The House of Representatives Sends Subpoenas To Obama Administration Over Possible Fraud
A House Committee voted on Wednesday to clear the way to subpoena the Obama Administration over two separate probes.
The first Congressional investigation is concerning allegations dating back to the BP spill that the Obama Administration may have lied on reports about the temporary offshore Drilling Ban. That investigation centers on an Obama Administration report on oil production following the April 2010 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig off the Louisiana coast.
A panel of experts said it recommended that drilling in the Gulf resume.
However, the final report from Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to President Obama called for a six-month moratorium and was edited to suggest the panel's support of that recommendation.
Friends, that's called lying - also known as Fraud!
Ken Salazar apologized in June 2010, saying he and President Obama made the decision to impose the moratorium.
House Democrats said Wednesday the change was a result of hectic deadline editing by multiple authors.
But Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, said the incident was tantamount to "fraud."
The second Congressional Investigation concerns Obama Administration officials rewriting Coal Production Regulations to hamper coal production in the United States and subsequently put Americans out of work.
Republicans are charging the Obama administration tried to squelch a report that showed a proposed regulation on coal mining would destroy jobs.
Republicans claimed Wednesday that political appointees tried to get the firm that did the study to change its numbers to reflect more of what the Obama White House wanted them to reflect - and told them not to release their estimate of job losses to anyone.
The Obama administration has contested these claims.
But since trusting the Obama Administration is not very wise, Republican members of the House are going forward wanting subpoena power to obtain documents and audio recordings that could make clear what happened in both cases.
Hastings said before the hearing that the Interior Department “has not met a single deadline for producing all of the requested information and continues to withhold the vast majority of requested materials.”
“When I became chairman, I made clear that one of my priorities would be oversight of the administration,” said Hastings, R-Wash. “Both investigations have been ongoing for over a year.”
He said the requested information includes more than 30 hours of digital audio recordings of meetings and conversations between the agency and contractors regarding the rewriting of the coal production regulation, specifically regarding stream-buffer zones.
“If there’s nothing to hide, then why are these recording being withheld,” Hastings asked at the hearing.
In a statement given to Fox News Wednesday night, the Department of the Interior denies they have not cooperated with the two probes, saying they have numerous times testified and produced documents to comply with the Committee’s legitimate oversight interests.
But if so, then why are subpoenas being issued? The Obama Interior Department must have some information that they are keeping hidden, if not than how were the subpoenas justified? Subpoenas are not easy to obtain. There has to be a reason proven to justify its issuance.
In the case of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Department of the Interior says that Secretary Salazar set stronger standards for safety soon after the incident and they were quickly adopted by the industry.
But if so, then why did Obama political appointees try to get the firm that did the study to change its numbers to reflect more of what the Obama White House wanted? Why did the Department of Interior under Obama tell that firm not to release their estimate of job losses in the coal industry to anyone - espcially if that's what was going to happen as a result of the new Obama coal regulations?
The 23-17 vote along party lines allows Republican Rep. Doc Hastings, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, to issue the subpoenas, which will go to such agencies as the Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Democrats were upset by it passing.
Theirs Is An Oligarchy!
Its just my opinion, but really, its no big surprise that Democrats object to the approval of the subpoena request.
After all, if you are a Democrat and realize that the President who is a member of your political party may be in trouble for breaking the law - then really, the last thing Democrats want to see right now are subpoenas. And yes, especially in an Election Year where not only the presidency - but also a number of House and Senate seats up for grabs.
The Democrats are terrified of subpoenas being sent to their own party because it focuses on their powerful hold on the Federal Government among other things. They have been in power for so many years in one capacity or another, that they feel like a subpoena is an attack on their right to "rule."
Not govern, but "rule."
The Democrats control the News Media, Television, Movies, Hollywood, Universities, the Federal Government, Labor Unions, the majority of State Legislatures, the majority of the State and Federal Courts - yes, they are a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique called the Democrat Party.
Democrats believe themselves to be superior to the American people. They see themselves as the government, a government "ruled" by the few. They are an Oligarchy.
An Oligarchy who sees their power being challenged by Republicans and Conservatives. Democrats see Republicans, Conservatives, and those not in their party as just low class American peasants.
I see the Democrat Party as power hungry and ready to do anything to keep their position of authority over us all. I believe that is one of the reasons that they believe in over-regulating our lives as much as they do.
What Democrats don't understand about over-regulating Americans is something that Winston Churchill said, "If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law."
The man was right!
Dulles Airport TSA Manager Arrested For Running A Prostitution Ring
Forget frisky pat downs! Forget touching some one's junk! Forget security! A TSA Manage at one of America's busiest airports has other things to do.
A manager at the at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in charge of our security and safety needs at the Dulles Airport has had a side job that has now landed him in jail.
Bryant Jermaine Livingston, 39, was arrested while on the job as a supervisor of TSA agents at Dulles International Airport. The Manassas, Virginia resident, said by phone he is innocent of the charges - but declined to discuss the details of the case.
|Bryant Jermaine Livingston|
According to court documents, the agency had received a complaint of "very similar" activities back in 2009.
According to charging documents, on February 15th, Livingston used cash to rent a room at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, on Georgia Ave., in Silver Spring, Maryland.
The hotel manager recognized Livingston as a previous customer who, on earlier occasions had "groups of males and females frequently entering and exiting Livingston's room," according to a court document.
Similar activity was happening on February 15, so the manager called Montgomery County Police to report possible prostitution at his hotel.
Responding officers offered to accompany the manager as she went to evict the people from the room. At the doorway, Bryant Jermaine Livingston denied prostitution was occurring, and invited the manager and police into the room.
Responding officers reported that they arrested Bryant because of what they saw. It is called probable cause. According to reports, they saw, "11 people inside the room [including] three naked females and four males attempting to get dressed. Multiple people were laying on the two beds and other people were sitting in chairs and standing in the room."
That my friends, is called an easy arrest.
But now let's see what happens, since President Obama likes to wade in on police activity that involves Black people in America, I can't help but wonder if we will see President Obama going on television saying, "If I had a son, he'd be just like Bryant."
A Pimp? Who knows, it could still happen!
Elderly Couple Forced Out of Their Home because of Spike Lee Tweet
There is nothing like stupid when it comes from Liberals. Unless it is the stupid that comes in the form of their Racial Hatred.
In this case it is the racial hatred that came from black movie director Spike Lee. What an ass!
You see, it is now being reported that an elderly Florida couple by the name of McClain has been physically forced to move into a hotel after their home address was wrongly tweeted as belonging to the man who shot black teenager Trayvon Martin.
The tweets were traced back to a man in California and the address was also reportedly re-tweeted by director Spike Lee who was so filled with hate that he tweeted George Zimmerman's address to his almost 250,000 followers.
The McClain couple, aged 70 and 72, have been harassed with hate mail, been hassled by media, and had scared neighbors questioning them since the tweet was circulated, their son Chip Humble told the Orlando Sentinel.
Fearful for their safety, and hoping to escape the angry mobs outside their door, the couple has temporarily moved to a hotel.
The confusion seems to stem from the fact the woman's son is named William George Zimmerman and he lived briefly at the address in 1995. Absolutely no relation to George Zimmerman who shot Trayvon Martin after being attacked.
When William Zimmerman pleaded with the man who tweeted the address, the man responded, "Black power all day, No justice, No peace" along with an obscenity.
Neighborhood Watch volunteer George Zimmerman shot and killed Martin in a Sanford gated community on Feb. 26, with emotions and anger running at fever pitch while he remains free.
William Zimmerman said he used his mother and stepfather's address to register a car, get a drivers license and vote when he lived there after college.
"This is really scary, and I'm concerned for my family," William Zimmerman said. "It's scary because there are people who aren't mentally right and will take this information and run with it.
"To endanger people who are innocent because people are angry is not the answer. That's not how we're going to heal. It's not [going] to help the Martin family for someone else to be hurt."
For me, I've done a lot in my life that I wish I could un-do. Some things were so stupid that I now look back and ask, what was I thinking? But there's the problem, most dumb things are done without thinking things out thoroughly enough.
I can honestly say with pride, I have never ever been so un-thinking, so absolutely stupid, so ignorant of the ways of life, that I would do something so hateful as to give an angry mob the whereabouts of someone who has not been convicted of anything - and for all practical purposes is innocent of doing anything wrong.
It amazes me that Spike Lee can live with himself after giving out the wrong address and having the effect it has had on that old couple. Racial hatred is a horrible thing. Spike Lee demonstrates that it is not just whites who hate, he proves without a doubt that blacks also have racial hatred.
I can't help but wonder how he would have felt if the McClain family were attacked and hurt somehow? I can't help but conclude from his actions that it wouldn't have meant anything to him - after all, they're not black!
Why would it matter to Spike Lee if they were attacked and injured or have had to leave their home in fear because of his stupidity and hate for whites - they are white people and mean nothing to a racist like him.
That's how I see it!
California Police Chief sends Sergeant to Reporter's Residence Over a News Story
When I was living in the Bay Area in the city of San Leandro, I remember one night when a Police Officer knocked on my door at about 2am to let me know that they were looking for a shooting suspect in the area.
On March 12, 2012, Bay Area News Group reporter Doug Oakley said he was shaken by the 12:45am knock on the door of his Berkeley home. Oakley said he and his wife initially thought something was terribly wrong, perhaps that a relative had died.
No, that wasn't the case. Instead, it was pretty near to a case of Police Intimidation as folks want to get to at that hour.
Berkeley California Police Chief Michael Meehan ordered one of his Sergeant's to go to the Reporter's home and insist on changes to a News Story that the Chief perceived to be inaccurate.
The Oakland Tribune reports that Berkeley Police Chief Michael Meehan ordered the sergeant to the reporter's home minutes after reading the report online, a move First Amendments said "reeked of intimidation and attempted censorship."
Jim Ewert, general counsel of the California Newspaper Publisher's Association, characterized Meehan's alleged actions as "totally despicable," he told the newspaper.
"It's the most intimidating type of (censorship) possible because the person trying to exercise it carries a gun," Ewert said.
Of course Berkeley Police Chief Michael Meehan apologized, saying, "I would say it was an overzealous attempt to make sure that accurate information is put out. I could have done better."
Well now, there's a classic understatement - "I could have done better."
Police Intimidation is not new. It has been around a lot of years. Intimidation itself means to make fearful or to put into fear.
Generally, courts have said that proof of actual fear is not required in order to establish intimidation. It may be inferred from conduct, words, or circumstances reasonably calculated to produce fear.
Props always help when trying to induce fear. The New Black Panthers sat outside of some Voting Places back East carrying clubs. They were carrying riot batons like the police use. Dressed all in black, leather jackets, berets, and carrying those was all meant to induce fear. There mission was to ward off voters who were voting for someone other than Obama.
In the case of a Policeman, dressed in uniform on official business, knocks on your door to talk about a News Story that you just wrote. The officer is there to point out the error of your ways. I can see how that can induce fear and intimidation.
It should not happen in America, but the fact is that it does happen more than most realize. Whether it's an overzealous new officer, or an officer who was told to go "talk to" someone, intimidation happens.
It shouldn't, but it does.
Marines told to disarm before Defense Secretary's Visit
During the recent visit where Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke to over 200 Marines at Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan, the more than 200 Marines were told to take their weapons outside and leave them there before Panetta spoke.
Afghan troops had already been told not to bring their guns in.
"Something has come to light," Sgt. Maj. Brandon Hall told the troops. It was a highly unusual order, and some in the audience said they had never seen that happen before.
Asked about the order, Sgt. Maj. Brandon Hall said, all he knew was that "I was told to get the weapons out."
A defense official said that the request was not a reaction to an immediate threat. Speaking on condition of anonymity to describe security procedures, the official said, the base commander made the decision that no one would be allowed to bring in weapons.
The official said, the decision was made "out of respect for troops from other countries, such as the Afghans," who are never allowed to bring guns into an event. He went on to say that it was certainly not a request from Panetta or his security team.
If that is true, then it does make me wonder though, this the same administration whose Homeland Security Chief issued warnings about our military personnel returning home and becoming terrorist threats. So is it too far a jump to think that Panetta was in reality worried about his own safety from the Marines there? I think it's very possible.
I can't help but wonder how many of those Afghans kept pistols or knives on them? And honestly, knowing how strained things have been in Afghanistan, I can't help but wonder how many Marines left "all" of their weapons outside?
I can only hope not too many "completely" disarmed, orders or not!
Story by Tom Correa