party for Texas.
Carl Person
Carl Person - Served as an attorney. 75 years old. He previously tried to gain a nomination in 2006 with the Green Party for for Attorney General of New York state, the same position he ran for in 2010 withe the Libertarian party. Perhaps he's not actually a Libertarian?
R. Lee Wrights
R Lee Wrights - a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and a past vice chair of the Libertarian National Committee. Wrights has pledged that 10 percent of all donations to his campaign will go toward ballot access.
R J Harris
R J Harris* - a twenty-year Oklahoma Army National Guard Officer serving on his forth overseas deployment. He is actually a Republican and playing a dangerous game with the Libertarian party where he is trying to ensure that Ron Paul receives the Repbublican nomination. Should Dr. Paul, not receive the nomination he hopes Americans will look at him as an alternative. Should Dr. Paul receive the nomination he will step down, removing the Libertarian party out of the running altogether. Only a fool would nominate this guy.
Gov. Gary Johnson
Gary Johnson* - A Republican that has acted more Libertarian than most Libertarian Candidates. He cut the 10% annual growth in the budget by using his gubernatorial veto on half of bills in the first six months. His use of the veto over his two terms gained him the nickname "Governor Veto". He sought re-election in 1998, winning by 55% to 45%. In his second term, he concentrated on the issue of school voucher reforms, as well as campaigning for marijuana decriminalization. During his tenure as governor, he adhered strictly to an anti-tax, anti-bureaucracy program, and set state and national records for his use of veto powers:[4] more than the other 49 contemporary governors put together. Term-limited, Johnson retired from politics at the end of his second term. He rebuffed efforts by the Libertarian Party to draft him in the 2000 presidential election. Possibly could be drafted again since he is well behind Mitt Romny and Ron Paul.
If you are liberty minded and wish to join Nevada Liberty Group, you do not have to be a paying member of the libertarian party. Just join us, or ask me to invite you. I welcome any and all people that believe you can speak for your own money and where it should god. The problem most people do not understand about politics is that we have a two party system that does not allow anyone else in on the party and does not speak for the country, but only for themselves. They have allowed government to be run as a money making scheme and not a way of protecting the country and its citizens.
Nevada Libertarian Group
If you are already on facebook, join me and friends in the Nevada Libertarian Group, in the discussion and voice your opinions on political matters that are on your mind. Noone there is a republican, nor a democrat. No discussion about what the "other party" is doing, since we are not a part of that two party monopoly. You are the ones that should be in control of government, and not government in control of you. But, this has been the status quo for at least a hundred years.
Time and again people are told about how the government needs your tax dollars. The reality is the government doesn't even use your tax dollars. Since they have a private bank that can lend them untold sums of money, they simply use the tax issue to further their two party support. Ask a republican about taxes and they'll point at the democrats. Ask a democrat about taxes and they'll point at the republicans. Neither one of them will answer the question of where government gets the trillions of dollars it spends annually.
It is time for a change, so join me for some truth and some discussion on how we can be liberated and our rights restored as Americans.
What can really be said about the BP Oil Spill and surrounding media frenzy? It was politics as usual. Many "news" shows, namely Fox, took delight in spreading the most egregious lies about the spill, the Obama administration, the Bush administration and misinterpreting the law. We here at Shakaama Live cannot blame you the public for falling for such utter and complete fabrications, but a modicum of blame should be placed in your corner since you probably never fact check what you see, especially when it comes to the "news" misquoting laws. We apologize for this very long post [ credited by talk.politics.misc group ]. We advise you bookmark this post and use it as a reference should you ever want to look up something about the spill. The information in this post is pretty comprehensive. We are not democrats, nor republicans. We are libertarians here at Shakaama Live. The politics that go on during major disasters should show you how skewed the political arena is. Democrats and Republicans are no different and share one exact political goal, to keep all other political parties out of politics. If we libertarians cannot convince you that they are one and the same and get donations from the same exact companies, you must admit that they do their best to keep 3rd party political groups out of the political arena. That being said, we present to you both the lies that were told surrounding the BP oil spill and what the reality is and was.
BP Oil Spill in Gulf of Mexico
CLAIM: Obama "waited 50 days, 55 days to really begin" responding to Gulf oil spill. On the June 17 edition of Fox & Friends, Rudy Giuliani said of the federal government's response to the oil spill: "The government has played a big role in letting us down here as well. And who the heck is -- you know, criticizing President Obama, President Obama's response? I mean, the president waited 50 days, 55 days to really begin a resp- -- he told us in his speech that the federal government was in charge from the very beginning."
REALITY: Timeline of events indicates Obama administration responded almost immediately to the spill. The Coast Guard began responding to the spill hours after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded at 10 p.m. on April 20. Obama was briefed on the incident and dispatched officials to the region the next day.
CLAIM: No need for moratorium to "ensure ... safety," Obama should "undo the harm that he's already done" and lift it. On the June 12 edition of Fox & Friends Saturday, anchor Alisyn Camerota asked Palin: "[T]he administration has called for a moratorium on deep-sea drilling until that safety can be ensured. Given all of the problems that we now know, how BP overlooked safety measures, do you support a moratorium until we can ensure the safety?" Palin replied, "No, but we do need to ramp up the oversight" of offshore drilling." Likewise, on the June 15 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes urged Obama to "undo the harm that he's already done and lift the moratorium on the existing drilling that was going on in the Gulf."
Not the Brightest Bulb in the Box
REALITY: All five major oil companies reportedly share similar spill response plans written by same company, and admit aspects of their plans are an "embarrassment." According to The Washington Post, "the same tiny Texas subcontractor" authored the Gulf spill response plans for BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Shell Oil, and Exxon Mobil. Additionally, execs for both Exxon Mobil and Conoco Phillips called an error in both plans embarrassing.
FACT: All five companies reportedly rely on the same companies to draft their response plans and provide containment equipment. According to a June 16 Washington Post report, "the same tiny Texas subcontractor" authored the Gulf spill response plans for BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Shell Oil, and Exxon Mobil:
The spill response plans for all five companies were written by the same firm, the Response Group. Although it has operations in at least seven cities nationwide, the Houston-based firm's Web site says the company has about 35 employees. (One current assignment: calling 50,000 people who have visited BP offices and getting their e-mail addresses and emergency contact information.) Additionally, the Post reported that Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) stated that oil companies all rely on one company, Marine Spill Response, to provide
containment equipment.
FACT: Three spill plans reportedly listed the phone number of a deceased marine science expert. According the same Post report, three of the five major oil companies operating in the Gulf "listed the phone number for the same University of Miami marine science expert, Peter Lutz, who died in 2005" in their spill response plans.
FACT: Exxon Mobil CEO: "We are not well-equipped to handle" major oil spills. In testimony before the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee on June 15, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson stated repeatedly that his company is "not well-equipped to handle" major oil spills.
FACT: Responding to criticism of having a dead expert's info in his company's oil spill response, Tillerson admitted "we need expertise." When Markey questioned Tillerson on the Exxon Mobil plan's inclusion of
contact information for a "technical support person" who had been dead for four years, Tillerson acknowledged that it was an "embarrassment" and stated that "we admit that we need expertise." He further stated that just because "Dr. Lutz died in 2005 does not mean his work and the importance of his work died with him."
FACT: ConocoPhillips CEO: "Obviously it is embarrassing" that Lutz's contact information is in the report. At the same hearing, ConocoPhillips CEO, James Mulva, said of the response plan's obvious flaws: "Obviously
it is embarrassing." He further acknowledged that "the plans need to be updated more frequently." Myth: BP was only drilling "out there" because environmentalists and the federal government "made them" do it.
Sean Hannity Later Fires Alan Colmes Fair and Balanced
CLAIM: BP's deepwater drilling due to environmentalists, federal government "pushed us out there." Several Fox News figures, including Sarah Palin, Charles Krauthammer, Steve Doocy, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly, have claimed that, as Hannity put it, BP "should have been in ANWR and shallower waters, and environmentalists pushed us out there." Similarly, Fox News contributors Andrew Napolitano and Bill Kristol, and Fox guest and BigGovernment.com editor-in-chief Mike Flynn have blamed the federal government for, in Flynn's words, "ma[king] them drill in water that deep."
REALITY: Deep-water regions feature vast oil reserves that make such drilling potentially lucrative. According to the U.S. Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service, the "best source of new domestic
energy resources lies in the deep water." The deepwater region of the Gulf has also been identified as "probably the most promising area in United States-controlled territory."
FACT: MMS said "remarkable increase" in deep-water drilling due in part to "finding of reservoirs with high production wells." According to the MMS: "The deepwater portion of Gulf of Mexico has shown a remarkable increase in oil and gas exploration, development and production. In part this is due to the development of new technologies reducing operational
costs and risks, as well as the finding of reservoirs with high production wells."
FACT: Bush MMS reported that the "best source of new domestic energy resources lies in the deep water Gulf of Mexico." In a 2004 report -- titled Deep Water: Where the Energy Is -- the MMS stated that "our best
source of new domestic energy resources lies in the deep water Gulf of Mexico and other frontier areas." MMS reported that due to "declining production" in "near-shore, shallow waters" in the Gulf of Mexico,
"energy companies have focused their attention on oil and gas resources in water depths of 1,000 feet and beyond." MMS estimated that "the deep water regions of the Gulf of Mexico may contain 56 billion barrels of oil equivalent, or enough to meet U.S. demand for 7-1/2 years at current rates."
FACT: Bush MMS reported deepwater drilling is "America's Offshore Energy Future," "significant proved reserves" discovered in recent years. In a 2008 report titled "Deepwater Gulf of Mexico 2008: America's Offshore Energy Future, MMS reported:
Not the Sharpest Knife in the Drawer
The deepwater GOM has contributed major additions to the total reserves in the GOM. Figure 40 shows the proved reserves added each year by water-depth category. Additions from the shallow waters of the GOM declined in recent years but, beginning in 1975, the deepwater area started contributing significant new reserves. Between 1975 and 1983, the majority of these additions were from discoveries in slightly more than 1,000 ft (305 m) of water. It was not until 1985 that major additions came from water depths greater than 1,500 ft (457 m). From 1998 to 2001, significant proved reserves were added in the 5,000- to 7,499-ft (1,524- to 2,286-m) water depth range. The year 2002 saw the first substantial addition from water depths greater than 7,500 ft (2,286 m).
FACT: NY Times reported BP discovery of "giant oil field" in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico indicated area was "probably the most promising area in United States-controlled territory." A September 2, 2009, New York Times article reported that "BP announced on Wednesday the discovery of what it characterized as a giant oil field several miles under the Gulf of Mexico," which the Times stated "was another indication that the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico are probably the most promising area in United States-controlled territory to bolster domestic oil production." The Times further credited BP's deep-water rigs with having "stabilized domestic production after almost two decades of yearly decline."
CLAIM: Obama "was off on vacation twice" during oil spill, but Bush did not go on vacation "in the middle of a crisis." On the June 17 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Giuliani asserted that he didn't think the spill was Obama's "job number one" because Obama was "off on vacation twice" during the cleanup. Giuliani contrasted Obama's vacations with President Bush's and Giuliani's own purported refusal to take vacations during times of crisis. Giuliani made similar arguments on the June 17 edition of Fox & Friends.
REALITY: Bush vacationed during the aftermath of Katrina; Giuliani reportedly spent more time at Yankees games than at WTC after 9-11. Despite Giuliani's suggestion, Bush reportedly made at least three trips to Camp David in the two months after Katrina, and Giuliani himself reportedly spent "roughly twice as long" at, or flying to, Yankees games than at ground zero between September 17, 2001, and December 16, 2001. The Obamas visited Asheville, North Carolina, the weekend of April 23. During that trip, Obama eulogized the 29 workers killed in the West Virginia mine explosion and "met with the workers' families privately before the ceremony," according to CNN. During Memorial Day weekend, Obama traveled to Chicago and was scheduled to deliver his Memorial Day address at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery. Due to a thunderstorm, he spoke at Andrews Air Force Base instead.
Giuliani at Yankees not Ground Zero
FACT: Bush vacationed during aftermath of Katrina. In the two months after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast on August 29, 2005, Bush reportedly made at least three separate weekend trips to the presidential retreat at Camp David. Bush visited the Camp David retreat in September 2005 and again during two weekends in October 2005. Three months after the hurricane, news outlets reported that hundreds of thousands of people were "still at loose ends in provisional housing -- many in isolated trailer parks"; "thousands of people were "still unaccounted for"; and "[m]ore than 80 percent of New Orleans's population has not been able to
return home."
FACT: Giuliani reportedly spent more time at Yankees games than at ground zero following 9-11. In an August 18, 2007, Salon.com article, Alex Koppelman examined Giuliani's schedule in the 90 days following the attacks and found: "By our count, Giuliani spent about 58 hours at Yankees games or flying to them in the 40 days between Sept. 25 and Nov. 4, roughly twice as long as he spent at ground zero in the 90 days between Sept. 17 and Dec. 16."
CLAIM: "Outrageous" to blame Bush for MMS mismanagement leading to oil spill. Fox News figures, including Dana Perino, Dick Morris and Mike Huckabee, have claimed that it is "ridiculous" and "offensive," as Perino put it, to say that the Bush administration's regulatory failures led to the oil spill.
REALITY: Under Bush, MMS relaxed oversight of drilling, ignored safety warnings, downplayed oil spill concerns. The Department of Interior's Office of Inspector General (OIG) "found a culture where the acceptance of gifts from oil and gas companies were widespread" in Bush's MMS. In addition, under Bush, MMS loosened rules requiring a blowout plan, dismissed the risk of a massive oil spill in a BP assessment, and failed to report a warning about a vital piece of blowout preventer. Moreover, Bush promoted and sought to expand offshore drilling.
FACT: Bush MMS adopted regulations stating drillers are "in the best position to determine the environmental effects of its proposed activity." The Washington Post reported on May 25 that the actions taken by MMS "are shaped in part by a 2005 regulation it adopted that assumes oil and gas companies can best evaluate the environmental effects of their operations." The article stated that "[t]he rule governing which information the MMS should receive and review before signing off on drilling plans states: 'The lessee or operator is in the best position to determine the environmental effects of its proposed activity based on whether the operation is routine or non-routine.'" Rolling Stone magazine reported that these "new rules pre-qualified deep-sea drillers" to receive an "exemption from environmental review," even though such exemptions were "originally intended to prevent minor projects, like outhouses on hiking trails, from being tied up in red tape."
Not the Fastest Chicken in the Coop
FACT: In April 2008, Bush MMS loosened rules requiring blowout plan. The Associated Press reported on May 5 that a "rule change two years ago by the federal agency that regulates offshore oil rigs allowed BP to avoid filing a plan specifically for handling a major spill from an uncontrolled blowout at its Deepwater Horizon project." AP further reported: "The MMS rule change, made in April 2008, says that Gulf rig operators are required to file a blowout scenario only if one of five conditions applies. For example, an operator must provide a blowout scenario when it proposes to install a 'surface facility' in water deeper than 1,312 feet. While Deepwater Horizon was operating almost 5,000 feet below the surface, [BP spokesman William] Salvin said the project did not meet the definition of a surface facility. The MMS official agreed."
FACT: Bush MMS 2007 environmental impact assessment for BP lease dismissed risk of massive oil spill. The Post reported on May 5: "While the MMS assessed the environmental impact of drilling in the central and western Gulf of Mexico on three occasions in 2007 -- including a specific evaluation of BP's Lease 206 at Deepwater Horizon -- in each case it played down the prospect of a major blowout." The Post stated that "In one assessment, the agency estimated that 'a large oil spill' from a platform would not exceed a total of 1,500 barrels and that a 'deepwater spill,' occurring 'offshore of the inner Continental shelf,' would not reach the coast. In another assessment, it defined the most likely large spill as totaling 4,600 barrels and forecast that it would largely dissipate within 10 days and would be unlikely to make landfall." According to the Times-Picayune, these assessments "paved the way for BP to assert that its plans for drilling in Lease Sale 206 posed no real dangers."
FACT: Bush MMS failed to respond to 2004 warning about vital piece of blowout preventer. The Wall Street Journal reported on May 3 that "[f]ederal regulators learned in a 2004 study that a vital piece of oil- drilling safety equipment may not function in deep-water seas but did nothing to bolster industry requirements. The equipment, called shear rams, is supposed to seal off out-of-control oil and gas wells by pinching the pipe closed and cutting it." The Journal further reported that "[e]xperts theorize the rams may have failed to work as expected in the Deepwater Horizon disaster."
FACT: Bush MMS ignored warnings about faulty cementing in wells. AP reported on May 24 that numerous MMS reports identified a "poor cement job" as the cause of many offshore accidents, including incidents that took place in 2005 and 2007, "[y]et federal regulators give drillers a free hand in this crucial safety step." AP noted that rig owner Transocean and "independent experts" have pointed to "faulty cement work" as a possible cause of the blowout, and that new rules "in the works long before the Deepwater Horizon" took effect June 3, which "take a conservative watch-and-wait approach and demand only routines already carried out around the industry: a management program with monitoring and diagnostic testing."
Tony Hayward BP Oil CEO is Not Technically Evil But
FACT: WSJ reported that in 2003, Bush MMS decided not to require last-resort shut-off device. ABC News reported on April 30 that in 2000, MMS "issued a safety alert that called added layers of backup 'an essential component of a deepwater drilling system'." However, according to the Journal, "The industry argued against" mandating a remote-control shut-off switch that serves as "last-resort protection against underwater spills," and "[b]y 2003, U.S. regulators decided remote-controlled safeguards needed more study. A report commissioned by the Minerals Management Service said 'acoustic systems are not recommended because they tend to be very costly'." The Journal noted that the Deepwater Horizon rig did not have a remote-control device, which is required "in two major oil-producing countries, Norway and Brazil," and that "[i] ndustry consultants and petroleum engineers said that an acoustic remote- control may have been able to stop the well, but too much is still unknown about the accident to say that with certainty." NPR similarly reported that Michael Saucier, MMS regional director in New Orleans, said at a hearing, "I think it was around 2001, there were some draft rules concerning secondary control systems for BOP stacks, and those rules were then sent up to headquarters to continue through the process." The NPR report goes on to state, "But what came back from headquarters were not rules, he said, just notices that 'highly encouraged' companies to use the backup systems. 'There is no enforcement on it,' he said."
FACT: Bush MMS reportedly suppressed scientists' concerns about environmental impact of spills in Alaska. A June 6 Denver Post article reported that an MMS office in Alaska rejected a 2006 analysis conducted by a biologist, which stated that a large oil spill could significantly harm fish populations. The analysis, which would have "required MMS to conduct a more detailed environmental impact statement before auctioning leases in the Beaufort Sea," was rewritten after a supervisor told the biologist that his analysis would cause a "delay in sale 202. That would, as you can imagine, not go over well with HQ and others." The Denver Post further reported, "[c]oncerns raised by another MMS biologist, James Wilder, that the impact on polar bears was not adequately addressed in Shell's Alaska exploration plan, also were rebuffed, according to e-mails."
CLAIM: "Largest single donation" "from BP" has gone to Obama. After Palin suggested a connection between "contributions made to President Obama and his administration and the support by the oil companies to the administration," Doocy said that "when it comes down to the single largest recipient of BP cash, [Palin is] absolutely right ... it was Barack Obama."
Campaign Contributions
FACT: Obama presidential campaign took no money from BP's PAC. Obama received $71,051 in contributions from BP employees during his presidential campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Obama's presidential campaign received no funds from BP's PAC or from the company itself. A CRP spokesman confirmed that "the $71,051 that Obama received during the 2008 election cycle was entirely from BP employees." The spokesman also stated that "Obama did not accept contributions from political action committees, so none of this money is from BP's PAC." FACT: Donations from BP's PAC and its employees represent 0.01 percent of Obama's total presidential fundraising. Obama raised more than $744 million for his presidential campaign. The $71,051 he received from BP's employees accounts for less than .01 percent of Obama's total presidential campaign contributions. Scherer: "People who run for President raise much more money, and received much more money from BP interests -- and just about every other interest." In a May 5 Swampland post, Time's Michael Scherer cited CRP's data and noted that "[i]t is true that ... Obama received slightly more money from BP's PAC and employees since 1990 than anyone else." Scherer went on to explain:
But there is a major a reason for that, which the story fails to mention: People who run for President raise much more money, and received much more money from BP interests -- and just about every other interest. The fourth highest recipient of BP money in the same time period is George W. Bush. The fifth highest recipient is John McCain. In the 2000 and 2004 cycles, Bush got the most money, albeit less than Obama received in 2008. But then one could adjust these numbers for campaign inflation: campaigns overall raised much less money in the 2000 and 2004 cycles than the record-smashing 2008 cycle. FACT: Obama took only $1,000 of PAC money from BP during his 2004 Senate campaign. Obama received $1,000 from BP's PAC during his 2004 Senate campaign. Twenty-one Senate candidates received more from BP's PAC during that election cycle alone.
CLAIM: Obama's refusal to waive Jones Act has prevented international assistance. Fox News' Dick Morris, Bill O'Reilly and Oliver North have similarly asserted that Obama's purported refusal to waive the Jones Act has prevented the United States from accepting aid from foreign ships.
REALITY: International assistance is part of Gulf spill response. In an interview on the June 15 edition of Fox & Friends, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs stated that "foreign entities are operating within the Gulf that help us respond" to the oil spill. Further, in a June 15 press release, the Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center stated, "Currently, 15 foreign-flagged vessels are involved in the largest response to an oil spill in U.S. history." The Center further explained, "No Jones Act waivers have been granted because none of these vessels have required such a waiver to conduct their operations in the Gulf of Mexico." The administration has further stated that they would waive the Jones Act if waivers were requested, but that "there are no pending requests for foreign vessels to come into the Gulf."
Myth: Obama admin defied Constitution because it "told" BP to create escrow account CLAIM: Obama's actions on escrow fund were "not constitutional." On the June 18 edition of Fox & Friends, talking about Rep. Joe Barton's (R-TX) criticism of the $20 billion escrow account, co-host Brian Kilmeade said: "You know, [Barton's] upset that they set up this -- that they told BP, 'I need $20 billion into this fund.' ... He felt as though that was out of the administration's realm. They shouldn't be allowed to do that. That's not constitutional, and they shouldn't go ahead -- go forward with that."
Fox News Lies, They All Do Actually
REALITY: BP volunteered to establish account after "negotiation session" with White House in which "[b]oth sides got what they wanted." BP agreed on its own to establish the account as a "voluntary gesture" after negotiations with the White House in which both sides reportedly got what they wanted. Additionally, Dan Farber, director of Berkeley Law's environmental law program, wrote that "the answer isn't very clear" but that the Oil Pollution Act "does require BP to establish a process for 'the payment or settlement of claims for interim, short-term damages' that might encompass an escrow and independent decision-makers."
FACT: Wash. Post: "Both sides got what they wanted out of the encounter." The Post reported that in the meeting between the White House and BP, "[b]oth sides got what they wanted out of the encounter," noting that "BP, though poorer on paper in the short run, got some much-needed clarity on its long-term liability, plus an explicit statement from Obama that the administration doesn't want to see BP driven into bankruptcy."
FACT: BP announced $100 million to support unemployed oil industry workers as a "voluntary gesture." The Post also reported on June 17 that Obama asked BP "for a voluntary contribution to a foundation that will support unemployed oil industry employees" and that "BP agreed, offering $100 million." The Post quoted BP adviser Jamie Gorelick as saying, "We made clear that we do not think this is a liability for the company. The president said he's concerned about those workers. He asked if there was something we could do as a voluntary gesture."
FACT: Expert said law "does require BP to establish a process for 'the payment or settlement of claims for interim, short-term damages,' " which could include escrow account. In his June 15 post on the blog Legal Planet titled, "Can Obama Require BP to Form an Escrow Fund?" Farber wrote that "the answer isn't very clear" but that the Oil Pollution Act "does require BP to establish a process for 'the payment or settlement of claims for interim, short-term damages' that might encompass an escrow and independent decision-makers." Indeed, Section 1005 of the Oil Pollution Act states:
SEC. 1005. INTEREST; PARTIAL PAYMENT OF CLAIMS.
(a) GENERAL RULE. -- The responsible party or the responsible party's guarantor is liable to a claimant for interest on the amount paid in satisfaction of a claim under this Act for the period described in subsection (b). The responsible party shall establish a procedure for the payment or settlement of claims for interim, short-term damages. Payment or settlement of a claim for interim, short-term damages representing less than the full amount of damages to which the claimant ultimately may be entitled shall not preclude recovery by the claimant for damages not reflected in the paid or settled partial claim.
CLAIM: "Red tape puts hold on company's boom making." On June 10, Fox & Friends ran a story criticizing the administration for possibly being "in the dark about" Packgen, a Maine company who's oil containment boom had yet to be approved by BP for use in the Gulf. During the segment, on- screen text read: "Red tape puts hold on company's boom making."
Packgen Had Never Made Boom Before
REALITY: Packgen had not previously manufactured boom, reportedly failed "initial quality control test." The Maine company had reportedly not produced boom before and their boom reportedly "differs from other designs being used." BP ordered a trial run of the product before committing to purchase it. The boom later reportedly failed "an initial quality control test."
FACT: Packgen reportedly began manufacturing boom after spill. The Lewiston, Maine, Sun Journal reported on May 19 that Packgen, a Maine company that "makes composite packaging used to contain environmental and hazardous waste," hoped to "capitalize on the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico by churning out a much-sought-after oil containment tool known as a boom." The article quoted Packgen's president as saying they were "still pitching (to buyers)" and reported that BP had "sent up a company auditor to check out" the company.
FACT: WCSH6 reported that BP "ordered a trial run" of the product, which "differs from other designs being used." Maine news station WCSH6 reported on June 3 that BP "has ordered a trial run of the product but there is no word of when or if the design will be approved." The article also reported: "It differs from other designs being used because, according to company officials, it creates a tighter seal between pieces preventing oil from leaking past the barrier."
FACT: Boom reportedly failed "an initial quality test." On June 11, ABC News' Jake Tapper tweeted that according to the Coast Guard, the "boom manufactured by Packgen did not pass an initial quality control test." On June 16, Tapper reported that an engineering professor who was hired by Packgen to inspect the boom stated his belief that " 'it certainly will work' in coastal areas in coastal areas, though he 'wouldn't deploy it deepwater'."
CLAIM: Obama did not "respond immediately" to spill because he did not approve the berm plan "right away" On the June 9 edition of Fox & Friends, Perino responded to the statement that "[Obama's] officials responded immediately" to the spill by claiming, "I think Governor [Bobby] Jindal would disagree with the berms that weren't built right away."
Bush Administration: The Vacation President
REALITY: Army Corps of Engineers studied plan as required by law and expressed concerns over proposal. AP reported on May 24 that "the Corps said it is working as quickly as possible on the emergency permit request -- but still has to follow various steps required by federal law."
FACT: Army Corps reportedly raised concerns that barriers "could instead funnel oil into more unprotected areas and into neighboring Mississippi." AP reported on May 26 that the Army Corps released documents that day that "signaled support for parts of the state plan, including berms that would be built onto existing barrier islands," but stated that parts of the plan "could inadvertently alter tides and end up driving oil east -- into Mississippi Sound, the Biloxi Marshes and Lake Borgne."
FACT: Army Corps approved portions of the plan "after careful consideration of the available information." On May 27, the Army Corps of Engineers announced that they approved portions of the plan to create sand berms between barrier islands off the coast of Louisiana. The White House approved additional portions of Lousiana's berm plan on June 2.
FACT: Adm. Allen reportedly continued to express concerns about proposal but said "the prudent thing ... was to start a pilot project and keep asking questions." On May 28, AP reported that Adm. Thad Allen "approved portions of Louisiana's $350 million plan to ring its coastline with a wall of sand meant to keep out the Gulf of Mexico oil spill." The article noted that the Army Corps had objected to portions of the plan due to concerns about oil being diverted to Mississippi and that Allen also "said some sections of the berm system would not have kept out oil," as well as potentially "interfer[ing] with cleanup."
CLAIM: Shutting down oil-collecting barges was an "amazing screw-up." On the June 18 edition of his Fox News show, O'Reilly asserted that there had been an "insane," "amazing screw-up in the Gulf cleanup," because the Coast Guard sent several oil-collecting barges back to shore due to questions about safety measures (including life vests and fire extinguishers) on the ships.
REALITY: The ships reportedly did lack the required equipment, and there were also concerns about their stability. The Daily Caller's Jonathan Strong reported on June 18:
U.S. Coast Guard
Sixteen crude-sucking barges are back in the Gulf of Mexico working to clean up oil, but the Coast Guard is defending its decision to ground the vessels because it couldn't verify whether there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board.
"The Coast Guard is not going to compromise safety ... that's our No. 1 priority," Coast Guard spokesman Robert Brassel told The Daily Caller.
[...]
Brassel said the barges are now "back in operating order."
On Thursday night, the Incident Commander in Houma, Roger Laferriere, decided with the captain of the port in New Orleans to inspect the barges when they realized the ships did not have a certificate of inspection to demonstrate safety equipment on board. Thursday morning, the ships were inspected and grounded because they did not have the proper fire-fighting and life-saving equipment. There were also concerns about the stability of the barges. During the day Thursday, the problems were fixed, and the barges are back out on the water today. A June 17 statement from the Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center stated that the "vacuum barges were temporarily removed from service after safety concerns occurred including stability and the lack of lifesaving and firefighting equipment." A June 19 statement said that "the owner/operator of the barges asked the Coast Guard to inspect the vessels, some under construction, to ensure they were safe" and that "The Coast Guard inspectors made recommendations to the owner/operator regarding lifesaving and firefighting equipment, vessel stability and egress issues, leaving the decision to continue construction and operations with the owner/operator."
