Daily Archives: March 22, 2013

03/22/13

As Cyprus Collapses, It’s a Race to the Mediterranean Gas Finish Line

By: Jen Alic of Oilprice.com

Cyprus is preparing for total financial collapse as the European Central Bank turns its back on the island after its parliament rejected a scheme to make Cypriot citizens pay a levy on savings deposits in return for a share in potential gas futures to fund a bailout.

On Wednesday, the Greek-Cypriot government voted against asking its citizens to bank on the future of gas exports by paying a 3-15% levy on bank deposits in return for a stake in potential gas sales. The scheme would have partly funded a $13 billion EU bailout.

It would have been a major gamble that had Cypriots asking how much gas the island actually has and whether it will prove commercially viable any time soon.

In the end, not even the parliament was willing to take the gamble, forcing Cypriots to look elsewhere for cash, hitting up Russia in desperate talks this week, but to no avail.

The bank deposit levy would not have gone down well in Russia, whose citizens use Cypriot banks to store their “offshore” cash. Some of the largest accounts belong to Russians and other foreigners, and the levy scheme would have targeted accounts with over 20,000 euros. So it made sense that Cyprus would then turn to Russia for help, but so far Moscow hasn’t put any concrete offers on the table.

Plan A (the levy scheme) has been rejected. Plan B (Russia) has been ineffective. Plan C has yet to reveal itself. And without a Plan C, the banks can’t reopen. The minute they open their doors there will be a withdrawal rush that will force their collapse.

In the meantime, cashing in on the island’s major gas potential is more urgent than ever—but these are still very early days.

In the end, it’s all about gas and the race to the finish line to develop massive Mediterranean discoveries. Cyprus has found itself right in the middle of this geopolitical game in which its gas potential is a tool in a showdown between Russia and the European Union.

The EU favored the Cypriot bank deposit levy but it would have hit at the massive accounts of Russian oligarchs. Without the promise of Levant Basin gas, the EU wouldn’t have had the bravado for such a move because Russia holds too much power over Europe’s gas supply.

Cypriot Gas Potential

The Greek Cypriot government believes it is sitting on an amazing 60 trillion cubic feet of gas, but these are early days—these aren’t proven reserves and commercial viability could be years away. In the best-case scenario, production could feasibly begin in five years.

Exports are even further afield, with some analysts suggesting 2020 as a start date.

In 2011, the first (and only) gas was discovered offshore Cyprus, in Block 12, which is licensed to Houston-based Noble Energy Inc. (NBL). The block holds an estimated 8 trillion cubic feet of gas.

To date, the Greek Cypriots have awarded licenses for six offshore exploration blocks that could contain up to 40 trillion cubic feet of gas. Aside from Noble, these licenses have gone to Total SA of France and a joint venture between Eni SpA (ENI) of Italy and Korea Gas Corp.

But the process of exploring, developing, extracting, processing and getting gas to market is a long one. Getting the gas extracted offshore and then pumped onshore could take at least five years and some very expensive infrastructure that does not presently exist. The gas would have to be liquefied so it could be transported by seaborne tankers.

The potential is there: Cyprus’ gas discoveries adjoin Israeli territorial waters where the discovery of the massive Leviathan gasfield (425 billion cubic meters or 16 trillion cubic feet) and smaller Tamar gasfield (250 billion cubic meters or 9 trillion cubic feet) have foreign companies in a rush to cash in on this.

There are myriad problems to extracting Cypriot gas—not the least of which is the fact that some of this offshore exploration territory is disputed by Turkey, which has controlled part of the island since 1974.

Gas exploration has taken this dispute to a new level, with Turkey sending in warships to halt drilling in 2011, and threatening to bar foreign companies exploring in Cyprus from any license opportunities in Turkey. The situation is likely to intensify as Noble prepares to begin exploratory drilling later this year in Block 12.

In the meantime, there is no shortage of competition on this arena. Cyprus will have to vie with Israel, Lebanon and Syria—all of which have made offshore gas discoveries of late in the Mediterranean’s Levant Basin, which has an estimated total of 122 trillion cubic feet of gas and 1.7 billion barrels of oil.

Blackmailing Cyprus?

While Greek Cypriot citizens are not willing to gamble away their savings on gas futures, Russia and the European Union are certainly less hesitant.

This is both a negotiating point for Cyprus and a convenient tool of blackmail for Russia and the EU. Essentially, the bailout is the prop on a stage that will determine who gets control of these assets.

Theoretically, Cyprus could guarantee Russia exploration rights in return for assistance. As much as this is possible, the EU could ease its bailout negotiations if it becomes clear that a Russian bailout of sorts is imminent.

Gas finds in the Mediterranean and particularly across the Levant Basin—home to Israel’s Leviathan and Tamar fields—could be the answer to Russian gas hegemony in Europe. The question is: How much does Cyprus count in this equation? A lot.

Though only half of the estimated resources in the Levant Basin, Cyprus’ potential 60 trillion cubic feet of gas could equal 40% of the EU’s gas supplies and be worth a whopping $400 billion if commercial viability is proven.

Russia is keen to keep Cyprus and Israel from cooperating too much toward the goal of loosening Russia’s grip on Europe before Moscow manages to gain a greater share of the Asian market.

Russia is also not keen on Israel’s plan to lay an undersea natural gas pipeline to Turkey’s south coast to sell its gas from the Leviathan field to Europe. Turkey hasn’t agreed to this deal yet, but it is certainly considering it. This is fraught with all kinds of political problems at home, so for now Ankara is keeping it as low profile as possible.

With all of this in mind, Russia is doing its best to get in on the Levant largesse itself. While it’s also courting Lebanon and Syria, dating Israel is already in full force. Gazprom has signed a deal with Israel that would give it control of Tamar’s gas and access to the Asian market for its liquefied natural gas (LNG). Tamar will probably begin producing already in April at a 1 billion cubic feet/day capacity.

In accordance with this deal, which Israel has yet to approve, Gazprom will provide financial support for the development of the Tamar Floating LNG Project. In return, Gazprom will get exclusive rights to purchase and export Tamar LNG. It is also significant because Tamar is a US-Israeli joint venture—so essentially the plan is to help Russia diversify from the European market.

What does this mean for Cyprus? The chess pieces are still being put on the board, and both fortunately and unfortunately, Cyprus’ gas potential will be intricately linked to its bailout potential.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Cypriot-Bailout-Linked-to-Gas-Potential.html

By: Jen Alic of Oilprice.com

03/22/13

The Balance of Powers Act – How People Are Destroyed For Lack of Knowledge

By: Publius Huldah

Our own Ignorance is destroying us. Mark Twain wrote in his autobiography:

“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”

That is what has been going on in our Country for a very long time. Our “intellectuals” can’t think; our “scholars” parrot each other; the self-educated fixate on idiotic theories; no one studies original source writings; and The People jump on every bandwagon that rolls by.

In order to write intelligently on our Constitution, one needs to have studied and understood the original source writings of our Framers. No matter what your educational level, if you don’t know what is in our Declaration of Independence and federal Constitution; and if you are not familiar from personal study with The Federalist Papers, The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, Madison’s Report on the Virginia Resolutions (1799-1800), and Madison’s Notes on Nullification (1834), among other original source writings, then you have no business writing about these issues.

But we are flooded with rubbish about the Constitution put out by law professors, history professors, Ph.Ds. of this or that, Heritage Foundation, those with no academic qualifications, and politicians. And none of them know what they are talking about!

And The People read their rubbish and believe it.

One of many such writings which plague us is the Balance of Powers Act (“BOPA”). 1

The BOPA reflects a justified frustration with the innumerable usurpations by the federal government during the last 100 years.

But it also reflects such fundamental misunderstandings of our Founding Principles that it misstates or ignores them. Accordingly, it undermines our Constitution.

There are 6 major problems with the BOPA:

1. It wrongly presents the federal government as a party to the U.S. Constitution.

Throughout the BOPA, the following refrain is recited:

“The guarantee of those powers is a matter of compact between the state and people of _[state]__ and the United States as of the time that _[state]____ was admitted to statehood in _[year of admission]_.” [boldface mine]

That refrain elevates the federal government (“the United States”) 2 to the status of a “party” to the compact (Constitution)!

But the federal government is not a party to the Constitution! WE THE PEOPLE created the federal government when we ordained and established The Constitution. The federal government didn’t even exist until the Constitution was ratified.

Accordingly, our Framers understood that the federal government is merely our “creature”, and is not a “party” to anything. In Federalist No. 33 (5th para), Alexander Hamilton writes:

“… If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard [Constitution] they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.” [boldface mine]

Thomas Jefferson writes in his Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions, 8th Resolution:

“… they [The States] alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, …” [emphasis mine]

James Madison writes in his Report on the Virginia Resolutions (1799-1800) under the 3rd resolution:

It…[is]…a plain principle, founded in common sense…and essential to the nature of compacts, that, where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges, in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. … The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; … [boldface mine]

Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison are saying that because the States alone are “the parties” to the compact, they are the final authority to decide whether their “creature”, the federal government, has violated the compact. THIS is why States have the natural right of nullification!

But by asserting that States and the federal government are in a “compact” together, the BOPA elevates our “creature” to the status of a sovereign party right up there with The States! Thus, it undermines the “plain principle” that the States alone, as the parties to the compact, have the right to decide, in the last resort, whether the federal government has violated the compact! 3

2. It wrongly suggests that each State (after the original 13) has a different Constitution

Here is another wrongheaded aspect of the same refrain in BOPA:

“The guarantee of those powers is a matter of compact between the state and people of _[state]__ and the United States as of the time that _[state]____ was admitted to statehood in _[year of admission]_.” [boldface mine]

The BOPA makes the absurd suggestion (which is piled on top of the untrue assertion that the federal government is a party to the compact) that every State admitted after the original 13, has a different “compact” with the federal government, depending on the year of admission.

So instead of one Constitution applicable to all States, we have (according to the BOPA) some 37 “compacts” (Constitutions) [50-13= 37]. Not only is this absurd, it perpetuates the lie spewed by progressives that the meaning of the Constitution evolves.

When Tennessee was admitted to statehood on June 1, 1796, she was admitted “on an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatsoever”. The U.S. Constitution has the same force in Tennessee and in the same manner as if Tennessee had been one of the original 13 States. See, “An Act for the admission of the State of Tennessee into the Union”.

3. It misstates the original intent of the “interstate commerce” clause.

Section 2 (3) of the BOPA asserts that the interstate commerce clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 3):

“…was meant to empower Congress to regulate the buying and selling of products made by others (and sometimes land), associated finance and financial instruments, and navigation and other carriage, across state jurisdictional lines…”

That is demonstrably false, and no authorities are cited.

We look to The Federalist Papers to learn the original intent of the clause. Federalist No. 22 (4th para), Federalist No. 42 (9th &10th paras), Federalist No. 44 (at 2.), and Federalist No. 56 (4th & 5th paras), explain the two purposes of the “interstate commerce” clause:

• To prohibit the States from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of import and export – goods & commodities – merchandize – as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling; and
• To permit the federal government to impose duties on articles of commerce and imports.4

4. It doesn’t properly set forth the original intent of the “necessary and proper” clause.

Section 2 (4) of the BOPA asserts that the necessary and proper clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, last cl.), was:

“… a limitation of power under the common-law doctrine of “principals and incidents,” which restricts the power of Congress to exercise incidental powers. There are two (2) main conditions required for something to be incidental, and therefore, “necessary and proper.” The law or power exercised must be 1) directly applicable to the main, enumerated power, and 2) it must be “lesser” than the main power.”

That is neither helpful nor authoritative.

The Federalist Papers explain the original intent of this clause. It merely delegates to Congress the power to pass laws necessary and proper to execute its declared powers (Federalist No. 29, 4th para); a power to do something must be a power to pass all laws necessary and proper for the execution of that power (Federalist No. 33, 3rd para); “the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same if [this clause] were entirely obliterated as if [it] were repeated in every article” (No. 33, 2nd para); and thus the clause is “perfectly harmless”, a “tautology or redundancy” (No. 33, 3rd para). Madison says the same in Federalist No. 44, at 1 (under his discussion of the SIXTH class).

In plain English, the clause merely permits Congress to make laws to carry out the enumerated powers of the three branches of the federal government.

For example: The duty of some of the federal courts created by Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 9 is to conduct trials (in the types of cases Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1 permits them to hear). Trials involve parties and witnesses. They must be required to tell the Truth! So, it would be necessary and proper for Congress to make laws against perjury in federal court.

5. It misstates the original intent of the “general welfare” clause.

Section 2 (5) of the BOPA asserts that the general welfare clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1) requires:

“… that congress only enact laws which serve all citizens well and equally. When James Madison was asked if this clause were a grant of power, he replied “If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.” Thus, we re-establish that this clause is a limitation on the power of the federal government to act in the welfare of all when passing laws in pursuance of the powers delegated to the United States, showing no favor to any race, creed, color or socio-economic class.”

That is not true, and no authorities are cited in support of the assertion that the general welfare clause means that Congress must treat all social classes the same.

The limitation imposed by the Constitution on Congress’ powers is that laws made by Congress must fall within the scope of the enumerated powers delegated to Congress.

The term, “general welfare”, as used in our Constitution, has nothing to do with treating people of all races, creeds, and social classes the same.

Our Framers understood the “general welfare” (as applied to States) to refer to:

“Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government.” (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary)

They saw that this condition could be brought about by the federal government we created in our Constitution: A federal government divided into three parts, with each part having checks on the other parts; and with only enumerated powers delegated to each of the three parts.

Accordingly, the Preamble to our Constitution says:

“WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” [boldface mine]

And that portion of our Constitution which introduces the list of most of the enumerated powers delegated to Congress over the Country at Large (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl 1) says:

“The Congress shall have Power … to … provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States…” [boldface mine]

Immediately thereafter follows the enumeration of 15 specific powers delegated to Congress over the Country at Large. In essence, these 15 powers authorize Congress to:

• Provide for military defense and international relations and commerce;
• Establish a uniform commercial system (bankruptcy laws, a money system based on gold & silver, weights & measures, mail delivery & some road building, patents & copyrights); and
• Make laws for naturalization of new citizens.

Our Framers understood that the “general Welfare” – the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, and the enjoyment of the ordinary blessings of society and civil government – would prevail with the federal government of narrowly defined and enumerated powers created by our Constitution! 5

Section (6) (A) of the BOPA then goes on to assert that the commerce clause, general welfare clause, and necessary & proper clause were amended and limited by the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments!

Rubbish! Not only is no authority cited for this bizarre assertion, it is because the author lacks understanding of the original intents of the three clauses that he believes they needed to be “fixed” by amendments!

6. It ignores the Essential Characteristic of our Federal Constitution.

The essence of our federal Constitution is that it created a federal government of three branches, with each branch having checks on the other two branches. Furthermore, it delegated only specific, narrowly defined powers to each branch.

James Madison writes in Federalist No. 45 (3rd para from end) of the “few and defined” powers delegated to the federal government:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” [boldface mine]

What we have lost is the knowledge that Our Constitution delegated only “few and defined” – enumerated – powers to each branch of the federal government. For complete lists and explanations of the powers our Constitution delegated to each branch, see:

• Congress’ enumerated powers [Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1-16 is not the complete list]
• The president’s enumerated powers
• The federal court’s enumerated powers

Any American of common sense and ordinary understanding is capable of fully understanding the scope of the powers delegated by our Constitution to Congress and to the President. 6

This is one of the keys to Restoration of our Constitutional Republic.

The BOPA contains a number of other statements which are confused and erroneous.

Conclusion

Our Framers were exquisitely educated in Logic, Judeo-Christian values, political philosophy, and statecraft. The American People of our Founding Era had the Wisdom and Humility to listen to our Framers.

Let us once again show that same Wisdom and Humility. Listen to Our Framers.

Endnotes:

1 The BOPA is the product of The Constitutional Justice Division of the North American law Center. As grand as those titles do sound, the BOPA does not reflect the light cast by minds schooled in law or statecraft. Furthermore, the writing is confused and some of the sentences undiagrammable.

2 Throughout our Constitution, the “federal government” is referred to as “the United States”.

3 Parties to compacts have mutual rights and obligations. The federal government has no “rights” – it has only those few delegated powers WE enumerated in the Constitution. The People pre-existed the Constitution. The States pre-existed the Constitution. Since the federal government didn’t exist until the Constitution was ratified, it can’t be a “party” to it! It is impossible to understand our Constitution unless one understands that the federal government is merely a “creature” of the Constitution – and as such, is completely subject to its terms.

4 For additional proof of the original intent of the “interstate commerce” clause see: Does the Interstate Commerce Clause Authorize Congress to Force us to buy Health Insurance?

5 The progressives say the general welfare clause gives Congress power to pass any law they say promotes the “general welfare”.

James Madison refutes that misconstruction in Federalist No. 41 (last 4 paras). See also: Does the general welfare clause of the U.S. Constitution authorize Congress to force us to buy health insurance?

The BOPA’s erroneous assertion that the clause means that laws passed by Congress must “serve all citizens well and equally”, could easily morph into the perversion that Congress may do whatever it likes as long as its laws are fair to all races, creeds, and classes.

But the constitutional standard is that acts of Congress must fall within the scope of the enumerated powers delegated to Congress. We must not blur that clear line with our own fabricated feel-good theories. READ the last 4 paras of Federalist No. 41!

6 Some knowledge of law and litigation is necessary to fully understand the enumerated powers of the federal courts. But if our People would make the modest effort necessary to learn the enumerated powers of Congress and the President, they would become:

“a people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.” (Federalist No. 16 [Hamilton] next to last para)

Then they would be able to distinguish between constitutional and unconstitutional acts of Congress and the Executive Branch. PH

03/22/13

Media Expose Their Own Standards While Targeting Bachmann

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

In a clear case of the media’s double standard, CNN has been chasing around Congresswoman Michele Bachmann regarding her CPAC comments on the President’s lavish lifestyle. This, when the majority of her speech focused elsewhere: on Benghazi, the federal debt, medical innovations, and cyber attacks.

And while CNN insists on piling it on, they bring ridicule on themselves by being guilty of what they accuse Bachmann of doing. CNN’s Dana Bash chased the Congresswoman down the hall to ask her about her comments. The Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler gave her four Pinocchios in response to her speech. And, to give the liberal meme credence, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly condemned the Congresswoman as lacking focus with the conclusion, “Two words: Not Good.”

“Congresswoman Goes Rogue: Independent fact check finds Bachmann wrong” ran the banner underneath the CNN broadcast. But a closer look at the facts shows that the media themselves are omitting key information about Bachmann’s comments.

Kessler quotes Representative Bachmann at length, writing:

“A new book is out talking about the perks and the excess of the $1.4-billion-a-year presidency that we’re paying for. And this is a lifestyle that is one of excess. Now we find out that there are five chefs on Air Force One. There are two projectionists who operate the White House movie theater. They regularly sleep at the White House in order to be readily available in case the first family wants a really, really late show. And I don’t mean to be petty here, but can’t they just push the play button? We are also the ones who are paying for someone to walk the President’s dog. Paying for someone to walk the President’s dog? Now, why are we doing that when we can’t even get a disabled veteran into the White House for a White House tour? That isn’t caring!”

However, Kessler omits key sentences with which Bachmann prefaced her criticism of the President: “Now we all believe that the President and the First Family, with all seriousness, do deserve the best security and the very best protection that we can get them,” began Representative Bachman. “They deserve to live in the White House. They deserve to fly on a private plane.”

“There is a problem,” she asserted. And that problem is that their “excessive” lifestyle included, for example, five chefs, sleepover projectionists, and paid walking of Bo, the dog.

In his fact check, Kessler finds that President George W. Bush spent nearly $1.6 billion in 2008 on the First Family and its security. He says that half of that was for the Secret Service. “Moreover, the money spent on the presidency and the so-called perks she describes appear to be no different for Obama than for Bush or other presidents,” reports Kessler. “It’s absurd to suggest otherwise.”

Kessler points to two sources for Representative Bachmann’s comments: Presidential Perks Gone Royal, by a Republican lobbyist, and The 1.4 Billion Dollar Man: Costs of the Obama White House. In the latter book, author John F. Groom writes that “Despite having a vacation resort at Camp David reserved for the President’s exclusive use—at taxpayer cost of $8 million a year—the Obama family has spent tens of millions more on their taxpayer-subsidized vacations to Hawaii, Spain, Vail, Cape Cod, Africa, and South America.”

“At huge taxpayer expense, they take a date night to New York, as if the capital of the nation was devoid of suitable restaurants or entertainment.”

“Groom’s figures include a number of somewhat fishy guesstimates (‘unreimbursed campaign expenses’), but as it happens, a much more credible scholar—former White House aide Bradley H. Patterson Jr.—attempted to figure out the tab for the White House for a book, To Serve the President, published in 2010 by the Brookings Institution,” writes Kessler (emphasis added).

CNN’s Anderson Cooper insinuated that Presidential Perks Gone Royal is also not a credible source because it is self-published and without resources. “Congresswoman Bachmann apparently got her information from a 131-page self-published book by a long-time Republican lobbyist,” said Cooper on CNN. “The book provides no specific sourcing for the claims it makes, no sourcing.” Actually, according to Kessler the book has a list of resources that were consulted but not cited throughout the book. “It provides no specific sourcing for any of its claims, though in the back it provides a list of articles and books that presumably the author consulted,” writes Kessler.

Representative Bachmann may have relied upon poor sources for her information, but did she actually say anything false? Four Pinocchios seems a bit harsh if she didn’t.

“And as for Bo the dog, he has no designated walker,” said Cooper on CNN. “None.”

“The White House gardener actually walks the dog. It turns out the guy likes dogs and has walked presidential dogs for the last eight administrations,” says Cooper. But Representative Bachmann didn’t say that there was a dog walker for the President. She said that “We are also the ones who are paying for someone to walk the President’s dog, paying for someone to walk the President’s dog?” In other words, she never asserted that someone had been hired for this purpose, but that they were paid to do it. As for the “five chefs” the media has insisted on calling them five “cooks.” Does this semantic difference really resonate with an American public struggling to get by?

An active duty member of the Air Force called in to the Chris Plante show on WMAL in Washington to point out that those five would be insulted to be called “cooks,” and that they are in fact high quality chefs. Plante, a great local radio host who precedes Rush Limbaugh for three hours every day, skewered CNN, where he worked for many years, and the Post’s Fact-Checker Glenn Kessler, for getting it wrong by misquoting and mischaracterizing what Bachmann had actually said. They were the ones who got it wrong. Again, Bachmann said, “We are also the ones who are paying for someone to walk the President’s dog,” which Cooper, himself, confirmed when he referred to the person as a gardener, though he is actually the groundskeeper. Dana Bash ran up to her, however, saying, “What I want to ask you about is the fact that you said, you talked about the excesses that he’s engaged in. The fact that he has a dog walker, which is not true.” Bachmann didn’t say “he has a dog walker.”

As Chris Plante asked, will we ever see Dana Bash chasing after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid calling him on his false implication that the sequester was what caused seven Marines to die in the training accident that took place this week in Nevada?” The question answers itself.

Regarding the projectionists, the press has asserted multiple times that Jimmy Carter watched movies hundreds of times while at the White House. The estimates range from 450 to 480 movies during his one term in office. As Plante pointed out, that is the equivalent of nearly 1,000 hours, or twenty 50-hour work weeks. Could that explain his dismal performance in office? How does this respond to the allegation that these days two projectionists sleep over at the White House to perform their duties, when, according to Rep. Bachmann, the First Family could have just pressed the “play” button? Technology has come quite a long way since the Carter Administration.

In his comments, O’Reilly proves without a doubt that he did not listen to Rep. Bachmann’s original speech. He accuses her of lacking focus. “But Mr. Obama is entitled to protection, convenience, and comfort, as he runs the nation,” said O’Reilly. Indeed, Rep. Bachmann prefaced her comments on this same point. “Congresswoman Bachmann and all opponents of Obama should zero in on what’s really important,” asserts O’Reilly, “the President’s failure to deal with out of control spending and his core belief that America is not a fair country” (emphasis added).

“That’s what’s important, not who’s walking the Presidential dog.” Perhaps O’Reilly should scold the media for focusing on the President’s dog, not Congresswoman Bachmann.

Rep. Bachmann’s speech did focus on a variety of issues, including the debt, Benghazi, cyber attacks, the “war against the young,” bureaucratic salaries, medical innovations, and “over-zealous regulators.” “It’s time we cared,” Rep. Bachmann asserted. She called the current financial situation “a generational injustice of epic proportions.” Perhaps what upset the media most was that she accused the President of being uncaring for multiple reasons, not just his perks.

Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at [email protected].

03/22/13

Help KeyWiki Expose Connecticut’s Pro–Communist Legislators

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

Connecticut is a Democrat controlled state, with some communist hotspots, particularly around the New Haven/Yale area.

The Connecticut Communist Party USA is very influential in New Haven and has used its base at the New Haven People’s Center to infiltrate Congress and the state legislature with pro-communist Democrats.

Joelle Fishman, center

Joelle Fishman, center

The local Party leader is Joelle Fishman, a Commissioner on the City of New Haven Peace Commission, an executive board of the Alliance of Retired Americans in Connecticut and Chair of the CPUSA Political Action Commission, the Party body charged with telling covertly sympathetic Democrats which line to follow and which legislation to promote.

Joelle Fishman is married to Art Perlo, son of the late Soviet spy Victor Perlo.

The Party’s most influential friend in the state is long time 3rd District Rep. Rosa DeLauro, one of the most senior Democrats in the US Congress.

DeLauro has communist ties going back more than 20 years. Click on her name/blue link above to get a full rundown on DeLauro’s communist connections.

Rosa DeLauro, Joelle Fishman, New Haven People's Center

Rosa DeLauro, Joelle Fishman, New Haven People’s Center

State Senator Toni Harp is a also an affiliate of the Connecticut Communist Party.

In the State House, Reps Patricia Dillon, Toni Walker and Gary Holder-Winfield, all have well documented ties to the Party.

When local Communist Party icon, peace activist Al Marder, celebrated his 90th birthday in March 2012, all the above mentioned served on the host committee for Grandpa Marder’s festivities.

They were also joined by State Senate majority leader Martin Looney, Deputy Majority Leader, of the Connecticut State House Juan Candelaria, New Haven State Rep. Roland Lemar and President of the New Haven Board of Aldermen Jorge Perez.

New Haven People's Center blog

New Haven People’s Center blog

The Communist Party has New Haven town sewn up and are milking the town for influence and money at every opportunity.

Don’t take our word for any of this however. Follow the KeyWiki blue links. Check out the documentation.

KeyWiki is the premier website dedicated to exposing the covert side of US politics at every level.

Our site has enjoyed more than 30,000,000 views, of its 60,000 plus pages.

KeyWiki tracks the incestuous networks of the Left, so you know who your real opposition is.

Please give what you can spare to KeyWiki to fund our ongoing research.

Every dollar counts!

Please contribute today!