Newt Calls Obama’s Trayvon Martin Comments “Disgraceful” And “Appalling”

When asked, Obama had this to say about Trayvon Martin

Well, I’m the head of the executive branch, and the Attorney General reports to me so I’ve got to be careful about my statements to make sure that we’re not impairing any investigation that’s taking place right now.

But obviously, this is a tragedy. I can only imagine what these parents are going through. And when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids. And I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together — federal, state and local — to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.

So I’m glad that not only is the Justice Department looking into it, I understand now that the governor of the state of Florida has formed a task force to investigate what’s taking place. I think all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this happen. And that means that examine the laws and the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident.

But my main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon. And I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and that we’re going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.

Newt was not particularly happy with this response

President Obama’s remarks today about the killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin drew scowls from GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich, who called them “disgraceful” and divisive.

“What the president said in a sense is disgraceful. It’s not a question of who that young man looked like,” Gingrich said on Sean Hannity’s radio show.

Gingrich said on the radio show: ”Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe period. We should all be horrified no matter what the ethnic background. Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot that would be ok because it didn’t look like him?”

He went added that it’s “just nonsense dividing this country up. It is a tragedy this young man was shot. It would have been a tragedy if he had been Puerto Rican or Cuban or if he had been white or if he had been Asian American of if he’d been a Native American. At some point we ought to talk about being Americans. When things go wrong to an American. It is sad for all Americans.”

Gingrich, a former speaker of the House of Representatives, said: “Trying to turn it into a racial issue is fundamentally wrong. I really find it appalling.”

In this case, I find that I have to offer a defense of Obama, no matter how much it pains me. While I’m sure that even the Obama White House isn’t so incompetent as to offer a brief to Barack in case he was asked this question, he was answering off the cuff, and, let’s face it, Obama tends to personalize everything. Personally, I did not see him making it a racial issue; instead, he seemed to be calling for calm and to let the process work itself out. Furthermore, he wisely took no position, as that would make it impossible for Zimmerman to get a fair and impartial trial involving a fair and impartial jury. As it is, all the demonstrations, outcry, and rhetoric surrounding the case may make it impossible to get a fair and impartial trial as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

And, it is a tragedy. What we need are the facts, not the feelings. We need to know what actually happened. Why it happened. Not speculation, but cold, hard facts. Even if the supposition points to massive wrong-doing by Zimmerman, we cannot arbitrarily throw Zimmerman into jail, as Congressman Alan West supports, without the facts. We then become a frontier justice society, one where justice is based on feelings, not the rule of law. Time will provide the answer.

Read: Newt Calls Obama’s Trayvon Martin Comments “Disgraceful” And “Appalling” »

Obama’s Chevy Go Cart Shockingly Needs New Charging Cord

Happy Saturday! It’s a beautiful day in America, and yet another Saturday where (NMP) is whining pushing for more stimulus style money for transportation in his weekly address. Not sure why, since it is starting to get a little too expensive for Americans to drive on America’s “crumbling roads and bridges“. And “we’ve got thousands of unemployed construction workers who’ve been looking for a job ever since the housing market collapsed. But once again, we’re waiting on Congress.” If memory serves, Obama and the Democrat Congress passed a $787 billion dollar stimulus which was supposed to take care of these shovel ready projects.

Fortunately, Obama pushed for a vehicle that has a tough time staying on the road, which makes it easier to fill the potholes that could possibly make the batteries think an accident has occurred and cause them to catch on fire. And that isn’t the only problem

(USA Today) General Motors has announced it is replacing the cord and charging device that lets owners charge the car from a 120-volt household outlet, according to a report by Reuters.

GM spokesman Randal Fox told Reuters that the replacement for the charger that comes with the $40,000 car has a beefier cable and will “offer a more consistent charging experience,” though it won’t make it charge faster. The program covers all 2011 Volts and some 2012s — the 120-volt cords, 240-volt cords are not affected.

OK, let’s be fair, all cars have some sort of problem. One would think that a fundemental part of the vehicle charging would be tested first

According to Consumer Reports, some Volt owners have complained that their 120-volt charger “overheats during use and have even documented online videos of melted 120-volt chargers.” CR said it has not had the problem in its testing of the car, which is on its “recommended” list.

Oh, good. Fortunately,

“It’s not a safety recall,” Fox said. “It’s more of a customer-satisfaction program.”

Well, yeah, I suppose having a charging cord that doesn’t melt and potentially burn one’s house down would create some customer satisfaction and “offer a more consistent charging experience.” It’s no wonder Obama wants to wait for 5 years to buy: he wants to make sure all the massive kinks are out of them.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Obama’s Chevy Go Cart Shockingly Needs New Charging Cord »

NY Times Attempts To Become More Irrelevant

Question: how often do you see NY Times articles featured at Memeorandum or the blogs you read? Not that often anymore. When the Times tried their “Times Select” program, pay-walling certain content, the opinion articles were barely ever featured. They removed the wall, and suddenly Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, and the others were showing up. Then the Times moved to their “20 free articles per month” method, and linking went down. And now they want to further show their irrelevance by changing the program up

Beginning in April, visitors to NYTimes.com can access 10 free articles each month, rather than 20.

This change will strengthen our ability to continue providing the world’s most insightful journalism today. It will also support the ongoing development of digital innovations and apps that make The Times an experience you won’t find anywhere else.

Most will opt for “well, other outlets are carrying the same news. I’ll read and link them.”

Read: NY Times Attempts To Become More Irrelevant »

Even Democrats And Independents Not Buying The Globull Warming Narrative On Warmer Winter

Perhaps I should add another category “Dying Science Cult”. First, Gallup people were asked if the winter was warmer than usual. I’d say “yes.” Then the followup, which was “If warmer, do you think the temperatures are mainly due to global warming (or to) normal year to year variation in temperature?”

So, only 28% of Independents believe, and, 43% of Democrats. Of course, to be honest, just 51% of both Republicans and Independents think it is natural variation. So, somewhere in between is what we find. Mostly natural, but, some man caused.

Also, I really wish polling organizations would specify whether the belief on global warming is man-induced specifically, rather than just “global warming”. Add a third column, natural global warming.

Read: Even Democrats And Independents Not Buying The Globull Warming Narrative On Warmer Winter »

If All You See…

…is an evil fossil fueled car which Other People should not drive, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Air Vent.

Read: If All You See… »

Having Solved All Of America’s Problems, Dem Senate To Hold Hearing On NFL Bounties

Priorities

(Politico) A Senate Judiciary subcommittee will hold a hearing on the bounty system allegedly used by several National Football League teams – one day after top coaches from the New Orleans Saints were suspended as punishment for a program that awarded players with cash if they injured their opponents.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who will chair the hearing, said Thursday the committee will also investigate whether federal sports bribery laws need to be changed to include sports bounty programs. The date for the hearing has yet to be announced, but Durbin said it will occur after the Easter recess.

“We will have a hearing and put on the record what sports leagues and teams at the professional and collegiate levels are doing to make sure that there’s no place in athletics for these pay-to-main bounties,” Durbin said on the Senate floor Thursday. “I want to hear the policies and practices in each of the major sports and collegiate sports that are being put in place.”

Let’s be honest, Durbin does have a point: this has no place in the game. It is a game. This isn’t like placing bounties on the heads of Al Qaeda leaders. It’s a game. And a business. And a livelihood. I 100% agree with the year long suspension of New Orleans Saints Sean Peyton. And the possible lifetime ban of Greg Williams. Unfortunately, the St. Louis Rams had to pay the price, as Williams was hired as their defensive coordinator, but, at least they have time to change. One question remains: what about the players involved? Some have moved on to other teams. Do you suspend them, and hose those teams? Do you just suspend Saints players and fine those on other teams?

And, from the Washington Post

But “It goes way beyond the rules of any sporting contest, at least team contest, to intentionally inflict harm on another person for a financial reward,” the senator told ESPN.

Pete Rose was banned for life for gambling, and still maintains he didn’t bet on the Reds to lose. Marge Schott was banned for life for racist remarks. Steve Howe was banned for drug use while playing. There have been plenty of players who were banned for life in all different sports, both while as a player and after. Same with owners and coaches. Look at the penalties on colleges. They can lose scholarships, forfeit bowl game eligibility, and forfeit previous wins in previous seasons (that one’s pretty dumb, IMO. They already won them). Players can be suspended and lose college eligibility, and most of the time it revolves around taking money. Not programs designed to injure other players for pay. Those injuries can have severe consequences for the finances and health of players.

But, as Marco Rubio points out

“#senate hasn’t passed a #budget in almost 3 yrs but is going to have hearings on #bounties in #nfl?” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on Twitter. “#comeonman.”

Priorities.

Ed Morrissey has more.

Read: Having Solved All Of America’s Problems, Dem Senate To Hold Hearing On NFL Bounties »

Good News: Government Information On US Citizens Can Now Be Held For 5 Years

Remember the good old days in the years immediately post-9/11, when Democrats freaked out over the government gathering information, which captured some data on US citizens? Remember the insanity over listening to international calls, despite still needing a warrant if it was determined that a US citizen was on the line? Back in 2007, Obama said this

The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.

And this

Every democracy is tested when it is faced with a serious threat. As a nation we have to find the right balance between privacy and security, between executive authority to face threats and uncontrolled power. What protects us are the procedures we put in place to protect that balance, namely judicial warrants and congressional review. These are concrete safeguards to make sure surveillance hasn’t gone too far.

And this

Americans fought a revolution in part over the right to be free from unreasonable searches, to ensure that our government couldn’t come knocking in the middle of the night for no reason. We need to find a way forward to make sure that we [stop] terrorists while protecting the privacy and liberty of innocent Americans.

And much more, when he was attempting to slam President Bush. How times change

The Obama administration has approved guidelines that allow counterterrorism officials to lengthen the period of time they retain information about U.S. residents, even if they have no known connection to terrorism.

The changes allow the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), the intelligence community’s clearinghouse for terrorism data, to keep information for up to five years. Previously, the center was required to promptly destroy — generally within 180 days — any information about U.S. citizens or residents unless a connection to terrorism was evident.

The new guidelines, which were approved Thursday by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., have been in the works for more than a year, officials said.

Why? Robert S. Litt, the general counsel in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the NCTC, says

The old guidelines were“very limiting,” Litt said. “On Day One, you may look at something and think that it has nothing to do with terrorism. Then six months later, all of a sudden, it becomes relevant.”

Meanwhile, they’ll be holding information on US citizens for 5 years. Civil liberties groups are not particularly happy with this. The ACLU gave a wishy washy response. Had this been the Bush DOJ, they would have gone ballistic.

On the bright side, reading the comments, both Republicans and Democrats are upset about this.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Good News: Government Information On US Citizens Can Now Be Held For 5 Years »

DOJ Argues No Severability With ObamaCare Mandate

With Obamacare, the 100% Democrats who wrote this intrusive and hated law forgot to put severability within, and there has been much discussion, even within court cases, that if the mandate to purchase health insurance or pay a fine/tax goes down, so does the whole bill. The DOJ accidentally makes a mistake in arguing that there is no severability

(Politico) No broccoli? Then no dessert.

That’s the scenario the Obama administration is presenting to the Supreme Court on health reform’s individual mandate. If you want to get rid of the hated mandate, the administration is telling the justices, you also have to get rid of the most popular part: coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.

The Justice Department argues that without the mandate, there is no way to keep the law’s requirements that insurance companies accept all applicants regardless of their medical history and cannot charge more to sicker and older patients. That’s because without the mandate, there won’t be enough healthy people paying health insurance premiums to cover the costs of the sick people. And insurers could raise everyone’s premiums sky-high to pay for those costs.

It’s a legal high-wire act that could have substantial consequences for the White House in an election year: If they lose the mandate, they’ll most likely lose one of the law’s greatest selling points, too.

A couple points on that. First of all, those “greatest selling points” were put in there simply to reduce the stink from the overall bill. They allow supporters and those who voted for it to say “hey, see, there’s some stuff in there that you do like. Now eat your Kopi Luwak.” It’s like putting salad dressing on broccoli for those of us who hate it. Makes it slightly more palatable, but, still gross.

Second, the DOJ arguing that if you lose the mandate, you lose other parts, creates a situation that states that if the mandate goes down, so does the rest of the bill.

Third, it shows just how desperate the Obama DOJ is in making their argument. They’ve run through multiple versions of defense, and haven’t been able to find any that are actually popular. The question being, do they argue this in front of the Supreme Court, or is this simply partisan politics from the country’s top law enforcement agency?

Finally, there’s an easy way to add sick people into the pools without drastically increasing costs: make them nationwide. Then you have a much larger pool of healthy people to offset the sick people. The GOP has been arguing this from the beginning. Furthermore, mandating that insurance companies have to charge the same thing to sick people and/or people with a history of sickness is a problem the legislation created itself. There’s a reason they would typically have coverage cost a lot more or be denied. If you are a bad driver, you’re auto insurance goes up, and perhaps gets to the point where no one will cover you.

Had ObamaCare gone a different way, creating some sort of nationwide pool, the sick could have been covered easily, albeit at a higher rate. This law needs to be done away with, then we can craft common sense legislation that actually works.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: DOJ Argues No Severability With ObamaCare Mandate »

Good Grief: Obama Attempts To Include Republicans In Blame For Solyndra

No, seriously, he really tries this

(Fox News) While making his push for solar, Obama explained to a reporter for National Public Radio that the blame for Solyndra was bipartisan and not the fault of the Obama Democrats “per se.”

“Congress, Democrats and Republicans, put together a loan guarantee program because they understood historically that when you get new industries, it’s easy to get money for new startups,” Obama said. “But if you want to take them to scale, often there is a lot of risk involved and what the loan guarantee program was designed to do was to help start-up companies get to scale.”

Except, as usual, Obama has his facts 100% wrong

The 2009 stimulus package that provided the funding for a loan of $527 million for Solyndra, which subsequently defaulted, got zero Republican votes in the House and three Republican votes in the Senate — Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and former Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, who switched parties two months after the vote. There was no Republican input on the structuring of the energy loan program and the specific loan to Solyndra was a Democratic job from start to finish.

Even ABC News’ Devin Dwyer calls BS on this, reiterating the above paragraph, and adding

During a May 2010 visit to Solyndra, Obama explicitly credited the Recovery Act with supporting the company’s early success.

The man is shameless.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Good Grief: Obama Attempts To Include Republicans In Blame For Solyndra »

If All You See…

…is a wonderful form of non-fossil fueled transportation, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Jawa Report.

Read: If All You See… »

Pirate's Cove