(It is difficult to imagine that our government has backed away from the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to the point that the following article from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College, would be necessary to remind us of the loss of our God given rights to free speech and freedom of religion. The media does not report the collapse of our freedoms, nor the refusal of the administration to protect us from Islamic attacks upon our culture. The following article says it all. It is worth the reading. Ed.)
*****************
Blasphemy and Free Speech
By Paul Marshall, Senior fellow, Hudson Institute
A growing threat to our freedom of speech is the attempt to stifle religious discussion in the name of preventing “defamation of” or “insults to” religion, especially Islam. Resulting restrictions represent, in effect, a revival of blasphemy laws.
Few in the West were concerned with such laws 20 years ago. Even if still on some statute books, they were only of historical interest. That began to change in 1989, when the late Ayatollah Khomeini, then Iran’s Supreme Leader, declared it the duty of every Muslim to kill British-based writer Salman Rushdie on the grounds that his novel, The Satanic Verses, was blasphemous. Rushdie has survived by living his life in hiding. Others connected with the book were not so fortunate: its Japanese translator was assassinated, its Italian translator was stabbed, its Norwegian publisher was shot, and 35 guests at a hotel hosting its Turkish publisher were burned to death in an arson attack.
More recently, we have seen eruptions of violence in reaction to Theo van Gogh’s and Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s film Submission, Danish and Swedish cartoons depicting Mohammed, the speech at Regensburg by Pope Benedict XVI on the topic of faith, reason, and religious violence, Geert Wilders’ film Fitna, and a false Newsweek report that the U.S. military had desecrated Korans at Guantanamo. A declaration by Terry Jones—a deservedly obscure Florida pastor with a congregation of less than 50—that he would burn a Koran on September 11, 2010, achieved a perfect media storm, combining American publicity-seeking, Muslim outrage, and the demands of 24 hour news coverage. It even drew the attention of President Obama and senior U.S. military leaders. Dozens of people were murdered as a result.
Such violence in response to purported religious insults is not simply spontaneous. It is also stoked and channeled by governments for political purposes. And the objects and victims of accusations of religious insults are not usually Westerners, but minorities and dissidents in the Muslim world. As Nina Shea and I show in our recent book Silenced, accusations of blasphemy or insulting Islam are used systematically in much of that world to send individuals to jail or to bring about intimidation through threats, beatings, and killings.
The Danish cartoons of Mohammed were published in Denmark’s largest newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, in September 2005. Some were reproduced by newspapers in Muslim countries in order to criticize them. There was no violent response. Violence only erupted after a December 2005 summit in Saudi Arabia of the Organization of the Islamic Conference—now the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The summit was convened to discuss sectarian violence and terrorism, but seized on the cartoons and urged its member states to rouse opposition. It was only in February 2006—five months after the cartoons were published—that Muslims across Africa, Asia, and the Mideast set out from Friday prayers for often violent demonstrations, killing over 200 people.
The highly controlled media in Egypt and Jordan raised the cartoon issue so persistently that an astonishing 98 percent of Egyptians and 99 percent of Jordanians—knowing little else of Denmark—had heard of them. Saudi Arabia and Egypt urged boycotts of Danish products. Iran and Syria manipulated riots partly to deflect attention from their nuclear projects. Turkey used the cartoons as bargaining chips in negotiations with the U.S. over appointments to NATO. Editors in Algeria, Jordan, India, and Yemen were arrested—and in Syria, journalist Adel Mahfouz was charged with “insulting public religious sentiment”—for suggesting a peaceful response to the controversy. Lars Vilks’ later and more offensive 2007 Swedish cartoons and Geert Wilders’ 2008 film Fitna led to comparatively little outcry, demonstrating further that public reactions are government-driven.
Repression based on charges of blasphemy and apostasy, of course, goes far beyond the stories typically covered in our media. Currently, millions of Baha’is and Ahmadis—followers of religions or interpretations that arose after Islam—are condemned en masse as insulters of Islam, and are subject to discriminatory laws and attacks by mobs, vigilantes, and terrorists. The Baha’i leadership in Iran is in prison, and there is no penalty in Iran for killing a Baha’i. In Somalia, al Shebaab, an Islamic group that controls much of that country, is systematically hunting down and killing Christians. In 2009, after allegations that a Koran had been torn, a 1,000-strong mob with Taliban links rampaged through Christian neighborhoods in Punjab, Pakistan’s largest province, killing seven people, six of whom, including two children, were burned alive. Pakistani police did not intervene.
Throughout the Muslim world, Sunni, Shia, and Sufi Muslims may be persecuted for differing from the version of Islam promulgated by locally hegemonic religious authorities. Saudi Arabia represses Shiites, especially Ismailis. Iran represses Sunnis and Sufis. In Egypt, Shia leaders have been imprisoned and tortured.
In Afghanistan, Shia scholar Ali Mohaqeq Nasab, editor of Haqooq-i-Zen magazine, was imprisoned by the government for publishing “un-Islamic” articles that criticized stoning as a punishment for adultery. Saudi democracy activists Ali al-Demaini, Abdullah al-Hamed, and Matruk al-Faleh were imprisoned for using “un-Islamic terminology,” such as “democracy” and “human rights,” when calling for a written constitution. Saudi teacher Mohammed al-Harbi was sentenced to 40 months in jail and 750 lashes for “mocking religion” after discussing the Bible in class and making pro-Jewish remarks. Egyptian Nobel prize winner in literature Naguib Mahfouz reluctantly abandoned his lifelong resistance to censorship and sought permission from the clerics of Al-Azhar University to publish his novel Children of Gebelawi, hitherto banned for blasphemy. Mahfouz subsequently lived under constant protection after being stabbed by a young Islamist, leaving him partly paralyzed.
After Mohammed Younas Shaikh, a member of Pakistan’s Human Rights Commission, raised questions about Pakistan’s policies in Kashmir, he was charged with having blasphemed in one of his classes. In Bangladesh, Salahuddin Choudhury was imprisoned for hurting “religious feelings” by advocating peaceful relations with Israel. In Iran, Ayatollah Boroujerdi was imprisoned for arguing that “political leadership by clergy” was contrary to Islam, and cleric Mohsen Kadivar was imprisoned for “publishing untruths and disturbing public minds” after writing Theories of the State in Shiite Jurisprudence, which questioned the legal basis of Ayatollah Khomeini’s view of government. Other charges brought against Iranians include “fighting against God,” “dissension from religious dogma,” “insulting Islam,” “propagation of spiritual liberalism,” “promoting pluralism,” and, my favorite, “creating anxiety in the minds of … Iranian officials.”
Muslim reformers cannot escape being attacked even in the West. In 2006, a group called Al-Munasirun li Rasul al Allah emailed over 30 prominent reformers in the West, threatening to kill them unless they repented. Among its targets was Egyptian Saad Eddin Ibrahim, perhaps the best known human rights activist in the Arab world. Another was Ahmad Subhy Mansour, an imam who was imprisoned and had to flee Egypt, in part for his arguments against the death penalty for apostasy. The targets were pronounced “guilty of apostasy, unbelief, and denial of the Islamic established facts” and given three days to “announce their repentance.” The message included their addresses and the names of their spouses and children.
Mimount Bousakla, a Belgian senator and daughter of Moroccan immigrants, was forced into hiding by threats of “ritual slaughter” for her criticism of the treatment of women in Muslim communities and of fundamentalist influences in Belgian mosques. Turkish-born Ekin Deligoz, the first Muslim member of Germany’s Parliament, received death threats and was placed under police protection after she called for Muslim women to “take off the head scarf.”
But the story gets worse. Western governments have begun to give in to demands from the Saudi-based OIC and others for controls on speech. In Austria, for instance, Elisabeth Sabbaditsch-Wolf has been convicted of “denigrating religious beliefs” for her comments about Mohammed during a seminar on radical Islam. Canada’s grossly misnamed “human rights commissions” have hauled writers—including Mark Steyn, who teaches as a distinguished fellow in journalism at Hillsdale College—before tribunals to interrogate them about their writings on Islam. And in Holland and Finland, respectively, politicians Geert Wilders and Jussi Halla-aho have been prosecuted for their comments on Islam in political speeches.
In America, the First Amendment still protects against the criminalization of criticizing Islam. But we face at least two threats still. The first is extra-legal intimidation of a kind already endemic in the Muslim world and increasing in Europe. In 2009, Yale University Press, in consultation with Yale University, removed all illustrations of Mohammed from its book by Jytte Klausen on the Danish cartoon crisis. It also removed Gustave Doré’s 19th-century illustration of Mohammed in hell from Dante’s Inferno. Yale’s formal press statement stressed the earlier refusal by American media outlets to show the cartoons, and noted that their “republication…has repeatedly resulted in violence around the world.”
Another publisher, Random House, rejected at the last minute a historical romance novel about Mohammed’s wife, Jewel of Medina, by American writer Sherry Jones. They did so to protect “the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel.”
The comedy show South Park refused to show an image of Mohammed in a bear suit, although it mocked figures from other religions. In response, Molly Norris, a cartoonist for the Seattle Weekly, suggested an “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.” She quickly withdrew the suggestion and implied that she had been joking. But after several death threats, including from Al-Qaeda, the FBI advised her that she should go into hiding—which she has now done under a new name.
In 2010, Zachary Chesser, a young convert to Islam, pleaded guilty to threatening the creators of South Park. And on October 3, 2011, approximately 800 newspapers refused to run a “Non Sequitur” cartoon drawn by Wiley Miller that merely contained a bucolic scene with the caption “Where’s Muhammad?”
Many in our media claim to be self-censoring out of sensitivity to religious feelings, but that claim is repeatedly undercut by their willingness to mock and criticize religions other than Islam. As British comedian Ben Elton observed: “The BBC will let vicar gags pass, but they would not let imam gags pass. They might pretend that it’s, you know, something to do with their moral sensibilities, but it isn’t. It’s because they’re scared.”
The second threat we face is the specter of cooperation between our government and the OIC to shape speech about Islam. A first indication of this came in President Obama’s Cairo speech in 2009, when he declared that he has a responsibility to “fight against negative stereotypes of Islam whenever they appear.” Then in July of last year in Istanbul, Secretary of State Clinton co-chaired—with the OIC—a “High-Level Meeting on Combating Religious Intolerance.” There, Mrs. Clinton announced another conference with the OIC, this one in Washington, to “exchange ideas” and discuss “implementation” measures our government might take to combat negative stereotyping of Islam. This would not restrict free speech, she said. But the mere fact of U.S. government partnership with the OIC is troublesome. Certainly it sends a dangerous signal, as suggested by the OIC’s Secretary-General, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, when he commented in Istanbul that the Obama administration stands “united” with the OIC on speech issues.
The OIC’s charter commits it “to combat defamation of Islam.” Its current action plan calls for “deterrent punishments” to counter “Islamophobia.” In 2009, an official OIC organ, the “International Islamic Fiqh [Jurisprudence] Academy,” issued fatwas calling for speech bans, including “international legislation,” to protect “the interests and values of [Islamic] society.” The OIC does not define what speech should be outlawed, but the repressive practices of its leading member states speak for themselves.
The conference Secretary Clinton announced in Istanbul was held in Washington on December 12-14, 2011, and was closed to the public, with the “Chatham House Rule” restricting the participants (this rule prohibits the identification of who says what, although general content is not confidential). Presentations reportedly focused on America’s deficiencies in its treatment of Muslims and stressed that the U.S. has something to learn in this regard from the other delegations—including Saudi Arabia, despite its ban on Christian churches, its repression of its Shiite population, its textbooks teaching that Jews should be killed, and the fact that it beheaded a woman for sorcery on the opening day of the conference.
* * *
The encroachment of de facto blasphemy restrictions in the West threatens free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Nor will it bring social peace and harmony. As comedian Rowan Atkinson warns, such laws produce “a veneer of tolerance concealing a snake pit of unaired and unchallenged views.” Norway’s far-reaching restrictions on “hate speech” did not prevent Anders Behring Breivik from slaughtering over 70 people because of his antipathy to Islam: indeed, his writings suggest that he engaged in violence because he believed that he could not otherwise be heard.
In the Muslim world, such restrictions enable Islamists to crush debate. After Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab, was murdered early last year by his bodyguards for opposing blasphemy laws, his daughter Sara observed: “This is a message to every liberal to shut up or be shot.” Or in the words of Nasr Abu-Zayd, a Muslim scholar driven out of Egypt: “Charges of apostasy and blasphemy are key weapons in the fundamentalists’ arsenal, strategically employed to prevent reform of Muslim societies, and instead confine the world’s Muslim population to a bleak, colourless prison of socio-cultural and political conformity.”
President Obama should put an end to discussion of speech with the OIC. He should declare clearly that in free societies, all views and all religions are subject to criticism and contradiction. As the late Abdurrahman Wahid, former president of Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, and head of Nahdlatul Ulama, the world’s largest Muslim organization, wrote in his foreword to Silenced, blasphemy laws . . . narrow the bounds of acceptable discourse. . . not only about religion, but also about vast spheres of life, literature, science, and culture in general. . . . Rather than legally stifle criticism and debate—which will only encourage Muslim fundamentalists in their efforts to impose a spiritually void, harsh, and monolithic understanding of Islam upon all the world—Western authorities should instead firmly defend freedom of expression. . . .
America’s Founders, who had broken with an old order that was rife with religious persecution and warfare, forbade laws impeding free exercise of religion, abridging freedom of speech, or infringing freedom of the press. We today must do likewise.
*************
PAUL MARSHALL is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom. He has published widely in newspapers and magazines, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, First Things, The New Republic, and The Weekly Standard. He is the author or editor of more than 20 books on religion and politics, including Their Blood Cries Out, Religious Freedom in the World, and Blind Spot: When Journalists Don’t Get Religion. Most recently he is the co-author, with Nina Shea, of Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide.
The preceding is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., on February 3, 2012.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Unreported truths in the Zimmerman-Martin Shooting
From the Buclkeye Firearms Association website on May 29, 2012. You had better read and understand what this article declares. Your portection, including the protection of you life and that of your family, is solely up to you. You can't count on anybody else, ever.
************
Four simple truths about Florida's Zimmerman-Martin case that aren't being discussed by the media
by Don Kates
The shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman has been the subject of enormous confusion, not only because the facts are not entirely clear, but more because of public misunderstanding of the relevant law. I hope the following will help clarify things.
1. IT'S NOT THE JOB OF THE POLICE TO INTERRUPT CRIMES AND DEFEND CITIZENS.
The police exist to do two things ONLY: patrol thereby deterring crime; and investigating already-committed crimes to apprehend the perpetrators. The police cannot be expected to interrupt crime and defend citizens. This is because police are rarely around when criminals strike. The statistics on apprehension of criminals show that in less than 5% of cases does that happen while the crime is in progress. In many more cases the police arrive AFTER the crime has occurred and literally chase down the criminal. In many more cases yet the police arrive AFTER the crime has occurred and only make an arrest days or weeks later during which time investigation has identified some particular person as the criminal.
Because the police have no general duty to defend victims, by either statute or common law in EVERY STATE the police are immune from suit by victims who claim the police should have defended them. In no state are police liable even if they negligently fail to defend victims – because they have the duty ONLY to patrol and to apprehend after the crime, not to defend victims.
If you want to be defended from crimes you prepare to defend yourselves! If you want to defend your neighborhood, you organize a neighborhood watch like the one of which Zimmerman was a captain. (It was pursuant to his duty as captain that Zimmerman surveilled Martin, whom he saw as a suspicious character.)
2. IT WAS TO PROTECT ZIMMERMAN, NOT MARTIN, THAT POLICE DISCLAIMED ANY REQUEST TO FOLLOW MARTIN.
Why did the police dispatcher to whom Zimmerman reported Martin tell Zimmerman not to follow him further? [See caveat below] Because if she had not the Department might have been sued by Zimmerman or his surviving relatives. The dispatcher could reasonably have anticipated what Zimmerman claims did happen: that Martin attacked him, knocking him down, beating him about the face – thereby breaking his nose – and repeatedly smashing his head into the cement. Had Zimmerman not had a gun he might have been even more seriously injured or killed.
And guess who could have been sued for that? The police! They would not have been liable for failing to defend Zimmerman. But they would be liable for any injury Zimmerman suffered from following Martin pursuant to police approval. Telling Zimmerman not to follow Martin assured that police would not be held liable to Zimmerman for in any way authorizing or condoning his pursuit of Martin.
[CAVEAT: based on the transcript, the police did NOT tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin; they just disclaimed any request that he do so.]
3. ZIMMERMAN HAD A PERFECT RIGHT TO OBSERVE AND FOLLOW MARTIN ON PUBLIC STREETS.
The police have absolutely no special authority either themselves to observe or follow people on the public streets or to authorize or forbid others doing so. The law is that everyone has the right to observe or follow anyone else on the public streets. That is the only reason the police have the right to do so. Just like – and no more than – George Zimmerman had the right to observe or follow Martin on the public streets.
4. IRRELEVANCE OF "STAND YOUR GROUND" LAWS
Unfortunately news media coverage of this shooting has grossly mis-portrayed both the facts and law, thereby dragging in legal issues that have no relevance at all. News reports have consistently misled the public into thinking the case involves some unique recent Florida "stand your ground" law which protects victims who have stood their ground to defend themselves against attackers.
In fact, both the facts on which both sides agree and the allegations on which they disagree preclude application of any aspect of the "stand your ground" law: If, as the shooter claims, Martin rushed up behind him, knocked him down and was sitting on his chest beating him, retreat was impossible. Conversely, if as Martin's advocates claim, Martin posed no threat to Zimmerman and was wantonly shot down, Zimmerman committed murder. Under no view of these conflicting allegations is it relevant that Florida law allows a victim to stand his ground when attacked.
Moreover the "stand your ground" rule has been the majority rule among American states for over 200 years. It is true that a new statute endorsing the "stand your ground" rule has recently been adopted by twenty-five of our fifty states. But this statute makes no difference since almost all of those states – and the rest of the states -- had long endorsed the "stand your ground" principle. To reiterate, immunity from prosecution for standing your ground and defending yourself when attached has been the majority American law for centuries. In addition to the 25 states that have recently enacted the NRA statute, another seven states have earlier statutes applying "stand your ground" to situations outside the home, such as in vehicles or places of employment. Other states long ago adopted "stand your ground" by judge-made law.
Don Kates is a retired American professor of constitutional and criminal law, and a criminologist and research fellow with The Independent Institute in Oakland, California. His books include Armed: New Perspectives On Gun Control, Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, Firearms and Violence: Issues of Public Policy, and The Great American Gun Debate: Essays on Firearms and Violence. As a civil liberties lawyer he has represented gun owners attacking the constitutionality of certain firearms laws.
************
Four simple truths about Florida's Zimmerman-Martin case that aren't being discussed by the media
by Don Kates
The shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman has been the subject of enormous confusion, not only because the facts are not entirely clear, but more because of public misunderstanding of the relevant law. I hope the following will help clarify things.
1. IT'S NOT THE JOB OF THE POLICE TO INTERRUPT CRIMES AND DEFEND CITIZENS.
The police exist to do two things ONLY: patrol thereby deterring crime; and investigating already-committed crimes to apprehend the perpetrators. The police cannot be expected to interrupt crime and defend citizens. This is because police are rarely around when criminals strike. The statistics on apprehension of criminals show that in less than 5% of cases does that happen while the crime is in progress. In many more cases the police arrive AFTER the crime has occurred and literally chase down the criminal. In many more cases yet the police arrive AFTER the crime has occurred and only make an arrest days or weeks later during which time investigation has identified some particular person as the criminal.
Because the police have no general duty to defend victims, by either statute or common law in EVERY STATE the police are immune from suit by victims who claim the police should have defended them. In no state are police liable even if they negligently fail to defend victims – because they have the duty ONLY to patrol and to apprehend after the crime, not to defend victims.
If you want to be defended from crimes you prepare to defend yourselves! If you want to defend your neighborhood, you organize a neighborhood watch like the one of which Zimmerman was a captain. (It was pursuant to his duty as captain that Zimmerman surveilled Martin, whom he saw as a suspicious character.)
2. IT WAS TO PROTECT ZIMMERMAN, NOT MARTIN, THAT POLICE DISCLAIMED ANY REQUEST TO FOLLOW MARTIN.
Why did the police dispatcher to whom Zimmerman reported Martin tell Zimmerman not to follow him further? [See caveat below] Because if she had not the Department might have been sued by Zimmerman or his surviving relatives. The dispatcher could reasonably have anticipated what Zimmerman claims did happen: that Martin attacked him, knocking him down, beating him about the face – thereby breaking his nose – and repeatedly smashing his head into the cement. Had Zimmerman not had a gun he might have been even more seriously injured or killed.
And guess who could have been sued for that? The police! They would not have been liable for failing to defend Zimmerman. But they would be liable for any injury Zimmerman suffered from following Martin pursuant to police approval. Telling Zimmerman not to follow Martin assured that police would not be held liable to Zimmerman for in any way authorizing or condoning his pursuit of Martin.
[CAVEAT: based on the transcript, the police did NOT tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin; they just disclaimed any request that he do so.]
3. ZIMMERMAN HAD A PERFECT RIGHT TO OBSERVE AND FOLLOW MARTIN ON PUBLIC STREETS.
The police have absolutely no special authority either themselves to observe or follow people on the public streets or to authorize or forbid others doing so. The law is that everyone has the right to observe or follow anyone else on the public streets. That is the only reason the police have the right to do so. Just like – and no more than – George Zimmerman had the right to observe or follow Martin on the public streets.
4. IRRELEVANCE OF "STAND YOUR GROUND" LAWS
Unfortunately news media coverage of this shooting has grossly mis-portrayed both the facts and law, thereby dragging in legal issues that have no relevance at all. News reports have consistently misled the public into thinking the case involves some unique recent Florida "stand your ground" law which protects victims who have stood their ground to defend themselves against attackers.
In fact, both the facts on which both sides agree and the allegations on which they disagree preclude application of any aspect of the "stand your ground" law: If, as the shooter claims, Martin rushed up behind him, knocked him down and was sitting on his chest beating him, retreat was impossible. Conversely, if as Martin's advocates claim, Martin posed no threat to Zimmerman and was wantonly shot down, Zimmerman committed murder. Under no view of these conflicting allegations is it relevant that Florida law allows a victim to stand his ground when attacked.
Moreover the "stand your ground" rule has been the majority rule among American states for over 200 years. It is true that a new statute endorsing the "stand your ground" rule has recently been adopted by twenty-five of our fifty states. But this statute makes no difference since almost all of those states – and the rest of the states -- had long endorsed the "stand your ground" principle. To reiterate, immunity from prosecution for standing your ground and defending yourself when attached has been the majority American law for centuries. In addition to the 25 states that have recently enacted the NRA statute, another seven states have earlier statutes applying "stand your ground" to situations outside the home, such as in vehicles or places of employment. Other states long ago adopted "stand your ground" by judge-made law.
Don Kates is a retired American professor of constitutional and criminal law, and a criminologist and research fellow with The Independent Institute in Oakland, California. His books include Armed: New Perspectives On Gun Control, Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, Firearms and Violence: Issues of Public Policy, and The Great American Gun Debate: Essays on Firearms and Violence. As a civil liberties lawyer he has represented gun owners attacking the constitutionality of certain firearms laws.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Times-Reporter Misses Oil Lease Story
How could the Times-Reporter miss the following story about the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District (MWCD) leasing gas and oil rights to out of state drilling companies? One would suppose, with the economy in the condition it is, that the implications of this pending agreement between MWCD and a Houston driller would be important enough for the Times-Reporter to run a story in an effort to keep New Philadelphians up to date on drilling progress in Tuscarawas County. Evidently I'm mistaken. Fortunately newspapers from Mansfield and Coshocton, as well as others, have seen fit to bring us up-to-date with current reports. Here's one for your information.
************
Original article by Russ Zimmer, Mansfield News Journal, May 21, 2012
The Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District has approved the leasing of oil and gas rights to another out-of-state energy company in pursuit of the Utica Shale.
At Friday's monthly board meeting, the district's board agreed to allow Sierra Buckeye, of Houston, access to the natural gas and liquids under a 185-acre tract of land close to the Dover Dam in Tuscarawas County.
Though the lease has not yet been finalized, the proposal calls for the 18-county district to receive a bonus amount of $4,500 per acre, or $832,500 total, plus a 20 percent royalty on the value of the oil and gas pumped, according to a memo provided by the district.
The district does not own the land. It retained deep mineral rights below the surface as part of a sale many years ago, according to district spokesman Darrin Lautenschleger.
The district, which is responsible for water supply and flood prevention within its borders, covers about 8,000 square miles, or about 20 percent of the state. The following counties are included: Richland, Ashland, Belmont, Carroll, Coshocton, Guernsey, Harrison, Holmes, Knox, Licking, Morgan, Muskingum, Noble, Stark, Summit, Tuscarawas, Washington and Wayne.
The owners of the surface land already have a deal in place with the company, the memo states.
Sierra Buckeye is a privately held company with shale exploration experience in the south as well as Pennsylvania and Ohio, according to its website. It has not yet sought permission to drill any Utica Shale wells in Ohio as of last week, according to state data.
The district has been selling its mineral rights for decades and regularly draws six figures in annual leasing and royalty revenue, but in the last couple of years the scale has grown substantially.
At the April meeting, the board approved a deal with Chesapeake Energy for 3,700 acres at Leesville Lake in Harrison County for a signing bonus of $21.5 million. They also signed a lease with Gulfport Energy worth $15.6 million last summer.
It costs about $19 million annually to run the district, according to the 2010 annual report, the latest available. About $9.5 million has been raised each year since 2009 from a property tax levied on residences and businesses within the district.
************
Original article by Russ Zimmer, Mansfield News Journal, May 21, 2012
The Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District has approved the leasing of oil and gas rights to another out-of-state energy company in pursuit of the Utica Shale.
At Friday's monthly board meeting, the district's board agreed to allow Sierra Buckeye, of Houston, access to the natural gas and liquids under a 185-acre tract of land close to the Dover Dam in Tuscarawas County.
Though the lease has not yet been finalized, the proposal calls for the 18-county district to receive a bonus amount of $4,500 per acre, or $832,500 total, plus a 20 percent royalty on the value of the oil and gas pumped, according to a memo provided by the district.
The district does not own the land. It retained deep mineral rights below the surface as part of a sale many years ago, according to district spokesman Darrin Lautenschleger.
The district, which is responsible for water supply and flood prevention within its borders, covers about 8,000 square miles, or about 20 percent of the state. The following counties are included: Richland, Ashland, Belmont, Carroll, Coshocton, Guernsey, Harrison, Holmes, Knox, Licking, Morgan, Muskingum, Noble, Stark, Summit, Tuscarawas, Washington and Wayne.
The owners of the surface land already have a deal in place with the company, the memo states.
Sierra Buckeye is a privately held company with shale exploration experience in the south as well as Pennsylvania and Ohio, according to its website. It has not yet sought permission to drill any Utica Shale wells in Ohio as of last week, according to state data.
The district has been selling its mineral rights for decades and regularly draws six figures in annual leasing and royalty revenue, but in the last couple of years the scale has grown substantially.
At the April meeting, the board approved a deal with Chesapeake Energy for 3,700 acres at Leesville Lake in Harrison County for a signing bonus of $21.5 million. They also signed a lease with Gulfport Energy worth $15.6 million last summer.
It costs about $19 million annually to run the district, according to the 2010 annual report, the latest available. About $9.5 million has been raised each year since 2009 from a property tax levied on residences and businesses within the district.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Obama And Homosexuality
Obama is at it again. Now this being an election year, Obama has hopped in bed, no pun intended, with the homosexuals. Up until a couple of weeks ago, Obama had reservations about homosexuality.
Recently he changed his mind and stated that homosexuality is a good thing. It shouldn’t have come as a surprise, especially since the Democratic left has been pushing legislation to make teaching of homosexual techniques and practices in the nation’s public schools. Think about that one for a minute. Not only will the schools teaching our children that sex before marriage is acceptable, the Obama government wants to include courses in elementary schools that same gender sex by elementary school students is also acceptable. This is sickening.
Obama’s integrity has reached a new low. It has become obvious that he has neither morals nor honor. He has shown again that he will sell out God, as well as the American people, in his lust for power and control. In his attempt to destroy the United States he has again proven, this time without a doubt, that he holds himself above reproach. Everything which stands in the way of his dictatorial ambitions is to be swept aside.
For some time Obama was, at best, a sham Christian. There were concerns that he was a practicing Muslim, but now even that is doubtful. While Christianity and Islam have major disagreements, on one thing they agree. Homosexuality is detestable, unacceptable, immoral, an act which is to be condemned. The Koran demands death by stoning for the act of same gender sex. Christianity and Judaism declare it as immoral, sinful, and totally unacceptable, and against the precepts of God.
So why would Obama change his mind about homosexuality? To achieve his personal and political ambitions to become the dictator of a communistic United States. To complete his overthrow of the Constitution he has to destroy the morality, the responsibility, and self-esteem of the citizenry to the point that it will depend on a socialist government for its very existence.
Destroying their country's morality, ambition, and responsibility, worked for Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Castro. The Chinese, North Koreans, Vietnamese lost their countries with the same tactics.
Destruction of our moral values because of government intervention and legislation is occurring on a daily basis. Without morality, without respect for our religious values, without individual responsibility, an Obama takeover will occur in America. Once accomplished, the end result will be here to stay.
Do not be misled. The destruction of morality means the destruction of freedom. Without morality and responsibility on the part of the citizen, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness becomes nonexistent. Obama’s stand for acceptance of sexual immorality is another step in his plan to destroy the United States and replace it with Communistic dictatorship. Once gone the Republic we once knew will never return.
The choice is yours. Don’t be misled. We are in a fight for our country, our freedom, our very lives.
Recently he changed his mind and stated that homosexuality is a good thing. It shouldn’t have come as a surprise, especially since the Democratic left has been pushing legislation to make teaching of homosexual techniques and practices in the nation’s public schools. Think about that one for a minute. Not only will the schools teaching our children that sex before marriage is acceptable, the Obama government wants to include courses in elementary schools that same gender sex by elementary school students is also acceptable. This is sickening.
Obama’s integrity has reached a new low. It has become obvious that he has neither morals nor honor. He has shown again that he will sell out God, as well as the American people, in his lust for power and control. In his attempt to destroy the United States he has again proven, this time without a doubt, that he holds himself above reproach. Everything which stands in the way of his dictatorial ambitions is to be swept aside.
For some time Obama was, at best, a sham Christian. There were concerns that he was a practicing Muslim, but now even that is doubtful. While Christianity and Islam have major disagreements, on one thing they agree. Homosexuality is detestable, unacceptable, immoral, an act which is to be condemned. The Koran demands death by stoning for the act of same gender sex. Christianity and Judaism declare it as immoral, sinful, and totally unacceptable, and against the precepts of God.
So why would Obama change his mind about homosexuality? To achieve his personal and political ambitions to become the dictator of a communistic United States. To complete his overthrow of the Constitution he has to destroy the morality, the responsibility, and self-esteem of the citizenry to the point that it will depend on a socialist government for its very existence.
Destroying their country's morality, ambition, and responsibility, worked for Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Castro. The Chinese, North Koreans, Vietnamese lost their countries with the same tactics.
Destruction of our moral values because of government intervention and legislation is occurring on a daily basis. Without morality, without respect for our religious values, without individual responsibility, an Obama takeover will occur in America. Once accomplished, the end result will be here to stay.
Do not be misled. The destruction of morality means the destruction of freedom. Without morality and responsibility on the part of the citizen, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness becomes nonexistent. Obama’s stand for acceptance of sexual immorality is another step in his plan to destroy the United States and replace it with Communistic dictatorship. Once gone the Republic we once knew will never return.
The choice is yours. Don’t be misled. We are in a fight for our country, our freedom, our very lives.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Obama's Crucifixion of "Big Oil"
If it ever was a secret, it's not a secret any longer: The Obama Administration is on a vindictive campaign to injure America's oil and gas industry. The proof materialized last week when video of an Environmental Protection Agency official revealed the White House's vicious attitude toward the very industries that supply the American people a reliable, affordable energy source. Yesterday, that official fell on his sword and resigned to spare the president any further embarrassment from the truth he disclosed.
Last week, Heritage's Lachlan Markay reported on a video showing EPA Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz describe his agency's "philosophy of enforcement" with respect to the regulation of oil and gas companies -- likening it to brutal tactics employed by the ancient Roman army to intimidate its foes into submission. With a wry smile, Armendariz detailed the joy with which the EPA inflicts punishment on the disfavored industries:
It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer the villages in the Mediterranean. They'd go into a little Turkish town somewhere and they'd find the first five guys they saw and they'd crucify them. And then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.
Lest there be any doubt, it's worth reiterating the point -- according to Armendariz, the EPA views its enforcement efforts as a violent crucifixion used to strong arm companies into submission. The Constitution bars cruel and unusual punishment, but evidently that doesn't apply to the axe-wielding EPA when it comes to enforcing regulations.
None of this, though, should be a surprise coming from what very well may be the most anti-energy administration in history. For the president and his cadre of bureaucrats, "Big Oil" is the enemy that deserves to be beaten into submission.
Exhibit A: The president's unremitting crusade to raise taxes on the oil industry by denying it access to tax credits available to other industries. This, of course, is a game of semantics and populist rhetoric. In his appeal to the American people, the president is claiming that oil and gas companies enjoy special loopholes and subsidies that need to be eliminated. In reality, they get the same tax treatment enjoyed by producers of clothing, roads, electricity, water, and many other goods manufactured in the United States. Actually, oil companies receive less of a tax break than those manufacturers. (Oil companies receive a six percent reduction while all other manufacturers receive a nine percent reduction.) Yet the president wants to impose a higher targeted tax hike and take the tax break away completely.
When President Obama lashes out at "Big Oil," guess who's going to pay the price? You. First, raising taxes on any company means that the costs will be passed on to consumers. If you're tired of paying high gas prices, you would pay even more if the president levies new costs on the industry that is supplying your fuel.
Second, when the president talks about "Big Oil," keep in mind who "Big Oil" is -- it could very well be you. Thirty-one percent of U.S. oil and natural gas shares are owned by public or private pension plans. On top of that, individual retirement accounts hold 18 percent of shares, individual investors have 21 percent, and asset management companies including mutual funds account for 21 percent -- comprising more than 90 percent of oil and gas stocks in 2011. That means when those companies profit, there's a good chance you profit. And when those companies suffer, there's a good chance that you suffer, too.
That doesn't matter, though, to an Administration that is in an unyielding pursuit of a singular "green" agenda. Billions in taxpayer dollars are spent to fund solar companies that go bankrupt and to give tax credits to wealthy Americans so they can buy a handful of electric vehicles. Meanwhile, the president's Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, gives himself an "A" for his work in lowering gas prices, despite their reaching all-time highs under his watch. And all the while, the president is saying "NO" to domestic energy exploration, including his decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline.
So when Armendariz spoke of "crucifying" oil and gas companies, it was not a surprise. His crime was saying what the rest of the Obama Administration -- including the president -- have been thinking and doing all along. Last week, Armendariz apologized and called his comments "an offensive and inaccurate way to portray our efforts to address potential violations of our nation's environmental laws." In fact, though his words were vivid, they were all too accurate. The Obama Administration has an obvious political agenda that is not focused on enforcing rules, but on vindictively assaulting an industry that doesn't comport with its green agenda -- even though Americans depend on oil and gas companies each and every day. President Obama has said he favors an "all of the above" strategy when it comes to energy policy. "All of the above" apparently means taking no prisoners as he marches toward a "greener" future, regardless of what it costs the American people.
Last week, Heritage's Lachlan Markay reported on a video showing EPA Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz describe his agency's "philosophy of enforcement" with respect to the regulation of oil and gas companies -- likening it to brutal tactics employed by the ancient Roman army to intimidate its foes into submission. With a wry smile, Armendariz detailed the joy with which the EPA inflicts punishment on the disfavored industries:
It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer the villages in the Mediterranean. They'd go into a little Turkish town somewhere and they'd find the first five guys they saw and they'd crucify them. And then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.
Lest there be any doubt, it's worth reiterating the point -- according to Armendariz, the EPA views its enforcement efforts as a violent crucifixion used to strong arm companies into submission. The Constitution bars cruel and unusual punishment, but evidently that doesn't apply to the axe-wielding EPA when it comes to enforcing regulations.
None of this, though, should be a surprise coming from what very well may be the most anti-energy administration in history. For the president and his cadre of bureaucrats, "Big Oil" is the enemy that deserves to be beaten into submission.
Exhibit A: The president's unremitting crusade to raise taxes on the oil industry by denying it access to tax credits available to other industries. This, of course, is a game of semantics and populist rhetoric. In his appeal to the American people, the president is claiming that oil and gas companies enjoy special loopholes and subsidies that need to be eliminated. In reality, they get the same tax treatment enjoyed by producers of clothing, roads, electricity, water, and many other goods manufactured in the United States. Actually, oil companies receive less of a tax break than those manufacturers. (Oil companies receive a six percent reduction while all other manufacturers receive a nine percent reduction.) Yet the president wants to impose a higher targeted tax hike and take the tax break away completely.
When President Obama lashes out at "Big Oil," guess who's going to pay the price? You. First, raising taxes on any company means that the costs will be passed on to consumers. If you're tired of paying high gas prices, you would pay even more if the president levies new costs on the industry that is supplying your fuel.
Second, when the president talks about "Big Oil," keep in mind who "Big Oil" is -- it could very well be you. Thirty-one percent of U.S. oil and natural gas shares are owned by public or private pension plans. On top of that, individual retirement accounts hold 18 percent of shares, individual investors have 21 percent, and asset management companies including mutual funds account for 21 percent -- comprising more than 90 percent of oil and gas stocks in 2011. That means when those companies profit, there's a good chance you profit. And when those companies suffer, there's a good chance that you suffer, too.
That doesn't matter, though, to an Administration that is in an unyielding pursuit of a singular "green" agenda. Billions in taxpayer dollars are spent to fund solar companies that go bankrupt and to give tax credits to wealthy Americans so they can buy a handful of electric vehicles. Meanwhile, the president's Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, gives himself an "A" for his work in lowering gas prices, despite their reaching all-time highs under his watch. And all the while, the president is saying "NO" to domestic energy exploration, including his decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline.
So when Armendariz spoke of "crucifying" oil and gas companies, it was not a surprise. His crime was saying what the rest of the Obama Administration -- including the president -- have been thinking and doing all along. Last week, Armendariz apologized and called his comments "an offensive and inaccurate way to portray our efforts to address potential violations of our nation's environmental laws." In fact, though his words were vivid, they were all too accurate. The Obama Administration has an obvious political agenda that is not focused on enforcing rules, but on vindictively assaulting an industry that doesn't comport with its green agenda -- even though Americans depend on oil and gas companies each and every day. President Obama has said he favors an "all of the above" strategy when it comes to energy policy. "All of the above" apparently means taking no prisoners as he marches toward a "greener" future, regardless of what it costs the American people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)