Gingrich: “Obama’s comments on Trayvon Martin killing are disgraceful”

Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich said President Obama’s comments about the shooting of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin were “disgraceful.”

Martin was gunned down on Feb. 26, by self-identified volunteer neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman. The killing has sparked protests around the country and reignited the debate over race in America.

In his remarks on the case to reporters Friday, Obama said hoped to see the case investigated properly because “if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.“

In an interview with conservative talk show host Sean Hannity, Gingrich said he was disturbed by Obama’s comments about race.

“What the president said, in a sense, is disgraceful,” Gingrich told Hannity. “It’s not a question of who that young man looked like. Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period.”

“We should all be horrified no matter what the ethnic background,” Gingrich said of the case. “Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot, that would be OK because it didn’t look like him. That’s just nonsense dividing this country up.”

Gingrich added that he thought it was a “tragedy” that Martin was shot, but he said his sadness about the case had nothing to do with Martin’s race.

“It would have been a tragedy if he had been Puerto Rican or Cuban or if he had been white or if he had been Asian American of if he’d been a Native American,” he said. “At some point, we ought to talk about being Americans. When things go wrong to an American, it is sad for all Americans. Trying to turn it into a racial issue is fundamentally wrong. I really find it appalling.”

 

House Votes to Make Protest Near Secret Service Illegal

The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 passed the House 388-to-3 this past Monday. It already passed the Senate back on February 6th.

The bill will give prosecutors the broad powers to charge anyone who enters any building or grounds without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if the Secret Service is present.

This bill essentially makes it illegal to protest anyone being protected by the Secret Service.

Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection, GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security and it was confirmed last week to CBS News that presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed protection when he was still in the running for the nomination. So not only would it be illegal to protest the president or any elected official under the protection of the Secret Service but even presidential candidates could ask for and get tax payer paid protection from any expression of dissent.

The law is intended to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so. Those grounds are considered any area where someone, whether it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney, will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises.

Under those terms a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be considered a federal offense.

Beyond the president, elected officials and presidential candidates, the Secret Service often protects visiting heads of state as well as events deemed to be of national significance by the Department of Homeland Security. Past such events defined as a National Special Security Event (NSSE) include the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses, the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions and Super Bowl XXXVI.

One of only three lawmakers to vote against the act on Monday, Rep. Justin Amash explained his vote on his Facebook page.

“The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it’s illegal. Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity, even if that activity is annoying to those government officials, violates our rights,”.

Rep. Amash also included a link to an article covering the passage of the bill as an example of how the public is being mislead about the legislation. You can the read the whitewashed coverage of this bill here 
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/212873-house-approves-white-house-trespass-bill-sends-to-obama

5 Wealthy Donors Contribute to 25% of Super PAC Money

A USA TODAY analysis finds that five wealthy people, led by Dallas industrialist Harold Simmons and Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, have contributed nearly 25% of all money donated to the super PACs raising unlimited money to back candidates in this year’s presidential race.

Those donations have helped new Republican-leaning outside groups out-fundraise Democratic-friendly super PACs by a large margin.

“Without the flow of super PAC money, the Republican race would be over,” said Anthony Corrado, a campaign-finance expert at Colby College in Maine. “Super PACs have become a vehicle for a very small number of millionaires and billionaires who are willing to spend large sums in pursuit of their political agenda.”

The largest super PAC donor of the 2012 election is Harold Simmons. He and his holding company, Contran, gave $12 million to Karl Rove affiliated super PAC American Crossroads, as well as $2.2 million to three super PACs supporting Republican presidential candidates. Simmons also contributed $3 million dollars to “Swift Boat” ads in 2004, challenging then presidential candidate John Kerry’s Vietnam War record.

Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, gave $10 million to Winning Our Future, a super PAC aiding former House speaker Newt Gingrich.

In a Forbes magazine article, Adelson said he is willing to donate an additional “$10 million or $100 million” to aid Gingrich.

“I’m against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections, but as along as it’s doable, I’m going to do it,” Adelson said.

Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal, donated $2.6 million to Endorse Liberty, a super PAC helping Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Thiel, a libertarian, gave $70,000 to a 2010 ballot initiative in California to  legalize marijuana.

Thiel is the single largest donor to Endorse Liberty, which has spent more than $3 million, mostly on Internet ads, to advance Paul’s candidacy.

“Men and women who want freedom and growth should take action,” he said. “A good place to start is voting for Ron Paul.”

Since January 1st, Houston home builder Bob Perry has donated $3.6 million to super PACs, including $2.5 million to American Crossroads.

He has supported Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty in the past, but last year donated $1 million to a pro-Romney super PAC.

No Democratic donors rank as high as the top donors to Republican super PACs.

Priorities USA Action, the main super PAC backing Obama’s re-election, collected $2 million last year from Dreamworks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg. However, the super PAC raised just shy of $59,000 in January, a fraction of the $27.2 million raised last month alone by five leading GOP super PACs. The biggest donation to Priorities USA Action last month was $50,000 from John Rogers, CEO of Ariel Investments and one of Obama’s closest friends.

Paul Campaign Calls on Gingrich to Apologize for Assault on Supporter

The Ron Paul campaign wants an apology from Newt Gingrich for what it called an “assault” on one of its supporters outside a Florida polling place by Gingrich campaign aides.

According to a Tuesday news report, 29-year-old Ron Paul supporter Eddie Dillard had his bare toes stomped on and his cell phone broken by rival Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s aides and security personnel for getting too close to the former House speaker while holding a Paul sign.

The incident took place in the Orlando suburb of Windermere, Fla.

Gingrich aides and security personnel tried intimidating Dillard into moving. When Dillard stood his ground one of the agents put his heeled shoe on Dillard’s bare foot and dug into his skin, twisting it side-to-side leaving a bruise. Dillard attempted to take a picture of the agent with his phone, but it was quickly knocked out of his hand. Dillard then slipped off his flip-flop to pick up the phone with his foot, and a Gingrich supporter kicked the sandal away.

“Don’t kick me!” Dillard said to the man who knocked away his sandal.

“Just block him!” a Gingrich campaign aide said. “Everyone step on his toes!”

Gingrich supporters handed a “Newt 2012″ yard sign up to the front to put in front of Dillard’s Paul sign. When the candidate finished taking pictures with voters, furious Gingrich aides grilled Dillard.

“If we did this to you, you guys would be furious,” said an aide before stomping back toward the bus. “They have no class. No class.”

“They say the culture of an organization is a reflection of its top executive and today’s deplorable behavior against Ron Paul supporter Eddie Dillard in Florida reflects very poorly on Congressman Gingrich,” said Paul’s national campaign chairman, Jesse Benton, in a statement.

“I call on Congressman Gingrich to publicly apologize to Mr. Dillard. In addition,” he continued, “we ask that those Gingrich campaign staff directly involved in the episode be immediately terminated.”

“There is simply no excuse for the type of violent, boorish and abusive behavior demonstrated by Mr. Gingrich’s campaign,” Benton said. “We hope Mr. Gingrich understands this and takes the actions we recommend.”

Gingrich Wrong on Obama Food Stamp Claim but Liberals Miss the Bigger Picture

The liberal and progressive media/blogosphere have all been jubilantly patting themselves on the back over an article posted recently on Factcheck.org. The article was in regards to Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s claim that Obama has added more people to the food stamp program than any president in history. As it turns out it was actually former President Bush that had the most people utilize the food stamp program while he was in office.

A whooping 14.7 million additional people became recipients of food stamps under Bush while only a meager 14.2 million people were added under Obama. It basically took 3 years of Obama’s presidency to nearly accomplish what it took Bush 8 years to do in regards to expanding the percent of American citizens living in poverty. Yes there was an incredible economic collapse that took place at the end of Bush’s term while the Democrats were running Congress. That absolutely has to be taken into consideration but what also has to be considered are the trillions of dollars of tax payer money that was spent by the Obama administration that was supposed turn things around. Shovel ready jobs, green jobs and middle class tax cuts were supposed to save the country but all that money spent has yielded some pretty dismal results . The White House says we lost at least 8 million jobs due to the collapse and have created only 3 million in the past 3 years. The recovery has been an abject  failure at best but I digress, the point of this editorial is not to criticize Obama’s policy failures, the point is to shine light on the one thing that everyone commenting on this story seems to be missing.

Over 28 million people have found themselves in the position to need to utilize the food stamp program over the past decade.

This country has some serious issues. We have a corrupt for profit medical industry, a banking system designed to steal from the middle class, a military industrial complex that views wars as profit and a completely failing educational system. Our political system has turned into an auction for the highest bidder and our media is wholly owned by corporate interests. The middle class is not only suffering it’s shrinking. The fact that our media rather argue over a .5 million difference between the amount of Americans pushed into poverty on either president’s watch rather than discuss the issues surrounding the over 28 million total people needing food stamps is a brilliant example of our countries current race to the bottom.

It’s a sad day when the fact is over 14 million people in the past 3 years needed government assistance to buy food but since overall it’s a total of 444,574 fewer than the previous administration it’s considered some kind of political victory.