PUNDIT PRESS HAS MOVED FROM BLOGGER

Pundit Press has moved on to bigger and better things. Please visit us at our new website: http://thepunditpress.com/.



Saturday, January 28, 2012

Iranian Ayatollah: We Are Nuclear

Thanks, Obama:
Senior Iranian religious leader Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami said on Friday that Iran is already a nuclear state and that Americans have not realized that.

“The United States says it will not allow Iran to be nuclear, but it is so blind that it hasn’t noticed that Iran has already become a nuclear state,” Khatami was quoted by Channel 10 News as having said. He added that the U.S. has become isolated in the region, after its four “slaves” were removed from power. He was referring to former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, former Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi, former Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali and former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

Khatami also addressed the EU’s embargo on Iranian oil imports, which was announced this week, and said that the Europeans decided to wait with the implementation of the sanctions until July because their economic situation is no better than Iran’s.

“Why did the Europeans decide to wait half a year before implementing the sanctions? The answer is simple - the Europeans have their own serious trouble - they were hit by the financial crisis,” he said.
Please bookmark!

DOE Sought Federal Contracts for Solyndra

Can you imagine the Main Stream Media coverage of this corruption if a Republican were in office:
House investigators say that one Department of Energy (DOE) official tried to aid Solyndra in procuring government contracts that could support the then-ailing company, while President Obama's campaign bundler -- and major Solyndra investor -- suggested that military contracts might be a "win win win" for DOE.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee summarized the push to prop up Solyndra in two letters to Obama Administration officials. "Documents produced to the Committee show that Jonathan Silver, the Executive Director of the DOE Loan Programs Office, contacted the General Services Administration (GSA) in July 2010 about scheduling a meeting with Solyndra to discuss a contract for Solyndra to provide solar panels for government buildings," Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation Chair Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., wrote to GSA Administrator Martha Johnson. The investigators asked Johnson for all GSA documents related to Solyndra.

The same month that Silver was connecting Solyndra to the GSA, George Kaiser -- a fundraiser for Obama with a massive stake in Solyndra -- and his adjuncts were game-planning how to get military contracts from the Defense Department that could solve Solyndra's financial problems. "What about DOD (and other governmental entity) sales efforts? Do the DOE people focus at all on how a Buy American plan could be a win win win for them and do they have any influence?" Kaiser emailed to some executives in his investment firm, Argonaut Private Equity, according to the House Committee.

Following that email, Steve Mitchell -- an Argonaut executive on the Solyndra board -- emailed a colleague suggesting that they push for a law that would, in effect, cause the Defense Department to buy Solyndra solar panels. "Get them to buy our panels," Mitchell wrote. "All they have to do is do some US content type of requirements for DOD procurement."
Please bookmark!

Friday, January 27, 2012

Video: Jeopardy Contestants Have No Idea Who Rachel Maddow Is

A "ratings giant" according to MSNBC:


Please bookmark!

Jan Brewer Letter to President Obama

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer released a letter that she wrote to President Obama. This comes after the two's tiff on the tarmac on Arizona. Obama reportedly was upset with what Brewer had written about him in her book, Scorpions for Breakfast.

The letter is here. Warning, it's a PDF file.

Please bookmark!

Obama Ratifies ACTA Without Congress

Not only is this (likely) illegal and irrefutably unethical, ACTA is potentially worse than SOPA and PIPA combined.  Thanks, Obama (<NOTICE THAT THERE USED TO BE A LINK TO THE REAL AGENDA, WHICH WAS ALWAYS THERE.  APPARENTLY AN AUTHOR ON THAT SITE SUPPORTS SQUASHING FREE SPEECH/SUPPORTS ACTA.  I WILL DIRECT ANYONE WHO CAN ACTUALLY READ TO LOOK UP "FAIR USE." IRONICALLY, THE REAL AGENDA PROUDLY PROCLAIMS THAT THEY USE FAIR USE ON OTHERS MATERIAL.  ALSO NOTICE BELOW THAT THERE IS A THING CALLED "BLOCK QUOTES," DENOTING THAT THE EXCERPT IS FROM ANOTHER SITE WHICH, ONCE AGAIN, HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE.  THE QUOTE BELOW NOW IS FROM A MUCH BETTER SITE, THE NEW AMERICAN):
Before the American people were protesting the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act, the president managed to sign an international treaty which would permit foreign companies to demand that ISPs (Internet Service Providers) remove web content in the United States without any legal oversight. Entitled the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), the treaty was signed by Obama on October 1, 2011, but it is currently a subject of discussion because the White House is circulating a petition demanding that senators ratify the treaty.

What’s worse is that the White House has done some maneuvering — characterizing the treaty as an "executive agreement" — thereby bypassing approval by members of Congress.
Please bookmark!

Video Highlights of Republican Debate 1/27/2012





Please bookmark!

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Who Won Tonight's Republican Debate (1/26/12)

You decide:




Please bookmark!

Watch Republican Debate Live 1/26/2012

You can watch the debate live here:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/tab/live#/video/cvplive/cvpstream1

Also, vote:

Who Won Tonight's Republican Debate?


Please bookmark!

Now is the Time!

Sarah Palin was just about to drag the Progressive John McCain over the finish line.  Then the economy collapsed and Senator McCain suspended his campaign to fly back to Washington and add his, “Me too” as President Bush said, “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.”  An economic downturn, a weak contender, and unpopular never-ending wars let Barak Obama win the presidency with vague promises of hope and change. 
I personally met people who voted for Mr. Obama because they thought he was for lower taxes.  Ones who thought he was pro-business.  I even met people who voted for him because they thought he was pro-life.  His blank slate promises were interpreted by many to be whatever they thought they wanted.  He was the “Anyone would be better than what we have now” candidate.  Combine that with some of the best political theater in American History, slick advertising, a complicit media and a community organizer from the most corrupt community in the country becomes the most powerful man in the world.
The information about who Mr. Obama is, where he comes from, and what he stands for was readily available before the election to anyone interested enough to look.  Instead of researching, a majority of voters relying on television ads and sound bites, disgusted with the way the country was going under Bush the Younger, decided to give the unknown and untried man from Chicago a chance.
Flash forward three years and many of those who thought they could vote for anyone and the country would survive realize they may have placed that bet once too often.  It is now obvious for all to see Barack Obama is a strident left wing ideologue who applies the political strategies of the late Chicago communist Saul Alinsky, strategies he used to teach his followers in Chicago.  He uses the Bully Pulpit to advance a radical agenda of class warfare.  He is at war with capitalism and dedicated to spreading the wealth around.  Our President is no longer hiding behind vague platitudes.  He is no longer trying to sell us a pig-in-a-poke.  Instead he is now trying to sell us a societal bridge to nowhere as he campaigns openly on transforming America into a country based on centrally-planed redistribution and social planning as he channels the grandfather of Progressivism: Teddy Roosevelt.
The gloves are off.  The false fronts have been discarded, and we have come face-to-face with the ultimate goal of the Progressive agenda: an America that has evolved past the Constitution leaving limited government, personal liberty, and economic freedom as mere memories.  A new America confined by regulations and intimidated by an ever more intrusive security apparatus.  A new America hostile to Christianity where being successful invites attack.
If President Obama wins re-election with this blatant appeal to class warfare and interest group divisions with no need to worry about re-election and having already said he will impose his agenda without Congress, there will be no check and no balance.  He will claim a mandate to complete his vision for a completely transformed America. 
Congress has already shown that it will not stand up to President Obama’s naked power grabs.  When he initiated an illegal war against Libya without even consulting Congress the perpetually re-elected did nothing.  When he made recess appointments while Congress was still in session the parties of power were silent.  Congress has legislated away their own power for years, passing vague laws and allowing bureaucrats to fill them in with legally binding regulations.  They have made themselves irrelevant, and we now have a President who is ready to rule without them.
The biggest question left concerning America’s ever accelerating slide into Progressivism’s version of socialism’s version of communism is whether or not there will be a real choice this November.  Will the Republican wing of the Party of Power nominate another Progressive: an Obama Lite? Or will the rank and file break through and nominate a candidate who stands for a return to Constitutional government?
The Media wing of the party of Power is working 24/7 to frame the debate and manage the primaries.  Every broadcast, every cable show builds up the candidates they favor and ignores or demeans the ones they find unacceptable.  Will the voters follow like sheep or will they think for themselves?  Will they affirm the choice of the big government social engineers or will they see the blinders used to focus their attention on the anointed candidates?
If there is no choice there will be no chance.  If there is a choice America may yet pull itself out of the decline we see all around us.  A return to limited government, personal liberty, and economic freedom would once again release the energy and creativity that made America the greatest nation in the History of the world.  A renunciation of collectivism, class warfare, and social engineering will once again open the door for a return to morning in America.  The re-election of President Obama will mean a solidification of his transformed America and a shabby darkness will settle over the land.
We who seek a return to limited government must look at the candidates, discern which one has a consistent record of supporting constitutional government, and then we must use every opportunity to influence others to unite behind that candidate.  If we don’t this may be our last chance to stop the Progressive transformation of America before they lead us into the dreary dead end of their collectivist dystopia.  Now is the time for all good Americans to come to the aid of the country, or as Ronald Reagan once said, “If not us - who?”  If not now – when?”
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College.  He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2012 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens

January 26th, 2012 CNN Florida Debate

Post debate opinion:

Mitt Romney - He had another solid debate performance, especially early on when immigration was discussed and through-out the debate when he often mentioned his private sector experience. I really liked his answer on Latin America and how President Obama has ignored the region. Also, the brief shot of his wife when he was praising her showed something very special there.

Newt Gingrich - He predictably pandered to the crowd at times (no surprise) and he attacked CNN... meaning I'm a genius. On substance, Newt had a good debate as always, although he toned down his rhetoric on Cuba from Monday and received a full-body slam from Mitt on his Moon colony idea.

Rick Santorum - He came right out the gate fighting, and damn did he win this debate. His answers were undoubtedly the best, most passionate and best received tonight. I didn't like his no position in regards to Puerto Rico statehood, but he stole the show when he pleaded everyone focus on policies and issues; not petty politics.

Ron Paul - Only he can manage to find a reason to bring our War on Terror into every answer, and be wrong everytime. Same ole, same ole from the GOP's crazy uncle.

Winner: Rick Santorum.

Original Article:

The four Republican candidates will meet once again in the Sunshine State, this time in a debate moderated by CNN's Wolf Blitzer at 8 p.m eastern standard time, to make their final case before Tuesday's delegate rich primary that at least two million Republicans will participate in.

Before Monday's debate Newt Gingrich was surging to a ten point lead and marching towards an landslide, but now Mitt Romney is surging to near 40% and strengthening his early lead over his opponents. Tonight's debate could, and probably will, determine who comes away with Florida's delegates next week.

Debate participation will be allowed this time, unlike in NBC's quiet affair Monday night, which Gingrich complained about because he couldn't use the audience's energy to appear stronger and everyone should be on the lookout for Newt to attack the media tonight, as he almost always does with CNN.

I expect things to get interesting, and suggest you stay tuned to Pundit Press for updates all night, including my post-debate analysis immediately afterwards.

Surprise! Romney Donated to Democrats

One of Mitt Romney's most famous quotes comes from his 1994 race for Senate in Massachusetts. Whie debating Ted Kennedy, he openly stated that he did not want to return to "Reagan-Bush," adding that he was an independent during that time. It's also come out that he voted in the 1992 Democratic primary.

Now, Pundit Press has found that the former Massachusetts Governor not only voted in the Democratic primary, but also gave money to multiple candidates. By searching for Romney, it turns out that his donations helped three Democrats.

A 1992 donation went to Democratic Congressman John LaFalce:


The same year we have Democrat Doug Anderson:


We also have former Democratic Congressman Dick Swett:


We'll leave you with this:



Please bookmark!

Video of Paterno Memorial Service

Well, you can watch it. Great coach-- turned out to not step up when needed, though.


Live Video app for Facebook by Ustream

Please bookmark!

Video of Biden Using Indian Accent

Huh?



Please bookmark!

Surprise: Warren Buffett's Secretary is Part of the 1%

I'm shocked, shocked President Obama would lie about something:
Warren Buffet’s secretary, Debbie Bosanek, served as a stage prop for President Obama’s State of the Union speech. She was the President’s chief display of the alleged unfairness of our tax system – a little person paying a higher tax rate than her billionaire boss.

Bosanek’s prominent role in Obama’s “fairness” campaign piqued my curiosity, and I imagine the curiosity of others. How much does her boss pay this downtrodden woman? So far, no one has volunteered this information.

We can get an approximate answer by consulting IRS data on tax rates by adjusted gross income, which would approximate her salary, assuming she does not have significant dividend, interest or capital-gains income (like her boss). I assume Buffet keeps her too busy for her to hold a second job. I also do not know if she is married and filing jointly. If so, it is deceptive for Obama to use her as an example. The higher rate may be due to her husband’s income. So I assume the tax rate Obama refers to is from her own earnings.

Insofar as Buffet (like Mitt Romney) earns income primarily from capital gains, which are taxed at 15 percent (and according to Obama need to be raised for reasons of fairness), we need to determine how much income a taxpayer like Bosanek must earn in order to pay an average tax rate above fifteen percent. This is easy to do.

The IRS publishes detailed tax tables by income level. The latest results are for 2009. They show that taxpayers earning an adjusted gross income between $100,000 and $200,000 pay an average rate of twelve percent. This is below Buffet’s rate; so she must earn more than that. Taxpayers earning adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 to $500,000, pay an average tax rate of nineteen percent. Therefore Buffet must pay Debbie Bosanke a salary above two hundred thousand.
Please bookmark!

Romney Surges in Florida

With the polling data now reflecting Mitt Romney's solid debate performance on Monday night and Newt's disgraceful attacks (saying Mitt is anti-immigrant, doesn't see humanity in illegal aliens, etc) Romney has surged in a slew of polls released today on the state of race in Florida.

Insider Advantage poll of 530 likely Republican voters:

Mitt Romney - 40%
Newt Gingrich - 32%
Ron Paul - 9%
Rick Santorum - 8%
Undecided - 11%

CNN poll of 369 likely Republican voters:

Mitt Romney - 36%
Newt Gingrich - 34%
Rick Santorum - 11%
Ron Paul - 9%
Undecided - 7%.

Tonight's CNN debate could very well be the game-changer, but I hope the Florida electorate pays close attention to what the candidates say and not how the audience responds, because I believe somewhere in the back of viewer's minds Monday, they realized how dependent on platitudes Mr. Gingrich is, and how Romney doesn't need a crowd to be strong.

What say you?

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Say No to ACTA

Like SOPA and PIPA, but worse:


Please bookmark!

Gingrich in 1986: Reagan Trade Policies a "Gimmick"

Newt Gingrich has been playing to the Reagan model quite heavily during his run for the Presidency. In 1995 Nancy Reagan said that her husband's torch had been passed to the House Speaker.

But what did Gingrich say about Reagan during his term. Many articles have come out with both Gingrich supporting and opposing various Reagan initiatives. By looking back through the news of the Reagan Administration what Newt believed about various aspects of his presidency.

In 1986, a Republican economist, James Clipton, urged tariffs to diminish the United States' trade deficit. This flew directly in the face of Reagan's free trade policies. While the United States has knocked down many tariffs since then, Congressman Newt Gingrich was clear about Reagan's position, as quoted in the Orlando Sun Sentinel.

Citing writings by 17th century economist Adam Smith, often called the father of free trade theory, Gingrich said the United States must retaliate when faced with unfair competition from foreign competitors.


"Free trade is a gimmick," Gingrich said. "Free trade is a slogan, and the majority of the people who will tell you that we must have it have never read Adam Smith and don`t know that he considered it an ideal model only, a theory."

Hmmmm. President Reagan's economic policies garnered the United States 25 years of growth. Doesn't sound like a gimmick to me.

Please bookmark!

Statistics: Romney In Good Shape to Win Florida

Note: I support Mr. Romney's campaign.

With the Florida Republican primary just six days away, statistics are painting a good picture for Mitt Romney's chances in the Sunshine State, which he finished second in 2008 with over 31% of the vote.

Using 2008's vote totals as a guide, somewhere around, or above two million Republicans will head to the polls next week, but that takes into account 300,000 who have already voted (reportedly a majority voted for Romney), and nearly 200,000 registered Latinos who are heading to the polls (polls indicate 49% favor Romney right now).

This means that Romney (assuming Latinos have not voted heavily in early voting) already has around 250,000 guaranteed votes in his pocket heading into Tuesday. And that's not taking into account the nearly 600,000 folks who could back Romney again from four years ago (which is likely considering Romney has improved in every state from last time around, especially South Carolina).

I know previous elections don't always paint a guide for future ones, but Florida's electorate hasn't had a big shift in four years, and that favors Mitt Romney's very organized, and thus far leading campaign. All that could change with tomorrow's CNN debate, but I have a solid feeling his opponent is helping Mitt with his own idiotic comments more then tomorrow's upteenth go-around will.

Regardless, numbers don't lie and they are favoring Mitt right now.

What say you?

Video: Mitch Daniels Speech 1/24/2012



Please bookmark!

Draft Daniels? Too Late

I didn't watch the Mitch Daniels GOP response to Obama's SOTU address, but I did read the transcript and can understand why some wanted the Indiana Governor with apparent wonkish qualities to throw caution to the wind and run for president this cycle. He's brilliant and would appeal to the only voting bloc of 2012: those concerned with the economy.

However, to those who still insist he should be drafted into running: wake up and drink some coffee. Filing deadlines end any real possibility of Daniels being able to run for the nomination at this point, along with the fact voters are not going to start a massive write-in campaign for someone they do not know.

And if I hear even one mention of a brokered convention in Tampa, I'll scream, because if we don't have a nominee by late August - you can forgot about competing for, let alone, winning the general election against Obama, who will have had nearly seven months of unopposed campaign time by then.

I understand the lack of love for our current GOP field, but it's all we're getting at this point. So, could we please focus on the four men running for President and not the men who aren't?

What say you?

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Watch Republican Response Video Live (Mitch Daniels) 1/24/2012




Please bookmark!

State of the Union Transcript 1/24/2012

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought – and several thousand gave their lives.

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.

These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness, and teamwork of America’s Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They’re not consumed with personal ambition. They don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together.

Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example. Think about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.

We can do this. I know we can, because we’ve done it before. At the end of World War II, when another generation of heroes returned home from combat, they built the strongest economy and middle class the world has ever known. My grandfather, a veteran of Patton’s Army, got the chance to go to college on the GI Bill. My grandmother, who worked on a bomber assembly line, was part of a workforce that turned out the best products on Earth.

The two of them shared the optimism of a Nation that had triumphed over a depression and fascism. They understood they were part of something larger; that they were contributing to a story of success that every American had a chance to share – the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.

The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What’s at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them.

Let’s remember how we got here. Long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores. Technology made businesses more efficient, but also made some jobs obsolete. Folks at the top saw their incomes rise like never before, but most hardworking Americans struggled with costs that were growing, paychecks that weren’t, and personal debt that kept piling up.

In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people’s money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn’t have the authority to stop the bad behavior.

It was wrong. It was irresponsible. And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work, saddled us with more debt, and left innocent, hard-working Americans holding the bag. In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly four million jobs. And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect.

Those are the facts. But so are these. In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005. American manufacturers are hiring again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s. Together, we’ve agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion. And we’ve put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like that never happens again.

The state of our Union is getting stronger. And we’ve come too far to turn back now. As long as I’m President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place.

No, we will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and phony financial profits. Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last – an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.

This blueprint begins with American manufacturing.

On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.

We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back.

What’s happening in Detroit can happen in other industries. It can happen in Cleveland and Pittsburgh and Raleigh. We can’t bring back every job that’s left our shores. But right now, it’s getting more expensive to do business in places like China. Meanwhile, America is more productive. A few weeks ago, the CEO of Master Lock told me that it now makes business sense for him to bring jobs back home. Today, for the first time in fifteen years, Master Lock’s unionized plant in Milwaukee is running at full capacity.

So we have a huge opportunity, at this moment, to bring manufacturing back. But we have to seize it. Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed.

We should start with our tax code. Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas. Meanwhile, companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and everyone knows it.

So let’s change it. First, if you’re a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn’t get a tax deduction for doing it. That money should be used to cover moving expenses for companies like Master Lock that decide to bring jobs home.

Second, no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here.

Third, if you’re an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you’re a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers.

My message is simple. It’s time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America. Send me these tax reforms, and I’ll sign them right away.

We’re also making it easier for American businesses to sell products all over the world. Two years ago, I set a goal of doubling U.S. exports over five years. With the bipartisan trade agreements I signed into law, we are on track to meet that goal – ahead of schedule. Soon, there will be millions of new customers for American goods in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. Soon, there will be new cars on the streets of Seoul imported from Detroit, and Toledo, and Chicago.

I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products. And I will not stand by when our competitors don’t play by the rules. We’ve brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration – and it’s made a difference. Over a thousand Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires. But we need to do more. It’s not right when another country lets our movies, music, and software be pirated. It’s not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they’re heavily subsidized.

Tonight, I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China. There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders. And this Congress should make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing finance or new markets like Russia. Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you – America will always win.

I also hear from many business leaders who want to hire in the United States but can’t find workers with the right skills. Growing industries in science and technology have twice as many openings as we have workers who can do the job. Think about that – openings at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.

That’s inexcusable. And we know how to fix it.

Jackie Bray is a single mom from North Carolina who was laid off from her job as a mechanic. Then Siemens opened a gas turbine factory in Charlotte, and formed a partnership with Central Piedmont Community College. The company helped the college design courses in laser and robotics training. It paid Jackie’s tuition, then hired her to help operate their plant.

I want every American looking for work to have the same opportunity as Jackie did. Join me in a national commitment to train two million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job. My Administration has already lined up more companies that want to help. Model partnerships between businesses like Siemens and community colleges in places like Charlotte, Orlando, and Louisville are up and running. Now you need to give more community colleges the resources they need to become community career centers – places that teach people skills that local businesses are looking for right now, from data management to high-tech manufacturing.

And I want to cut through the maze of confusing training programs, so that from now on, people like Jackie have one program, one website, and one place to go for all the information and help they need. It’s time to turn our unemployment system into a reemployment system that puts people to work.

These reforms will help people get jobs that are open today. But to prepare for the jobs of tomorrow, our commitment to skills and education has to start earlier.

For less than one percent of what our Nation spends on education each year, we’ve convinced nearly every State in the country to raise their standards for teaching and learning – the first time that’s happened in a generation.

But challenges remain. And we know how to solve them.

At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced States to lay off thousands of teachers. We know a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by over $250,000. A great teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyond his circumstance. Every person in this chamber can point to a teacher who changed the trajectory of their lives. Most teachers work tirelessly, with modest pay, sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies – just to make a difference.

Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let’s offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. In return, grant schools flexibility: To teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn.

We also know that when students aren’t allowed to walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. So tonight, I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen.

When kids do graduate, the most daunting challenge can be the cost of college. At a time when Americans owe more in tuition debt than credit card debt, this Congress needs to stop the interest rates on student loans from doubling in July. Extend the tuition tax credit we started that saves middle-class families thousands of dollars. And give more young people the chance to earn their way through college by doubling the number of work-study jobs in the next five years.

Of course, it’s not enough for us to increase student aid. We can’t just keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition; we’ll run out of money. States also need to do their part, by making higher education a higher priority in their budgets. And colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down. Recently, I spoke with a group of college presidents who’ve done just that. Some schools re-design courses to help students finish more quickly. Some use better technology. The point is, it’s possible. So let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. Higher education can’t be a luxury – it’s an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.

Let’s also remember that hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country face another challenge: The fact that they aren’t yet American citizens. Many were brought here as small children, are American through and through, yet they live every day with the threat of deportation. Others came more recently, to study business and science and engineering, but as soon as they get their degree, we send them home to invent new products and create new jobs somewhere else.

That doesn’t make sense.

I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. That’s why my Administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. That’s why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office.

The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country. Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away.

You see, an economy built to last is one where we encourage the talent and ingenuity of every person in this country. That means women should earn equal pay for equal work. It means we should support everyone who’s willing to work; and every risk-taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next Steve Jobs.

After all, innovation is what America has always been about. Most new jobs are created in start-ups and small businesses. So let’s pass an agenda that helps them succeed. Tear down regulations that prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from getting the financing to grow. Expand tax relief to small businesses that are raising wages and creating good jobs. Both parties agree on these ideas. So put them in a bill, and get it on my desk this year.

Innovation also demands basic research. Today, the discoveries taking place in our federally-financed labs and universities could lead to new treatments that kill cancer cells but leave healthy ones untouched. New lightweight vests for cops and soldiers that can stop any bullet. Don’t gut these investments in our budget. Don’t let other countries win the race for the future. Support the same kind of research and innovation that led to the computer chip and the Internet; to new American jobs and new American industries.

Nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy. Over the last three years, we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I’m directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. Right now, American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years. That’s right – eight years. Not only that – last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years.

But with only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, oil isn’t enough. This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy – a strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.

We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And I’m requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.

The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy. And by the way, it was public research dollars, over the course of thirty years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock – reminding us that Government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground.



What’s true for natural gas is true for clean energy. In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world’s leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries. Because of federal investments, renewable energy use has nearly doubled. And thousands of Americans have jobs because of it.



When Bryan Ritterby was laid off from his job making furniture, he said he worried that at 55, no one would give him a second chance. But he found work at Energetx, a wind turbine manufacturer in Michigan. Before the recession, the factory only made luxury yachts. Today, it’s hiring workers like Bryan, who said, “I’m proud to be working in the industry of the future.”


Our experience with shale gas shows us that the payoffs on these public investments don’t always come right away. Some technologies don’t pan out; some companies fail. But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy. I will not walk away from workers like Bryan. I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here. We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits and create these jobs.



We can also spur energy innovation with new incentives. The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. But there’s no reason why Congress shouldn’t at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation. So far, you haven’t acted. Well tonight, I will. I’m directing my Administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power three million homes. And I’m proud to announce that the Department of Defense, the world’s largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history – with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year.



Of course, the easiest way to save money is to waste less energy. So here’s another proposal: Help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings. Their energy bills will be $100 billion lower over the next decade, and America will have less pollution, more manufacturing, and more jobs for construction workers who need them. Send me a bill that creates these jobs.



Building this new energy future should be just one part of a broader agenda to repair America’s infrastructure. So much of America needs to be rebuilt. We’ve got crumbling roads and bridges. A power grid that wastes too much energy. An incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world.



During the Great Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. After World War II, we connected our States with a system of highways. Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today.



In the next few weeks, I will sign an Executive Order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.



There’s never been a better time to build, especially since the construction industry was one of the hardest-hit when the housing bubble burst. Of course, construction workers weren’t the only ones hurt. So were millions of innocent Americans who’ve seen their home values decline. And while Government can’t fix the problem on its own, responsible homeowners shouldn’t have to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom to get some relief.



That’s why I’m sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low interest rates. No more red tape. No more runaround from the banks. A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won’t add to the deficit, and will give banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust.



Let’s never forget: Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a Government and a financial system that do the same. It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.



We’ve all paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them, and buyers who knew they couldn’t afford them. That’s why we need smart regulations to prevent irresponsible behavior. Rules to prevent financial fraud, or toxic dumping, or faulty medical devices, don’t destroy the free market. They make the free market work better.



There is no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary, or too costly. In fact, I’ve approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his. I’ve ordered every federal agency to eliminate rules that don’t make sense. We’ve already announced over 500 reforms, and just a fraction of them will save business and citizens more than $10 billion over the next five years. We got rid of one rule from 40 years ago that could have forced some dairy farmers to spend $10,000 a year proving that they could contain a spill – because milk was somehow classified as an oil. With a rule like that, I guess it was worth crying over spilled milk.



I’m confident a farmer can contain a milk spill without a federal agency looking over his shoulder. But I will not back down from making sure an oil company can contain the kind of oil spill we saw in the Gulf two years ago. I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury pollution, or making sure that our food is safe and our water is clean. I will not go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny you coverage, or charge women differently from men.



And I will not go back to the days when Wall Street was allowed to play by its own set of rules. The new rules we passed restore what should be any financial system’s core purpose: Getting funding to entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and getting loans to responsible families who want to buy a home, start a business, or send a kid to college.

So if you’re a big bank or financial institution, you are no longer allowed to make risky bets with your customers’ deposits. You’re required to write out a “living will” that details exactly how you’ll pay the bills if you fail – because the rest of us aren’t bailing you out ever again. And if you’re a mortgage lender or a payday lender or a credit card company, the days of signing people up for products they can’t afford with confusing forms and deceptive practices are over. Today, American consumers finally have a watchdog in Richard Cordray with one job: To look out for them.

We will also establish a Financial Crimes Unit of highly trained investigators to crack down on large-scale fraud and protect people’s investments. Some financial firms violate major anti-fraud laws because there’s no real penalty for being a repeat offender. That’s bad for consumers, and it’s bad for the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals who do the right thing. So pass legislation that makes the penalties for fraud count.

And tonight, I am asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.

A return to the American values of fair play and shared responsibility will help us protect our people and our economy. But it should also guide us as we look to pay down our debt and invest in our future.

Right now, our most immediate priority is stopping a tax hike on 160 million working Americans while the recovery is still fragile. People cannot afford losing $40 out of each paycheck this year. There are plenty of ways to get this done. So let’s agree right here, right now: No side issues. No drama. Pass the payroll tax cut without delay.

When it comes to the deficit, we’ve already agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings. But we need to do more, and that means making choices. Right now, we’re poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else – like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we’re serious about paying down our debt, we can’t do both.

The American people know what the right choice is. So do I. As I told the Speaker this summer, I’m prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long term costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors.

But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of Members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you’re earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn’t get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn’t go up. You’re the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You’re the ones who need relief.

Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.

We don’t begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich. It’s because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference – like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet. That’s not right. Americans know it’s not right. They know that this generation’s success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to their country’s future, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That’s how we’ll reduce our deficit. That’s an America built to last.

I recognize that people watching tonight have differing views about taxes and debt; energy and health care. But no matter what party they belong to, I bet most Americans are thinking the same thing right now: Nothing will get done this year, or next year, or maybe even the year after that, because Washington is broken.

Can you blame them for feeling a little cynical?

The greatest blow to confidence in our economy last year didn’t come from events beyond our control. It came from a debate in Washington over whether the United States would pay its bills or not. Who benefited from that fiasco?

I’ve talked tonight about the deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. But the divide between this city and the rest of the country is at least as bad – and it seems to get worse every year.

Some of this has to do with the corrosive influence of money in politics. So together, let’s take some steps to fix that. Send me a bill that bans insider trading by Members of Congress, and I will sign it tomorrow. Let’s limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact. Let’s make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can’t lobby Congress, and vice versa – an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington.

Some of what’s broken has to do with the way Congress does its business these days. A simple majority is no longer enough to get anything – even routine business – passed through the Senate. Neither party has been blameless in these tactics. Now both parties should put an end to it. For starters, I ask the Senate to pass a rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days.

The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated and remote. That’s why I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so that our Government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people.

Finally, none of these reforms can happen unless we also lower the temperature in this town. We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction; that politics is about clinging to rigid ideologies instead of building consensus around common sense ideas.

I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more. That’s why my education reform offers more competition, and more control for schools and States. That’s why we’re getting rid of regulations that don’t work. That’s why our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a Government program.

On the other hand, even my Republican friends who complain the most about Government spending have supported federally-financed roads, and clean energy projects, and federal offices for the folks back home.

The point is, we should all want a smarter, more effective Government. And while we may not be able to bridge our biggest philosophical differences this year, we can make real progress. With or without this Congress, I will keep taking actions that help the economy grow. But I can do a whole lot more with your help. Because when we act together, there is nothing the United States of America can’t achieve.

That is the lesson we’ve learned from our actions abroad over the last few years.

Ending the Iraq war has allowed us to strike decisive blows against our enemies. From Pakistan to Yemen, the al Qaeda operatives who remain are scrambling, knowing that they can’t escape the reach of the United States of America.

From this position of strength, we’ve begun to wind down the war in Afghanistan. Ten thousand of our troops have come home. Twenty-three thousand more will leave by the end of this summer. This transition to Afghan lead will continue, and we will build an enduring partnership with Afghanistan, so that it is never again a source of attacks against America.

As the tide of war recedes, a wave of change has washed across the Middle East and North Africa, from Tunis to Cairo; from Sana’a to Tripoli. A year ago, Qadhafi was one of the world’s longest-serving dictators – a murderer with American blood on his hands. Today, he is gone. And in Syria, I have no doubt that the Assad regime will soon discover that the forces of change can’t be reversed, and that human dignity can’t be denied.

How this incredible transformation will end remains uncertain. But we have a huge stake in the outcome. And while it is ultimately up to the people of the region to decide their fate, we will advocate for those values that have served our own country so well. We will stand against violence and intimidation. We will stand for the rights and dignity of all human beings – men and women; Christians, Muslims, and Jews. We will support policies that lead to strong and stable democracies and open markets, because tyranny is no match for liberty.

And we will safeguard America’s own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests. Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent. Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.

The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe. Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever. Our ties to the Americas are deeper. Our iron-clad commitment to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history. We’ve made it clear that America is a Pacific power, and a new beginning in Burma has lit a new hope. From the coalitions we’ve built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we’ve led against hunger and disease; from the blows we’ve dealt to our enemies; to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back.

Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about. That’s not the message we get from leaders around the world, all of whom are eager to work with us. That’s not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin; from Cape Town to Rio; where opinions of America are higher than they’ve been in years. Yes, the world is changing; no, we can’t control every event. But America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs – and as long as I’m President, I intend to keep it that way.

That’s why, working with our military leaders, I have proposed a new defense strategy that ensures we maintain the finest military in the world, while saving nearly half a trillion dollars in our budget. To stay one step ahead of our adversaries, I have already sent this Congress legislation that will secure our country from the growing danger of cyber-threats.

Above all, our freedom endures because of the men and women in uniform who defend it. As they come home, we must serve them as well as they served us. That includes giving them the care and benefits they have earned – which is why we’ve increased annual VA spending every year I’ve been President. And it means enlisting our veterans in the work of rebuilding our Nation.

With the bipartisan support of this Congress, we are providing new tax credits to companies that hire vets. Michelle and Jill Biden have worked with American businesses to secure a pledge of 135,000 jobs for veterans and their families. And tonight, I’m proposing a Veterans Job Corps that will help our communities hire veterans as cops and firefighters, so that America is as strong as those who defend her.

Which brings me back to where I began. Those of us who’ve been sent here to serve can learn from the service of our troops. When you put on that uniform, it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white; Asian or Latino; conservative or liberal; rich or poor; gay or straight. When you’re marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you, or the mission fails. When you’re in the thick of the fight, you rise or fall as one unit, serving one Nation, leaving no one behind.

One of my proudest possessions is the flag that the SEAL Team took with them on the mission to get bin Laden. On it are each of their names. Some may be Democrats. Some may be Republicans. But that doesn’t matter. Just like it didn’t matter that day in the Situation Room, when I sat next to Bob Gates – a man who was George Bush’s defense secretary; and Hillary Clinton, a woman who ran against me for president.

All that mattered that day was the mission. No one thought about politics. No one thought about themselves. One of the young men involved in the raid later told me that he didn’t deserve credit for the mission. It only succeeded, he said, because every single member of that unit did their job – the pilot who landed the helicopter that spun out of control; the translator who kept others from entering the compound; the troops who separated the women and children from the fight; the SEALs who charged up the stairs. More than that, the mission only succeeded because every member of that unit trusted each other – because you can’t charge up those stairs, into darkness and danger, unless you know that there’s someone behind you, watching your back.

So it is with America. Each time I look at that flag, I’m reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those fifty stars and those thirteen stripes. No one built this country on their own. This Nation is great because we built it together. This Nation is great because we worked as a team. This Nation is great because we get each other’s backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we’re joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong.

Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

Thanks to the National Journal.

Please bookmark!

Watch State of the Union Video Live, January 24, 2012


Live video by Ustream

Please bookmark!

Seriously, you guys...

This is, without a doubt, the best...

well, let me first show you the story that I'm basing this on, before I tell you what this is the best 'the best'.

So, I was reading my state-wide newspaper, The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, and on the front page is this story (emphasis mine).

State sued over voting districts

Lines said to dilute blacks’ clout
By Sarah D. Wire
This article was published today at 5:03 a.m.

LITTLE ROCK — A lawsuit filed Monday asks the federal court in Little Rock to block Arkansas’ new state Senate district lines and make the state draw the boundaries to better serve black voters in northeastern Arkansas.

The suit contends the districts’ boundaries dilute the likelihood that blacks in District 24 will be able to elect a candidate of their choice.

The Senate district lines approved last summer violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1973 as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the suit contends. The state’s district boundaries have been challenged in court each time they have been drawn since the 1940s, including several cases over diluting the black vote.

The new case, 2:12 CV16JLH, Future Mae Jeffers v. Mike Beebe, was assigned to Chief U.S. District Judge J. Leon Holmes.

The districts have already been put into effect by the secretary of state. Candidates can begin filing for all 35 state Senate seats for the 2012 election on Feb. 23.

The lines were approved July 29, 2011, by the state Board of Apportionment on a 2-1 vote. The board consists of Gov. Mike Beebe, Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and Secretary of State Mark Martin. Martin opposed the plan. The board draws new boundaries for state House and Senate districts after each decennial U.S. census. The state’s current configuration is 100 House members, 35 senators.

The state population grew 9.1 percent in the 2000-10 decade. The number of black Arkansans dropped from 15.58 percent of the population in 2000 to 15.33 percent in 2010.

All three board members are defendants in the suit.

“There were threats of lawsuits by everybody in the world,” Beebe said. “Somebody always sues over some part of redistricting. It happens every 10 years, so it’s not a surprise.”

Beebe, a former attorney general, referred questions about the allegations to McDaniel, whose office generally provides the defense if the state is sued. McDaniel spokesman Aaron Sadler said the attorney general is reviewing the lawsuit.

“The board adhered to legally sound redistricting principles, and the statewide maps adopted by the board represent those principles,” Sadler said.

Martin’s spokesman Alex Reed said Martin won’t comment on the suit until he has reviewed it.

The suit states that the board members “drew that Senate plan with the intent and effect of diluting the voting strength of African American voters in northeastern Arkansas and denying them an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice to the Senate.”

It focused on the 24th District. The district has a black voting-age population of 52.88 percent. The plaintiff’s attorney, James Valley, said that about 3 percent of that population is either incarcerated in prison in the district or on probation or parole and cannot legally vote.The total black population of the district, which includes those who live in the district but are not old enough to vote, is 57.05 percent.

The suit states that a black voting-age population of 53 percent isn’t high enough.

“History has shown that a [black voting age population] of significantly less than 60 percent is not sufficient to permit African American voters to elect a candidate of their choice,” it states, citing the 1988 case Smith v. Clinton. “It is widely understood that minorities must have something more than a mere majority even of voting age population in order to have a reasonable opportunity to elect a representative of their choice.”


The district includes all of Crittenden County and parts of Cross, Lee, Phillips and St. Francis counties.

The suit states that the board diluted black voting strength by placing about 14,000 people from Crittenden County into District 24 and removing heavily black population areas.

The seat is currently held by Sen. Jack Crumbly, D-Widener.The district bore a different number and contained less of Crittenden and Phillips counties when he was elected. He has said he plans to run for reelection in what now is District 24. Crumbly, who is black, is a plaintiff in the suit. He said by phone that the other plaintiffs asked him to join the suit because he had pushed for a higher percentage of black people of voting age in the redrawn district.

Beebe said Crumbly came to the board with his concerns.

“He was heard, he just didn’t get the answer he wanted,” Beebe said. “He was heard every time. In fact, some changes were made that he requested. He just didn’t get as much as he wanted.”

Crittenden County is 46 percent white, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Rep. Keith Ingram, D-West Memphis, which is in Crittenden County, announced last Tuesday that he intends to seek the seat. He is white.

Crumbly stressed that the suit isn’t about his chances for re-election.

“This is not about Jack Crumbly. It’s not personal,” he said. “It’s about something much greater, the voting rights of people in northeastern Arkansas.”

The suit states that the board worked to keep the homes of incumbent white legislators from being placed in the same district. When the plan was being approved, several white House members had signaled that they were considering Senate bids.

Rep. Jerry Brown, D-Wynne,has announced he plans to seek Senate District 23. He is white.

Senate District 24 used to be made up of parts of Crittenden, Lee, Phillips and St. Francis counties.

Valley said Ingram’s announcement did not affect the timing of the lawsuit.

“These cases are not easy to put together,” Valley said. “It’s not that you say I don’t like it and file a lawsuit. I think they decided to file some months ago.”

Some of the plaintiffs in the case include people who have taken Arkansas to court over the past three decades about how the state’s black population is divided among legislative districts.

In 1989, M.C. Jeffers of Forrest City and others sued the state over the 1981 redistricting map, which included four majority-black House districts and one such Senate district. In the case, Jeffers v. Clinton, the U.S. District Court ruled that the state’s map violated the federal Voting Rights Act, which discourages splitting a minority-group community so that it can’t vote as a bloc. A group that can vote as a bloc is more likely to vote for a person who reflects them, it said.

Jeffers’ widow, Future Mae Jeffers, and daughter, Mary Jeffers, both of Forrest City, are plaintiffs in the new case.

Mary Jeffers is a City Council member in Forrest City.

“You can’t escape the symbolism that is there, that Jeffers brought the first action, the watershed,” Valley said.

The court ordered an increase of majority-black House districts to 13 and Senate districts to three for the 1990 election.

Another plaintiff in the current case, Elbert Smith of West Memphis, was the lead plaintiff in the 1988 Smith v. Clinton voter dilution case that led to redrawing House districts in eastern Arkansas.

During redistricting after the 1990 Census, the Board of Apportionment decided to keep that same number of majority black districts. The same plaintiffs again challenged the state map in U.S. District Court, seeking additional majority-black districts. But a three-judge panel ruled that the state’s changes were sufficient.

In 2002 a U.S. District judge threw out a lawsuit from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People that challenged the constitutionality of the realigned legislative districts after the 2000 Census. The board created 13 House districts and four Senate districts as majority-black, which amounted to one more majority-black Senate district than in the 1990s.

Front Section, Pages 1 on 01/24/2012


“It is widely understood that minorities must have something more than a mere majority even of voting age population in order to have a reasonable opportunity to elect a representative of their choice.” So, minorities must have a majority of the vote in order to get their candidates to victory? Is that what I'm reading?

Really?

Best. Political advice. Ever.

I'm dying here, boss!

Please bookmark!
 

LIFE IN THE ASYLUM


IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WORTH SAVING?


The Republican establishment has put all of its marbles behind making Mitt Romney our 2012 candidate, because he is “steady, moderate, and elect-able.” The deal was all but done when Mitt managed to win the endorsement of principled conservative John McCain. [In a better world, a present or future Republican candidate would run in the opposite direction from a McCain endorsement.] Incidentally, the Republican establishment gave us John McCain in 2008 because he was steady, moderate, and it was “his turn”. See Why Is This So Hard? here, and update, here, for more on this.

By all indications, McCain still has no idea why Barack Obama [hereinafter “B.O.”] is  president today. Many of McCain’s handpicked, reliable campaign operatives still maintain that it was all Sarah Palin’s fault. McCain also seems to have little realization of whom he helped to elect. On January 16, 2011, McCain wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post lavishing praise on B.O.’s “terrific speech” after the Tuscon shootings. He then gushed the following:

"I disagree with many of the president's policies, but I believe he is a patriot sincerely intent on using his time in office to advance our country's cause. I reject accusations that his policies and beliefs make him unworthy to lead America or opposed to its founding ideals."

David Axelrod, who is being paid to flack for B.O., could not have done it better.  

Why do the good people of Arizona continue to elect a man like this? The debacle of 2008 not being fresh enough in their minds, in 2010 they inflicted McCain on the United States for six more years. Why, you might also ask, do the good people of North Carolina elect a man like Lindsey Graham? Why did the good people of Pennsylvania elect a man like Arlen Specter? One reason is because the GOP establishment keeps serving them up as our candidates.

You might recall that one of Mitt’s backup candidates, Rick Santorum, supported Specter for reelection in 2004 against an actual conservative, Pat Toomey. Other Specter supporters included the “compassionate conservative” George W. Bush, and most of the GOP establishment. Specter won, then went on to vote for, among numerous other bad things, Obamacare. This made him unpopular among 2010 Republican primary voters, so Specter did the honorable thing: he switched to the Democratic Party. [There is a God: the Democratic voters didn’t want him either]. Santorum has yet to come up with a sufficient explanation for his support of such a quintessential RINO.

Now back to Lindsey Graham. B.O., the most nakedly radical, far left-wing individual ever to hold the office of president, got the early opportunity to make not one, but two appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. That Court has, for decades, been steadily grabbing power unto itself that the Constitution never assigned to it, and assigning power to unelected bureaucrats that the Founding Fathers would never have tolerated [e.g. not only allowing, but virtually ordering, the EPA to declare the naturally occurring, essential-to-all-life gas CO² to be a pollutant!] Surprisingly, B.O. nominated two reliably left wing Constitution-ignorers. Not surprisingly, Lindsey Graham, particularly captivated by Elena Kagan’s “sense of humor,” voted for both of them.

Graham was joined on both of these votes by Richard Lugar of Indiana, who many years ago was considered a conservative. Lugar has spent the last thirty-four years “growing in office”, and has become an unfortunate poster boy for term limits. Both of the above were joined by Lamar Alexander, still of Tennessee, himself a long-ago moderate, steady presidential hopeful, and Kit Bond of Missouri, in voting for the “wise Latina”, Sonia Sotomayor. At least Bond had the decency to retire shortly after that vote.

In contrast to the other party, the GOP establishment seems ever ready to “reach across the aisle” to help the left wing achieve its goals. Take the nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the U.S. Supreme Court. Her resume left no doubt that she was one of the most “progressive” leftist people in the United States. On August 3, 1993, she was confirmed by a Senate vote of 96 to 3!!! Reaching across the aisle was raised to a new art form. The three who cast sensible votes are no longer in the Senate. Unfortunately, some of the more accomplished aisle-crossers still are: McCain, Lugar, Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, and Mitch McConnell.

By the way, there is only one Republican candidate, definitely not supported by the establishment, who has spoken out against the power-grabbing excesses of the Supreme and lower courts over the last several decades. That would be Newt Gingrich. The establishment response? Ridicule and crush Newt. Offer us Mitt instead, whose knowledge of the assigned role of the courts under the Constitution seems non-existent.

In 2010 the GOP won a substantial majority in the House of Representatives (242-193), the branch in which the Constitution requires all revenue bills to originate. Kudos to the GOP establishment, yes? No, to the Tea Party. Well, since all revenue bills must originate there, great opportunity to cut spending and massive debt, yes? No. After an entire year in charge, we are spending and borrowing more than ever before. Worse yet, the GOP majority has bargained away its power to refuse to raise the U.S. debt limit. Yes, you read that right. They shrewdly struck a deal with the other party that the debt limit will soon rise by more than $1.2 Trillion despite the House voting No to O.B.’s request to do so.

Is it just coincidence, or bad karma, or who knows what, that has the GOP establishment year after year giving us steady, moderate, electable candidates, with the inevitable result that even if they win, the left-wing ratchet clicks ever further left? Or is there more to this? Is it at last evident that the GOP establishment, the encrusted, been-there-forever, it’s-my-turn-to-chair-the-powerful-whatever-subcommittee people are as happy with the metastasizing Leviathan federal government as are their counterparts in the other party?

If they give us Mitt, he’s not going to get the electorate too excited. If he wins, he’s not going to shake things up very much. If he loses, virtually every encrusted incumbent will still be there, reaching across the aisle, cutting deals, and cementing high-level “contacts.” And even if an occasional GOP encrustee loses, he can look forward to this:

"Former senators could expect to earn somewhere between $800,000 and $1.5
million in annual salary next year at lobby firms, while ex-House members could
earn between $300,000 and $600,000, headhunters estimated. They predicted ex-Republican law-makers would draw bigger salaries than retiring Democrats. . . .
The retiring class includes lawmakers who are known for their bipartisan ties,
and others who have spent decades on Capitol Hill accruing seniority on powerful committees. That mix of attributes has many on K Street licking their chops."

The above numbers do not include a six-figure pension, another six-figures in speaking fees, and God knows what else. Note that being “known for [your] bipartisan ties” (reaching across the aisle) is very good for your post-congress earnings. And the process is certainly bipartisan. Tom Daschle (former Dem. Senator) and Trent Lott (former Rep. Senator), both of whom left the Senate under a cloud, are palling around together giving “strategic advice.” Daschle, in addition to his congressional pension, has earned in the last two years:

"$2.1 million from Alston & Bird; $2 million in consulting fees from the private
equity firm [InterMedia]; and at least $220,000 for speeches to health care, pharma-ceutical and insurance companies. He also received nearly $100,000 from health-     
related companies affected by federal regulation."

It would seem that the Republican establishment has a huge incentive to be cozy with the other party, and to keep things going pretty much as they are, whether it is good for the country and its people or not. Thus we need Mitt to be our front man in an election that will be as plastic as he is. As for a candidate who might actually shake up some things (e.g. Newt Gingrich), get him outta there! Bring out the vindictive ex-wife! Bring out Ann Coulter to scream about how unelectable he is.

So to return to the question in the title of this article: No. Not as presently constituted, and not in any time frame that can save the country from irreparable damage. We would need multiple election cycles to replace all the entrenched people who need to go, if they can
be made to go at all [see John McCain]. And in the meantime we would still have to worry about the new people being seduced on a daily basis by the intoxicating atmosphere of Maharaja-like wealth and power we have allowed our elite rulers to amass.

What do we do now, in the 2012 election? The only advice this writer can offer is to not touch with a ten-foot pole any candidate being pushed by the GOP establishment. If Newt
is not your man, find somebody else. But find somebody who will not gush praise over B.O., or prattle on about how our disagreements with him are few and minor. Somebody who will call out the media, the courts, the education establishment, and both political parties as they presently stand, and tell it like it is. The country is in serious trouble, the emperor has no clothes, and we need a candidate who will shout those things out.


MO Atty





Please bookmark!

Video: Of Course the Stimulus Worked!

Everyone knows that... on MSNBC!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Please bookmark!

Watch Obama Speech Live, 1/24/2012

Update:


State of the Union Transcript 1/24/2012




Live video by Ustream

Please bookmark!

Check this out!