Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Thursday, March 6, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 840)
Politics

Washington-Florist-Barronelle-Stutzman

Washington floral artist Barronelle Stutzman on Friday sent a letter to Attorney General Bob Ferguson to decline the settlement offer he made to her.

Who’d have thought the next national debate on same-sex rights would take flight on the courageous wings of a 70-year-old woman?

But that’s what occurring through Barronelle Stutzman, a white-haired Washington florist with the guts of a field general and the moral righteousness and humble spirit of a true disciple of God. In the more material, she’s a Washington florist who refused to provide business services to a same-sex couple seeking to marry because of her staunch Christian beliefs – and because she thought the First Amendment provided her protection to exercise those beliefs.

Turns out, not in Washington.

Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Ekstrom ruled a few days ago that Stutzman violated Washington’s Law Against Discrimination as well as its Consumer Protection Act by denying service to Robert Ingersoll and his gay partner, Curt Freed. The ruling – along with an earlier one – clears the way for the state and the Ingersoll-Freed couple to pursue damages and legal fees against both Stutzman and her business.

“The message of these rulings is unmistakable: the government will bring about your personal and professional ruin if you don’t help celebrate same-sex marriage,” said Kristen Waggoner, senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, the nonprofit that’s representing Stutzman. “Laws that are supposed to prohibit discrimination might sound good, but the government has begun to use these laws to hurt people – to force them to conform and to silence and punish them if they don’t violate their religious beliefs on marriage.”

Indeed. Where are Stutzman’s rights to live her life in accordance with her Christian view – which includes biblical denouncement of the sin of homosexuality as an abomination?

Some might argue that homosexuality should be afforded the same legal protections as gender and ethnicity – but that’s a comparison of apples to oranges, when considered through the lens of the Bible. In other words, biblical sins don’t cover gender or skin color.

And while some might press that homosexuals are born gay, or that love is love, no matter the gender, the Christian response to those lines of thought are pretty blunt: That’s ridiculous. Why would God deem homosexuality an abomination and then create gay humans, or give the A-OK to same-sex acts so long as they’re rooted in love? As if God’s just a jokester – or worse, devious entrapper?

But now Stutzman is facing a serious financial hit that could cripple her business.

Attorney General Bob Ferguson, in a news release to the media, presented what he no doubt saw as a reasonable settlement offer for Stutzman to climb out of her predicament. The terms: Pay $2,001 and drop any fight over First Amendment rights. Oh, and one more thing: go provide business services to gays.

Stutzman’s response?

Thanks, but no thanks.

“Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about,” she said, in a written statement. “It’s about freedom, not money.”

She said similarly in a Fox News interview: “It’s about freedom. It’s about my eight kids and 23 grandkids … You can’t buy my freedom.”

And then to the National Religious Broadcasters International Christian Media Convention in Nashville, Stutzman delivered these emotional words: “Do I not have the right to believe in Christ or to follow him? … Christians [need] to take a stand. It’s me today, but it will be you tomorrow. You cannot sit this one out.”

Quite right. Our First Amendment freedoms depend on it. Kudos to a 70-year-old grandmother for standing strong for faith, and for inspiring others to do the same.

[mybooktable book=”police-state-usa-how-orwells-nightmare-is-becoming-our-reality” display=”summary”]

Story of Barronelle Stutzman, a Washington florist

Opinion

obama_nsa_reform

What if the current massive spying on Americans began with an innocent secret executive order signed by President Reagan in 1986? What if Reagan contemplated that he was only authorizing American spies to spy on foreign spies unlawfully present in the U.S.?

What if Reagan knew and respected the history of the Fourth Amendment? What if the essence of that history is the colonial revulsion at the British use of general warrants? What if general warrants were issued by a secret court in London and authorized British agents in America to search wherever they wished and to seize whatever they found? What if the revulsion at this British government practice was so overwhelming that it led to the Revolutionary War against the king?

What if the whole purpose of the Fourth Amendment was to outlaw general warrants? What if the Fourth Amendment specifically guarantees the right to privacy to all in America in their persons, houses, papers and effects?

What if, in order to emphasize its condemnation of general warrants, the Fourth Amendment requires the government to obtain a warrant from a judge before invading the persons, houses, papers or effects of anyone and lays down the preconditions for the issuance of such warrants? What if those preconditions are individualized suspicion and articulated evidence of crime — called probable cause — about the specific person whose privacy the government seeks to invade?

What if these principles of constitutional fidelity, privacy and probable cause and the unlawfulness of general warrants have been regarded universally and publicly as quintessentially American values, values that set this nation apart from all others?

What if the administration of President George W. Bush was so embarrassed that 9/11 happened on its watch that it fought a useless public war in Iraq — which had nothing to do with 9/11 — and a pernicious private war against American values by unleashing American spies on innocent Americans as to whom there was no individualized probable cause so that it could create the impression it was doing something to keep America safe from another 9/11-like attack?

What if the Bush folks took Reagan’s idea of spying on foreign spies and twisted it so that they could spy on not just foreign spies, but also on foreign persons? What if they took that and leapt to spying on Americans who communicated with foreign persons?

What if they then concluded that it was easier to spy on all Americans rather than just those who communicated with foreign persons? What if they claimed in secret that all this was authorized by Reagan’s executive order and two federal statutes, their unique interpretations of which they refused to discuss in public? What if the Reagan order and the statutes authorized no such thing?

What if The New York Times caught the Bush administration in its massive violation of the Fourth Amendment, whereby it was spying on all Americans all the time without any warrants? What if the Times sat on that knowledge during, throughout and beyond the presidential election campaign of 2004? What if, when the Times revealed all this, the Bush administration agreed to stop spying? What if it didn’t stop?

What if President Obama came up with a scheme to make the spying appear legal? What if that scheme involved using secret judges in secret courts to issue general warrants? What if the Obama administration swore those judges to secrecy? What if it swore to secrecy all in the government who are involved in undermining basic American values? What if it forgot that everyone in government also swears an oath to uphold the Constitution? What if Edward Snowden violated his oath to secrecy in order to uphold his oath to the Constitution, which includes the Fourth Amendment, and spilled the beans on the government?

What if all this spying by the feds has spawned spying by the locals? What if more than 50 local police departments now have received false cell towers from the FBI, but have sworn not to tell anyone about them? What if these towers trick cellphone signals into exposing the content of cellphone conversations to the police? What if the police have done this without the knowledge of the elected representatives who are their bosses? What if they do this without any warrants? What if the Supreme Court last year outlawed police invading cellphones without warrants?
What if both Bush and Obama have argued that their first job is to keep America safe, and they will twist, torture the plain meaning of and even break laws in order to accomplish that job? What if the presidential oath is to enforce all laws faithfully, including ones the president may hate?

What if Bush and Obama have been wrong about the priority of their constitutional duties as president? What if the president’s first job is to preserve the Constitution? What if that includes the Fourth Amendment? What if the president keeps us safe but unfree?

What if invading our freedoms keeps us less safe? What if the president has failed to keep our freedoms safe? What if the government doesn’t like freedoms? What if the government is afraid we will exercise them?

Judge Andrew Napolitano: What if the government

Opinion

Lady-Gaga-performs-during-the-57th-Annual-Grammy-Awards-in-Los-Angeles-on-February-8-2015

Lady Gaga performs during the 57th Annual Grammy Awards in Los Angeles, on February 8, 2015. (Photo: AFP)

Let’s start at the beginning. A very good place to start.

Last Sunday, Lady Gaga brought the Oscar crowd to its feet and ignited social media after belting out a medley of songs from “The Sound of Music” — and without a hint of irony. It was quite a moment, especially for those of us who, admittedly unfairly, had never quite moved on from the eye-searing spectacle of Lady Gaga draped in slabs of raw meat for the 2010 MTV Video Music Awards.

The following morning, Kristi Capel — morning TV anchor for Cleveland’s Fox affiliate, WJW — gushed on the air over Lady Gaga’s performance, using a word that millions across the country now know she wishes she could take back.

“It’s hard to really hear her voice with all the jigaboo music that she (makes), whatever you want to call it,” Capel said. “Jigaboo,” she said again, laughing. “She has a gorgeous voice. I never knew.”

She has been apologizing for the racist slur ever since.

On Twitter: “I apologize if I offended you, I had no idea it was a word or what it meant. Thank you for watching.”

In an email to the New York Daily News: “I deeply regret my insensitive comment. I truly did not know the meaning of the word, and would never intentionally use such hurtful language. I sincerely apologize.”

On Tuesday morning’s show: “I just want to take a moment to address a comment that I made yesterday that got a lot of attention. It’s important for me to let you know that I deeply regret my insensitive comment. And I truly did not know the meaning of the word and would never intentionally use such hurtful language.”

Capel says she didn’t know the word is racist.

I believe her.

I don’t know Capel, who is 31 and a relative newcomer to Cleveland journalism. I have, however, met her 58-year-old co-anchor, Wayne Dawson, a number of times over the years. Dawson is black and an ordained minister. He is professional and respectful — and nobody’s fool. He was sitting next to Capel when she used the racist word. I looked to him — and to his reaction — for what to make of this.

On-air he was clearly taken aback when Capel said it, but he did not react with anger, nor did he try to embarrass her. As The Plain Dealer’s Mark Dawidziak reported, the next day Dawson supported his colleague on-air.

“You know, it’s just one of those unfortunate things that happen,” he said. “It happens to everybody. I’ve been working with you for three years, so I think I know your heart. And I know you didn’t mean it.

“And I also know your family. You and your whole family came to my ordination. … And you all had a great time. So I know you didn’t mean it. So my thing is that you learn from it, you move on. It’s time to forgive and move on. My prayer is that our viewers forgive and move on because she’s a good girl. She really, really is. And I know you wouldn’t say anything like that knowing, but things happen.”

Like many in my generation, I know the ugly history of that word, and I know never to use it. However, I’ve spent the past two days asking dozens of young adults whether they knew what the word means, and overwhelmingly they have told me they’d never before heard it.

This is not to say that others, particularly people of color, should not be offended. It’s not up to me, a middle-aged white woman, to determine what bothers somebody else, and it’s never OK to use racist language.

Where I draw the line is when strangers who have never met Kristi Capel claim to know the contents of her heart and deem her racist. She made a mistake. Her apology seems sincere. She is suffering the consequences of public shame. We can banish her to the shadows — and my, how we love these momentary grasps at superiority — or we can learn right along with her.

In a statement released Tuesday, WJW’s news director, Andy Fishman, said that the station removed Capel from the anchor desk for the rest of the week and that she had met with a group of black pastors “to begin the process of reflecting on the gravity of this incident.” The pastors are on it. I know from long experience as a journalist in Cleveland the good that can come from that.

I asked to interview Capel, but Fishman said no one is interviewing her right now. I do hope those reins loosen soon. Nobody but Kristi Capel should speak for Kristi Capel. And we should be willing to listen. If we are ever to heal from the racial tensions smoldering in this city, we have got to start believing in the power of second chances.

Connie Schultz is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and an essayist for Parade magazine. She is the author of two books, including “…and His Lovely Wife,” which chronicled the successful race of her husband, Sherrod Brown, for the U.S. Senate.

Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Connie Schultz discusses the

Policy

school-choice

A young girl in Douglas County (Colorado Springs) protests the legal challenge to a pilot voucher program, school choice program implemented by the then-newly elected conservative school board.

To save the nation from a future Greek-style fiscal meltdown, we should reform entitlements. But as part of the effort to restore limited, constitutional government, we also should shut down various departments that deal with issues that shouldn’t be handled by the central government.

I’ve already identified some low-hanging fruit.

Get rid of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Shut down the Department of Agriculture.

Eliminate the Department of Transportation.

We need to add the Department of Education to the list. And maybe even make it one of the first targets.

Increasing federal involvement and intervention, after all, is associated with more spending and more bureaucracy, but NOT better educational outcomes.

cato-public-education-chart

Politicians in Washington periodically try to “reform” the status quo, but rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic never works. And that’s true whether you look at the results of GOP plans, like Bush’s no-bureaucrat-left-behind scheme, or Democratic plans, like Obama’s Common Core.

The good news, as explained by the Washington Examiner, is that Congress is finally considering legislation that would reduce the federal government’s footprint.

There are some good things about this bill, which will serve as the reauthorization of former President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind law. Importantly, the bill removes the Education Department’s ability to bludgeon states into adopting the controversial Common Core standards. The legislative language specifically forbids both direct and indirect attempts “to influence, incentivize, or coerce” states’ decisions. …The Student Success Act is therefore a step in the right direction, because it returns educational decisions to their rightful place — the state (or local) level. It is also positive in that it eliminates nearly 70 Department of Education programs, replacing them with more flexible grants to the states.

But the bad news is that the legislation doesn’t go nearly far enough. Federal involvement is a gaping wound caused by a compound fracture, while the so-called Student Success Act is a band-aid.

…as a vehicle for moving the federal government away from micromanaging schools that should fall entirely under state and local control, the bill is disappointing. …the recent explosion of federal spending and federal control in education over the last few decades has failed to produce any significant improvement in outcomes. Reading and math proficiency have hardly budged. …the federal government’s still-modest financial contribution to primary and secondary education has come with strings that give Washington an inordinate say over state education policy. …The Student Success Act…leaves federal spending on primary and secondary education at the elevated levels of the Bush era. It also fails to provide states with an opt-out.

To be sure, there’s no realistic way of making significant progress with Obama in the White House.

But the long-run battle will never be won unless reform-minded lawmakers make the principled case. Here’s the bottom line.

Education is one area where the federal government has long resisted accepting the evidence or heeding its constitutional limitations. …Republicans should be looking forward to a post-Obama opportunity to do it for real — to end federal experimentation and meddling in primary and secondary education and letting states set their own policies.

Amen.

But now let’s acknowledge that ending federal involvement and intervention should be just the first step on a long journey.

State governments are capable of wasting money and getting poor results.

Local governments also have shown that they can be similarly profligate and ineffective.

Indeed, when you add together total federal/state/local spending and then look at the actual results (whether kids are getting educated), the United States does an embarrassingly bad job.

The ultimate answer is to end the government education monopoly and shift to a system based on choice and competition.

Fortunately, we already have strong evidence that such an approach yields superior outcomes.

To be sure, school choice doesn’t automatically mean every child will be an educational success, but evidence from Sweden, Chile, and the Netherlands shows good results after breaking up state-run education monopolies.

P.S. Let’s close with a bit of humor showing the evolution of math lessons in government schools.

P.P.S. If you want some unintentional humor, the New York Times thinks that government education spending has been reduced.

P.P.P.S. And you’ll also be amused (and outraged and disgusted) by the truly bizarre examples of political correctness in government schools.

[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary”]

Data alone should drive us to add

Economy

new home sales

Commerce Department reports for new home sales and other housing market data from the National Association of Realtors. (Photo: REUTERS)

A Commerce Department report released Wednesday showed new home sales in the U.S. declined in January, with buyers passing on increased inventory. While supply rose 1.4 percent last month to 218,000, its highest level since 2010, as with existing home sales data released earlier this week, the report shows potential buyers are not pulling the trigger.

The Commerce Department said on Wednesday that U.S. single-family home sales fell 0.2 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 481,000 units. December’s sales pace was revised up to 482,000 units, which was the highest level since June 2008, up from 481,000 units.

Officials at the Commerce Department attempted to explain the abysmal data from last month as a result of weather in the Northeast, citing that sales recorded their biggest drop since June 2012 in the region.

However, although the report was on a whole negative, economists polled by Reuters had forecast new home sales to fall by a 470,000-unit pace last month instead. New home sales account for roughly 9.1 percent of the housing market and, when compared to January of last year, were up 5.3 percent.

Still, the housing market continues to struggle despite the artificial and increasing risk injected into the sector by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and other federal agencies.

The riskiness of mortgage loan originations in the U.S. housing market rose in January, marking the fifth straight month of risk increases. AEI’s composite National Mortgage Risk Index (NMRI) for Agency purchase loans hit a new series high of 11.94 percent in January, up 0.4 percent from the prior 3-month average and 0.8 percent year-over-year.

“With the NMRI once again hitting a series high, the risks posed by the government’s 85% percent share of the home purchase market continue to rise,” said Stephen Oliner, codirector of AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk.

The composites subindexes gauging risk for Fannie Mae, the FHA, and the Veterans Administration (VA) all hit new series highs in January, as well.

“Policy makers need to be mindful of the upward risk trends that are occurring with respect to both first-time and repeat buyers,” said Edward Pinto, codirector of AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk. “Recent policy moves by the FHA and FHFA will likely exacerbate this trend.”

Yet, the National Association of Realtors, the single-most powerful housing market lobby, is still urging the FHA to further loosen restrictions on lending practices. They cite the latest existing home sales data as evidence of urgency.

But regardless of government interference, it is non-existent wage growth and slightly higher prices that are sidelining first-time buyers. The most recent data showed not only a plunge in home resales in January, but weak single-family housing starts and permits.

In December, new home sales in the Northeast tanked by 51.6 percent, hitting a record low. But the weakness was across-the-board, not regional as Commerce suggested. Sales in the South rose by 2.2 percent and fell 0.8 percent in the West. Only the Midwest saw a surge of 19.2 percent.

Inventories still remain less than half of what they were before the crash.

At January’s sales pace it would take 5.4 months to clear the supply of houses on the market, unchanged from December. The median new home price rose 9.1 percent from a year ago to $294,300.

A Commerce Department report released Wednesday showed

Politics, Video

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., slammed the decision by President Obama to veto the bipartisan Keystone Jobs bill Tuesday, saying it “will be built sooner or later.”

“The bottom line is: How many times have you seen us do something bipartisan,” Sen. Manchin said. “We had 9 Democratic senators join us to do that deal. And it was overwhelming. The Canadians gave us everything we wanted. They agreed to only use American-made steel, and making sure no oil could flow through and be exported out of here. All of our demands were met.”

Manchin also trashed his own party’s argument that holds the construction will only create a handful of permanent jobs. According to a recent PPD Poll, Americans are broadly in agreement with Sen. Manchin and others who supported the bipartisan bill, as roughly 70 percent of the American people support its construction.

“Thousands of jobs would have been created,” Manchin added. “I’ve heard all the rumblings about how they are not going to be permanent jobs. But you know what? I haven’t done one infrastructure job or been a part of building a bridge in West Virginia where workers had a permanent job after the bridge was built.”

“I just can’t figure it out.”

READ ALSO: Obama Was For Pipelines Before Tom Steyer Was Against Them

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the Senate plans to vote on overriding sometime before March 3. The Keystone bill garnered 62 yeas in the Senate, but they would need 67 to override. In the House, the bill got 270 votes — including 28 Democrats — but they would need 281 to override.

“It’s extremely disappointing that President Obama vetoed a bipartisan bill that would support thousands of good jobs and pump billions of dollars into the economy,” McConnell said in a statement. “Even though the President has yielded to powerful special interests, this veto doesn’t end the debate.”

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., slammed the decision

Opinion

koch-brothers

The Koch brothers.

Lots of people sure hate the Koch brothers.

The Kochs get death threats like this: “If I had a chance to murder a Koch brother in cold blood, I would surely take it.”

Jim Dean doesn’t want to kill the Kochs, but he does want new laws to limit their influence. Dean’s brother Howard was a Democratic presidential candidate, and Dean chairs a group called Democracy for America.

“Get money out of politics,” Dean says on my show this week.

But Dean’s not just unhappy because the Kochs have money to throw around. He doesn’t like their politics.

“The Koch brothers are poster boys for everything that is wrong in politics because they spend so much,” he says, and they have extreme goals like “getting rid of Social Security and environmental laws.”

But they don’t. They just think today’s environmental laws go too far, and they want to save Social Security from going broke.

Dean says Social Security “has been one of the best social programs we’ve ever had.” When I point out that it’s unsustainable, he says, “The math works for another 20 years.” Wow. 20 years.
If the Kochs’ views were the same as George Soros’, I don’t think liberals like Dean would complain as much. But Dean claims he’s no hypocrite.

“We don’t like it when Democrats play the same game. Rahm Emanuel, mayor of Chicago … is giving away taxpayer-owned assets in the city to big businesses whose principals funded his campaign.”

It is disgusting when big shots use their money to get handouts from government — ethanol subsidies, limits on sugar imports, loan guarantees for Boeing or special deals from Rahm Emanuel. That’s government helping well-connected rich people, handing them money that once belonged to taxpayers.

But the Kochs aren’t like that. The brothers made their billions by growing their businesses. That’s a good thing. That’s real wealth creation, jobs for people and products people want.

The Kochs oppose subsidies, even for their own company. They’d get rid of them if everybody else would.

I should disclose that I’ve spent time with both David and Charles Koch. They’ve paid me to speak at a few of their events. I happily took the money and gave it to charities.

But anyone who understands libertarianism knows I’d agree with the Kochs even if I’d never met them. They are pro-immigration, anti-drug war. They want less defense spending. They got praised by Attorney General Holder for their campaign to jail fewer people.

Why is the left so mad at them? It’s definitely not because they’re the only big spenders in politics.

During the last presidential election, it was reported that the Kochs spent $60 million. Tom Steyer, the big environmental activist, spent $70 million a few years later.

Yes, groups affiliated with the Kochs spent $400 million. But the Huffington Post reports that labor unions spent much more: $1.7 billion. Union spending dwarfs Koch spending.

I wish libertarians could just pay the government to shrink. But that’s not going to happen soon.

The unions, unlike the Kochs, promote economic ignorance. They push rigid hiring rules, limits on firing lazy workers, “buy American” campaigns, taxes on imports and other ideas that stifle growth. They push inefficiency on a grand scale, and politicians usually go along.

But last month, I was surprised when New Jersey governor Chris Christie vetoed a bill that would have required public contractors to buy American. He wrote, “these bills will simply drive up the price of doing business, and threaten job creation. Building economic walls around our state … will not improve the lives of our citizens.” Right.

Christie is no libertarian, but maybe he attended an economic literacy seminar sponsored by the Kochs.

Since unions spend big to get politicians to outlaw smart, efficient business decisions, I’m glad when people like the Koch brothers come along to spread the message that government should spend less and get out of the way.

I wish the Kochs spent more on politics. They promote a message we don’t hear often enough.

John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on Fox News and author of “No They Can’t! Why Government Fails, but Individuals Succeed.”

Lots of people sure hate the Koch

US

eddie-ray-routh-guilty

Eddie Ray Routh watched on as jurors one-after-one handed down the guilty verdict in the murder of ‘American Sniper’ Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield.

Eddie Ray Routh was found guilty late Tuesday of the 2013 shooting deaths of former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, the “American Sniper,” and his friend Chad Littlefield.

An Erath County, Texas jury came back in less than two hours to convict Eddie Ray Routh of capital murder and District Judge Jason Cashon sentenced Routh to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Prosecutors had not sought the death penalty in the case, but Routh’s defense team said they would appeal the conviction anyway.

“We have waited two years for God to get justice on behalf of our son,” Littlefield’s mother, Judy, told reporters outside the courthouse. “And as always, God has proven to be faithful, and we’re so thrilled that we have the verdict that we have tonight.”

Chris Kyle’s widow, Taya, was not in the courtroom when the verdict was read. Earlier in the day, she left the courtroom visibly angry in the middle of the defense’s closing arguments, whispering an expletive and slamming her hand on the wall as she walked out the door. At the time, attorneys were discussing how useful it would have been for Routh’s mother to have told Chris Kyle about her son’s history of violence. Prosecutors had slammed Routh’s mother for not telling Kyle any details before asking him to “help” her son, whom all knew was unstable.

Routh showed no visible emotion as the verdict was read, but watched each juror one-by-one tell the judge the guilty verdict was unanimous. The remaining members of the Kyle family present, which included the victim’s brother and mother and friends — held hands and cried.

Jerry Richardson, Littlefield’s half-brother, told Routh that he “took the lives of two heroes, men who tried to be a friend to you, and you became an American disgrace.” Routh had no reaction.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted “JUSTICE!” in response to the verdict.

Routh, 27, had admitted to killing Kyle and Littlefield at a gun range on Feb. 2, 2013 but pleaded not guilty. His attorneys and family members asserted that he suffers from psychotic episodes caused by post-traumatic stress disorder and other factors.

“He didn’t kill those men because of who he wanted to be, he killed those men because he had a delusion,” Warren St. John said in the defense’s closing arguments. “He thought that they were going to kill him.”

But prosecutors said Tuesday that whatever episodes Routh suffers are self-induced through alcohol and marijuana.

“That is not insanity. That is just cold, calculated capital murder,” Starnes said. “(Routh) is guilty of capital murder and he was not by any means insane.”

Erath County District Attorney Alan Nash noted Routh shot Kyle and Littlefield in the back, in our county.

“This defendant gunned down two men in cold blood, in the back, in our county,” Nash said in closing. “Find him guilty!”

They did, indeed.

Kyle made more than 300 kills as a sniper for SEAL Team 3, according to his own count. After leaving the military, he volunteered with veterans facing mental health problems, often taking them shooting.

Eddie Ray Routh was found guilty late

Politics

keystone-xl-pipeline

A large majority of Americans support the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

President Obama Tuesday vetoed the bipartisan Keystone Jobs bill, marking his first veto of the Republican-led Congress and only the third of his presidency. Since 2010, when the Democrats lost the lower chamber, the president hasn’t had to veto legislation with Sen. Harry Reid refusing to allow a regular order vote on the Senate floor.

But Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats are out, 9 of which joined Republicans in authorizing the construction of the project roughly 70 percent of the American people support. In the House, 28 Democrats voted with the GOP in favor of construction.

“The Presidential power to veto legislation is one I take seriously,” Obama said. “But I also take seriously my responsibility to the American people. And because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest — including our security, safety, and environment — it has earned my veto.”

READ ALSO: Obama Was For Pipelines Before Tom Steyer Was Against Them

The veto, which the White House said was not based on the merit of the project but rather the fact the Congress tried to circumvent Obama, was met with inevitable criticism from Republicans, but also from several Senate Democrats in numerous House.

“It’s extremely disappointing that President Obama vetoed a bipartisan bill that would support thousands of good jobs and pump billions of dollars into the economy,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement. “Even though the President has yielded to powerful special interests, this veto doesn’t end the debate.”

The special interests McConnell is referring to is personified by wealthy hedge manager and left-wing environmentalist Tom Steyer, who Democrats accepted millions of dollars from during the 2014 election cycle. Steyer and other radical environmentalist groups have seemingly ignored the multiple reviews by the State Department and other agencies that found not building the pipeline would have a greater environmental impact than if the resources continue to travel via rail.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, called the veto a “national embarrassment,” and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., swore that the fight was far from over.

McConnell’s office said the Senate plans to vote on overriding sometime before March 3.

McConnell’s office said the Senate plans to vote on overriding sometime before March 3. The Keystone bill garnered 62 yeas in the Senate, but they would need 67 to override. In the House, the bill got 270 votes — but they would need 281 to override.

Because former majority leader Reid was providing political cover for President Obama, the Keystone veto marked only the third of Obama’s presidency, fewer than any U.S. president since the 19th century. With Republicans now in control of both Houses of Congress, leadership says they plan on sending one popular bill after another to his desk to show the American people who had been the obstruction party all along.

READ ALSO: Obama Was For Pipelines Before Tom Steyer Was Against Them

First proposed in 2008, the Keystone pipeline would connect Canada’s tar sands to Gulf Coast refineries.

“The bottom line is: How many times have you seen us do something bipartisan,” Sen. Manchin said. “We had 9 Democratic senators join us to do that deal. And it was overwhelming. The Canadians gave us everything we wanted. They agreed to only use American-made steel, and making sure no oil could flow through and be exported out of here. All of our demands were met.”

Manchin also trashed his own party’s argument that holds the construction will only create a handful of permanent jobs.

“Thousands of jobs would have been created,” Manchin added. “I’ve heard all the rumblings about how they are not going to be permanent jobs. But you know what? I haven’t done one infrastructure job or been a part of building a bridge in West Virginia where workers had a permanent job after the bridge was built.”

“I just can’t figure it out.”

President Obama Tuesday vetoed the bipartisan Keystone

Politics, Video

 

Nationally syndicated radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt grilled David Corn of Mother Jones after evidence surfaced widely debunking his accusation Bill O’Reilly exaggerated his coverage of the Falklands War.

Corn accused Bill O’Reilly of misrepresenting events during his time as a CBS News correspondent at a level on par with now-disgraced NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams. Former NBC News reporter Dan Browne, who was the Miami Bureau Chief at the time, appeared on Monday’s broadcast of The O’Reilly Factor to validate Bill O’Reilly and back up his story about violence in Buenos Aires following Argentina’s surrender in the Falklands War.

Browne said it was a “very intense situation” and “extremely violent and volatile.”

“You call it a riot,” Browne said to O’Reilly. “It was a very intense situation where people got hurt and it was a very serious confrontation, and it was a defining moment, when the populace really turned on the military.”

“Any situation like that, where you bring that kind of intensity together in a protest where the police and, in this case the military, are reacting aggressively, it’s a dangerous cocktail,” Browne also said.

Corn would not answer questions regarding his own biography or history with FOX News, from which he was fired, and hung up on Hugh Hewitt for asking the Mother Jones editor to establish his and his story’s credibility.

READ-WATCH ALSO: No Mother Jones, Bill O’Reilly Didn’t Pull A Brian Williams (For A Fair Assessment)

Further, CBS News released their 1982 broadcast of CBS Evening News featuring anchor Dan Rather, who reported the violence and Marshall law following Argentina’s surrender in the Falklands War. Further, the Christian Science Monitor report from 1982 surfaced that characterized the event Bill O’Reilly covered as a “battle zone” with tanks rolling down the street and reporters being shot.

Hugh Hewitt grilled David Corn of Mother

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe