THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY
White House quietly releases document that creates widespread worry
Published: 10 hours ago
by DREW ZAHNEmail | Archive
Drew Zahn is a former pastor who cut his editing teeth as a member of the award-winning staff of Leadership, Christianity Today’s professional journal for church leaders. He is the editor of seven books, includingMovie-Based Illustrations for Preaching & Teaching, which sparked his ongoing love affair with film and his weekly WND column, “Popcorn and a (world)view.”More ↓
The White House’s late-week release of an executive order has sent the online community into an uproar, worried that President Obama had secretly provided himself means to institute martial law in America.
In the common practice of dumping government documents on a Friday afternoon, just as the news cycle is wrapping up for the week – a move critics say allows the administration to avoid widespread coverage of embarrassing actions – the White House released an executive order on “National Defense Resources Preparedness.”
Filled with language about “government-owned equipment” and a “defense executive reserve,” among other vague statements, rumors began to spread that the executive order expanded the president’s power to do everything from seizing whole industries to drafting private armies.
A Canada Free Press article titled “Obama Executive Order: Peacetime Martial Law!” spread concerns of gasoline ration cards; while an Examiner article declared the order would “nationalize everything” and “allow for a civilian draft.” Facebook, email and Twitter were suddenly abuzz, and even the extremely popular Drudge Report posted a link to the White House release under the title “Martial Law? Obama Issues Executive Order.”
Screen shot of Drudge Report, “Martial Law” headline highlighted
But are the cries of martial law and expanding executive power justified?
No, says William A. Jacobson, associate clinical professor at Cornell Law School.
“If someone wants to make the argument that this is an expansion of presidential powers, then do so based on actual language,” warns Jacobson. “There is enough that Obama actually does wrong without creating claims which do not hold up to scrutiny.”
Discover how deep Obama’s violation of Constitution really does go with David Limbaugh’s “Crimes Against Liberty.”
Then tell America you’ve had enough with these shenanigans. Get the AVOID OBAMA TRAUMA magnetic bumper sticker!
As it turns out, Obama’s executive order is nearly identical to EO 12919, issued by President Clinton on June 7, 1994, which itself was an amendment to EO 10789, issued in 1958 by President Eisenhower, and which in fact, was later amended by EO 13286, issued in 2003 by George W. Bush.
Obama’s executive order specifically assigns “executive departments and agencies responsible for plans and programs related to national defense” to do five things:
“identify” requirements for emergencies;
“assess” the capability of the country’s industrial and technological base;
“be prepared” to ensure the availability of critical resources in time of national threat;
“improve the efficiency” of the industrial base to support national defense;
“foster cooperation” between commercial and defense sectors.
Later provisions in the order establish the protocol for government agencies to purchase equipment needed in times of national emergency and even make loans to ensure the availability of that equipment.
Despite the vague nature of the functions, none mention anything about martial law or seizing private property. The five functions are also identical to those identified in Clinton’s EO 12919.
So why did Obama issue the order at all?
A side-by-side analysis of Obama’s order compared to Clinton’s, conducted by Ed Morrissey of HotAir.com, reveals Obama’s order is essentially just an update to reflect changes in government agency structure.
“If one takes a look at EO 12919, the big change is in the cabinet itself,” Morrissey writes. “In 1994, we didn’t have a Department of Homeland Security, for instance, and some of these functions would naturally fall to DHS. In EO 12919, the FEMA director had those responsibilities, and the biggest change between the two is the removal of several references to FEMA (10 in all). Otherwise, there aren’t a lot of changes between the two EOs, which looks mainly like boilerplate.
“I’m not ruling out the possibility that this is more than it seems,” adds Jacobson, “but unless and until someone [demonstrates any expansion of powers in the order], I’ll consider this to be routine.”
“The timing of this release might have looked a little strange,” Morrissey concludes, “but this is really nothing to worry about at all.”
Monday, March 19, 2012
Sunday, March 18, 2012
FINALLY SOMEONE ASKED HIM THE QUESTION!
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 5:38 AM
Subject: Fw: ABC-TV: FINALLY SOMEONE ASKED HIM THE QUESTION!
I seriously doubt we’ll get a 28th because a politico will need to “introduce” it and they are reluctant to cut their own throats!
FINALLY SOMEONE ASKED HIM THE QUESTION!
ON “ABC-TV” DURING THE “NETWORK SPECIAL ON HEALTH CARE“…. OBAMA WAS ASKED:
“MR. PRESIDENT WILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY GIVE UP YOUR CURRENT HEALTH CARE PROGRAM
AND JOIN THE NEW ‘UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM’ THAT THE REST OF US WILL BE ON ????“
THERE WAS A STONEY SILENCE AS OBAMA IGNORED THE QUESTION AND CHOSE NOT TO ANSWER IT !!!
IN ADDITION, A NUMBER OF SENATORS WERE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION AND THEIR RESPONSE WAS.”WE WILL THINK ABOUT IT.”
AND THEY DID. IT WAS ANNOUNCED TODAY ON THE NEWS THAT THE “KENNEDY HEALTH CARE BILL” WAS WRITTEN INTO THE NEW HEALTH CARE REFORM INITIATIVE ENSURING THAT THAT CONGRESS WILL BE 100% EXEMPT !
SO, THIS GREAT NEW HEALTH CARE PLAN THAT IS GOOD FOR YOU AND I… IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR OBAMA, HIS FAMILY OR CONGRESS…??
WE (THE AMERICAN PUBLIC) NEED TO STOP THIS PROPOSED DEBACLE ASAP !!!! THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG !!!!!
PERSONALLY, I CAN ONLY ACCEPT A UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE OVERHAUL THAT EXTENDS TO EVERYONE… NOT JUST US LOWLY CITIZENS…. WHILE THE WASHINGTON “ELITE” KEEP RIGHT ON WITH THEIR GOLD-PLATED HEALTH CARE COVERAGES.
If you don’t pass this around, may you enjoy his Plan!
WHAT???
The Republic has a CONSTITUTION???
Amendment 28
Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States .
Imagine what we could do if everybody passed this around.
Subject: Fw: ABC-TV: FINALLY SOMEONE ASKED HIM THE QUESTION!
I seriously doubt we’ll get a 28th because a politico will need to “introduce” it and they are reluctant to cut their own throats!
FINALLY SOMEONE ASKED HIM THE QUESTION!
ON “ABC-TV” DURING THE “NETWORK SPECIAL ON HEALTH CARE“…. OBAMA WAS ASKED:
“MR. PRESIDENT WILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY GIVE UP YOUR CURRENT HEALTH CARE PROGRAM
AND JOIN THE NEW ‘UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM’ THAT THE REST OF US WILL BE ON ????“
THERE WAS A STONEY SILENCE AS OBAMA IGNORED THE QUESTION AND CHOSE NOT TO ANSWER IT !!!
IN ADDITION, A NUMBER OF SENATORS WERE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION AND THEIR RESPONSE WAS.”WE WILL THINK ABOUT IT.”
AND THEY DID. IT WAS ANNOUNCED TODAY ON THE NEWS THAT THE “KENNEDY HEALTH CARE BILL” WAS WRITTEN INTO THE NEW HEALTH CARE REFORM INITIATIVE ENSURING THAT THAT CONGRESS WILL BE 100% EXEMPT !
SO, THIS GREAT NEW HEALTH CARE PLAN THAT IS GOOD FOR YOU AND I… IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR OBAMA, HIS FAMILY OR CONGRESS…??
WE (THE AMERICAN PUBLIC) NEED TO STOP THIS PROPOSED DEBACLE ASAP !!!! THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG !!!!!
PERSONALLY, I CAN ONLY ACCEPT A UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE OVERHAUL THAT EXTENDS TO EVERYONE… NOT JUST US LOWLY CITIZENS…. WHILE THE WASHINGTON “ELITE” KEEP RIGHT ON WITH THEIR GOLD-PLATED HEALTH CARE COVERAGES.
If you don’t pass this around, may you enjoy his Plan!
WHAT???
The Republic has a CONSTITUTION???
Amendment 28
Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States .
Imagine what we could do if everybody passed this around.
Huckabee Readies to Take on Rush in Talk Radio Battle
March 19, 2012
Huckabee Readies to Take on Rush in Talk Radio Battle
Filed under: Uncategorized — theperpetualview @ 1:23 am Edit This
Tags: Huckabee, rush limbaugh, talk radio
Rate This
Newsmax
Sunday, March 18, 2012 01:01 PM
Earlier this week, Cumulus Media sent out an email blast to fellow radio station owners with a photoshopped picture of former U.S. Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, promoting him as the conservative talk radio host of the future.
Though the email did not name Rush Limbaugh, the long-running, top-rated talk radio host whose program is nationally syndicated by Cumulus’ rival, Clear Channel Communications, the intent was obvious to some recipients.
“They are going after Rush’s affiliates,” said one radio company executive who received Cumulus’ email and spoke on condition of anonymity. “They are positioning Huckabee as the safe, non-dangerous alternative to Rush and saying to station owners, ‘If you are looking for conservative content, we want you to consider our guy instead of theirs.’”
Huckabee presented Cumulus with its best chance ever to grow into a national competitor to Clear Channel in the radio syndication market even before Limbaugh on February 29 ignited his latest controversy by calling birth-control activist Sandra Fluke “a slut.
That the April 9 launch of “The Mike Huckabee Show” comes amid an exodus of advertisers from Limbaugh’s program and an Internet-driven boycott is simply serendipity for Cumulus.
In an interview with Reuters on Friday, Cumulus co-Chief Operating Officer John Dickey described the Huckabee emails as “standard operating procedure” and said the company was “proud to offer up our content to the industry at large.”
“Only one station in a city can offer Rush, so there are lots of other stations that are looking to put up an alternative to him regardless of whether he put his foot in his mouth,” said Dickey. He was referring to how Limbaugh’s contracts typically contain exclusivity clauses restricting him to one station in a market, instead of it being simulcast on multiple stations.
“We have been growing the affiliate base on that fact alone, but recent developments with Rush have put some wind in our sails and accelerated our efforts,” Dickey said.
Cumulus owns the second-largest U.S. radio network, with 580 stations, behind Clear Channel, which owns about 900 stations. Cumulus ranks as the third-largest radio company by revenue, behind Clear Channel and CBS Radio.
Huckabee’s show, which was born out of a dinner conversation between a representative for the former Arkansas governor and Dickey in the fall of 2010, will go head-to-head against Limbaugh from noon to 3 p.m. in all time U.S. time zones, Monday through Friday.
Limbaugh has dominated terrestrial talk radio ever since shock jock Howard Stern fled for the less regulated confines of satellite radio in 2006. The portly conservative pundit’s program is broadcast on 600 radio stations across the country (20 more stations than Cumulus owns in total), and is heard by about 20 million listeners weekly.
As of last week, about 140 stations had signed on to carry Huckabee’s show, and Dickey said that number is growing daily.
More important, only about 45 of those stations are owned and operated by Cumulus, meaning that the other stations that agreed to carry Huckabee’s show have no affiliation with the company. Dickey said some of these stations plan to swap in Huckabee once their contracts with Limbaugh expire, though he declined to name which ones or where they were located.
Limbaugh’s annual income, based in part on licensing fees for his show, is estimated by industry sources at $50 million.
Calls to Clear Channel for comment were referred to Premiere Networks, the company that syndicates Limbaugh’s program.
“Rush Limbaugh continues to be the No. 1 talk radio host in America,” a Premiere spokesperson said in a statement, noting that all his long-term sponsors remain with his show. “Mike Huckabee is the latest in a long line of those who have attempted to compete with Rush. We wish him the best with his new show.”
A source familiar with Premiere’s thinking put it more bluntly: “We have 900 stations. If Rush gets removed from a few, we have plenty of other places to put him.”
TWO DEALS REALIZED
Cumulus’ plan to take on Clear Channel in the syndication market were put in motion long before the impending Limbaugh-Huckabee battle. The roots can be traced to two deals: the $1.2 billion purchase of Susquehanna Radio in 2006 and $2.4 billion acquisition of Citadel Broadcasting in 2010.
Those deals transformed Cumulus from a sleepy small- to mid-market company into a national player. Before them, the largest market in which Cumulus had a presence was ranked 125th nationally. Now, the family-run company is in seven of the top 10 U.S. radio markets.
With a big national footprint and its own network, Cumulus is now able to develop and syndicate its own content as opposed to paying to license it from competitors such as Clear Channel.
Moreover, Cumulus can now shop its content to outside radio station owners, potentially stealing market share from Clear Channel. In essence, Cumulus has gone from being a purchaser of content to a creator of one.
“We eat our own cooking here. If something works for us, it should also work for others in the industry,” said Dickey, referring to Cumulus’ goal to license homegrown talent to others in the industry.
The company last month announced that it was replacing “Coast-to-Coast,” a show produced by Clear Channel, with Cumulus’ own “Red Eye Radio” on 22 of its stations. Earlier in March, Cumulus said it was dropping “The Billy Bush Show,” produced by Dial Global, for an upcoming show of its own.
Cumulus licenses Limbaugh’s show on about three dozen of its own stations. It is expected to replace Limbaugh with Huckabee once these contracts expire.
“I can guarantee you that the minute Cumulus’ contract with Rush expires in New York, they will replace him with Huckabee,” said Joel Hollander, the former CEO of CBS Radio now running private investment firm 264 Echo Place Partners.
For now Limbaugh has some breathing room – the vast majority of his contracts with Cumulus do not expire until next year. Dickey said Cumulus has “no plans to drop Rush” from any of its stations at this time and will “honor its contracts.”
Dickey’s diplomacy is smart radio politics. Cumulus must navigate a delicate divide between competing and cooperating with Clear Channel. The radio industry as a whole has been in secular decline for more than a decade, as Apple Inc’s iPods, satellite radio Sirius XM Radio Inc and Internet streaming services such as Pandora Media Inc have eaten away at advertising sales and audience share.
Traditional radio companies have been forced to look for new avenues of growth, often in partnership with each other. Cumulus recently announced a deal to stream its stations on Clear Channel’s iHeart-Radio digital platform. The two companies also joined forces on “SweetJack,” radio’s version of Groupon Inc’s daily deals, set to launch nationwide on May 1.
“Cumulus does have a lot of holes across the country where it will need to work with Clear Channel and others radio companies, so what you are going to see is a lot of horse trading,” said Hollander.
LACK OF RADIO STARS KEEPS RUSH ON AIR
Not unlike Howard Stern or Glenn Beck, Limbaugh is one of the few talk radio hosts who have a large and loyal enough fan base that he can leave the air waves altogether for satellite radio, the Internet, or something even more experimental.
But if Limbaugh does stick with traditional radio, he will likely remain a major voice for two main reasons: a shortage of stars and political talk radio has a rabid fan base.
Traditional radio’s lack of stars is the reason Don Imus returned just eight months after being removed in 2007 for calling the Rutgers University women’s basketball team a bunch of “nappy-headed hoes.” And it is the reason why the source familiar with Premiere’s thinking said the syndicator has no intention of removing Limbaugh from its air waves.
Indeed, some outside radio companies that syndicate Limbaugh’s show are also sticking with him.
“We carry Limbaugh live in Bakersfield and we have no plans to change,” said Joe Bilotta, CEO of independently owned Buckley Radio.
Moreover, Huckabee has to execute for Cumulus’ grand plan to pay dividends. If he cannot attract an audience and prove that he can carry a show by himself, then all the talk about unseating Limbaugh will be just that – talk.
Huckabee Readies to Take on Rush in Talk Radio Battle
Filed under: Uncategorized — theperpetualview @ 1:23 am Edit This
Tags: Huckabee, rush limbaugh, talk radio
Rate This
Newsmax
Sunday, March 18, 2012 01:01 PM
Earlier this week, Cumulus Media sent out an email blast to fellow radio station owners with a photoshopped picture of former U.S. Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, promoting him as the conservative talk radio host of the future.
Though the email did not name Rush Limbaugh, the long-running, top-rated talk radio host whose program is nationally syndicated by Cumulus’ rival, Clear Channel Communications, the intent was obvious to some recipients.
“They are going after Rush’s affiliates,” said one radio company executive who received Cumulus’ email and spoke on condition of anonymity. “They are positioning Huckabee as the safe, non-dangerous alternative to Rush and saying to station owners, ‘If you are looking for conservative content, we want you to consider our guy instead of theirs.’”
Huckabee presented Cumulus with its best chance ever to grow into a national competitor to Clear Channel in the radio syndication market even before Limbaugh on February 29 ignited his latest controversy by calling birth-control activist Sandra Fluke “a slut.
That the April 9 launch of “The Mike Huckabee Show” comes amid an exodus of advertisers from Limbaugh’s program and an Internet-driven boycott is simply serendipity for Cumulus.
In an interview with Reuters on Friday, Cumulus co-Chief Operating Officer John Dickey described the Huckabee emails as “standard operating procedure” and said the company was “proud to offer up our content to the industry at large.”
“Only one station in a city can offer Rush, so there are lots of other stations that are looking to put up an alternative to him regardless of whether he put his foot in his mouth,” said Dickey. He was referring to how Limbaugh’s contracts typically contain exclusivity clauses restricting him to one station in a market, instead of it being simulcast on multiple stations.
“We have been growing the affiliate base on that fact alone, but recent developments with Rush have put some wind in our sails and accelerated our efforts,” Dickey said.
Cumulus owns the second-largest U.S. radio network, with 580 stations, behind Clear Channel, which owns about 900 stations. Cumulus ranks as the third-largest radio company by revenue, behind Clear Channel and CBS Radio.
Huckabee’s show, which was born out of a dinner conversation between a representative for the former Arkansas governor and Dickey in the fall of 2010, will go head-to-head against Limbaugh from noon to 3 p.m. in all time U.S. time zones, Monday through Friday.
Limbaugh has dominated terrestrial talk radio ever since shock jock Howard Stern fled for the less regulated confines of satellite radio in 2006. The portly conservative pundit’s program is broadcast on 600 radio stations across the country (20 more stations than Cumulus owns in total), and is heard by about 20 million listeners weekly.
As of last week, about 140 stations had signed on to carry Huckabee’s show, and Dickey said that number is growing daily.
More important, only about 45 of those stations are owned and operated by Cumulus, meaning that the other stations that agreed to carry Huckabee’s show have no affiliation with the company. Dickey said some of these stations plan to swap in Huckabee once their contracts with Limbaugh expire, though he declined to name which ones or where they were located.
Limbaugh’s annual income, based in part on licensing fees for his show, is estimated by industry sources at $50 million.
Calls to Clear Channel for comment were referred to Premiere Networks, the company that syndicates Limbaugh’s program.
“Rush Limbaugh continues to be the No. 1 talk radio host in America,” a Premiere spokesperson said in a statement, noting that all his long-term sponsors remain with his show. “Mike Huckabee is the latest in a long line of those who have attempted to compete with Rush. We wish him the best with his new show.”
A source familiar with Premiere’s thinking put it more bluntly: “We have 900 stations. If Rush gets removed from a few, we have plenty of other places to put him.”
TWO DEALS REALIZED
Cumulus’ plan to take on Clear Channel in the syndication market were put in motion long before the impending Limbaugh-Huckabee battle. The roots can be traced to two deals: the $1.2 billion purchase of Susquehanna Radio in 2006 and $2.4 billion acquisition of Citadel Broadcasting in 2010.
Those deals transformed Cumulus from a sleepy small- to mid-market company into a national player. Before them, the largest market in which Cumulus had a presence was ranked 125th nationally. Now, the family-run company is in seven of the top 10 U.S. radio markets.
With a big national footprint and its own network, Cumulus is now able to develop and syndicate its own content as opposed to paying to license it from competitors such as Clear Channel.
Moreover, Cumulus can now shop its content to outside radio station owners, potentially stealing market share from Clear Channel. In essence, Cumulus has gone from being a purchaser of content to a creator of one.
“We eat our own cooking here. If something works for us, it should also work for others in the industry,” said Dickey, referring to Cumulus’ goal to license homegrown talent to others in the industry.
The company last month announced that it was replacing “Coast-to-Coast,” a show produced by Clear Channel, with Cumulus’ own “Red Eye Radio” on 22 of its stations. Earlier in March, Cumulus said it was dropping “The Billy Bush Show,” produced by Dial Global, for an upcoming show of its own.
Cumulus licenses Limbaugh’s show on about three dozen of its own stations. It is expected to replace Limbaugh with Huckabee once these contracts expire.
“I can guarantee you that the minute Cumulus’ contract with Rush expires in New York, they will replace him with Huckabee,” said Joel Hollander, the former CEO of CBS Radio now running private investment firm 264 Echo Place Partners.
For now Limbaugh has some breathing room – the vast majority of his contracts with Cumulus do not expire until next year. Dickey said Cumulus has “no plans to drop Rush” from any of its stations at this time and will “honor its contracts.”
Dickey’s diplomacy is smart radio politics. Cumulus must navigate a delicate divide between competing and cooperating with Clear Channel. The radio industry as a whole has been in secular decline for more than a decade, as Apple Inc’s iPods, satellite radio Sirius XM Radio Inc and Internet streaming services such as Pandora Media Inc have eaten away at advertising sales and audience share.
Traditional radio companies have been forced to look for new avenues of growth, often in partnership with each other. Cumulus recently announced a deal to stream its stations on Clear Channel’s iHeart-Radio digital platform. The two companies also joined forces on “SweetJack,” radio’s version of Groupon Inc’s daily deals, set to launch nationwide on May 1.
“Cumulus does have a lot of holes across the country where it will need to work with Clear Channel and others radio companies, so what you are going to see is a lot of horse trading,” said Hollander.
LACK OF RADIO STARS KEEPS RUSH ON AIR
Not unlike Howard Stern or Glenn Beck, Limbaugh is one of the few talk radio hosts who have a large and loyal enough fan base that he can leave the air waves altogether for satellite radio, the Internet, or something even more experimental.
But if Limbaugh does stick with traditional radio, he will likely remain a major voice for two main reasons: a shortage of stars and political talk radio has a rabid fan base.
Traditional radio’s lack of stars is the reason Don Imus returned just eight months after being removed in 2007 for calling the Rutgers University women’s basketball team a bunch of “nappy-headed hoes.” And it is the reason why the source familiar with Premiere’s thinking said the syndicator has no intention of removing Limbaugh from its air waves.
Indeed, some outside radio companies that syndicate Limbaugh’s show are also sticking with him.
“We carry Limbaugh live in Bakersfield and we have no plans to change,” said Joe Bilotta, CEO of independently owned Buckley Radio.
Moreover, Huckabee has to execute for Cumulus’ grand plan to pay dividends. If he cannot attract an audience and prove that he can carry a show by himself, then all the talk about unseating Limbaugh will be just that – talk.
French mosque attacked, one killed by Islamophobic…bat-wielding MUSLIM
Posted on March 18, 2012 by creeping
Shhh. The crickets are chirping again. Just two days ago we posted on an imam killed in a mosque arson…by an ax-wielding Muslim, now this. via Muslim attacker armed with bat beats 2 men in French mosque, killing 1 – The Washington Post.
PARIS — A Muslim worshipper said to have psychological troubles entered a mosque in northern France and repeatedly beat two elderly men with a bat Friday, killing one and badly injuring the other, a Muslim leader and a police official said.
The assailant identified only as “Seddik” — his first name — carried out the attack in the tiny Ennour mosque in the city of Arras shortly after afternoon prayers, said Abdelkader Aoussedj, of Paris’ main mosque.
A local police official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of office policy, told The Associated Press that the suspect lived in Arras, was in his 30s, and had a police record for violence.
The attacker used a heavy self-styled stick, the police official said, rather than a baseball bat mentioned by Aoussedj.
Several worshippers pounced on the assailant and subdued him until police arrived, and he was being held in custody, the official said, adding that one victim had been killed and the other was hospitalized in critical condition.
The attacker, a regular worshipper at the mosque, “suffered from psychological troubles,” said Aoussedj, who is in charge of northern France for the Grand Mosque of Paris.
“The entire Muslim community — and everybody else — is shocked about what happened in Arras,” Aoussedj said. “We share in the pain of the victims’ families and all the faithful at this mosque.”
The only thing shocking is that terror-linked CAIR and the dhimmi media didn’t try to pin this on a non-Muslim first.
Shhh. The crickets are chirping again. Just two days ago we posted on an imam killed in a mosque arson…by an ax-wielding Muslim, now this. via Muslim attacker armed with bat beats 2 men in French mosque, killing 1 – The Washington Post.
PARIS — A Muslim worshipper said to have psychological troubles entered a mosque in northern France and repeatedly beat two elderly men with a bat Friday, killing one and badly injuring the other, a Muslim leader and a police official said.
The assailant identified only as “Seddik” — his first name — carried out the attack in the tiny Ennour mosque in the city of Arras shortly after afternoon prayers, said Abdelkader Aoussedj, of Paris’ main mosque.
A local police official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of office policy, told The Associated Press that the suspect lived in Arras, was in his 30s, and had a police record for violence.
The attacker used a heavy self-styled stick, the police official said, rather than a baseball bat mentioned by Aoussedj.
Several worshippers pounced on the assailant and subdued him until police arrived, and he was being held in custody, the official said, adding that one victim had been killed and the other was hospitalized in critical condition.
The attacker, a regular worshipper at the mosque, “suffered from psychological troubles,” said Aoussedj, who is in charge of northern France for the Grand Mosque of Paris.
“The entire Muslim community — and everybody else — is shocked about what happened in Arras,” Aoussedj said. “We share in the pain of the victims’ families and all the faithful at this mosque.”
The only thing shocking is that terror-linked CAIR and the dhimmi media didn’t try to pin this on a non-Muslim first.
SNAGGED! OCCUPY TELLS PROTESTERS TO BREAK LAW
March 18, 2012
SNAGGED! OCCUPY TELLS PROTESTERS TO BREAK LAW
Filed under: Uncategorized — theperpetualview @ 8:52 pm Edit This
Tags: ., Anti-American Exttremists, Anti-Govermnent, break the law, New York City, Occupy Movement, outdoors
WND EXCLUSIVE
Movement claims cops busted demonstration without cause
Published: 4 hours ago
by AARON KLEIN Email | Archive
Aaron Klein is WND’s senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio. His latest book is the N.Y. Times best-selling, “The Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists.”
The Occupy movement is claiming New York City police busted their demonstration yesterday without probable cause while WND has discovered Occupy literature suggesting protesters should intentionally break Zuccotti Park’s rules.
The New York Police Department said it rained on Occupy’s parade when protesters started breaking the park laws, specifically by bringing tents and sleeping bags indicating some activists planed to camp out.
“They set up tents. They had sleeping bags,” NYPD Detective Brian Sessa told the Associated Press.
Sessa told reporters that Brookfield Properties, the park owner, first sent in security to advise the protesters to stop pitching tents and to leave the park before the NYPD was called into action.
At least 25 people were arrested in the ensuing clashes, with three officers suffered injuries, police said.
Occupiers flatly denied the accusations they broke the park rules.
Sandra Nurse, a member of Occupy’s direct action working group, was quoted by the Daily Mail claiming demonstrators were not pitching tents or using sleeping bags.
“I didn’t see any sleeping bags,” she said. “There was a banner hung between two trees and a tarp thrown over it. … It wasn’t a tent. It was an erect thing, if that’s what you want to call it.”
However, an Occupy call-to-arms posted on Facebook last week announced yesterday’s park protest and suggested occupiers should bring not only blankets but sleeping bags, which are illegal.
“Bring Blankets!! (Sleeping Bags are illegal, proceed as you wish),” read the posting.
The Occupy Wall Street event called for “occupations and occupiers – and all lovers of democracy all over the country to assemble in New York City – Liberty Plaza – (Zucotti [sic] Park) on Saturday March 17th!”
Continued the invite: “Celebrate 6 months of Occupy Wall Street! … Welcome the warmth of Spring as the ideas planted in the fall blossom into action that stands against the economic injustice brought forth by corporate America!”
Speakers are set to address issues of food sustainability, housing, healthcare, and the economy.
“As part of the American Spring, OWS Direct Action will make an effort to liberate space for 24 hours for the people and by the people,” added the invite.
Direct action is a specific tactic of protest popularized by radical community organizer Saul Alinsky.
SNAGGED! OCCUPY TELLS PROTESTERS TO BREAK LAW
Filed under: Uncategorized — theperpetualview @ 8:52 pm Edit This
Tags: ., Anti-American Exttremists, Anti-Govermnent, break the law, New York City, Occupy Movement, outdoors
WND EXCLUSIVE
Movement claims cops busted demonstration without cause
Published: 4 hours ago
by AARON KLEIN Email | Archive
Aaron Klein is WND’s senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio. His latest book is the N.Y. Times best-selling, “The Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists.”
The Occupy movement is claiming New York City police busted their demonstration yesterday without probable cause while WND has discovered Occupy literature suggesting protesters should intentionally break Zuccotti Park’s rules.
The New York Police Department said it rained on Occupy’s parade when protesters started breaking the park laws, specifically by bringing tents and sleeping bags indicating some activists planed to camp out.
“They set up tents. They had sleeping bags,” NYPD Detective Brian Sessa told the Associated Press.
Sessa told reporters that Brookfield Properties, the park owner, first sent in security to advise the protesters to stop pitching tents and to leave the park before the NYPD was called into action.
At least 25 people were arrested in the ensuing clashes, with three officers suffered injuries, police said.
Occupiers flatly denied the accusations they broke the park rules.
Sandra Nurse, a member of Occupy’s direct action working group, was quoted by the Daily Mail claiming demonstrators were not pitching tents or using sleeping bags.
“I didn’t see any sleeping bags,” she said. “There was a banner hung between two trees and a tarp thrown over it. … It wasn’t a tent. It was an erect thing, if that’s what you want to call it.”
However, an Occupy call-to-arms posted on Facebook last week announced yesterday’s park protest and suggested occupiers should bring not only blankets but sleeping bags, which are illegal.
“Bring Blankets!! (Sleeping Bags are illegal, proceed as you wish),” read the posting.
The Occupy Wall Street event called for “occupations and occupiers – and all lovers of democracy all over the country to assemble in New York City – Liberty Plaza – (Zucotti [sic] Park) on Saturday March 17th!”
Continued the invite: “Celebrate 6 months of Occupy Wall Street! … Welcome the warmth of Spring as the ideas planted in the fall blossom into action that stands against the economic injustice brought forth by corporate America!”
Speakers are set to address issues of food sustainability, housing, healthcare, and the economy.
“As part of the American Spring, OWS Direct Action will make an effort to liberate space for 24 hours for the people and by the people,” added the invite.
Direct action is a specific tactic of protest popularized by radical community organizer Saul Alinsky.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Climate Change Denial is About Maintaining Control of the Wealth
March 17, 2012
Climate Change Denial is About Maintaining Control of the Wealth
Filed under: Uncategorized — theperpetualview @ 2:56 am Edit This
Tags: climate science, current-events, effects of climate change, environment, federal energy regulatory commission, global warming hoax, green energy Higher gas prices, Wealth.Waxman-Markey Bill
Rate This
March 16, 2012
By Roberta Seldon
The Waxman-Markey climate bill is a good investment for the United States to make in our own economic future and in the future of the planet, an NYU study reports. Yet Congressional Republicans continue to fight climate change legislation every step of the way — all for the sake of big oil.
In a video I posted last month, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) told Fox News Radio’s Alan Colmes that “the bureaucratic dream is to control carbon,” he said in reference to the notion that global warming is merely a hoax. Liberals want government to control our lives, and “if you control carbon, you control life,” he added.
Well, Inhofe was certainly right about one thing — the debate over global warming/climate change is about control; but not government control. It’s about the 1 percent maintaining control over the country’s wealth.
According to KCET – the nation’s largest independent public television station — Inhofe and two other senators known for their stance against addressing climate change “received a large chunk of their campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry.”
“For Inhofe” the oil and gas industry is his largest contributor, giving more than $1.2 million since 1989. His third-largest individual donor is Koch Industries, the Wichita oil and gas giant that has been recruiting Congressional Republicans to stand up to greenhouse gas regulations,” KCET reported.
Moreover, Politico reported that staffers of Inhofe and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the Republican chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, held a secret meeting in January with lobbyists from the American Petroleum Institute, the National Mining Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and others who wanted to block federal and state climate rules. That meeting led to the creation of the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.
The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, also known as H.R.910, is a piece of legislation aimed at amending the Clean Air Act “to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas due to concerns regarding possible climate change.”
According to a press release on the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s website, H.R.910 would “protect American jobs and manufacturers from overreaching EPA regulations that hinder our ability to compete with China and other countries.” The legislation would also:
Stop EPA bureaucrats from making legislative decisions that should be made by Congress;
Clarify that the Clean Air Act was not written by Congress to address climate change; and
Stop EPA bureaucrats from imposing a backdoor cap-and-trade tax that would make gasoline, electricity, fertilizer, and groceries more expensive for consumers.
“With this draft proposal, we are initiating a deliberative, transparent process that we hope will prevent EPA from imposing by regulation the massive cap-and-trade tax that Congress rejected last year. We firmly believe federal bureaucrats should not be unilaterally setting national climate change policy, and with good reason: EPA’s cap-and-trade tax agenda will cost jobs, undermine the competitiveness of America’s manufacturers, and, as EPA has conceded, will have no meaningful impact on climate. In other words, all cost with no benefit,” Inhofe, Upton and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky), Chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, who also had a hand in drafting the legislation, said in a joint statement, according to the press release.
But studies conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and New York University suggest that the phrase “all cost with no benefit” couldn’t be any further from the truth. According to the EPA, a 2003 Office of Management and Budget study found that the Acid Rain Program (ARP), a national cap and trade program, accounted for the largest quantified human health benefits — over $70 billion annually — of any federal regulatory program implemented in the last 10 years, with annual benefits exceeding costs by more than 40:1. In other words, “for every dollar spent on implementing this cap and trade program, 40 dollars are returned in health and environmental benefits.” Additionally, a 2005 study estimated ARP’s benefits at $122 billion annually in 2010, while cost estimates are around $3 billion annually (in 2000 dollars).
In September 2009, The Wall Street Journal reported that a brief out from NYU Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity said: “From almost any perspective and under almost any assumption, H.R. 2454 [the Waxman-Markey climate bill] is a good investment for the United States to make in our own economic future and in the future of the planet.”
To reach that conclusion, the researchers set out to determine how much a ton of carbon not emitted into the atmosphere is worth to society in terms of avoiding climate change. Its worth came out to about $19 a ton.
“So, given that the Waxman-Markey bill would curb emissions over the next 40 years, it’s a pretty simple job to tally up the potential benefits: about $1.5 trillion on the middle-of-the-road estimate. The benefits could be as low as $382 billion or as high as $5.2 trillion, depending on how you fiddle with the numbers.
“Since Waxman-Markey is meant to cost about $660 billion, that means the bill provides $2.27 in benefits for every dollar spent, the brief concludes. That doesn’t include extra benefits — cleaner air from a cleaned-up power sector, for instance. And it suggests that even tougher greenhouse-gas targets in the Senate version of the bill would make an even more compelling economic argument,” The Wall Street Journal wrote.
Moreover, in 2010, The Brookings Institution reported: “The U.S. government recently examined the full range of scientific and economic data and developed a new way to measure the costs of releasing greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. The government’s central conclusion is that the release of an additional ton of carbon dioxide today will cause about $21 of damage globally. This is referred to as the social cost of carbon. It finally puts a monetary value on the expected damages from climate change, including shortened life spans, reduced agricultural yields, and increased property damage due to higher sea levels.
“The social cost of carbon confirms that the price of inaction is substantial. Assuming that all nations continue on their current emissions path, the average annual damages from the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, relative to 2010 emissions, is expected to be about $100 billion over the next decade. As the chart reveals, the annual damages by 2050 would be equal to nearly $1.3 trillion. If caps are not put in place, the average annual damages from greenhouse gas emissions would be about $570 billion over the next four decades.
“The projected economic damages for the United States alone are estimated to reach $200 billion annually by 2050. Over the next four decades, the average annual damages are projected at $85 billion.”
Given the many benefits of climate change mitigation, one would have to wonder why Inhofe and others alike are so against combating global warming. Could it be they are, as Inhofe said, merely trying to prevent government from controlling our lives or are they simply trying to maintain control of the nation”s wealth? What do you think?
This article was published originally by the Security and Sustainability Forum
Submitters Bio:
Roberta Seldon is the blogger at Security and Sustainability Forum, a website that provides free online seminars and useful information related to corporate sustainability, national security and climate change. Roberta Seldon is also a volunteer editor at OpEdNews.com.
Climate Change Denial is About Maintaining Control of the Wealth
Filed under: Uncategorized — theperpetualview @ 2:56 am Edit This
Tags: climate science, current-events, effects of climate change, environment, federal energy regulatory commission, global warming hoax, green energy Higher gas prices, Wealth.Waxman-Markey Bill
Rate This
March 16, 2012
By Roberta Seldon
The Waxman-Markey climate bill is a good investment for the United States to make in our own economic future and in the future of the planet, an NYU study reports. Yet Congressional Republicans continue to fight climate change legislation every step of the way — all for the sake of big oil.
In a video I posted last month, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) told Fox News Radio’s Alan Colmes that “the bureaucratic dream is to control carbon,” he said in reference to the notion that global warming is merely a hoax. Liberals want government to control our lives, and “if you control carbon, you control life,” he added.
Well, Inhofe was certainly right about one thing — the debate over global warming/climate change is about control; but not government control. It’s about the 1 percent maintaining control over the country’s wealth.
According to KCET – the nation’s largest independent public television station — Inhofe and two other senators known for their stance against addressing climate change “received a large chunk of their campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry.”
“For Inhofe” the oil and gas industry is his largest contributor, giving more than $1.2 million since 1989. His third-largest individual donor is Koch Industries, the Wichita oil and gas giant that has been recruiting Congressional Republicans to stand up to greenhouse gas regulations,” KCET reported.
Moreover, Politico reported that staffers of Inhofe and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the Republican chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, held a secret meeting in January with lobbyists from the American Petroleum Institute, the National Mining Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and others who wanted to block federal and state climate rules. That meeting led to the creation of the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.
The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, also known as H.R.910, is a piece of legislation aimed at amending the Clean Air Act “to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas due to concerns regarding possible climate change.”
According to a press release on the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s website, H.R.910 would “protect American jobs and manufacturers from overreaching EPA regulations that hinder our ability to compete with China and other countries.” The legislation would also:
Stop EPA bureaucrats from making legislative decisions that should be made by Congress;
Clarify that the Clean Air Act was not written by Congress to address climate change; and
Stop EPA bureaucrats from imposing a backdoor cap-and-trade tax that would make gasoline, electricity, fertilizer, and groceries more expensive for consumers.
“With this draft proposal, we are initiating a deliberative, transparent process that we hope will prevent EPA from imposing by regulation the massive cap-and-trade tax that Congress rejected last year. We firmly believe federal bureaucrats should not be unilaterally setting national climate change policy, and with good reason: EPA’s cap-and-trade tax agenda will cost jobs, undermine the competitiveness of America’s manufacturers, and, as EPA has conceded, will have no meaningful impact on climate. In other words, all cost with no benefit,” Inhofe, Upton and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky), Chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, who also had a hand in drafting the legislation, said in a joint statement, according to the press release.
But studies conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and New York University suggest that the phrase “all cost with no benefit” couldn’t be any further from the truth. According to the EPA, a 2003 Office of Management and Budget study found that the Acid Rain Program (ARP), a national cap and trade program, accounted for the largest quantified human health benefits — over $70 billion annually — of any federal regulatory program implemented in the last 10 years, with annual benefits exceeding costs by more than 40:1. In other words, “for every dollar spent on implementing this cap and trade program, 40 dollars are returned in health and environmental benefits.” Additionally, a 2005 study estimated ARP’s benefits at $122 billion annually in 2010, while cost estimates are around $3 billion annually (in 2000 dollars).
In September 2009, The Wall Street Journal reported that a brief out from NYU Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity said: “From almost any perspective and under almost any assumption, H.R. 2454 [the Waxman-Markey climate bill] is a good investment for the United States to make in our own economic future and in the future of the planet.”
To reach that conclusion, the researchers set out to determine how much a ton of carbon not emitted into the atmosphere is worth to society in terms of avoiding climate change. Its worth came out to about $19 a ton.
“So, given that the Waxman-Markey bill would curb emissions over the next 40 years, it’s a pretty simple job to tally up the potential benefits: about $1.5 trillion on the middle-of-the-road estimate. The benefits could be as low as $382 billion or as high as $5.2 trillion, depending on how you fiddle with the numbers.
“Since Waxman-Markey is meant to cost about $660 billion, that means the bill provides $2.27 in benefits for every dollar spent, the brief concludes. That doesn’t include extra benefits — cleaner air from a cleaned-up power sector, for instance. And it suggests that even tougher greenhouse-gas targets in the Senate version of the bill would make an even more compelling economic argument,” The Wall Street Journal wrote.
Moreover, in 2010, The Brookings Institution reported: “The U.S. government recently examined the full range of scientific and economic data and developed a new way to measure the costs of releasing greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. The government’s central conclusion is that the release of an additional ton of carbon dioxide today will cause about $21 of damage globally. This is referred to as the social cost of carbon. It finally puts a monetary value on the expected damages from climate change, including shortened life spans, reduced agricultural yields, and increased property damage due to higher sea levels.
“The social cost of carbon confirms that the price of inaction is substantial. Assuming that all nations continue on their current emissions path, the average annual damages from the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, relative to 2010 emissions, is expected to be about $100 billion over the next decade. As the chart reveals, the annual damages by 2050 would be equal to nearly $1.3 trillion. If caps are not put in place, the average annual damages from greenhouse gas emissions would be about $570 billion over the next four decades.
“The projected economic damages for the United States alone are estimated to reach $200 billion annually by 2050. Over the next four decades, the average annual damages are projected at $85 billion.”
Given the many benefits of climate change mitigation, one would have to wonder why Inhofe and others alike are so against combating global warming. Could it be they are, as Inhofe said, merely trying to prevent government from controlling our lives or are they simply trying to maintain control of the nation”s wealth? What do you think?
This article was published originally by the Security and Sustainability Forum
Submitters Bio:
Roberta Seldon is the blogger at Security and Sustainability Forum, a website that provides free online seminars and useful information related to corporate sustainability, national security and climate change. Roberta Seldon is also a volunteer editor at OpEdNews.com.
Obama’s Energy Stance Taxes the Brain
March 17, 2012
Obama’s Energy Stance Taxes the Brain
Filed under: Uncategorized — theperpetualview @ 2:31 am Edit This
Tags: current-events, federal energy regulatory commission, greenhouse gas emissions, oil and gas drilling, taxes on oil companies
Rate This
Emac’s Bottom Line
Written By Elizabeth MacDonald
Published March 16, 2012
FOXBusiness
Reuters
President Barack Obama said in a campaign speech Thursday that the reason you are paying a lot more at the gas pump is due not to supply or demand issues, or geopolitics, but because of tax breaks.
“Oil companies are making more money right now than they’ve ever made,” the President said. “On top of the money they’re getting from you at the gas station, they want some of your tax dollars as well. That doesn’t make any sense. Does it make sense? It’s inexcusable. It’s time for this oil industry giveaway to end.”
But for an industry getting tax breaks, the companies are sure paying a lot of taxes.
They paid $1 trillion in sales and excise taxes out of their revenues between 1981 and 2008, a total that exceeded their after-tax profits by 40%, according to data from the International Energy and the Energy Information Administration. That doesn’t count federal or state income taxes.
On top of that, you are paying a lot in federal and state taxes at the pump, anywhere from 10% to 20% of your cost per $3.83 gallon of gas, now the nationwide average. People in New York, California, Connecticut and Hawaii pay the most in taxes at the pump.
Meanwhile, the oil and gas industry gets less tax breaks than clean energy, says the Tax Foundation. And annual subsidies for renewables are more than four times larger than those for fossil fuels, says Tax Foundation President Scott Hodge.
So, oil and gas companies, and you, are paying to subsidize green energy that is still failing to help lower your family’s energy costs.
And although the president talks about flattening and reforming the U.S. tax code to make it more fair, the White House is making the code even more unfair by taking away from the oil and gas industry tax breaks for all manufacturers, breaks that were put in place to help U.S. manufacturing and boost American companies’ competitiveness overseas.
Why is the president campaigning to use the tax code to punish or reward certain industries based on their political popularity, when profitable companies already are subsidizing their less successful green rivals?
At the same time, the President’s fiscal 2013 budget proposal would slap another massive $85 billion tax hike on energy, while it clamps down on the Keystone pipeline and offshore drilling and seeks a cap and trade system that has caused Europe’s energy bills to soar.
Is this an energy policy the U.S. taxpayer wants?
A report from the World Economic Forum, in conjunction with IHS-CERA, shows the oil and gas industry drives U.S. job creation. According to the report, oil and natural gas production accounted for 9% of new U.S. jobs last year.
“Our industry and the activities that support it accounted for more than $1 trillion of the U.S. economy in 2009, or about 7.7% of U.S. gross domestic product,” according to a recent study by PricewaterhouseCoopers, says Ken Cohen, vice president of public and government affairs at ExxonMobil (XOM: 86.44, +0.35, +0.41%).
Meanwhile, the biggest oil and gas players in the world are owned and operated by foreign governments. More than three quarters, 78%, of global oil reserves are owned and operated by foreign governments, versus privately operated oil companies like those here in the U.S.
But the size of the tax bills for U.S. oil and gas companies are significant.
For example, ExxonMobil paid $108.1 billion in total worldwide taxes in 2011, up from $89.2 billion in 2010, according to its filings, confirmed by a company spokesman. Exxon’s total worldwide income tax portion of its 2011 bill was $30.5 billion. Exxon pays taxes to foreign governments where it operates.
Back here at home, Exxon paid $12.3 billion total in U.S. taxes, all in, for federal, state, sales, property, and excise taxes. That’s up from $9.8 billion the year prior. Overall, that makes Exxon the biggest payer of U.S. corporate taxes.
When you think about it, Exxon paid more than a billion dollars a month in U.S. taxes, all in, last year. But Exxon earned $9.6 billion in after-tax profits in 2011.
“So the U.S. government gets a bigger slice from us than our shareholders do,” says Alan Jeffers, spokesman for ExxonMobil. “How can you possibly say we’re not paying our fair share when our tax bill is bigger than our profits?”
Overall, the oil and gas industry actually forks over more money to local, state and federal governments in taxes and fees than what it earns after taxes in the United States.
And what do you, consumer, pay in taxes at the gas pump? The federal government takes 18.4 cents per gallon for gasoline sold. State and local governments then tack on their own taxes, an average 30.4 cents nationwide, says the Energy Information Administration.
New Yorkers pay the most in state taxes, it’s 49.5 cents a gallon. That means nearly 68 cents a gallon of gas pumped in the Empire State is actually taxes on the consumer.
It’s the nickel and diming that really stings consumers; companies tend to pass along their tax bills in the form of higher prices at the pump.
But this doesn’t count other U.S. taxes oil and gas companies pay, too. In severance, property and so-called windfall profit taxes, the industry paid more than $472 billion between 1981 and 2008. Nor does it count what the oil and gas industry pay to foreign governments.
Between 1981 and 2008, the oil industry paid more than $388 billion to the federal and state governments in corporate income taxes, but they paid almost twice that amount, $683 billion, to foreign governments, says the Tax Foundation
Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2012/03/16/taxes-and-gas-prices/#ixzz1pKxxp4Mk
Obama’s Energy Stance Taxes the Brain
Filed under: Uncategorized — theperpetualview @ 2:31 am Edit This
Tags: current-events, federal energy regulatory commission, greenhouse gas emissions, oil and gas drilling, taxes on oil companies
Rate This
Emac’s Bottom Line
Written By Elizabeth MacDonald
Published March 16, 2012
FOXBusiness
Reuters
President Barack Obama said in a campaign speech Thursday that the reason you are paying a lot more at the gas pump is due not to supply or demand issues, or geopolitics, but because of tax breaks.
“Oil companies are making more money right now than they’ve ever made,” the President said. “On top of the money they’re getting from you at the gas station, they want some of your tax dollars as well. That doesn’t make any sense. Does it make sense? It’s inexcusable. It’s time for this oil industry giveaway to end.”
But for an industry getting tax breaks, the companies are sure paying a lot of taxes.
They paid $1 trillion in sales and excise taxes out of their revenues between 1981 and 2008, a total that exceeded their after-tax profits by 40%, according to data from the International Energy and the Energy Information Administration. That doesn’t count federal or state income taxes.
On top of that, you are paying a lot in federal and state taxes at the pump, anywhere from 10% to 20% of your cost per $3.83 gallon of gas, now the nationwide average. People in New York, California, Connecticut and Hawaii pay the most in taxes at the pump.
Meanwhile, the oil and gas industry gets less tax breaks than clean energy, says the Tax Foundation. And annual subsidies for renewables are more than four times larger than those for fossil fuels, says Tax Foundation President Scott Hodge.
So, oil and gas companies, and you, are paying to subsidize green energy that is still failing to help lower your family’s energy costs.
And although the president talks about flattening and reforming the U.S. tax code to make it more fair, the White House is making the code even more unfair by taking away from the oil and gas industry tax breaks for all manufacturers, breaks that were put in place to help U.S. manufacturing and boost American companies’ competitiveness overseas.
Why is the president campaigning to use the tax code to punish or reward certain industries based on their political popularity, when profitable companies already are subsidizing their less successful green rivals?
At the same time, the President’s fiscal 2013 budget proposal would slap another massive $85 billion tax hike on energy, while it clamps down on the Keystone pipeline and offshore drilling and seeks a cap and trade system that has caused Europe’s energy bills to soar.
Is this an energy policy the U.S. taxpayer wants?
A report from the World Economic Forum, in conjunction with IHS-CERA, shows the oil and gas industry drives U.S. job creation. According to the report, oil and natural gas production accounted for 9% of new U.S. jobs last year.
“Our industry and the activities that support it accounted for more than $1 trillion of the U.S. economy in 2009, or about 7.7% of U.S. gross domestic product,” according to a recent study by PricewaterhouseCoopers, says Ken Cohen, vice president of public and government affairs at ExxonMobil (XOM: 86.44, +0.35, +0.41%).
Meanwhile, the biggest oil and gas players in the world are owned and operated by foreign governments. More than three quarters, 78%, of global oil reserves are owned and operated by foreign governments, versus privately operated oil companies like those here in the U.S.
But the size of the tax bills for U.S. oil and gas companies are significant.
For example, ExxonMobil paid $108.1 billion in total worldwide taxes in 2011, up from $89.2 billion in 2010, according to its filings, confirmed by a company spokesman. Exxon’s total worldwide income tax portion of its 2011 bill was $30.5 billion. Exxon pays taxes to foreign governments where it operates.
Back here at home, Exxon paid $12.3 billion total in U.S. taxes, all in, for federal, state, sales, property, and excise taxes. That’s up from $9.8 billion the year prior. Overall, that makes Exxon the biggest payer of U.S. corporate taxes.
When you think about it, Exxon paid more than a billion dollars a month in U.S. taxes, all in, last year. But Exxon earned $9.6 billion in after-tax profits in 2011.
“So the U.S. government gets a bigger slice from us than our shareholders do,” says Alan Jeffers, spokesman for ExxonMobil. “How can you possibly say we’re not paying our fair share when our tax bill is bigger than our profits?”
Overall, the oil and gas industry actually forks over more money to local, state and federal governments in taxes and fees than what it earns after taxes in the United States.
And what do you, consumer, pay in taxes at the gas pump? The federal government takes 18.4 cents per gallon for gasoline sold. State and local governments then tack on their own taxes, an average 30.4 cents nationwide, says the Energy Information Administration.
New Yorkers pay the most in state taxes, it’s 49.5 cents a gallon. That means nearly 68 cents a gallon of gas pumped in the Empire State is actually taxes on the consumer.
It’s the nickel and diming that really stings consumers; companies tend to pass along their tax bills in the form of higher prices at the pump.
But this doesn’t count other U.S. taxes oil and gas companies pay, too. In severance, property and so-called windfall profit taxes, the industry paid more than $472 billion between 1981 and 2008. Nor does it count what the oil and gas industry pay to foreign governments.
Between 1981 and 2008, the oil industry paid more than $388 billion to the federal and state governments in corporate income taxes, but they paid almost twice that amount, $683 billion, to foreign governments, says the Tax Foundation
Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2012/03/16/taxes-and-gas-prices/#ixzz1pKxxp4Mk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)