WASHINGON: Many supporters of former President Donald Trump, outraged over the FBI’s raid on his Mar-a-Lago estate in August, have nonetheless predicted that soon he will be criminally charged by President Joe Biden’s Justice Department.
While that may still happen, there are not likely to be any charges filed before the midterm elections, according to a Sunday report.
Newsweek noted that the DOJ is likely to hold off on charges — if, in fact, there are any forthcoming — due to the unofficial “60-day rule,” which is “a long running tradition that the Department of Justice will avoid making any decisions that could affect how people vote so close to an upcoming election or elections.”
“As of Saturday, the November 8 midterms are now 59 days away, meaning that if the DOJ chooses to follow the informal guidance they must wait to make, or announce, a decision to charge Trump until after the elections,” the outlet noted further.
That said, Jack Goldsmith, the former chief of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and currently a professor at Harvard Law School, told The New York Times that the 60-day window is an “unwritten rule of uncertain scope,” and that “it’s not at all clear that it applies to taking investigative steps against a noncandidate former president who is nevertheless intimately involved in the November election.”
“But its purpose of avoiding any significant impact on an election seems to be implicated,” he added.
Newsweek added:
While Trump is not on any ballot, his influence will be noticeable nationwide in November as dozens of his endorsed candidates hope to carry on his MAGA agenda in Congress.
Trump is potentially facing a number of charges in connection to investigations into the January 6 attack, as well as the FBI probe into claims he mishandled classified documents seized from his Mar-a-Lago resort, and then attempts to obstruct the federal investigation.
Separately, Newsweek reported early Monday morning that Trump was spotted making a surprise visit to Washington, D.C., which generated speculation he could be arrested.
“A video of Trump arriving at Dulles Airport in Virginia, an airport frequently used by those heading to the capital, was posted online by freelance reporter Andrew Leyden,” the report said.
“The former president can be seen getting out of a plane and heading into a vehicle waiting on the asphalt. Trump appears to be wearing golf shoes and a white polo top,” the report continued. “A motorcade of vehicles then drives away, with Leyden suggesting Trump was heading to his golf course in D.C.”
The report added that Trump did not mention the trip on his Truth Social platform.
There has been talk of charging Trump with crimes since he was in office. Famously, the most high-profile investigating involved then-special counsel Robert Mueller, who was assigned to look into ‘Russiagate’ allegations by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, whom Trump later fired.
Late last month the Justice Department finally released a secret memo written by former Attorney General William Barr explaining why no charges against the then-president would be forthcoming from the investigation.
Previous reports have suggested that the allegation of ‘Russian collusion’ against Trump was a false narrative manufactured by the 2016 campaign of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, and in a June interview, Barr appeared to agree, comparing her behavior to “sedition.”
“I thought we were heading into a constitutional crisis. I think whatever you think of Trump, the fact is that the whole Russiagate thing was a grave injustice. It appears to be a dirty political trick that was used first to hobble him and then potentially to drive him from office,” he said on Glenn Beck’s Blaze TV podcast.
“I believe it is seditious,” he added, but he warned that those charges would be tough to prove in court.
“It was a gross injustice, and it hurt the United States in many ways, including what we’re seeing in Ukraine these days. It distorted our foreign policy, and so forth,” the former attorney general said.
He said that he named Special Counsel John Durham to lead the case in private so it would stop President Joe Biden and Attorney general Merrick Garland from interfering with him.
Trump in his worst poll didn't have these numbers, even among those right of center, who disapproved, or even left of center. In fact Trump enjoyed better approval ratings than Obama. People (the left) try to pain Obama as being widely loved, but it was the opposite. He was the least transparent white house. He divided the country on racial lines. And the left started "peacefully" protesting 2 years before he left office.
Biden has had nothing "peaceful" protests every day of his time in office.
Left leaning news outlets are trying to pain the discontent on how he's mishandled Afghanistan, but the discontent was already in the bag, when CNN started questioning Biden on key issues and not protecting him anymore.
CNN which is in freefall in the ratings, fearing for their life, have switched back to protect Biden, hoping true leftists will bring back the ratings, but these polls are indicating the huge center and moderates are not going to watch anyone that supports and tries to defend Biden.
Is there a conclusion to the Biden presidency soon?
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.
SOCIAL CONDITIONING: a term used to describe, among other things, what
the entire main stream media does to change men into women. It's so
pernicious that men don't even realize that they use feminine
terminology today, that they would never even think to use 50 years ago.
One of the most endemic masculine pitfalls men have faced since the
rise of feminine social primacy has been the belief that their ready
displays of emotional vulnerability will make men more desirable mates
for women.
In an era when men are raised from birth to be “in touch with their
feminine sides”, and in touch with their emotions, we get generations of
men trying to ‘out-emote’ each other as a mating strategy.
Now, I am not a pickup artist, nor am I trying to teach men how to have casual gender, mainly because I don't believe in it, shocking I know, no one ever says that. But, I will point out a few things of how to destroy social conditioning.
Democrats Trick Black Community Into Being Pro-Abortion
This county is rife with nonsensical and forgetful americans.
Being against abortion is not a "republican" platform. The leftist media tries to portray something as being a republican-only issue, to get the Black community to go against its own self interest. The thinking goes like this, "you should hate republicans; republicans are against abortions; therefore you should be for abortions."
This is not a republican platform. This is a Christian platform. If you are Christian, you SHOULD believe that all life comes from God. If you are Christian, then you SHOULD believe that life does not always come through some fairy tale snow white, boy meets girl, happily ever after events. Sometimes life throws you a huge curve ball. If you are a Christian, you SHOULD believe that successfully hitting curve balls is your destiny. Finally, if you are Christian, you believe that you walk a very narrow road that most people cannot even handle being on.
Traitorous, Double-Crossing, Quisling Black People
Is it alright if you innocently do not study history and yet convince your fellow African-American that Democrat is the way to go? Is it alright if you do absolutely no research and trust the news to tell you that Democrat is the party for Black Americans? Is it alright that you listen to urban myth that Democrats want to help Black people and somehow usher in a new golden age for Black people.
A lot of Black people have no interest in researching, thinking or studying politics and what the best approach is. They go to their church and rely on their preacher to tell them how to vote. Nonsense. Meanwhile the preacher is being paid thousands of dollars to tell them to vote for such and so, selling the entire congregation down the river.
Truth be told, most Black people concentrate more on sports, music and who's doing who, than concentrating on whether or not a supposed Black man is selling them down the river in the white house. Truth be told, most Black people could tell you the draft picks, starting line up and last season results of their favorite sport, but could not tell you any legislation that was passed in the last 8 years.
I made a vow to myself when i was 7. I vowed that the world did not need another Black ahtlete, singer, dancer. It needed intelligent superior Black people. I was to be one of those people. I do not open my mouth, nor put words down on paper nor machine, without first checking, cross referencing and getting historical backdrop.
If I say the Democratic party is not good for Black people, I need people to trust that upon my reputation that it is the correct thing to say. I need people to be a little bit more intellectual than they are used to. I need them to draw upon 200 years of experience and historical facts to keep up with what I am saying. For fifty years the Black population shifted from the Republican party to the Democrat party. For those fifty years, Black buying power has gone from $1.1 trillion in 1950 adjusted for inflation, to $1.1 trillion in 2012? That's right folks, Blacks have made no gains.
How is it that Blacks command a staggering $1.1 trillion yearly in buying power and yet are 10 times poorer than whites?
The 2001 Consumer Expenditure Survey showed that, despite their lower income, African Americans spent more on telephone services, utilities, shoes and children’s apparel than whites. As a proportion of their total household income, blacks spend more on groceries, housing, utilities, female clothing and personal care.
The average married black household’s income is around $48,000 – less for a single parent household. Moreover, in terms of income, the gap between whites and blacks has nearly quadrupled in the last 30 years, mainly because blacks typically earn 68 cents for every dollar whites earn. Add to this the above average unemployment rate among African- Americans and the fact that the housing bust wiped out whatever equity black folks had been able to accumulate.
According to one study, blacks in lower-income neighborhoods are more reliant on smaller grocery stores which carry more expensive goods. The same could be said for housing, transportation and car insurance. This should let us know that there are plenty of other barriers in place, including racism and classism, which seem to prohibit blacks from capitalizing economically on so-called disposable income. Likewise, the growth of black businesses has yet to be allowed equal access to markets where black folks tend to shop for phone service, electricity; natural gas and groceries. So it is inevitable that the “black dollar” will always find a route out of the community.
The majority of Black people are married, educated, middle to upper middle-class and are employed.
We are not welfare, food stamp people. Yet the Democrats try and portray that they are being kind and generous and offering "us" welfare and food stamps. It's a brain washing game. The U.S. is headed towards a communist agenda. Do you honestly think white people would embrace having Black people on an equal economic footing, in a communist system? No, they would not.
And, Obama is not in control of anything. Hoping that because someone has a Black face, makes them pro-Black is juvenile, at best. It's idiotic when the man shows you time and time again that he is not pro-anything other than wallstreet.
Blacks have lost 65% of their wealth under Obama. Anyone trying to defend him, is not someone I would call a friend. Because, defending that is traitorous to the Black American community.
ok you democrat loving people defend this: NDAA .... wait what?
ok defend this: unemployment has actually gone UP, instead of down, you do know that millions have fallen off the unemployment charts, so the 9.5% is somewhere near DOUBLE ... WAIT WHAT?
ok defend this: the dollar has fallen 5,000 basis points ... oh i get it, you don't even know what a god damned basis point is to begin with ... wait what?
ok defend this: Obama raised fica, SS, and federal taxes, then cut payroll taxes by 1% so that your end result is a 10% increase in taxes and then claimed he lowered taxes ... wait what?
ok defend this: TARP has yet to be paid and the negative assets that the entire economic meltdown was the reason for, has never been removed off the books of the financial institutions, oh that's right, common americans forget something if it's not in the news for 2 days ... wait what?
ok defend this: credit card reform did NOT happen, you actually now pay more than you ever did before the crash and the congressional hearings on credit card reform ... wait what?
ok defend this: Obamacare is unconstitutional and does nothing for healthcare, it just makes it so everyone is charged, by force of jail time to purchase health insurance, just for being alive ... the people that needed healthcare before and didn't have health insurance WILL STILL BE UNINSURED UNDER OBAMACARE ... wait what?
ok defend this: the shadow economy of what wall street owes each other and foreign banks is actually close to $60 trillion, with a T, the entire world economy is like $15 trillion ... wait what?
ok defend this: credit default swaps, which was the major cause of Leahman Brothers and other too big to fail financial institutions to go under, deemed illegal and gambling by many attorney generals, namely the New York attorney general, has not been outlawed, nor prosecuted by the FDIC ... wait what?
ok defend this: the consumer financial protection bureau, promoted by obama was an entirely newly created agency, which actually does nothing for everyday citizens has an anual budget of $340 million ... wait what?
ok defend this: Obama went to libya and launched a full scale assault, without congressional approval, beyond the time that he was allowed, meaning it's treason, meaning he should have been impeached ... wait what?
In short, there is nothing you can defend against any of these points. This is what is NOT in the news. Whatever you thought of Bush, Obama is giving you that and destroying constitutional freedoms, going outside the power of the president, handing out money to foreign countries that we don't have, devaluing the dollar, signing stuff into law by executive order [unconstitutional]. If you're a democrat, you should call for him to be repealed and ask for an entirely new candidate, which IS A DEBATE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS ACTUALLY HAVING AT HIGHER LEVELS, WHICH YOU ALSO DO NOT SEE ON THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA. They are literally hoping democrats will forget all of these points and more, and simply go along with him. They fear that as the internet is available and information like this is available that democrats will call for his ouster. Don't worry, the republicans are actually playing along with the democrats, because realistically, it's just one party, anyway.
The sheeple are conned into viewing the political parties as another form of sports, keep the sheeple busy with rooting for sides, while the country falls apart.
I liked the analogy. And, it does put it into real perspective, because the numbers are really too huge for even intellectuals to comprehend. The factor by which we are even considering the entire economy is just astounding. Think back 40 years ago we didn't even have this much money in circulation, let alone throwing around trillions to bail out wall street.
Mitt Romney Wins Iowa
People need to understand that there is no democrat, there is no republican. There is no home team to root for. It's just to keep you complacent so you don't see the truth - politics is about getting your friends money from the rest of us.
Follow any law, look up the history of that law, see who proposed it and who voted for it, and who benefited from it. It will make you sick, once you realize what is really going on.
The absurdity of all of this is that, the federal government was NEVER intended to be this big, NOR was it ever intended to even impact regular citizens. It has slowly but surely usurped power from the states. Which, being just as corrupt, and having just as many friends to give our money to, agreed to give up the power and let the federal government take control. You see the federal government was supposed to only deal with NATIONAL threats and national issues, i.e. other countries threatening us, not KATRINA, not 9/11, not national roads, not NATIONAL TAXES. And, if you say "without the federal government being so big, we wouldn't have ....." You're just being a collectivist and not understanding that there is no way a Californian cares anything about what a Texan or North Dakotan cares about. A Nevadan doesn't care about fishing regulations in New York. Yet the federal government has forced issues on states where there was no issue.
Sheeple
The two party system is nothing more than entertainment to keep you from understanding how collectivism and how ridiculously large the federal government has become.
Trust me, your state can handle nearly 99% of what you, as a citizen, would ever need in life.
You want to do away with these mind bogglingly huge numbers? reduce the federal government as a whole. It is unnecessary.
*sigh* I've said it before, but apparently, I was ignored. I AM BLACK. I VOTED FOR OBAMA. However, I have a political science degree and can see quite easily what is going on in the country.
Blacks are approaching nearly 50% unemployment. There has NOT been a pull from Iraq and Afghanistan. We have lost millions upon millions of jobs. The dollar has not only sunk to a new low, but is in danger of DEFAULTING EVEN MORE. Yes, that's right, WE'VE ALREADY DEFAULTED YEARS AGO.
If you have a college degree, even in liberal arts, you'll easily be able to see that Obama has done everything in his power to staff his cabinet with wall street heavy hitters, not just the peons, but the heavy hitters.
I was also registered democrat. But, with a modicum of homework, I quickly realized that the two parties are one and the same. *GASP* oh shocking... oh my zeitgeist is come crashing down around my ears, democrats and republicans can't be the same. Oh, come on. Really? You can't be in that much denial.
Anything Bush did, is long gone. This is the 3rd year of this guy's term of office. He has signed into law, much legislation of his own. Also, he was never forced to sign into law anything that was going on during the Bush term. You do recall that Bush was a Republican and this guy is a Democrat.
I don't need to go into a brief history lesson of how Clinton did not sign into law anything that his Republican predecessor arranged.
Come on, you all are smarter than this. There have been Black women, men, on this page, Latinos and others who are OBVIOUSLY not republicans. We are all saying the same thing. This president is not speaking for the people, he is speaking for wall street. In fact, Bush wasn't even Republican. At the end the Republican party and congress fought him tooth and nail. WHY? Because, he too, was a corporatist. He ramped up the deficit higher than any democrat / republican preceding him. This guy is doing the same exact thing.
Give up. Take your licking and admit that you were duped. Remember, Obama is POLITICIAN. Who cares about his speaking abilities when china is raping us, jobs are flooding out of the country, food prices are skyrocketing and the darling of the Democratic party of issues, SOCIAL SECURITY, is the first thing on the chopping block. What's worse is he has committed unconstitutional crimes over and over and over.
The time for giving him a pass is way over. Who cares that he's half Black. Who cares that he's articulate. Who cares that the country was bad under Bush. I have a clue for you. Bush wasn't the cause of the housing bubble. We Americans were the cause of the housing bubble. Bush wasn't the cause of this economic depression. We were the cause of this economic depression. Bush wasn't the cause of jobs hemorrhaging out of the US. We were the cause.
For all the blame that I, personally, laid at Bush's feet, the reality was that he no more caused it, than I did. In fact, the housing bubble started under Reagan, skyrocketed under Clinton and came to a halt under Bush.
For all the bleeding and weeping we have for these people losing their homes, at the end of the day, it is their own greed that got them into it. Do you think for a second that someone purchasing a $30,000 home EVER got into trouble? Do you think someone that paid CASH for their home, [ oh an yes 30% of homes are STILL paid for in cash, like everyone did in the 30's 40's and 50's ] got into trouble?
Obama is not special. He doesn't deserve your worship. He deserves your scrutiny. And, do NOT rely on the news to do your thinking for you.
I offer you an olive branch. Without you, the country cannot be healed. If the millions of Obama worshipers do not quickly wise up, we are going to be plunged into the worst nightmare, even this current session could not hold a match to. Please, just stop the Obama worship and think for a second about what is going on. The wars, the money, the budget, the drop in the dollar, the wall street CONTINUOUS bailouts, the food inflation, the energy inflation, the middle class slipping into poverty, the staggering job loss.
There is an alternative, to this two party monopoly.
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."
Noone can say that America is not without complete understanding of the minds of foreign countries. The presidency has always been the bastion of democracy on the planet. Only the most forthright and intellectual individual is ever elected to the highest office of the land, sometimes repeatedly. If noone else is qualified for the job of President of the World, I mean, of the United States, then it is the duty of those whore are most qualified, eloquent of speech, of good moral character, and of sound reason to be reelected, by a generous and politically savvy constituency.
Militarily speaking, only the most moral of reason has the U.S. ever used its military forces around the globe. And, we only use our military with the utmost economic efficiency. Any officer in the military that has one iota of conscience will forthwith inform his superior officers, or even the presidency, that they will not be used in any manner that is not 100% in a purely defensive matter to protect U.S. soil. Ours is the shining example of how a military should be run. Our troops wash their own clothes, engineer their own weapons and do every possible thing, in-house, to keep our military running at peak efficiency. Of course they have to, because it is how tax payer dollars should be spent. Our military can hold their head high and say they would never be used for any sordid economic use. Our military stands ready to defend us from any foreign invaders.
It is simply amazing how many countries clamor to beg that we come and demonstrate to them how democracy can be practiced in their country. It is the only reason, and a fantastic one at that, that we send our troops to ensure the safety of our instructors of democracy. It is a small price to pay, but every American proudly pays taxes to aid our military being used in such a manner. And, those instructors of democracy have their hands full. It is very hard, sometimes, to get a good interpreter in those countries, since they sometimes don't speak English over there.
Yes, U.S. foreign policy is so moral and right. After all, the country was founded by good Christian men, none of whom touched whine, women nor owned slaves. We can put our full faith and trust in such men to come up with a system, that we still adhere to, to the letter, to this very day. To that end, we have sent so many diplomats overseas, to help those poor countries write just such a constitution for themselves.
Democrat in Sheep's Clothing, No Really Republican
Most conservatives come to Washington knowing it is a sewer but end up treating it like a hot tub.
Why do so many conservatives start out with the desire to emulate Ron Paul but end up in the hot tub with Chuck Schumer and Charles Rangel? Is it in human nature to buy votes with government subsidies instead of working for the good of freedom in the country? Is it because of the power of lobbyists that seek out the subsidies? Is it the progressive income tax that provides the revenue for the subsidies? What is it that causes this disheartening revolution that turns such high minded men into petty grovelers for power? what should we be doing about it?
Former conservatives, although few and far between were well grounded. They had read Adam Smith - author 1776 book "The Wealth of Nations", Edmund Burke - conservative Whig Party Leader, Russel Kirk - author 1953 book "The Conservative Mind". Now they rely on instincts or popular authors of books or worse talk show hosts. There is no support from conservatives who are elected, they are inundated with lobbyist post election and sever ties with the very people that elected them.
Everyone wants to easily throw Libertarians into the same pool with conservatives. It's in fact a completely different approach altogether. Nothing could be more dissimilar than a republican, a conservative and a Libertarian. We allow the media once again to define something for us, or even scare us, without researching. The main philosophy that dictates the course of action in Washington is concentrated benefits vs diffused costs. That is to say, Washington is gripped with an air of spending concentrated to the benefit of a few while the costs are diffused over many. They then only hear from those few whom they benefit.
Politicians at the national level have dedicated their entire life to politics. They are therefore far less likely to be libertarian or true conservatives or don't tread on me politicians. They tend to serve their self interest and are people that like government.
Again, a lot of politicians do not see dollars as pieces of paper with the picture of the great George Washington on them, but they see their own faces on them, not tax payer's money. They see Bush dollars, or Obama dollars or Reid dollars. To them it is their money and the only difficulty is how to wrest it away from some other politician so that they can "spend" on their own district. The old boy network then puts it upon the freshmen congressmen to make sure that they spend enough in their own district to get reelected. There is no discussion of principles or too much governmental oversight.
Let's go over the numbers and how each input is based on a selfish scale. The bottom quadrant of tax payers pay 0% in taxes. The 2nd bottom quadrant of tax payers pay 3% of taxes. The top 2 quadrants of tax payers pay 97% of all taxes. However, the bottom 2 quadrants receive a disproportionate amount of government spending, in the form of subsidies. Also the bottom 2 quadrants are far more numerous than the top 2 quadrants. So when they feel victorious over government subsidies they are jubilant and go about their lives and leave government alone or are grateful for government. By proxy we have created infinite demand for those subsidies.
The Flat Tax
Only a flat tax would remove this demand for free subsidies. It would have to be a flat tax without any exemptions. A flat tax would then force everyone to take a look at these subsidies because they would no longer be free. It would also shrink government, because people would pay attention to government spending on a personal level. Most complain about taxes, but since they aren't directly paying for it, it doesn't hit them in the pocket book. With a flat tax, they would be concerned about all spending, including military, education, entitlements, social security, welfare, medicare medicaid and the deficit.
A flat tax would also force people to realize the federal reserve, a private bank that has been given national rights to set national financial policy, is not there for the benefit of the tax payer, nor the American citizen. As such, a flat tax would get rid of both the IRS and the federal reserve.
Once a flat tax is implemented and military spending comes under scrutiny, the American public would come to realize that the current military policies are unconstitutional and call for the repeal of nearly all military legislation. The government is vastly inflated due to military spending and policy. No longer would the government be able to blame stuff like 9/11 on outside foreign terrorist. No longer could the president by executive order in contravention of international agreement, unilaterally invade another country to fight some seemingly invisible threat. No longer could we invade other country en lieu of diplomacy. A flat tax would call for the retirement of all U.S. military forces in other countries, not in direct protection of diplomatic personnel. That alone would shrink the government spending by 60%.
The Truth About the IRS and the Fed
Without that much spending, we could then get rid of the IRS, which is also an unconstitutional entity. Ronald Reagan did a study when he came to power, of what is the IRS for. His study found that the U.S. income tax goes to pay off just the interest of the loans the federal reserve has made to the U.S. government.
"100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt ... all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government." -Grace Commission report submitted to President Ronald Reagan - January 15, 1984
"Ronald Reagan was promptly shot after he dared to criticize the Fed, on the same day that the Pope was shot. After recovering, he changed his mind and praised the Fed. About seven US Presidents have been assassinated for not cooperating with the Transatlantic Banking Dynasties (William Henry Harrison, poisoned, in 1841, Zachary Taylor, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and John F. Kennedy 1963; 7 if FDR's poisoning is counted)."
"In a recent conversation with an official at the Internal Revenue Service, I was amazed when he told me that 'If the taxpayers of this country ever discover that the IRS operates on 90% bluff the entire system will collapse'". -Henry Bellmon, Senator (1969)
"Our federal tax system is, in short, utterly impossible, utterly unjust and completely counterproductive [it] reeks with injustice and is fundamentally un-American... it has earned a rebellion and it's time we rebelled". -President Ronald Reagan, May 1983, Williamsburg, VA
"Our Income Tax system is a disgrace to the human race." -Jimmy Carter, said in 1976 by the then President-to-be
"Eight decades of amendments... to [the] code have produced a virtually impenetrable maze... The rules are unintelligible to most citizens... The rules are equally mysterious to many government employees who are charged with administering and enforcing the law". -Shirley Peterson, Former IRS Commissioner, April 14, 1993 at Southern Methodist University
"The wages of the average American worker, after inflation and taxes, have decreased 17% since 1973, the only Western industrial nation to so suffer". -Martin Gross, author of "The Tax Racket: Government Extortion From A to Z"
"Our tax system is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint". [haw haw] -United States Supreme Court, in Flora v. United States
"The United States has a system of taxation by confession". - Hugo Black, U.S. Supreme Court Justice
"Let me point this out now. Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now, the situation is as different as night and day. Consequently, your same rules just will not apply...". -Dwight E. Avis, former head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the IRS, testifying before a House Ways and Means subcommittee in 1953
"When you pay social security taxes, you are in no way making provision for your own retirement. You are paying the pensions of those who are already retired. Once you understand this, you see that whether you will get the benefits you are counting on when you retire depends on whether Congress will levy enough taxes, borrow enough, or print enough money... - W. Allen Wallis, former Chairman of the 1975 Advisory Council on Social Security, May27, 1976
"To lay with one hand the power of government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it on favored individuals... is none the less robbery because it is... called taxation". - United States Supreme Court in Loan Association v. Topeka
Let's Agree to Disagree, How 3rd Parties are Shut Out of Being Elected
It is no wonder why conservatives do not come to power and then seek to shrink government. It is a house of cards as big as the Titanic. Should one card fail, it would all come crashing down. They feel it would be political suicide to even try one portion of the original platform. We can also clearly see that that platform is false to begin with. Why should conservatives shrink government? They are making money hand over fist just like the liberals.
Democrats and Republicans fight tooth and nail to make sure a 3rd party is not elected. Because, then they fear it would reveal all the lies and tangled web they have been weaving on the American public for decades, centuries. A 3rd party represents an outsider who can bring down this grift.
They both fear:
dismantling the IRS
dismantling the federal reserve bank
dismantling the bloated military
returning the dollar to real currency
shrinking the government to true size
If you agree with everything said in here, and this has made you realize how awful our government is right now... YOU ARE A LIBERTARIAN. Surprise! Most people don't even know they are libertarian. They may be registered republicans or better yet, registered democrats. They don't realize what the libertarian party stands for. The media has so indoctrinated them into the two party system that they don't even know there is an option. During the last election campaign they pitted the libertarian against the republicans. When, in fact, libertarians have little in common with either party. Libertarians aren't conservative, they are simply the most closely associated with the founding fathers. The founding fathers didn't believe in government interference with most everyone's daily lives. Adam Smith and other thinkers also felt government should take a back seat to every day man. Government should only make sure the playing field isn't unduly burdensome, i.e. being bullied in business or ethics.
We have come a long way from the founding fathers. Most of the founding fathers were even hesitant to create our own government. After that hurdle was passed, they didn't know what shape our government would take. With all that hesitation you would think that today's politicians would be more cognizant and reticent to do the things they are doing. Sadly, they do it with a smile, with no hesitation.
To get more info about the libertarian party click
Never being one to take the easy way out. I feel all Black Americans should join the Libertarian Party. We would be better served, better protected and left alone far more. The Libertarian party would not seek out an agenda of genocide through passing of local, state, and federal laws. Our taxes would be lower under a Libertarian party. Our young men would not be jailed, just to give billions to private prisons, who helped to write these unjust laws, such as the "War on Drugs". Black America needs to stand up and join a party to truly represents them. Democrats and Republicans have shot us in the back time and time again. We don't need more government, we need less government. Less government, means more money in our pocket at the end of the day.
Libertarians wouldn't go off fighting unjust wars. In fact your sons and daughters wouldn't be slaughtered overseas in some other man's country due to some political shenanigans or even worse, over money and greed. Under a Libertarian Party presidency you wouldn't have federal college loans, but then colleges would have to compete for student dollars and everyone would have to lower tuition. In some colleges the tuition is close to the cost of a house. And for what?
College degrees now hold little sway in a service market. There are many college students that have to take service jobs that pay $10 / hr. This is the same pay as their high school diploma coworker is receiving, sitting right next to them.
This last election proved that the Black Vote is a force to be reckoned with. Barrack Obama was not even counting on the Black turn-out to win the election. I repeat, he wasn't even counting on us coming out. However, the Black Vote was the strongest it has ever been in the history of the country. At every age level. Unfortunately, Barrack Obama has proven to be the same exact tired politics as usual. We expected a miracle and got a lump of coal in our Christmas stocking. It's great he was the first Black president, however he is absolutely doing everything in his power to maintain his seat of power, like all the rest of them, spend, spend, spend. Not one single cabinet member has been appointed that has been any different from any other administration. In fact he chose the same people that led us into this financial quagmire to begin with. I'm sorry to say, my Black brothers and sisters, we've been had, hoodwinked, bamboozled. However, should we all join the Libertarian party, we can all rest soundly knowing we will be adequately and rightly represented.
