Shame of the Feds and Obama for their renewed zealous pursuit to stop the legalization of marijuana.
And Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer is a gutless liar.
Live free!
Re: Politics
17Justice Department Pursues 'Strange' Probe of Execution Drug
By Judson Berger
Published May 08, 2011
The Obama administration has launched a quiet campaign over the past two months to seize from local officials a key drug used in lethal injections -- part of a spreading investigation that has contributed to a de facto death penalty freeze in several states.
The investigation stems from concerns about the overseas source of the drug, though some question whether those concerns make a handy excuse to slow the pace of executions. The seizures started in Georgia, where the Drug Enforcement Administration in March grabbed their supply of sodium thiopental. From there, the DEA swooped into Tennessee, Kentucky and other states to confiscate their stash, forcing the states to either find an alternative chemical or suspend executions.
"It's very strange," said Kent Scheidegger, legal director with the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.
Sodium thiopental is just one drug in a three-drug mix used to execute prisoners. It is used as the first drug in the process to induce general anesthesia. The subsequent drugs paralyze and then kill the inmate.
The administration is keeping its probe under wraps. Though the DEA said in March they had "concerns" about the way the drug was imported into the United States, federal officials have since stopped talking about it entirely. The DEA referred questions from FoxNews.com to the Justice Department. A representative at the Justice Department said she could not comment on the case.
State officials confirm the circumstances of the seizures.
Lauren Kane, a spokeswoman with the Georgia attorney general's office, told FoxNews.com officials seized their state supply and that while the justice system can continue to work on death penalty cases, for the time being the executions themselves "cannot be performed."
In Georgia, concerns were being raised about the drug before it was used in January to execute Emmanuel Hammond, who was convicted in the 1988 murder of a teacher. The Southern Center for Human Rights complained that documents showed Georgia bought the drugs from the "back room" of a London driving school, claiming there were "serious questions" about whether the drug was expired or even real. Then another attorney for a death row inmate in February requested a federal investigation -- raising concerns about the circumstances of the purchase, accusing the state of potentially breaking the law by failing to register the import. The attorney warned that a proper dose is critical to ensure the subject does not experience "intense pain."
Before these red flags were raised, the lone U.S. manufacturer of the product had set off a scramble at the state level when it suspended production in 2009 and then announced in early 2011 that it would stop production permanently. The shortage has delayed and disrupted executions in several states, forcing them to find alternative drugs or overseas sources for sodium thiopental -- the problem was compounded after Britain, one of those sources, banned the export of the product and then the Justice Department started seizing it.
From Georgia, the DEA moved on to Tennessee, Kentucky and elsewhere.
Dorinda Carter, with the Tennessee Department of Correction, said the state turned over its "entire supply" at DEA request in late March.
"They had some concerns about our domestic vendor's import procedures," she said, without elaborating. Carter said the state has executions scheduled this fall and is "looking at other options."
The DEA also seized Alabama's supply. State Department of Corrections spokesman Brian Corbett said the state had obtained a "small amount of sodium thiopental" from Tennessee, but was contacted by the DEA "within a week" of getting the supply.
"The Alabama Department of Corrections willingly turned over to the DEA all of the sodium thiopental it had received from Tennessee and no longer has it in its possession," Corbett said.
"The Alabama Department of Corrections has in the past, and will in the future if asked, cooperate fully with federal authorities to the extent requested. I cannot provide further information at this time."
Scheidegger said the Justice Department is overreaching, effectively halting the use of a drug that the Food and Drug Administration -- the agency "with primary responsibility" -- has left alone.
"This is interference in a core function of state government," he said. Scheidegger added that amid concerns about sodium thiopental, most states will probably end up moving to alternative drugs. States like Ohio have already moved to pentobarbital to execute inmates. Corbett said Alabama has just changed its policy to allow for pentobarbital as well. And Texas, which leads the nation in executions, just executed a prisoner Tuesday using pentobarbital. South Carolina followed suit Friday.
But Scheidegger suggested the administration could have an underlying motive in forcing states to find a new method.
"The DEA is part of the Department of Justice and we know the head of the Department of Justice doesn't like the death penalty," he said.
The Justice Department did not return a request for comment on the intent of the seizures.
Attorney General Eric Holder does not personally support the death penalty, though he has authorized his prosecutors to seek it since taking office. President Obama also spoke out against capital punishment before he was president, but has since said it should apply in severe cases -- he even said during the 2008 campaign that he disagreed with a Supreme Court ruling that would prohibit the death penalty for child rapists.
Statistics kept by the Death Penalty Information Center show the pace of executions under Obama has slowed slightly. There were 96 executions in the first two years of his presidency, compared with 130 during the first two years of the George W. Bush administration. Throughout that period, the number of death row inmates has stayed relatively constant -- there were nearly 3,600 prisoners on death row in 2001, dropping to nearly 3,300 in 2009.
Though the Obama administration has started to scrutinize the process with its DEA investigation, it's far from clear whether that's part of a broader anti-death penalty strategy. In fact, the Justice Department just weighed in against death row inmates in a key case involving sodium thiopental.
In that case in District of Columbia federal court, six death row inmates criticized the Food and Drug Administration for allowing the drug to be imported into the country and called on the agency to step in and block future shipments.
"Thiopental is an unapproved drug, a misbranded drug and an adulterated drug," the plaintiffs said in the complaint, claiming that imports "greatly" increase the risk that inmates would not be properly sedated.
The Justice Department, though, filed a motion urging the judges to dismiss the suit, arguing that the FDA has the right "not to refuse admission to thiopental for use in capital punishment."
A Justice Department representative did not respond to a question from FoxNews.com about why the department would on one hand investigate the drug, while at the same time fight a lawsuit that raised questions about the drug.
The motion, though, gave a hint. Justice attorneys mentioned the importance of giving "deference to law enforcement on matters involving drugs for use in capital punishment," suggesting the FDA was not suited to investigate such a matter.
Syndicated columnist Debra Saunders suggested the Justice Department, regardless of the court case, is trying to at least slow the pace of executions -- she said it "speaks volumes" that the department hasn't raided California, which has had executions on hold anyway and just announced it was delaying executions for at least another year.
"States have death penalty laws, and the federal government is trying to make it harder for the states to execute those laws," Saunders said.
By Judson Berger
Published May 08, 2011
The Obama administration has launched a quiet campaign over the past two months to seize from local officials a key drug used in lethal injections -- part of a spreading investigation that has contributed to a de facto death penalty freeze in several states.
The investigation stems from concerns about the overseas source of the drug, though some question whether those concerns make a handy excuse to slow the pace of executions. The seizures started in Georgia, where the Drug Enforcement Administration in March grabbed their supply of sodium thiopental. From there, the DEA swooped into Tennessee, Kentucky and other states to confiscate their stash, forcing the states to either find an alternative chemical or suspend executions.
"It's very strange," said Kent Scheidegger, legal director with the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.
Sodium thiopental is just one drug in a three-drug mix used to execute prisoners. It is used as the first drug in the process to induce general anesthesia. The subsequent drugs paralyze and then kill the inmate.
The administration is keeping its probe under wraps. Though the DEA said in March they had "concerns" about the way the drug was imported into the United States, federal officials have since stopped talking about it entirely. The DEA referred questions from FoxNews.com to the Justice Department. A representative at the Justice Department said she could not comment on the case.
State officials confirm the circumstances of the seizures.
Lauren Kane, a spokeswoman with the Georgia attorney general's office, told FoxNews.com officials seized their state supply and that while the justice system can continue to work on death penalty cases, for the time being the executions themselves "cannot be performed."
In Georgia, concerns were being raised about the drug before it was used in January to execute Emmanuel Hammond, who was convicted in the 1988 murder of a teacher. The Southern Center for Human Rights complained that documents showed Georgia bought the drugs from the "back room" of a London driving school, claiming there were "serious questions" about whether the drug was expired or even real. Then another attorney for a death row inmate in February requested a federal investigation -- raising concerns about the circumstances of the purchase, accusing the state of potentially breaking the law by failing to register the import. The attorney warned that a proper dose is critical to ensure the subject does not experience "intense pain."
Before these red flags were raised, the lone U.S. manufacturer of the product had set off a scramble at the state level when it suspended production in 2009 and then announced in early 2011 that it would stop production permanently. The shortage has delayed and disrupted executions in several states, forcing them to find alternative drugs or overseas sources for sodium thiopental -- the problem was compounded after Britain, one of those sources, banned the export of the product and then the Justice Department started seizing it.
From Georgia, the DEA moved on to Tennessee, Kentucky and elsewhere.
Dorinda Carter, with the Tennessee Department of Correction, said the state turned over its "entire supply" at DEA request in late March.
"They had some concerns about our domestic vendor's import procedures," she said, without elaborating. Carter said the state has executions scheduled this fall and is "looking at other options."
The DEA also seized Alabama's supply. State Department of Corrections spokesman Brian Corbett said the state had obtained a "small amount of sodium thiopental" from Tennessee, but was contacted by the DEA "within a week" of getting the supply.
"The Alabama Department of Corrections willingly turned over to the DEA all of the sodium thiopental it had received from Tennessee and no longer has it in its possession," Corbett said.
"The Alabama Department of Corrections has in the past, and will in the future if asked, cooperate fully with federal authorities to the extent requested. I cannot provide further information at this time."
Scheidegger said the Justice Department is overreaching, effectively halting the use of a drug that the Food and Drug Administration -- the agency "with primary responsibility" -- has left alone.
"This is interference in a core function of state government," he said. Scheidegger added that amid concerns about sodium thiopental, most states will probably end up moving to alternative drugs. States like Ohio have already moved to pentobarbital to execute inmates. Corbett said Alabama has just changed its policy to allow for pentobarbital as well. And Texas, which leads the nation in executions, just executed a prisoner Tuesday using pentobarbital. South Carolina followed suit Friday.
But Scheidegger suggested the administration could have an underlying motive in forcing states to find a new method.
"The DEA is part of the Department of Justice and we know the head of the Department of Justice doesn't like the death penalty," he said.
The Justice Department did not return a request for comment on the intent of the seizures.
Attorney General Eric Holder does not personally support the death penalty, though he has authorized his prosecutors to seek it since taking office. President Obama also spoke out against capital punishment before he was president, but has since said it should apply in severe cases -- he even said during the 2008 campaign that he disagreed with a Supreme Court ruling that would prohibit the death penalty for child rapists.
Statistics kept by the Death Penalty Information Center show the pace of executions under Obama has slowed slightly. There were 96 executions in the first two years of his presidency, compared with 130 during the first two years of the George W. Bush administration. Throughout that period, the number of death row inmates has stayed relatively constant -- there were nearly 3,600 prisoners on death row in 2001, dropping to nearly 3,300 in 2009.
Though the Obama administration has started to scrutinize the process with its DEA investigation, it's far from clear whether that's part of a broader anti-death penalty strategy. In fact, the Justice Department just weighed in against death row inmates in a key case involving sodium thiopental.
In that case in District of Columbia federal court, six death row inmates criticized the Food and Drug Administration for allowing the drug to be imported into the country and called on the agency to step in and block future shipments.
"Thiopental is an unapproved drug, a misbranded drug and an adulterated drug," the plaintiffs said in the complaint, claiming that imports "greatly" increase the risk that inmates would not be properly sedated.
The Justice Department, though, filed a motion urging the judges to dismiss the suit, arguing that the FDA has the right "not to refuse admission to thiopental for use in capital punishment."
A Justice Department representative did not respond to a question from FoxNews.com about why the department would on one hand investigate the drug, while at the same time fight a lawsuit that raised questions about the drug.
The motion, though, gave a hint. Justice attorneys mentioned the importance of giving "deference to law enforcement on matters involving drugs for use in capital punishment," suggesting the FDA was not suited to investigate such a matter.
Syndicated columnist Debra Saunders suggested the Justice Department, regardless of the court case, is trying to at least slow the pace of executions -- she said it "speaks volumes" that the department hasn't raided California, which has had executions on hold anyway and just announced it was delaying executions for at least another year.
"States have death penalty laws, and the federal government is trying to make it harder for the states to execute those laws," Saunders said.
Re: Politics
18I'm still vehemently opposed to the death penalty.
I've typed enough about my views in prior years. I just don't trust our justice system......as good as it is.......to always get it right. That's OK. It's a good system.
I just don't want our society to kill someone and later find out when we were wrong.
I've typed enough about my views in prior years. I just don't trust our justice system......as good as it is.......to always get it right. That's OK. It's a good system.
I just don't want our society to kill someone and later find out when we were wrong.
Re: Politics
20Oh geez, you're in the wrong state, TF. California has alot more death row inmates then any other state. 702. Next highest is Florida with 398.
You know it costs $22,000 a year to house an inmate?
That is around 15 and a half million per year of your tax money in California to keep Charles Manson and his ilk alive.
I'm a bit old fashioned. I prefer the days when a dude was found guilty and sentenced to death they started building the gallows and killed the guy in days. Or hell, just take 'em out back for a firing squad.
Oh well, that's beside the point. You & I can agree to disagree on that issue. What bugs me is the way the current administration continues to use backdoor slick ass ways to push their agenda down the country's throat without people knowing it.
I hope the fine folks of Texas & Alabama just start hanging people until they allow them to start using the drugs again. Of course knowing the current administration they would start taxing companies that make rope till they went out of business.
You know it costs $22,000 a year to house an inmate?
That is around 15 and a half million per year of your tax money in California to keep Charles Manson and his ilk alive.
I'm a bit old fashioned. I prefer the days when a dude was found guilty and sentenced to death they started building the gallows and killed the guy in days. Or hell, just take 'em out back for a firing squad.
Oh well, that's beside the point. You & I can agree to disagree on that issue. What bugs me is the way the current administration continues to use backdoor slick ass ways to push their agenda down the country's throat without people knowing it.
I hope the fine folks of Texas & Alabama just start hanging people until they allow them to start using the drugs again. Of course knowing the current administration they would start taxing companies that make rope till they went out of business.
Re: Politics
21South Carolina had an execution last Friday.
He was the first person to be executed in South Carolina in two years and the first to be put to death using a new drug, pentobarbital, in the three-drug execution protocol.
In several states, pentobarbital has replaced sodium thiopental, a drug that has become scarce in the United States, for lethal injection executions. Oklahoma and Ohio have switched to the new drug. On Tuesday, Texas put an inmate to death using pentobarbital.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/ ... SK20110506
He was the first person to be executed in South Carolina in two years and the first to be put to death using a new drug, pentobarbital, in the three-drug execution protocol.
In several states, pentobarbital has replaced sodium thiopental, a drug that has become scarce in the United States, for lethal injection executions. Oklahoma and Ohio have switched to the new drug. On Tuesday, Texas put an inmate to death using pentobarbital.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/ ... SK20110506
Re: Politics
22The article I posted mentioned that.
"This is interference in a core function of state government," he said. Scheidegger added that amid concerns about sodium thiopental, most states will probably end up moving to alternative drugs. States like Ohio have already moved to pentobarbital to execute inmates. Corbett said Alabama has just changed its policy to allow for pentobarbital as well. And Texas, which leads the nation in executions, just executed a prisoner Tuesday using pentobarbital. South Carolina followed suit Friday.
"This is interference in a core function of state government," he said. Scheidegger added that amid concerns about sodium thiopental, most states will probably end up moving to alternative drugs. States like Ohio have already moved to pentobarbital to execute inmates. Corbett said Alabama has just changed its policy to allow for pentobarbital as well. And Texas, which leads the nation in executions, just executed a prisoner Tuesday using pentobarbital. South Carolina followed suit Friday.
Re: Politics
23I just skimmed too fast, Hiillbilly. Thanks for catching me.
I'm still vehemently opposed to the death penalty.
When I lived in South Carolina, a bartender I knew along the way opened up his own bar on a street called Broad River Road. There is a sizeable complex of prison complexes for all ages and law enforcement facilities of many levels nearby.
One night while chatting with my friends at happy hour I remembered an execution had been scheduled for around that time. And I remembered the "death chamber" was across the street and through the fields and fences from the bar.
The hearse brought the body out just about the same time happy hour ended.
I'm likely all for life at hard labor. Just not the death penalty. Partly because it's not a deterrent, and mostly because I think the risk of putting an innocent person to a fate that cannot be reversed is something I'd wish we would avoid.
I'm still vehemently opposed to the death penalty.
When I lived in South Carolina, a bartender I knew along the way opened up his own bar on a street called Broad River Road. There is a sizeable complex of prison complexes for all ages and law enforcement facilities of many levels nearby.
One night while chatting with my friends at happy hour I remembered an execution had been scheduled for around that time. And I remembered the "death chamber" was across the street and through the fields and fences from the bar.
The hearse brought the body out just about the same time happy hour ended.
I'm likely all for life at hard labor. Just not the death penalty. Partly because it's not a deterrent, and mostly because I think the risk of putting an innocent person to a fate that cannot be reversed is something I'd wish we would avoid.
Re: Politics
24Brian Milan's venue, last we saw him. Rusty, with grounds, chastised him after Brian danced publicly immediately following The National Championship Game. I was disappointed Brian just slinked and disappeared. Life is all about backbone and resilience, I think.
Angry Mob Chases Would-Be Flag Burner Off LSU Campus
Updated: Wednesday, 11 May 2011, 10:09 PM EDT
NEWSCORE - A mob of angry protesters chased a would-be flag burner at Louisiana State University (LSU) off campus Wednesday to chants of "USA, USA."
Graduate communications student Benjamin Haas had earlier been given permission by the school to burn the flag. But because he lacked a local burn permit, he agreed instead to read a statement in an area of the university known as free speech alley.
As Haas read the statement, a crowd around him erupted into cheers and jeers, many shouting "Go to hell, hippie, go to hell."
"You had a lot of people on both sides of the debate getting into a lot of fights," said James Haralson, manager of Tiger TV, the university television station. "The students started yelling obscenities at him. People started throwing bottles at him."
Fox News reports that Haas' actions were in response to the arrest of another student, who was charged with taking and burning the American flag once posted at LSU's War Memorial. That incident came just hours after Osama bin Laden's killing by US Navy SEALS last week.
Haralson, who filmed the protest, said Haas was surrounded by police officers on horseback and as they protest swelled, they moved him to a safer location.
"At that point, all the students began rushing him, continuing to throw trash at him," he said. "He was finally escorted into a cop car in the street and students were banging on the cop car."
LSU spokesman Ernie Ballard said the school endorsed neither Haas' actions, nor those of the crowd around him.
Word of the potential burning had sparked pockets of anger throughout the campus.
"It's time that my generation stand up for what they believe in and exercise their freedom of speech and let people know that we are not OK with this," said Cody Wells, the student government association president. "I am angry that an individual would want to do this at a public higher education institution."
Angry Mob Chases Would-Be Flag Burner Off LSU Campus
Updated: Wednesday, 11 May 2011, 10:09 PM EDT
NEWSCORE - A mob of angry protesters chased a would-be flag burner at Louisiana State University (LSU) off campus Wednesday to chants of "USA, USA."
Graduate communications student Benjamin Haas had earlier been given permission by the school to burn the flag. But because he lacked a local burn permit, he agreed instead to read a statement in an area of the university known as free speech alley.
As Haas read the statement, a crowd around him erupted into cheers and jeers, many shouting "Go to hell, hippie, go to hell."
"You had a lot of people on both sides of the debate getting into a lot of fights," said James Haralson, manager of Tiger TV, the university television station. "The students started yelling obscenities at him. People started throwing bottles at him."
Fox News reports that Haas' actions were in response to the arrest of another student, who was charged with taking and burning the American flag once posted at LSU's War Memorial. That incident came just hours after Osama bin Laden's killing by US Navy SEALS last week.
Haralson, who filmed the protest, said Haas was surrounded by police officers on horseback and as they protest swelled, they moved him to a safer location.
"At that point, all the students began rushing him, continuing to throw trash at him," he said. "He was finally escorted into a cop car in the street and students were banging on the cop car."
LSU spokesman Ernie Ballard said the school endorsed neither Haas' actions, nor those of the crowd around him.
Word of the potential burning had sparked pockets of anger throughout the campus.
"It's time that my generation stand up for what they believe in and exercise their freedom of speech and let people know that we are not OK with this," said Cody Wells, the student government association president. "I am angry that an individual would want to do this at a public higher education institution."
Re: Politics
25Cali:
If we would put the death row inmates to work doing things that saved tax payers money then I could maybe go for that. I just think it stupid to pay $22,000 a year to continue taking care of Charles Manson. But if he's out building a road or something instead of paying state workers to do that job then it might make more sense.
But then again, it wouldn't take long for one of the workers to escape and kill someone else so doubt I'd end up happy with that situation in the long run either. I saw the 48 Hours movie and life immitates art ya' know.
Anyway, again, we can disagree on death penalties. My whole point is I am sick of politicians on both sides losing a public debate on a subject then trying to ram their ideology down our throats anyway using back room shadow tactics. It's especially sickening coming from lying pieces of $#!^ that clamored on & on about transparency not long ago.
Just in the last couple years we've seen this kind of crap with guns, environment, energy, health care, and now death penalty. They use federal agencies and regulatory czars to "nudge" things their direction. And regular every day Americans busy with their jobs & families have no idea about the sleezy tactics going on behind their backs. Then one day they pull in and pay 80 bucks to fill their gas tank up, or 60 bucks for a box of ammo, or see the federal government owns huge chunks of land in their state, or see wolves running around their property, or wonder why their electric bill has risen, and they wonder what the hell happened.
If we would put the death row inmates to work doing things that saved tax payers money then I could maybe go for that. I just think it stupid to pay $22,000 a year to continue taking care of Charles Manson. But if he's out building a road or something instead of paying state workers to do that job then it might make more sense.
But then again, it wouldn't take long for one of the workers to escape and kill someone else so doubt I'd end up happy with that situation in the long run either. I saw the 48 Hours movie and life immitates art ya' know.
Anyway, again, we can disagree on death penalties. My whole point is I am sick of politicians on both sides losing a public debate on a subject then trying to ram their ideology down our throats anyway using back room shadow tactics. It's especially sickening coming from lying pieces of $#!^ that clamored on & on about transparency not long ago.
Just in the last couple years we've seen this kind of crap with guns, environment, energy, health care, and now death penalty. They use federal agencies and regulatory czars to "nudge" things their direction. And regular every day Americans busy with their jobs & families have no idea about the sleezy tactics going on behind their backs. Then one day they pull in and pay 80 bucks to fill their gas tank up, or 60 bucks for a box of ammo, or see the federal government owns huge chunks of land in their state, or see wolves running around their property, or wonder why their electric bill has risen, and they wonder what the hell happened.
Re: Politics
26Google Sets Aside $500 Million for Probe
May 11, 2011, 5:26 PM EDT
May 11 (Bloomberg) -- Google Inc. set aside $500 million related to the possible resolution of a U.S. Justice Department investigation of its advertising business, resulting in lower first-quarter profit.
The expense trimmed net income to $1.8 billion, or $5.51 a share, in the period, Google said yesterday in a regulatory filing. The Mountain View, California-based company had reported first-quarter profit of $2.3 billion, or $7.04, on April 14.
“Although we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, we believe it will not have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows,” Google said in the statement.
The Justice Department is investigating the use of Google ads by “certain advertisers,” Google said in the filing. Aaron Zamost, a spokesman for the company, declined to comment on the disclosure. Google gets almost all its revenue from online advertising, which runs on its search engine and other sites, such as YouTube.
Google faces an increasing array of scrutiny from regulators over its market leadership and handling of users’ data. The Federal Trade Commission is preparing an investigation of Google’s dominance of the search industry and has alerted technology companies that it plans to gather information for the probe, three people familiar with the matter said last month.
ITA Review
The FTC, which had been considering a broad investigation, waited until the Justice Department concluded its own review of Google’s acquisition of ITA Software Inc., two people familiar with the matter said in April. The Justice Department cleared the purchase last month, on the condition that Google make ITA’s travel information available to search-engine rivals.
Microsoft Corp., Kayak.com, Expedia Inc. and other Google competitors banded together as a group called FairSearch.org to oppose the acquisition of ITA, which makes software that provides data for online travel sites such as Orbitz Worldwide Inc. They said the deal would reduce competition and called on the Justice Department to impose conditions for the transaction.
U.S. Senator Herb Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat who heads a Judiciary antitrust subcommittee, has said he will examine Google’s business practices. Senator Mike Lee of Utah, the panel’s senior Republican, has called for hearings.
Officials in Texas and the European Commission have started investigations into Google’s search dominance, and Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine is considering such a probe.
With the $500 million expense, Google’s net income declined 8 percent in the first quarter from the year-earlier period. Before the change, net income had climbed 18 percent.
Excluding revenue passed on to partner sites, sales rose 29 percent to $6.54 billion, topping the $6.32 billion average of estimates. Still, that growth was dwarfed by a 54 percent jump in operating expenses.
Laura Sweeney, a Justice Department spokeswoman, declined to comment on the matter.
Google fell $7.21 to $535.45 at 4 p.m. New York time on the Nasdaq Stock Market. The shares have declined 9.9 percent this year.
May 11, 2011, 5:26 PM EDT
May 11 (Bloomberg) -- Google Inc. set aside $500 million related to the possible resolution of a U.S. Justice Department investigation of its advertising business, resulting in lower first-quarter profit.
The expense trimmed net income to $1.8 billion, or $5.51 a share, in the period, Google said yesterday in a regulatory filing. The Mountain View, California-based company had reported first-quarter profit of $2.3 billion, or $7.04, on April 14.
“Although we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, we believe it will not have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows,” Google said in the statement.
The Justice Department is investigating the use of Google ads by “certain advertisers,” Google said in the filing. Aaron Zamost, a spokesman for the company, declined to comment on the disclosure. Google gets almost all its revenue from online advertising, which runs on its search engine and other sites, such as YouTube.
Google faces an increasing array of scrutiny from regulators over its market leadership and handling of users’ data. The Federal Trade Commission is preparing an investigation of Google’s dominance of the search industry and has alerted technology companies that it plans to gather information for the probe, three people familiar with the matter said last month.
ITA Review
The FTC, which had been considering a broad investigation, waited until the Justice Department concluded its own review of Google’s acquisition of ITA Software Inc., two people familiar with the matter said in April. The Justice Department cleared the purchase last month, on the condition that Google make ITA’s travel information available to search-engine rivals.
Microsoft Corp., Kayak.com, Expedia Inc. and other Google competitors banded together as a group called FairSearch.org to oppose the acquisition of ITA, which makes software that provides data for online travel sites such as Orbitz Worldwide Inc. They said the deal would reduce competition and called on the Justice Department to impose conditions for the transaction.
U.S. Senator Herb Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat who heads a Judiciary antitrust subcommittee, has said he will examine Google’s business practices. Senator Mike Lee of Utah, the panel’s senior Republican, has called for hearings.
Officials in Texas and the European Commission have started investigations into Google’s search dominance, and Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine is considering such a probe.
With the $500 million expense, Google’s net income declined 8 percent in the first quarter from the year-earlier period. Before the change, net income had climbed 18 percent.
Excluding revenue passed on to partner sites, sales rose 29 percent to $6.54 billion, topping the $6.32 billion average of estimates. Still, that growth was dwarfed by a 54 percent jump in operating expenses.
Laura Sweeney, a Justice Department spokeswoman, declined to comment on the matter.
Google fell $7.21 to $535.45 at 4 p.m. New York time on the Nasdaq Stock Market. The shares have declined 9.9 percent this year.
Re: Politics
27As ya'll know I don't trust Google so this doesn't surprise me, but I'm not real sure exactly what's happening here. Apparently there were some ads from people selling pharmaceuticals illegally. So was people harmed by buying these drugs? And if so shouldn't the money go to them and not Tim Geitner & the treasurery?
If there is one thing I trust less than Google it's the feds and this just stinks of crap.
DOJ is now willing to just drop investigations as long as someone can pony up big bucks to help them pay for their irresponsible spending?
Maybe this explains why the DOJ never would investigate the Black Panthers who was intimidating voters in Philly. Apparently those losers coughed up 50 bucks so Eric Holder looked the other way.
If there is one thing I trust less than Google it's the feds and this just stinks of crap.
DOJ is now willing to just drop investigations as long as someone can pony up big bucks to help them pay for their irresponsible spending?
Maybe this explains why the DOJ never would investigate the Black Panthers who was intimidating voters in Philly. Apparently those losers coughed up 50 bucks so Eric Holder looked the other way.
Re: Politics
28This story is a few weeks old now but if you haven't heard about it you should check into it. This is a big deal.. The feds are now trying to tell companies where they can operate. Dems are trying to force them to stay in states with union work. All they will achieve is running them out of the country altogether. They'll set these plants up in China or India.
Ex-Labor Board Chairman: Union-Backed Case Against Boeing 'Unprecedented'
By Judson Berger
Published April 26, 2011
The former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board told FoxNews.com that a board attorney's bid to stop Boeing from opening a production line at a non-union site in South Carolina is "unprecedented" and could have serious implications for companies looking to expand.
The comments Tuesday from Peter Schaumber add to the roiling debate over the complaint filed last week against the aerospace giant. NLRB's acting general counsel, taking up allegations from union workers at a Puget Sound plant in Washington state, had accused Boeing of violating federal labor law by moving to open a second 787 Dreamliner airplane production line in South Carolina.
The complaint hinged on claims that Boeing made "coercive statements" regarding union-led strikes, and then retaliated by transferring its second line to a non-union facility. As evidence, the NLRB noted that a Boeing executive said in an interview that the overriding factor in going to South Carolina -- a right-to-work state where unions cannot force employees to join -- was a desire to avoid disruptions. The union in Washington state has led several strikes against Boeing since the 1970s, most recently in 2005 and 2008.
But Schaumber said the complaint is a big stretch and would mark a departure. He said that if the claim is upheld, it could jeopardize any company with unionized workers that wants to expand to a right-to-work state.
"It would be fair to say it's unprecedented," he said.
Schaumber, a Bush administration appointee who served on the board for almost eight years including as chairman, argued that the NLRB counsel offered "no basis" for the central claim that Boeing retaliated by transferring work from Washington to South Carolina.
"The workers don't have any claim to the work," he said. "If the workers don't have any claim to the work, it wasn't retaliatory to open a new second production line. ... It is simply expanding its business operation."
Boeing offered a similar defense, saying the jobs in South Carolina will not come at the expense of jobs in Washington state. The new production line is expected to pump out three planes a month, on top of the seven planes a month coming out of the Puget Sound area. Boeing said since the expansion decision was made, union employment in Puget Sound has increased by about 2,000 workers. Plus Boeing noted that the South Carolina factory is almost done and has involved more than 1,000 workers in the process.
"This claim is legally frivolous and represents a radical departure from both NLRB and Supreme Court precedent," Boeing General Counsel J. Michael Luttig said in a statement.
South Carolina Republican lawmakers were similarly outraged over the complaint. Sen. Jim DeMint called it a "political favor" for the unions who supported President Obama's 2008 campaign.
Sen. Lindsey Graham vowed to try to cut off funding for the "wild goose chase."
"If successful, the NLRB complaint would allow unions to hold a virtual 'veto' over business decisions," he said in a statement.
FoxNews.com is seeking comment from Washington state's two Democratic U.S. senators.
But NLRB spokeswoman Nancy Cleeland said the charge that Boeing is transferring work away from union employees stems from the company's original commitment "to the state of Washington that it would build the Dreamliner airplanes in that state." Plus she said the South Carolina facility would assume work that is currently being done at a Seattle facility. "As far as the merits of the complaint go, however, the distinction does not matter. Whether this work is considered new or existing, the decision about where to locate it would violate federal labor law if done for discriminatory reasons," she said in an email to FoxNews.com.
NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon cited Boeing executives' comments on their desire to avoid strikes in claiming the company violated federal rules.
"A worker's right to strike is a fundamental right guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act," Solomon said in a statement. "We also recognize the rights of employers to make business decisions based on their economic interests, but they must do so within the law."
Solomon noted that a settlement could still be reached. Plus the NLRB stressed that the complaint doesn't request that Boeing shut down the South Carolina plant; however, it seeks to keep 787 production in Washington.
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which initially filed the allegation against Boeing with the NLRB in March of last year, said in a statement that the South Carolina decision was aimed at the union.
"Boeing's decision to build a 787 assembly line in South Carolina sent a message that Boeing workers would suffer financial harm for exercising their collective bargaining rights," Vice President Rich Michalski said. "Federal labor law is clear: it's illegal to threaten or penalize workers who engage in concerted activity, and it's illegal in all 50 states."
A hearing in the case is now scheduled before an administrative law judge on June 14 in Seattle.
That decision could then be voted on by the National Labor Relations Board itself. And that decision could in turn be appealed to a federal circuit court.
Schaumber said the dispute could drag on for a while, but suggested the current makeup of the board does not favor Boeing.
"This board views its role as to promote unionization, and with that in mind, that will be their focus in deciding this case," he said.
Ex-Labor Board Chairman: Union-Backed Case Against Boeing 'Unprecedented'
By Judson Berger
Published April 26, 2011
The former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board told FoxNews.com that a board attorney's bid to stop Boeing from opening a production line at a non-union site in South Carolina is "unprecedented" and could have serious implications for companies looking to expand.
The comments Tuesday from Peter Schaumber add to the roiling debate over the complaint filed last week against the aerospace giant. NLRB's acting general counsel, taking up allegations from union workers at a Puget Sound plant in Washington state, had accused Boeing of violating federal labor law by moving to open a second 787 Dreamliner airplane production line in South Carolina.
The complaint hinged on claims that Boeing made "coercive statements" regarding union-led strikes, and then retaliated by transferring its second line to a non-union facility. As evidence, the NLRB noted that a Boeing executive said in an interview that the overriding factor in going to South Carolina -- a right-to-work state where unions cannot force employees to join -- was a desire to avoid disruptions. The union in Washington state has led several strikes against Boeing since the 1970s, most recently in 2005 and 2008.
But Schaumber said the complaint is a big stretch and would mark a departure. He said that if the claim is upheld, it could jeopardize any company with unionized workers that wants to expand to a right-to-work state.
"It would be fair to say it's unprecedented," he said.
Schaumber, a Bush administration appointee who served on the board for almost eight years including as chairman, argued that the NLRB counsel offered "no basis" for the central claim that Boeing retaliated by transferring work from Washington to South Carolina.
"The workers don't have any claim to the work," he said. "If the workers don't have any claim to the work, it wasn't retaliatory to open a new second production line. ... It is simply expanding its business operation."
Boeing offered a similar defense, saying the jobs in South Carolina will not come at the expense of jobs in Washington state. The new production line is expected to pump out three planes a month, on top of the seven planes a month coming out of the Puget Sound area. Boeing said since the expansion decision was made, union employment in Puget Sound has increased by about 2,000 workers. Plus Boeing noted that the South Carolina factory is almost done and has involved more than 1,000 workers in the process.
"This claim is legally frivolous and represents a radical departure from both NLRB and Supreme Court precedent," Boeing General Counsel J. Michael Luttig said in a statement.
South Carolina Republican lawmakers were similarly outraged over the complaint. Sen. Jim DeMint called it a "political favor" for the unions who supported President Obama's 2008 campaign.
Sen. Lindsey Graham vowed to try to cut off funding for the "wild goose chase."
"If successful, the NLRB complaint would allow unions to hold a virtual 'veto' over business decisions," he said in a statement.
FoxNews.com is seeking comment from Washington state's two Democratic U.S. senators.
But NLRB spokeswoman Nancy Cleeland said the charge that Boeing is transferring work away from union employees stems from the company's original commitment "to the state of Washington that it would build the Dreamliner airplanes in that state." Plus she said the South Carolina facility would assume work that is currently being done at a Seattle facility. "As far as the merits of the complaint go, however, the distinction does not matter. Whether this work is considered new or existing, the decision about where to locate it would violate federal labor law if done for discriminatory reasons," she said in an email to FoxNews.com.
NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon cited Boeing executives' comments on their desire to avoid strikes in claiming the company violated federal rules.
"A worker's right to strike is a fundamental right guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act," Solomon said in a statement. "We also recognize the rights of employers to make business decisions based on their economic interests, but they must do so within the law."
Solomon noted that a settlement could still be reached. Plus the NLRB stressed that the complaint doesn't request that Boeing shut down the South Carolina plant; however, it seeks to keep 787 production in Washington.
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which initially filed the allegation against Boeing with the NLRB in March of last year, said in a statement that the South Carolina decision was aimed at the union.
"Boeing's decision to build a 787 assembly line in South Carolina sent a message that Boeing workers would suffer financial harm for exercising their collective bargaining rights," Vice President Rich Michalski said. "Federal labor law is clear: it's illegal to threaten or penalize workers who engage in concerted activity, and it's illegal in all 50 states."
A hearing in the case is now scheduled before an administrative law judge on June 14 in Seattle.
That decision could then be voted on by the National Labor Relations Board itself. And that decision could in turn be appealed to a federal circuit court.
Schaumber said the dispute could drag on for a while, but suggested the current makeup of the board does not favor Boeing.
"This board views its role as to promote unionization, and with that in mind, that will be their focus in deciding this case," he said.
Re: Politics
29Boeing Is Pro-Growth, Not Anti-Union
Washington's actions have assaulted the capitalist principles that have sustained America's competitiveness since it became the world's largest economy nearly 140 years ago.
By JIM MCNERNEY
Deep into the recent recession, Boeing decided to invest more than $1 billion in a new factory in South Carolina. Surging global demand for our innovative, new 787 Dreamliner exceeded what we could build on one production line and we needed to open another.
This was good news for Boeing and for the economy. The new jetliner assembly plant would be the first one built in the U.S. in 40 years. It would create new American jobs at a time when most employers are hunkered down. It would expand the domestic footprint of the nation's leading exporter and make it more competitive against emerging plane makers from China, Russia and elsewhere. And it would bring hope to a state burdened by double-digit unemployment—with the construction phase alone estimated to create more than 9,000 total jobs.
Eighteen months later, a North Charleston swamp has been transformed into a state-of-the-art, green-energy powered, 1.2 million square-foot airplane assembly plant. One thousand new workers are hired and being trained to start building planes in July.
It is an American industrial success story by every measure. With 9% unemployment nationwide, we need more of them—and soon.
Yet the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) believes it was a mistake and that our actions were unlawful. It claims we improperly transferred existing work, and that our decision reflected "animus" and constituted "retaliation" against union-represented employees in Washington state. Its remedy: Reverse course, Boeing, and build the assembly line where we tell you to build it.
.The NLRB is wrong and has far overreached its authority. Its action is a fundamental assault on the capitalist principles that have sustained America's competitiveness since it became the world's largest economy nearly 140 years ago. We've made a rational, legal business decision about the allocation of our capital and the placement of new work within the U.S. We're confident the federal courts will reject the claim, but only after a significant and unnecessary expense to taxpayers.
More worrisome, though, are the potential implications of such brazen regulatory activism on the U.S. manufacturing base and long-term job creation. The NLRB's overreach could accelerate the overseas flight of good, middle-class American jobs.
Contrary to the NLRB's claim, our decision to expand in South Carolina resulted from an objective analysis of the same factors we use in every site selection. We considered locations in several states but narrowed the choice to either North Charleston (where sections of the 787 are built already) or Everett, Wash., which won the initial 787 assembly line in 2003.
Our union contracts expressly permit us to locate new work at our discretion. However, we viewed Everett as an attractive option and engaged voluntarily in talks with union officials to see if we could make the business case work. Among the considerations we sought were a long-term "no-strike clause" that would ensure production stability for our customers, and a wage and benefit growth trajectory that would help in our cost battle against Airbus and other state-sponsored competitors.
Despite months of effort, no agreement was reached. Union leaders couldn't meet expectations on our key issues, and we couldn't accept their demands that we remain neutral in all union-organizing campaigns and essentially guarantee to build every future Boeing airplane in the Puget Sound area. In October 2009, we made the Charleston selection.
Important to our case is the basic fact that no existing work is being transferred to South Carolina, and not a single union member in Washington has been adversely affected by this decision. In fact, we've since added more than 2,000 union jobs there, and the hiring continues. The 787 production line in Everett has a planned capacity of seven airplanes per month. The line in Charleston will build three additional airplanes to reach our 10-per-month capacity plan. Production of the new U.S. Air Force aerial refueling tanker will sustain and grow union jobs in Everett, too.
Before and after the selection, we spoke openly to employees and investors about our competitive realities and the business considerations of the decision. The NLRB now is selectively quoting and mischaracterizing those comments in an attempt to bolster its case. This is a distressing signal from one arm of the government when others are pushing for greater openness and transparency in corporate decision making.
It is no secret that over the years Boeing and union leaders have struggled to find the right way to work together. I don't blame that all on the union, or all on the company. Both sides are working to improve that dynamic, which is also a top concern for customers. Virgin Atlantic founder Richard Branson put it this way following the 2008 machinists' strike that shut down assembly for eight weeks: "If union leaders and management can't get their act together to avoid strikes, we're not going to come back here again. We're already thinking, 'Would we ever risk putting another order with Boeing?' It's that serious."
Despite the ups-and-downs, we hold no animus toward union members, and we have never sought to threaten or punish them for exercising their rights, as the NLRB claims. To the contrary, union members are part of our company's fabric and key to our success. About 40% of our 155,000 U.S. employees are represented by unions—a ratio unchanged since 2003.
Nor are we making a mass exodus to right-to-work states that forbid compulsory union membership. We have a sizable presence in 34 states; half are unionized and half are right-to-work. We make decisions on work placement based on business principles—not out of emotion or spite. For example, last year we added new manufacturing facilities in Illinois and Montana. One work force is union-represented, the other is not. Both decisions made business sense.
The world the NLRB wants to create with its complaint would effectively prevent all companies from placing new plants in right-to-work states if they have existing plants in unionized states. But as an unintended consequence, forward-thinking CEOs also would be reluctant to place new plants in unionized states—lest they be forever restricted from placing future plants elsewhere across the country.
U.S. tax and regulatory policies already make it more attractive for many companies to build new manufacturing capacity overseas. That's something the administration has said it wants to change and is taking steps to address. It appears that message hasn't made it to the front offices of the NLRB.
Mr. McNerney is chairman, president and CEO of the Boeing Co.
Washington's actions have assaulted the capitalist principles that have sustained America's competitiveness since it became the world's largest economy nearly 140 years ago.
By JIM MCNERNEY
Deep into the recent recession, Boeing decided to invest more than $1 billion in a new factory in South Carolina. Surging global demand for our innovative, new 787 Dreamliner exceeded what we could build on one production line and we needed to open another.
This was good news for Boeing and for the economy. The new jetliner assembly plant would be the first one built in the U.S. in 40 years. It would create new American jobs at a time when most employers are hunkered down. It would expand the domestic footprint of the nation's leading exporter and make it more competitive against emerging plane makers from China, Russia and elsewhere. And it would bring hope to a state burdened by double-digit unemployment—with the construction phase alone estimated to create more than 9,000 total jobs.
Eighteen months later, a North Charleston swamp has been transformed into a state-of-the-art, green-energy powered, 1.2 million square-foot airplane assembly plant. One thousand new workers are hired and being trained to start building planes in July.
It is an American industrial success story by every measure. With 9% unemployment nationwide, we need more of them—and soon.
Yet the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) believes it was a mistake and that our actions were unlawful. It claims we improperly transferred existing work, and that our decision reflected "animus" and constituted "retaliation" against union-represented employees in Washington state. Its remedy: Reverse course, Boeing, and build the assembly line where we tell you to build it.
.The NLRB is wrong and has far overreached its authority. Its action is a fundamental assault on the capitalist principles that have sustained America's competitiveness since it became the world's largest economy nearly 140 years ago. We've made a rational, legal business decision about the allocation of our capital and the placement of new work within the U.S. We're confident the federal courts will reject the claim, but only after a significant and unnecessary expense to taxpayers.
More worrisome, though, are the potential implications of such brazen regulatory activism on the U.S. manufacturing base and long-term job creation. The NLRB's overreach could accelerate the overseas flight of good, middle-class American jobs.
Contrary to the NLRB's claim, our decision to expand in South Carolina resulted from an objective analysis of the same factors we use in every site selection. We considered locations in several states but narrowed the choice to either North Charleston (where sections of the 787 are built already) or Everett, Wash., which won the initial 787 assembly line in 2003.
Our union contracts expressly permit us to locate new work at our discretion. However, we viewed Everett as an attractive option and engaged voluntarily in talks with union officials to see if we could make the business case work. Among the considerations we sought were a long-term "no-strike clause" that would ensure production stability for our customers, and a wage and benefit growth trajectory that would help in our cost battle against Airbus and other state-sponsored competitors.
Despite months of effort, no agreement was reached. Union leaders couldn't meet expectations on our key issues, and we couldn't accept their demands that we remain neutral in all union-organizing campaigns and essentially guarantee to build every future Boeing airplane in the Puget Sound area. In October 2009, we made the Charleston selection.
Important to our case is the basic fact that no existing work is being transferred to South Carolina, and not a single union member in Washington has been adversely affected by this decision. In fact, we've since added more than 2,000 union jobs there, and the hiring continues. The 787 production line in Everett has a planned capacity of seven airplanes per month. The line in Charleston will build three additional airplanes to reach our 10-per-month capacity plan. Production of the new U.S. Air Force aerial refueling tanker will sustain and grow union jobs in Everett, too.
Before and after the selection, we spoke openly to employees and investors about our competitive realities and the business considerations of the decision. The NLRB now is selectively quoting and mischaracterizing those comments in an attempt to bolster its case. This is a distressing signal from one arm of the government when others are pushing for greater openness and transparency in corporate decision making.
It is no secret that over the years Boeing and union leaders have struggled to find the right way to work together. I don't blame that all on the union, or all on the company. Both sides are working to improve that dynamic, which is also a top concern for customers. Virgin Atlantic founder Richard Branson put it this way following the 2008 machinists' strike that shut down assembly for eight weeks: "If union leaders and management can't get their act together to avoid strikes, we're not going to come back here again. We're already thinking, 'Would we ever risk putting another order with Boeing?' It's that serious."
Despite the ups-and-downs, we hold no animus toward union members, and we have never sought to threaten or punish them for exercising their rights, as the NLRB claims. To the contrary, union members are part of our company's fabric and key to our success. About 40% of our 155,000 U.S. employees are represented by unions—a ratio unchanged since 2003.
Nor are we making a mass exodus to right-to-work states that forbid compulsory union membership. We have a sizable presence in 34 states; half are unionized and half are right-to-work. We make decisions on work placement based on business principles—not out of emotion or spite. For example, last year we added new manufacturing facilities in Illinois and Montana. One work force is union-represented, the other is not. Both decisions made business sense.
The world the NLRB wants to create with its complaint would effectively prevent all companies from placing new plants in right-to-work states if they have existing plants in unionized states. But as an unintended consequence, forward-thinking CEOs also would be reluctant to place new plants in unionized states—lest they be forever restricted from placing future plants elsewhere across the country.
U.S. tax and regulatory policies already make it more attractive for many companies to build new manufacturing capacity overseas. That's something the administration has said it wants to change and is taking steps to address. It appears that message hasn't made it to the front offices of the NLRB.
Mr. McNerney is chairman, president and CEO of the Boeing Co.
Re: Politics
30HB..
I'd love to join your anger over this stuff you share. Your are on solid ground.
We did get a nice Tribe Win today though.
Didn't Lenin say "Tribe Baseball is the opiate of the people?"
I'd love to join your anger over this stuff you share. Your are on solid ground.
We did get a nice Tribe Win today though.
Didn't Lenin say "Tribe Baseball is the opiate of the people?"