The Hayride

Cassidy Amendment To Kill Obamoratorium Defeated In Committee

Cassidy Amendment To Kill Obamoratorium Defeated In Committee
July 15
10:31 2010

This morning, Rep. Bill Cassidy offered an amendment in the House Natural Resources Committee that would have overturned the Obamoratorium, stating that the May 30 and July 12 deepwater drilling bans “shall have no force or effect” and containing the following language:

“No Federal official may establish any general moratorium on or suspension of offshore oil and gas operations that is substantially similar to the moratorium, the decision memorandum, or any suspension referred to in subsection.”

Cassidy then addressed the committee by making the point that Louisiana’s economy is going to be devastated by the moratorium (it’s already happening), and that “To support this moratorium you have to ignore the evidence, the testimony of experts, and the ruinous consequences this irrational political decision will have on tens of thousands of Louisiana families.”

He then went further:

Of course, following his question why the proponents of the Obamoratorium would reject the advice of the actual experts in favor of Ken Salazar and Michael Bromwich, who between them couldn’t tell you the difference between an oil well and a wishing well, there was no answer.

Cassidy actually managed to get support for the amendment from Natural Resources committee chair Nick Rahall (D-WV). Another Democrat, Jim Costa of California, also came aboard. But the amendment lost by a 22-26 vote, including five votes by supposedly “non-voting” delegates from places like American Samoa, the Northern Marianas, the Virgin Islands and Guam.

And Ed Markey, whose boss George Soros stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars off the moratorium thanks to his near billion-dollar investment in Petrobras.

The 26 House members who voted to kill the economy of coastal Louisiana are:

Rep. George Miller (D-CA)
Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA)
Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI)
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
Del. Eni Faleomavaega (D-American Samoa)
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ)
Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA)
Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ)
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam)
Del. Del. Gregorio Sablan (D-Northern Marianas)
Rep. Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM)
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)
Del. Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands)
Rep. Dianna DeGette (D-CO)
Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI)
Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA)
Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA)
Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA)
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD)
Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD)
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH)
Rep. Nikki Tsongas (D-MA)
Rep. Frank Kratovil, Jr. (D-MD)
Del. Pedro Pierluisi (D-Puerto Rico)

Related Articles

26 Comments

  1. Mike_Youngblood
    Mike_Youngblood July 15, 17:27

    The present Congress and Administration have no desire to do right by south Louisiana. The goal is to kill the oil industry by whatever means. Bill should be commended, though, for trying, and thus further exposing that true agenda.

    • Robert Mack
      Robert Mack July 16, 00:44

      You'll notice that all the "NO" votes came from dems on the "left" coast and the northeast.It will be a cold day in hell before you see me spend any $ in those locals.

  2. Mike_Youngblood
    Mike_Youngblood July 15, 17:27

    The present Congress and Administration have no desire to do right by south Louisiana. The goal is to kill the oil industry by whatever means. Bill should be commended, though, for trying, and thus further exposing that true agenda.

    • Robert Mack
      Robert Mack July 16, 00:44

      You'll notice that all the "NO" votes came from dems on the "left" coast and the northeast.It will be a cold day in hell before you see me spend any $ in those locals.

  3. Tim B
    Tim B July 19, 04:32

    WE will remember you in November!!!!!

  4. Tim B
    Tim B July 19, 04:32

    WE will remember you in November!!!!!

  5. alice
    alice July 19, 11:48

    I am confused——–how can a non-voting delegate be allowed to vote?

  6. alice
    alice July 19, 11:48

    I am confused——–how can a non-voting delegate be allowed to vote?

  7. Lee
    Lee July 19, 23:30

    Nancy Pelosi's congress will "win" by hook or crook… mostly crook. I have never in my life seen so much cheating to get their way. I think everyone should start talkingh impeachment and see if Obama changes his tune… if not, then impeach him. Something has to be done… he's ruining our country and his term is only half over!

    • macaoidh
      macaoidh July 20, 01:00

      Impeachment of Obama is an idea fraught with political peril. It's probably better to chop him off at the knees by seizing a majority in the House and Senate this fall, thenemploying every legislative trick in the book to prevent him from further socializing the country in 2011 and 2012 – then beating him in the 2012 election (which will require a stronger candidate than we've seen so far – and there's time to develop one). Impeach Obama, which will be impossible without a large enough Senate majority, and you'll get a President Biden and a fresh Democrat candidate in 2012. That could be an even worse set of circumstances.

      • Mike Rogers
        Mike Rogers July 20, 03:59

        I disagree – impeachment for real crimes against the US, successful impeachment, would send a clear message to the criminals that they can't get away with ignoring their oaths any longer.
        Bill Clinton got away with it because, slimy as he is, not enough people got excited about bad personal behavior. The case against Obams would be on constitutional and probably criminal grounds, and could well stand.
        For an excellent discussion of what the founders had in mind as impeachable crimes, read "High Crimes and Misdemeanours" by Ann Coulter.
        Joe the Gaffer BiteMe would trip overhimself so badly that he's be next. With or without impeachment, we should not assume 2012 will be a cakewalk, and should ensure that our representatives have spines, and a really good candidate bubbles up for 2012.

        • macaoidh
          macaoidh July 20, 14:36

          The problem is you won't get enough votes for a successful impeachment in the Senate before 2012. No Democrat is going to vote to impeach Obama, plain and simple, so you'd need 60 Republicans or more to pull it off. Now, after 2012 it's not impossible you may have a competitive number since some 23 of the 33 Senate seats up for re-election are currently held by Democrats. But hopefully you'll have a Republican president by then and it won't matter.

          Appointing special prosecutors for various specific offenses this administration is committing is without question something the Republicans should do, and if Watergate-style evidence is uncovered against Obama maybe it's a game-changer. But impeaching him for political reasons is a mistake.

  8. Lee
    Lee July 19, 18:30

    Nancy Pelosi's congress will "win" by hook or crook… mostly crook. I have never in my life seen so much cheating to get their way. I think everyone should start talkingh impeachment and see if Obama changes his tune… if not, then impeach him. Something has to be done… he's ruining our country and his term is only half over!

    • macaoidh
      macaoidh Author July 20, 01:00

      Impeachment of Obama is an idea fraught with political peril. It's probably better to chop him off at the knees by seizing a majority in the House and Senate this fall, thenemploying every legislative trick in the book to prevent him from further socializing the country in 2011 and 2012 – then beating him in the 2012 election (which will require a stronger candidate than we've seen so far – and there's time to develop one). Impeach Obama, which will be impossible without a large enough Senate majority, and you'll get a President Biden and a fresh Democrat candidate in 2012. That could be an even worse set of circumstances.

      • Mike Rogers
        Mike Rogers July 19, 22:59

        I disagree – impeachment for real crimes against the US, successful impeachment, would send a clear message to the criminals that they can't get away with ignoring their oaths any longer.
        Bill Clinton got away with it because, slimy as he is, not enough people got excited about bad personal behavior. The case against Obams would be on constitutional and probably criminal grounds, and could well stand.
        For an excellent discussion of what the founders had in mind as impeachable crimes, read "High Crimes and Misdemeanours" by Ann Coulter.
        Joe the Gaffer BiteMe would trip overhimself so badly that he's be next. With or without impeachment, we should not assume 2012 will be a cakewalk, and should ensure that our representatives have spines, and a really good candidate bubbles up for 2012.

        • macaoidh
          macaoidh Author July 20, 14:36

          The problem is you won't get enough votes for a successful impeachment in the Senate before 2012. No Democrat is going to vote to impeach Obama, plain and simple, so you'd need 60 Republicans or more to pull it off. Now, after 2012 it's not impossible you may have a competitive number since some 23 of the 33 Senate seats up for re-election are currently held by Democrats. But hopefully you'll have a Republican president by then and it won't matter.

          Appointing special prosecutors for various specific offenses this administration is committing is without question something the Republicans should do, and if Watergate-style evidence is uncovered against Obama maybe it's a game-changer. But impeaching him for political reasons is a mistake.

  9. HAMMER
    HAMMER July 20, 19:54

    LAWYERS MAKING LAWS IS AN INHERENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THEY LEGISLATE COMPLICATED LAWS WHICH ARE A GUARANTEE OF THEIR JOB SECURITY AND AGENDAS. LAWYERS NO LONGER ANSWER TO A JURY OF CITIZENS IN AMERICA. LAWYERS ARE REGULATED BY REVIEW BOARDS OF "THEIR PEERS", AS ARE JUDGES IN THIS COUNTRY. LAWYERS (650,000 OF THEM) ARE AN ARISTOCRACTIC "CLASS" IN AMERICA, THEIR REASON BEING, THAT THE AVERAGE CITIZEN "DOES'NT UNDERSTAND"…… you don't know right from wrong!!!! THEY ARE STEALING AMERICA……..WAKE UP…..!!!!!!!

  10. HAMMER
    HAMMER July 20, 19:54

    LAWYERS MAKING LAWS IS AN INHERENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THEY LEGISLATE COMPLICATED LAWS WHICH ARE A GUARANTEE OF THEIR JOB SECURITY AND AGENDAS. LAWYERS NO LONGER ANSWER TO A JURY OF CITIZENS IN AMERICA. LAWYERS ARE REGULATED BY REVIEW BOARDS OF "THEIR PEERS", AS ARE JUDGES IN THIS COUNTRY. LAWYERS (650,000 OF THEM) ARE AN ARISTOCRACTIC "CLASS" IN AMERICA, THEIR REASON BEING, THAT THE AVERAGE CITIZEN "DOES'NT UNDERSTAND"…… you don't know right from wrong!!!! THEY ARE STEALING AMERICA……..WAKE UP…..!!!!!!!

  11. ConnieZ
    ConnieZ July 31, 15:20

    Not only do I dream of Impeachment, Repeal and Recall, I play the lottery now specifically with the idea in mind that with my winnings, I'll build a special Federal Prison to house all of the scum which are guilty of corruption and treason, now and for the last 40 to 50 years. Yep, a special prison to house Federal, State and Local Criminals who will be prosecuted for those "High Crimes and Misdemeanours."

  12. ConnieZ
    ConnieZ July 31, 15:20

    Not only do I dream of Impeachment, Repeal and Recall, I play the lottery now specifically with the idea in mind that with my winnings, I'll build a special Federal Prison to house all of the scum which are guilty of corruption and treason, now and for the last 40 to 50 years. Yep, a special prison to house Federal, State and Local Criminals who will be prosecuted for those "High Crimes and Misdemeanours."

Only registered users can comment.

Subscribe To The Nooner!

Categories

Archives