Breaking News Events

[SoNotHer]

World's Government Spent $500 Billion Subsidizing Fossil Fuels, $66 Billion on Renewables

SustainableBusiness.com News

by Lester Brown

The world's governments are shelling out a combined $1.4 billion per day to further destabilize the earth's climate. Worldwide, direct fossil fuel subsidies added up to roughly $500 billion in 2010, in contrast to just $66 billion for renewable energy. Not only do fossil fuel subsidies dwarf those for renewables today, but a long legacy of governments propping up oil, coal, and natural gas has resulted in a very uneven energy playing field.

Out of the $500 billion in fossil fuel subsidies, $100 billion supports production and $400 billion supports consumption (ie., keeping gas prices low). The oil industry receives $193 billion of that, while natural gas gets $91 billion and coal gets $3 billion. $122 billion is spent subsidizing the use of fossil fuel-generated electricity. We distort reality when we omit the health and environmental costs associated with burning fossil fuels from their prices. When governments actually subsidize their use, they take the distortion even further. Iran's government spent the most of any country to promote fossil fuel consumption in 2010, doling out $81 billion in subsidies, and amounting to over 20% of its gross domestic product. Saudi Arabia was a distant second at $44 billion, followed by Russia ($39 billion), India ($22 billion), and China ($21 billion).


Graph on Fossil Fuel Consumption Subsidies in Top 25 Countries, 2010

Kuwait's fossil fuel subsidies were highest on a per capita basis, with $2,800 spent per person. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar followed, each spending close to $2,500 per person. Carbon emissions could be cut in scores of countries by simply eliminating fossil fuel subsidies. Some countries are
already doing this. Belgium, France, and Japan phased out all subsidies for coal, for example. As oil prices have climbed, a number of countries that
held fuel prices well below world market prices have greatly reduced or eliminated their motor fuel subsidies because of the heavy fiscal cost, including China and Indonesia.

Even Iran, which priced gasoline at one fifth its market price, dramatically reduced gasoline subsidies in December 2010 as part of broader energy subsidy reforms. A world facing economically disruptive climate change can no longer justify subsidies to expand the burning of coal and oil. Over this past year, the typically conservative International Energy Agency has urged governments around the world to stop subsidizing fossil fuels, to set a price on carbon, and to instead subsidize renewable energy to stabilize the earth's climate. Eliminating all fossil fuel consumption subsidies by 2020 would reduce global energy demand nearly 5% while reducing government debt.

In 2009, the G20 pledged to stop subsidizing fossil fuels, but that has yet to happen.

++++

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/i...splay/id/23338

[AtLast]

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...te-in-2010.php

TPM2012
Mitt Romney Paid A 13.9% Effective Tax Rate In 2010

January 24, 2012, 12:30 AM 143124After being hounded by Democrats and Republicans for refusing to and then hedging about releasing his federal tax returns, Mitt Romney released his 2010 tax return Tuesday morning. They show that Romney paid an effective tax rate of 13.9% on $21.6 million in income.

Romney’s total wealth is estimated at $190 million to $250 million.
The returns also show that over 2010 and 2011 Romney donated more money to charity, $7 million, than he will pay in taxes, much of that going to the Mormon church. The campaign stressed that Romney’s low tax rate was based on the fact that much of his income comes from 15% tax rate on capital gains, rather than the 35% rate on earned income as well as charitable deductions. They also note that much of the money comes from interest from Romney’s blind trust.

Key Takeaways From Romney’s Tax Returns
—Mitt Romney paid a 13.9 percent tax rate on $21.6 million in income last year.

—Most of the income came from dividends and interest on investments, which are taxed at a much lower rate.
—Romney raked in America’s median adjusted gross income of $33,048 in “less than a day,” Bloomberg notes. His income over a one-week span puts him in the top 1 percent of annual earners.—Romney, who files jointly with his wife Ann, expects to pay a 15.4 percent rate on $20.9 million in income this year.

—His campaign said he had $7.4 million in carried interest last year; this year the figure is $5.5 million.

—Romney contributed $7 million in charitable donations in the last two years, at least $4.1 million of which was to the Mormon Church.Sahil Kapur contributed to this post.

******

Yanno- "carried interest means he defers paying any tax on millions for years- one of those "loopholes" for the 1%!

Tweet from ThinkProgress-

Romney's return that reveals his Swiss bank account is the "good' return. He won't release previous years.

[Cin]

Obama is being called the food stamp president. And they don't mean isn't it problematic so many people are hungry on his watch. No. It is the fact that so many are getting help by receiving food stamps that is the issue. How can the impression you are trying to feed the hungry, whether it is true or not, be purposely cultivated by political opponents in an effort to discredit you? How can an illusion of compassion for the hungry be used against you? And even more disgusting, how can it actually be working? There is something so morally, ethically, spiritually and just plain humanly wrong with this that it makes me feel a little heart sick and a lot afraid for humanity.

Is this what we have become? Frankly it leaves me stunned that a presidential candidate can win a state primary by sending out messages like “hey let’s get this guy who feeds hungry people out of office.” I guess it shouldn’t when I think about how people actually clapped and cheered at the death of man who had no health insurance. That people want to vote for someone who thinks it’s ridiculous for the government to give food to hungry citizens shouldn’t surprise me. But I guess it still does.

To me there is something so deeply disturbing in the reality that a politician is able to actually find a constituency that is welcoming to this mean spirited, inhumane and immoral political philosophy. I mean what do people say to themselves that this kind of bullshit makes sense to them. Are they thinking hell ya, too many people are getting food stamps for no reason? They have money to buy food but they would rather embarrass themselves using food stamps. Or do they think, hell, it’s just those blacks, Latinos and immigrants who get food stamps anyway. They don’t deserve to eat. You know being black or Mexican or whatever. I mean even if this were true, which it is not, there are more poor white people getting food stamps, but if it were true, does that really make sense to them? Are these the same Christians who spew all that bullshit about family values? Is allowing people to go hungry now a family value?

If someone says more people are on food stamps now than ever before wouldn’t that beg the question why? What is going on that so many people are hungry in the richest nation in the world? Wouldn’t that be the logical question? To me it is abhorrent to think it is okay for people to go hungry. To hear from a politician’s own lips that there are more people hungry in the United States than ever before, then to hear this same guy say he would cut off people from food stamps if he was president and then to vote for him as your candidate is just beyond unacceptable, it is loathsome, abhorrent. What is wrong with people?

Corporate America is spending more money trying to elect their president than ever before. This president, whoever he is, is going to cost them more money than any other president they have purchased in the past. Since it really doesn’t matter who wins, they control them all, why can’t they just spend some of that money on creating jobs for people? That way there will be less of them on food stamps. Since that’s such an annoyance and all.

Okay, since this is the breaking news thread, here is the link to the breaking news article about the growing problem of hunger in the U.S.

http://www.alternet.org/story/153859...r_in_america_/

[Kobi]

It amuses me, an not in a funny way, how politicians and others miscontrue the facts and ignore the context in which something may occur. After all, all they need to do is plant the seed of mistruth. The media then picks it up, puts their own spin on it for their own reasons, and distributes it wholesale to an unsuspecting public.

The average voter does not dissect the manure that is fed to them on a continuous basis. This is the reason our forefathers created a republic rather than a democracy. In a republic, we are suppose to have people whose job it is to wade thru the poop to get to the truth.

To me, Gingrich is and has always been just a human poop making machine.


-------------------------------

Newt Gingrich claims that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.”

He’s wrong. More were added under Bush than under Obama, according to the most recent figures.

The former speaker made that claim Jan. 16 in a Republican debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., and his campaign organization quickly inserted the snippet in a new 30-second TV ad that began running Jan. 18 in South Carolina.

Gingrich would have been correct to say the number now on food aid is historically high. The number stood at 46,224,722 people as of October, the most recent month on record. And it’s also true that the number has risen sharply since Obama took office.

But Gingrich goes too far to say Obama has put more on the rolls than other presidents. We asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001. And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.

And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama’s time in office than during Bush’s.

It’s possible that when the figures for January 2012 are available they will show that the gain under Obama has matched or exceeded the gain under Bush. But not if the short-term trend continues. The number getting food stamps declined by 43,528 in October. And the economy has improved since then.

Gingrich often cites the number of persons on food stamps to support his view that the U.S. is becoming an “entitlement society,” increasingly dependent on government aid. And he has a point. One out of seven Americans is currently getting food stamps.

But Gingrich strains the facts when he accuses Obama of being responsible. The rise started long before Obama took office, and accelerated as the nation was plunging into the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.

The economic downturn began in December 2007. In the 12 months before Obama was sworn in, 4.4 million were added to the rolls, triple the 1.4 million added in 2007.

To be sure, Obama is responsible for some portion of the increase since then. The stimulus bill he signed in 2009 increased benefit levels, making the program more attractive. A family of four saw an increase of $80 per month, for example. That increase remains in effect and is not set to expire until late next year, according to USDA spokeswoman Jean Daniel.

The stimulus also made more people eligible. Able-bodied jobless adults without dependents could get benefits for longer than three months. That special easing of eligibility also expired on Sept. 30, 2010. Spokeswoman Daniel told us that 46 states have been able to continue the longer benefit period under special waivers granted because of high unemployment. Previously, able-bodied adults without dependents could collect food stamps for only three months out of any three-year period.

Otherwise, current eligibility standards are unchanged from what they were before Obama took office, USDA officials say. Generally, those with incomes at or below 130 percent of the official poverty level, and savings of $2,000 or less, may receive aid. The income level is currently just over $29,000 a year for a family of four.

That leaves the economic downturn that began in 2007 — and the agonizingly slow recovery that followed — as the principal factors making more Americans eligible for food stamps. Officials say that another factor is that Americans today are less reluctant to accept aid than before.

Of those whose income was low enough to qualify, only 54 percent actually signed up in 2002, but that rose steadily to 72 percent by fiscal 2009, the latest USDA figures show (See Table 2).

USDA researchers said the jump in the participation rate happened because of actions by state governments. In a report released in August 2011, the Office of Research and Analysis said: “States have increased outreach to low-income households, implemented program simplifications, and streamlined application processes to make it easier for eligible individuals to apply for and receive SNAP [food stamp] benefits. Most States also have reduced the amount of information that recipients must report during their certification period to maintain their eligibility and benefit levels, making it easier for low-income households to participate.”

Another reason might be that “food stamps” no longer exist as paper coupons. Instead, beneficiaries now receive plastic debit cards, known as “Electronic Benefit Transfer” or EBT cards, which look pretty much like an ordinary credit card when used in a supermarket checkout line.

EBT cards have been used in all states since 2004, according to the USDA website. The change to plastic cards was done both to reduce the possibility of fraud, and also to reduce the stigma felt by beneficiaries, and they might account for some of the increase in participation.

In fact, the program is no longer officially called the “food stamp” program. Since 2008, it has been the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP for short.

Who Gets Food Stamps?
The most recent Department of Agriculture report on the general characteristics of the SNAP program’s beneficiaries says that in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2010:

• 47 percent of beneficiaries were children under age 18.

• 8 percent were age 60 or older.

• 41 percent lived in a household with earnings from a job — the so-called “working poor.”

• The average household received a monthly benefit of $287.

• 36 percent were white (non-Hispanic), 22 percent were African American (non-Hispanic) and 10 percent were Hispanic (Table A.21).

We don’t argue that the program is either too large (as Gingrich does) or too small. It has certainly reached a historically high level, and may or may not grow even larger in the months to come. But the plain fact is that the growth started long before Obama took office, and participation grew more under Bush.

Kevin Concannon, the USDA’s undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services, told the Wall Street Journal: “I realize Mr. Gingrich is a historian, but I’m not sure he’d get very high marks on that paper.”

Footnote
There was an earlier easing of eligibility standards buried in a 2008 farm bill that Congress enacted over Bush’s veto. Obama voiced support for the measure while campaigning, but was not present for either the Senate vote to pass the bill or the vote to override.

Both votes enjoyed strong bipartisan majorities. Only 12 Republicans and two Democrats voted to sustain Bush’s veto, for example. Bush didn’t mention the food stamp provisions when he vetoed the bill, but instead cited what he called excessive subsidies to farmers.

http://www.rgj.com/article/20120124/...t-food-stamps-

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Kobi

http://www.rgj.com/article/20120124/...t-food-stamps-

I have to disagree with this article's stance that Gingrich has a point that the U.S. is becoming an entitlement society. Here is the quote "Gingrich often cites the number of persons on food stamps to support his view that the U.S. is becoming an “entitlement society,” increasingly dependent on government aid. And he has a point. One out of seven Americans is currently getting food stamps."

It just boggles my mind. If one out of seven Americans is currently getting food stamps, then one out of seven Americans qualifies for them. That's a freaking no brainer. It's not like they are stealing them. Or abusing the system. And the reason they qualify is because they don't have enough money to feed their family. That is the issue. And the next issue is what can be done to help people find jobs that give them enough money to feed their families. Being hungry and wanting to eat and wanting to feed your children, that's not being an entitlement society. WTF!

Maybe it's me but I can't see how anyone can confuse this issue and make it about too many people getting food stamps. It should be about too many people not having enough money to feed themselves and their families and what can we do about that. Not what can we do about convincing people that when they want enough to eat they are acting like they live in an entitlement society.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I have to disagree with this article's stance that Gingrich has a point that the U.S. is becoming an entitlement society. Here is the quote "Gingrich often cites the number of persons on food stamps to support his view that the U.S. is becoming an “entitlement society,” increasingly dependent on government aid. And he has a point. One out of seven Americans is currently getting food stamps."

It just boggles my mind. If one out of seven Americans is currently getting food stamps, then one out of seven Americans qualifies for them. That's a freaking no brainer. It's not like they are stealing them. Or abusing the system. And the reason they qualify is because they don't have enough money to feed their family. That is the issue. And the next issue is what can be done to help people find jobs that give them enough money to feed their families. Being hungry and wanting to eat and wanting to feed your children, that's not being an entitlement society. WTF!

Maybe it's me but I can't see how anyone can confuse this issue and make it about too many people getting food stamps. It should be about too many people not having enough money to feed themselves and their families and what can we do about that. Not what can we do about convincing people that when they want enough to eat they are acting like they live in an entitlement society.

I dont see the article saying or even making the innuendo that Gringich is right or that the USA is becoming an entitlement society or that 7 in 10 people receive food stamps. Am I missing something?

To me, it is putting together the numbers in a constructive way while taking into account what has happened with the economy since the meltdown, leading to certain programs to relax/alter the requirements as a way to deal with excessive economic loses and prolonged unemployment. That to me is a responsible way to explain and look at increases in anything.

The Gingrich view fails to take the history and current situation into account. He is looking only at numbers and making giant leaps in promoting his warped view to suit his own needs. To me, that is Newt just being the butthead he has always been.

Kobi predicts the current Newt craze is just a flash in the pan thing and will extinguish itself soon enough.

[Kobi]

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Florists, caterers and other wedding-related businesses could turn away engaged gay couples under legislation before the House that opponents likened to segregation and Nazi Germany’s race laws.

The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing Tuesday on the bill, which would allow providers of wedding-related goods or services to withhold those services if they believe doing business with gay couples would violate their conscience or religious faith. The bill also would bar lawsuits against business owners in such situations.

Bill sponsor Rep. Jerry Bergevin, R-Manchester, called it a “business protection bill” and said a person’s personal religious beliefs should receive protection in his or her capacity as a service provider.

Noting that New Hampshire protects against discrimination based on both religion and sexual orientation, Bergevin asked, “How do you strike a balance between them?”

State Rep. Cynthia Chase, D-Keene, called the bill “codified discrimination” and the beginning of a “slippery slope.”

“When you begin to codify things for one group, pretty soon it’s OK for that group, and then that group,” Chase said.

Although the bill was presented in reference to gay marriage, opponents said allowing a “person’s conscience or religious faith,” as the bill reads, to determine whom they serve would open the door to discrimination against inter-faith and inter-racial couples, too.

“There are some religions that still believe that African-Americans and Caucasians shouldn’t be able to marry. They would be allowed to discriminate against them under this bill,” said New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Claire Ebel.

New Hampshire’s gay marriage law already exempts churches and religious groups from being forced to officiate gay marriages or provide services, facilities and goods of any kind to participants. The bill would provide the same protections to individuals, which gay marriage opponents sought in 2009.

At the time, then-state Senate Democratic Leader Maggie Hassan of Exeter said she had heard of no legal challenges filed by gays over businesses refusing to provide services for their civil unions in the 17 months civil unions had been legal in New Hampshire. No cases were mentioned in Tuesday’s hearing either.

The committee has not issued a recommendation on the bill. Once they make a recommendation, the bill will move to the full House for a vote.

Another bill facing a vote in the coming weeks would repeal gay marriage and replace it with civil unions of any two adults, including relatives. It would also allow individuals to refuse their services for a civil union’s’ ceremony and to refuse to treat the civil union as valid if it conflicted with their religious or moral beliefs.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/01/2...o-gay-couples/

[Hollylane]

In today's economy what moronic business owner would do that? I'm sure the karma train will be right along to smack their business into posting a "going out of business" sign.

What country am I in? I am in awe every time I see something like this even attempted. Devolution is really happening more quickly than I could have imagined. Why aren't people like this laughed out of existence?

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Kobi

[COLOR="Navy"]

I dont see the article saying or even making the innuendo that Gringich is right or that the USA is becoming an entitlement society or that 7 in 10 people receive food stamps. Am I missing something?

Well i this is the eighth paragraph of that article.

"Gingrich often cites the number of persons on food stamps to support his view that the U.S. is becoming an “entitlement society,” increasingly dependent on government aid. And he has a point. One out of seven Americans is currently getting food stamps."

Maybe there is another way to take it. But I don't know what way that might be? Am I missing something?

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

Well i this is the eighth paragraph of that article.

"Gingrich often cites the number of persons on food stamps to support his view that the U.S. is becoming an “entitlement society,” increasingly dependent on government aid. And he has a point. One out of seven Americans is currently getting food stamps."

Maybe there is another way to take it. But I don't know what way that might be? Am I missing something?

Ok I am following you now. Put on the freakin glasses Kobi.

I can see now why you came to the conclusion you did. I read it differently.

I read it as..... using the Gingrich logic in the Gingrich way, he has a point in his linear cause and effect thinking.

To me, the article was demonstrating how this linear cause and effect thinking is misleading and flawed.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Ok I am following you now. Put on the freakin glasses Kobi.

I can see now why you came to the conclusion you did. I read it differently.

I read it as..... using the Gingrich logic in the Gingrich way, he has a point in his linear cause and effect thinking.

To me, the article was demonstrating how this linear cause and effect thinking is misleading and flawed.

Ah okay. I didn't get that but my reading comprehension skills could have been overshadowed by my extreme pissed offness.

[Toughy]

Text of Obama's State of the Union found here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ipt/52780694/1

my favorite:

Those of us who've been sent here to serve can learn from the service of our troops. When you put on that uniform, it doesn't matter if you're black or white; Asian or Latino; conservative or liberal; rich or poor; gay or straight. When you're marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you, or the mission fails. When you're in the thick of the fight, you rise or fall as one unit, serving one Nation, leaving no one behind.

[Martina]

i really loved it that he mentioned undocumented students:

Let's also remember that hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country face another challenge: The fact that they aren't yet American citizens. Many were brought here as small children, are American through and through, yet they live every day with the threat of deportation.

[Scuba]

[AtLast]

After the SOTU speech, there are large numbers of tweets (public education unions mainly) about Obama and his commitment to the education platforms he has favored. These include rewarding teachers that demonstrate effectiveness and is you caught it, getting rid of those that do not. He did mention "creativity" in teaching and not "teaching to a test."

What are the thoughts about this? Our public educational system and funding always is under scrutiny and debate.

I'm struggling with how his comments actually fit with what is going on throughout the country in education and all of the education legislation over the past decade.

[AtLast]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032525/ns/us_news/

US: American's weak health led to Somali rescue

[Kobi]

Will this never end?


A judge in Georgia has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court this week in a lawsuit challenging whether he is a natural-born US citizen qualified to be president.

The latest case was spawned by the so-called "birther" movement that has made claims -- which have not been substantiated -- that Obama was born overseas.

Although it is unclear whether a court could force a sitting president to appear in a court case, Georgia Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi has denied a motion by the president's lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires Obama to show up.

A Georgia resident made the complaint, which is intended to keep Obama's name off the state's ballot in the March presidential primary.

Orly Taitz, a California attorney who brought the legal challenge, said she expects the president's legal team to fight his appearance in the Georgia court but by doing so would expose his vulnerability.

An Obama campaign official said the case would not likely proceed.

"As courts around the country have ruled time and again, these claims have no merit and any attempts to compel the president's personal involvement will fail," a statement said.

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-says-oba...020453359.html

[Vlasta]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Will this never end?


A judge in Georgia has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court this week in a lawsuit challenging whether he is a natural-born US citizen qualified to be president.

The latest case was spawned by the so-called "birther" movement that has made claims -- which have not been substantiated -- that Obama was born overseas.

Although it is unclear whether a court could force a sitting president to appear in a court case, Georgia Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi has denied a motion by the president's lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires Obama to show up.

A Georgia resident made the complaint, which is intended to keep Obama's name off the state's ballot in the March presidential primary.

Orly Taitz, a California attorney who brought the legal challenge, said she expects the president's legal team to fight his appearance in the Georgia court but by doing so would expose his vulnerability.

An Obama campaign official said the case would not likely proceed.

"As courts around the country have ruled time and again, these claims have no merit and any attempts to compel the president's personal involvement will fail," a statement said.

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-says-oba...020453359.html

I am aware that many people like Obama and I don't get involved into the US politics since I am just visitor here . Hence , growing up in the communist country it feels like I am going back in the time instead living the American dream .

GA law it's ridiculous , still absurd laws in the justice system . I am tired of that Obama has been hammered by his birth certificate for years now .

Only thing I am concerned now it's that a middle class it's not eradicated and we don't have rich and poor only .

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Will this never end?


A judge in Georgia has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court this week in a lawsuit challenging whether he is a natural-born US citizen qualified to be president.

The latest case was spawned by the so-called "birther" movement that has made claims -- which have not been substantiated -- that Obama was born overseas.

Although it is unclear whether a court could force a sitting president to appear in a court case, Georgia Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi has denied a motion by the president's lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires Obama to show up.

A Georgia resident made the complaint, which is intended to keep Obama's name off the state's ballot in the March presidential primary.

Orly Taitz, a California attorney who brought the legal challenge, said she expects the president's legal team to fight his appearance in the Georgia court but by doing so would expose his vulnerability.

An Obama campaign official said the case would not likely proceed.

"As courts around the country have ruled time and again, these claims have no merit and any attempts to compel the president's personal involvement will fail," a statement said.

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-says-oba...020453359.html

As if he needs to waste time on this bullshit! The level of direspect of this president just makes me sick. john McCain was freaking born in the Panama Canal Zone! Gee, ya' think this is about race?

Sometimes I really don't know how he and Michelle Obama don't get unglued over this garbage. Oh, they can't- would be viewed as angry black people...

[Vlasta]

As I said , I don't get into politics in this country , not that I do not follow it , but I am just a visitor here . It's absolutely absurd that Obama it's still under scrutiny of his birth certificate .

Obama and Gov. Jan Brewer putting her finger in his face it's very much to me disrespectful . He it's president of the US , period .

I was raised with the intelligent parents they though me of not being racist and I am grateful and yes it's about a race in Obama case . My God people we are in 2012 , get over it !