R.I.P: Andrew Breitbart, Conservative Activist

Andrew Breitbart speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on February 10, 2012.

Santorum: "What a Huge Loss"

Andrew Breitbart, one of the leading conservative voices and activists in the country, died during the early morning hours of March 1, 2012. According to the Yahoo News blog "The Cutline", Breitbart was walking near his Brentwood, California home and suddenly collapsed. He was transported to UCLA Medical Center where he was pronounced dead sometime after midnight. The cause of death has not been determined. 

More information on Breitbart's career and life is available here: Yahoo News: The Cutline

Photo source: Own work
Author: Gage Skidmore

Permission:  Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported

White House Briefs

West Wing Week: 06/02/11 or "One Step at a Time"

This week, President Obama traveled to Joplin, Missouri to see the devastation first hand. He finished his week-long trip to Europe in Poland and on Memorial Day, he visited Arlington National Cemetery.

Matt Drudge and the New N-Word: "Urban"

Has "The Drudge Report" Created a Buzz Word for Covert Racists, the Mainstream Media and Politicians?

Folks, let me be very clear about one thing. I don't back down from a fight, no matter how big the opponent. Case in point, the iconic Matt Drudge and his news juggernaut, "The Drudge Report". I have a great deal of respect for the man and the news empire he has built over the last decade or so. Drudge may be the news industry's Goliath, but I have the heart of David.

Unlike Drudge, I don't have a staff and operate as a one-man army -- putting in as many as 40 hours posting articles, placing follow-up calls for stories, calling sources, setting up exclusive interviews and creating original news content without earning a dime. This independent news and information source is my passion, and if "From The G-Man" is fortunate enough to one day compete with the Drudge Report, in terms of readership and profit, it will be quite an accomplishment.

Having said that, I would be remiss if I didn't express my displeasure over a number of articles that were published on his website over the Memorial Day weekend. I didn't take issue with his reporting of rioting and violence by bad-ass teens raising hell all across the country. That's what I expect him to do. What I had a serious problem with was the use of the word "urban" to describe the majority of the people causing the disturbances.

It's no secret that the term urban has always been used to refer to people living in certain areas of a metropolis, usually those of low-income or poor status. As time progressed, these areas became overwhelmingly inhabited by people of color and the negative stereotypes soon followed. Keep those last three words in mind -- people of color -- because they will be very important by the end of this commentary.

The articles that appeared on the front page of the Drudge Report on May 30th showed Black people taking part in criminal acts. Let me say it one more time. I have no problem with that. If you catch dumb-asses doing wrong, report it, no matter what color they are. However, what raised my suspicion, and level of concern, was the fact that the word urban appeared three times, in three different articles, on the same front page!

Now, based on my experience as a journalist, that's a major no-no. It's considered overkill, and the only reason anyone would do it is to stress a point or implant a thought. Drudge and his editors could've simply referred to the participants as roving gangs or thugs. Even mobsters are called thugs. Thus, I'm forced to wonder what Matt Drudge's motive was for using the term three times in three different front page stories. I have a theory, and I really hope I'm wrong about it. Hopefully, "The Drudgester" will reach out to me and explain, if he cares to.

I believe the word was repeated in three different front page stories as a psychological tool to suggest to his readers, whom are predominately Caucasian, that when you see or hear the word urban, you are to immediately assume two things: it refers to Blacks and that they're a bunch of unruly, violent savages.

Again, I hope this was not what Drudge intended. There are far too many people in this country that are Drudge Report loyalists and believers of the news-gospel it spreads. If it was intended, then his website has ventured outside the realm and true spirit of journalism and into a dark and extremely dangerous place, and "David" is using this commentary as his sling.

Given the fact that people know me as a straight-shooter, let me go even further, since -- according to a recent feature on Drudge that appeared in the New York Times -- the national media and politicians are greatly influenced by what's published on the Drudge Report.

Matt Drudge has given every American politician, media personality, and citizen that loathes Black people a new buzz word for "conservative" discussions about not only the horrifying Memorial Day incidents, but Black culture, in general.

Racist analysts, commentators and pundits can't refer to the groups cited in these news reports by what they really want to call them, out of control NIGGERS, and -- whether he realizes it or not --Drudge has given them a back-door to escape any claim of being racist whenever they discuss these matters. Mark my words, with youth unemployment at a record high across the country, especially among those of color, and teens with no outlet for their anger and frustration, discussions about growing incidents of weekend or holiday violence will be had in the months to come. I suspect July 4th is going to be a bitch!

The biggest danger posed by the urban-Black connection, which I believe was inadvertently made on the Drudge Report postings, is this: Pictures of people were posted that may not have been Black! Those pictured may have had Black skin or "looked Black", whatever the hell that means, but it's a well-known fact that people of Latin origin have dark skin. Cubans and Dominicans are perfect examples. Thus, the captions, headlines and photos may not necessarily reflect those being showcased. This is where the national media, including you, Mr. Drudge, needs to be very, very careful. This is not about political correctness. It's about code words and the damage that can be inflicted by improperly assessing one's character or group affiliation.

I'll close with a public challenge to Matt Drudge, politicians from both parties, 2012 presidential candidates and the national media. If you're going to start breaking these types of stories, or having town hall discussions about the fact that the "Summer of Hell" is upon us -- citing these criminal-minded, lazy, saggy-pants-wearing, unintelligent, welfare-loving, unruly "Black" people as a serious threat to this great nation -- then, at the very least, have the balls to start breaking stories and having serious discussions about how precious and protected "Wall Street White-Boys" are also playing a pivotal role in America's downfall....and getting away with it.

This commentary is from the heart and.....From The G-Man.

Matt Drudge photo source: wikinfo.org

Permission: GNU Free Documentation License 1.3 and the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license

'This Legislation Seeks to Protect the Public'

Addabbo Supports Cracking Down on Irresponsible and Under-Age Drivers

In order to make New York State roads safer and to protect the safety of law-abiding drivers, NYS Senator Joseph P. Addabbo, Jr. (D-Queens) introduced a bill, S.1271/A.4190, to the Senate that amends the vehicle and traffic law, in relation to increasing the penalties for driving with a suspended or revoked license. The bill is now in the Senate's Committee on Transportation; if passed, it will take effect immediately.

This bill changes the penalties for driving with a suspended license as follows:

For aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree (a misdemeanor), the penalty will be changed to a fine no less than $500 to no more than $1,000 and/or no more than 30 days in jail.

For aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree (a misdemeanor), the penalty will change to a fine of no less than $1,000, to no more than $5,000, and/or up to 180 days (6 months) in jail.

For aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (a class E felony), the penalty will be one to four years in prison, or one year in prison under special circumstances.

According to Addabbo, "Irresponsible drivers in our state whose licenses have been suspended or revoked are a danger to others when they operate a vehicle. However, accidents resulting in the injury and death of innocent people are repeatedly caused by those who do not obey the law. Violators are not deterred by the consequences of driving without a license. There have been several accidents across the state in the past few years where dangerous drivers who have had their licenses suspended have gotten behind the wheel of a car and caused injuries and fatalities. The Legislature needs to send a clear and persuasive message by increasing the penalties for driving with a suspended license, which will help deter those individuals. This legislation seeks to protect the public from not only those who drive irresponsibly, but who are not supposed to be allowed on the road in the first place."

Senator Addabbo also supported a related Senate bill, S.3225, which would amend the vehicle and traffic law to provide increased penalties for certain traffic infractions by drivers with certain under-age license classifications.

The bill provides for suspension of license penalties for licensed drivers under age 18, for violations of certain restrictions: drivers with junior licenses convicted of driving outside of the permissible time range; driving with more than one passenger under the age of 21; or those who violate the 6-months probation period for new licensees will have his or her license suspended for a period of 90 days for a first conviction, and for a period of one year for a second or subsequent conviction.

This bill is now in the Senate's Committee on Transportation; if passed, it will take effect the first of November after the date on which it becomes a law.

"Young drivers with restricted DJ and MJ licenses, are far more likely to be involved in accidents. A DJ license is a junior driver's license for those under age 18, who have limited driving privileges for a car, and must be supervised by a parent or guardian; An MJ license is a junior license for operating a motocycle, for those under age 18, who also have limited driving privileges for a motorcycle, and must be supervised by a parent or guardian. These differ from a learner's permit for those of any age who are learning to drive, and who must be supervised by any adult licensed driver age 21 and older. Recognizing the dangers posed by inexperienced drivers, our state has limitations on the hours such new drivers can operate a car without adult supervision, as well as the number of passengers that can be carried. Since our current penalties for these rule violations don't seem to be enough to deter young people who continue to drive after hours and with too many friends as passengers, this bill required mandatory license suspensions as meaningful deterrents," noted Addabbo.

Another bill he supported, S.945, now in the Senate's Committee on Transportation, would amend the vehicle and traffic law relating to the number of prior suspensions needed to qualify for aggravated unlicensed operation in the first degree, from 10 prior suspensions to five prior suspensions, and repeals the provision in second degree aggravated unlicensed operation when an individual has three or more suspensions on a separate date.

Section 511 (3) (a) of the vehicle and traffic law, which is an element of aggravated unlicensed operation in the first degree, is also amended to require five or more suspensions for failure to answer, appear, or pay a fine, rather than 10 or more separate suspensions. If passed, the bill will take effect on the first day of November after the date on which it becomes a law.

"Under this bill, a person may be prosecuted for aggravated unlicensed operation in the first degree when such person has five or more suspensions for failure to answer, appear, or pay a fine. Under current law, the person must have had 10 such suspensions to be prosecuted for aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree. The dangers posed by unlicensed drivers to pedestrians and other motorists in New York State are well documented. Numerous deaths have been caused by these drivers," said the Senator.

Marriage Equality: New York's Governor Speaks Out

Governor Andrew Cuomo today released a new video message about the need to extend marriage equality to all New Yorkers.

Editor's Note: Many of the mainstream news organizations, news directors and bloggers will not post or broadcast a video of this nature, for various reasons, but "From The G-Man" has without any reservations.

As an independent source of news and information, and as creator and managing editor of From The G-Man, I feel it is important to share relevant and important news information. Moreover, as an independent, I can do so without the fear of censorship, the disapproval of network sponsors, or a possible retaliation by corporate investors that place far greater value on their bottom line and public opinion than in objectivity and fairness in news reporting.

Whether I support gay unions is irrelevant. The fact is I must remain objective -- unlike many of my colleagues in the mainstream media -- and present all news content that is considered to be of vital interest to not just residents of the state of New York, but to everyone in the country and the world. Thank you.

"Stay cool....stay safe.....and stay informed."

The G-Man

Video courtesy of www.governor.ny.gov

Addabbo Announces Passage of Bills Protecting Against Sex Offenders

Bills Heighten Protections, Deal with Sex Offender Penalties, Registration and Employment

NYS Senator Joseph P. Addabbo, Jr., (D-Queens) announced that the New York State Senate recently passed a package of bills that strengthen the state’s criminal and correction laws to protect our children and youth from sexual abuse.

The bills list as follows:

S.1882 - Under current law, a criminal charge of sexual abuse in the 1st degree is applied when children under the age of 11 have been abused by individuals 18 and older. Meanwhile, pedophiles who sexually abuse a 12- or 13-year-old victim are charged with only a Class A misdemeanor, a penalty similar to someone who was guilty of stealing a pack of gum. This Senate bill will charge anyone guilty of abusing a child under the age of 13 with sexual abuse in the 1st degree, a class D felony that carries significantly harsher penalties which will keep pedophiles off the street.

“Current law is inconsistent and dangerous, especially in a world where 12- and 13-year-olds are using the same modes of communication as the most tech-savvy pedophiles,” said Senator Addabbo. “Those who would sexually abuse young teens must be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law, which our bill will guarantee.” The consequences faced under New York State criminal law for a person guilty of a class D felony is up to 7 years in prison, a punishment far more severe than the minimal 15 days to 1 year a person would face if convicted of a class A misdemeanor. The bill is awaiting action in the Assembly.

S.3207 – Provides that a person is guilty of the crimes of aggravated sexual abuse in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree when the victim is under 13 years-old and the abuser is ages 18 or older. Section 1 amends the criminal law by adding a new provision to aggravated sexual abuse in the 3rd degree. Under the new provision, a person is guilty of the crime when he inserts a foreign object in the vagina, urethra, penis, or rectum of a child who is under 13 years-old, and the offender is 18 or older. Section 2 adds a new provision to aggravated sexual abuse in the 2nd degree to provide that a person is guilty of the crime when he inserts a finger in the vagina, urethra, penis, or rectum of a person under 13 and causes physical injury to that person and the actor is 18 or older. Section 3 adds a new provision to aggravated sexual abuse in the 1st degree to provide that a person is guilty of the crime when he inserts a foreign object in the vagina, urethra, penis, or rectum of another under 13 years-old and causes injury to that person and the actor is 18 or older. This act makes a similar change in the age threshold for the crimes of aggravated sexual assault in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree, as those made by the enactment of the Sexual Assault Reform Act of 2000 (SARA) for the crimes of rape or sodomy when the victim is under 13. This bill would take effect on the first of November after the date on which it becomes a law.

S.1416 – Amends the criminal law and the correction law by establishing penalties for a convicted sex offender’s failure to provide a DNA sample in the 2^nd degree (class A misdemeanor) and in the 1^st degree (class E felony) and a sex offender’s failure to register or verify as a sex offender in the 2^nd degree (class E felony) or in the 1^st degree (class D felony), under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). Failure to register is currently a correction law felony, but not a criminal law felony, so it does not constitute a predicate felony with regard to enhanced sentencing. Moving the offense of “failure to register” to the penal law would improve compliance with the important public safety initiative of SORA by making offenders who repeatedly refuse to comply with their sex offender obligations subject to enhanced sentences. Under Executive Law, certain crimes require the convicted to provide a DNA sample (including assault, homicide, sex offenses, escape or incest). The success of New York State’s DNA data bank depends on it being as complete as possible. However, many convicted criminals continue to flout the law and refuse to comply. Offenders are occasionally charged with obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, though this was not the law’s original intent. Several states have addressed this problem with statutes that provide a misdemeanor penalty or fines. Creating misdemeanor and felony offenses in New York for failure to register or to verify as a sex offender as well as for refusing or failing to provide a DNA sample would provide an incentive to comply with the current law. This bill would take effect on the first of November after the date on which it becomes a law.

S.3325 – Amends the correction law in relation to sex offender registration, to help insure that sex offenders are held responsible for knowing what the state and local residency and employment laws are in the community and verifying in a statement that they are in compliance with them at time of registration. The current law requires verification of residency and employment but does not put the burden on the offenders of verifying that they are in compliance with state, county and local laws that regulate residency and employment. The State and localities have imposed numerous laws regulating where a sex offender can reside or work. This bill places the obligation on the offender of knowing those laws, complying with them and verifying their compliance. This act shall take effect on the 60^th day after it becomes a law.

S.1418 – Amends the correction law, in relation to prohibiting permissible employment, employment-related activities and volunteer activities that may be performed by sex offenders. Under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), convicted sex offenders are restricted from living in certain communities, but the law does not extend to limit where they can or cannot work in paid and unpaid circumstances. More specifically, existing state law does not prohibit convicted sex offenders from obtaining “unsupervised” employment. Absent supervision in residential living quarters and assisted living quarters could potentially lead to a dangerous situation. This bill would prevent sex offenders from serving in managerial and supervisory roles in specific fields which the bill identifies as employment within residential living quarters, as a home health aide, and in assisted living facilities. It would take effect immediately.

Addabbo concludes, “I am hopeful that these bills eventually become law in order to strengthen and improve the protection of individuals against sex offenders.”

President Obama Gives Commencement Address at Booker T. Washington High School

The President speaks about education, dedication and overcoming adversity in a commencement address at Booker T. Washington High School in Memphis, TN. The school was the winner of the 2011 Commencement Challenge contest.

Cuomo: 'I Want to Hear from New Yorkers'

Website Seeks Suggestions from Public to Make Government More Streamlined and Effective

Governor Andrew Cuomo today announced the launch of the Spending and Government Efficiency (SAGE) Commission's website to invite the public's participation in the process of modernizing and right-sizing state government, improving performance, increasing accountability and saving taxpayers' money.

The Web site, www.governor.ny.gov/sage, allows the public to suggest ways to improve the efficiency and quality of government services. The submissions will be an integral component to the reform process. The site will also include listings of the SAGE Commission's public meetings and materials from the Commission's first meeting on April 25.

"As I have said repeatedly, right-sizing government is essential to get the state back on the right track, but we can't do it alone," Governor Cuomo said.

"The future success of New York requires that we consolidate the sprawl of state entities, find efficiencies, and further improve the state's operations. As this is the people's government, the public must have a say in how it operates."

The Commission includes representatives from the private sector, labor and government. The Commission is co-Chaired by Antonio M. Perez, Chairman and C.E.O of Eastman Kodak Company and Paul Francis, the Director of Agency Redesign and Efficiency.

The SAGE Commission is conducting a comprehensive review of state government including its structures, operations and processes with the ultimate goal of saving taxpayers' money, increasing accountability and improving the delivery of government services.

The Commission's final recommendations to the Governor will be delivered by June 1, 2012. Periodic progress reports will be delivered on an ongoing basis.

'This Measure Will Protect Already-Strapped Ratepayers in New York City'

Cuomo, Bloomberg Propose Legislation to Protect New York City Ratepayers from Massive Rate Increase

Governor Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Michael Bloomberg today announced that they proposed a measure to prevent a massive rate hike on New York City energy customers.

The measure proposed by Governor Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg will allow the city to guarantee property tax abatements to power plants. This would change property tax abatements for power plants from a discretionary program back to an "as-of-right" program and, in doing that, address the primary reason FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) cited for requiring the rate increase.

"This legislation is targeted to resolve the issues raised by FERC and should give them no choice but to reverse their decision," Governor Cuomo said.

"This measure will protect already-strapped ratepayers in New York City from being charged hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Once our bill is enacted, we will immediately petition FERC and request that it reverse the January decision."

"When the Commission proposed a hike in New Yorkers' energy bills that was based on false assumptions, and which would provide no benefits to consumers, we immediately raised a red flag," said Mayor Bloomberg.

"Now, by amending the existing tax benefits, we are removing any and all justification for this decision. I want to thank Governor Cuomo for working with us to propose this legislation, Senator Schumer for his continued leadership on this issue, and numerous other elected officials, like Senator Gillibrand and Congressman Crowley, for their advocacy on behalf of New York City consumers."

FERC decided in January to allow power plants in the city to be paid energy capacity prices that factored in the cost of property taxes, even though many power plant operators in the city do not pay any property taxes at all.

FERC's order concluded that since new power plants were not guaranteed property tax abatement, as they were in the past, those taxes should be built into the federally approved capacity prices that are passed on to ratepayers. This would have increased electricity bills for residents and businesses in New York City by as much as $1 billion over the next three years and provided a windfall to existing plants that do not pay property taxes.

The bill proposed by Governor Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg adds peaking power plants, which are used by the FERC to determine capacity prices, to the city's as-of-right property tax abatement program, and will provide 100 percent property tax abatement for 15 years; extends the city's existing Industrial and Commercial Abatement Program (ICAP), which is currently set to expire this year; and does not impact property tax revenue because the city already planned to provide tax abatement for these units in their discretionary program.

The rate hikes are set to take effect in June. The FERC's next meeting is May 19.

"In these tough budgetary times and with all of our efforts to improve our struggling economy, the last thing New Yorkers need is a massive increase in their electric utility rates. This legislation will protect consumers from a hypothetical assumption made by FERC when they interpreted the City of New York's tax law. It would have resulted in a windfall for power plant operators and devastated consumers. This bill will prevent the city's electric utility customers from paying twice and without causing any loss of revenue to the city," said Speaker Sheldon Silver.

"Without this bill, New York City consumers would be burdened with even higher utility rates than they're already paying. I'm very pleased that this legislation will make the changes necessary for FERC to have every reason to re-evaluate their earlier ruling and decide on an industrial and commercial tax abatement program that is more realistic and fair," said Assembly Ways and Means Committee Chair Herman D. Farrell.

Senator Andrew Lanza said, "Staten Islanders already pay too much for electricity and now the federal government is threatening to raise the cost even more. This legislation should stave off significant federal rate increases."

U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer said, "I commend the governor and mayor for working to ensure this unfair rate hike never sees the light of day. We will continue to press FERC to ensure that ratepayers aren't forced to pay obscene rate hikes while power generators are collecting massive tax breaks. As summer approaches and electricity bills rise, we need to do everything we can to make sure New York families aren't getting squeezed by power generators."

New York Energy Consumers Council Executive Director David Bomke said, "The New York Energy Consumers Council members represent a broad spectrum of energy buyers, including hospitals, universities, financial institutions, residential and commercial property managers, public benefit corporations, energy service companies, and energy consultants. Collectively, our members spend more on electricity than any other single consumer class in Con Edison's service territory. NYECC strongly endorses the proposed legislation to ensure the right of property tax exemption for peak power generators. This legislation would eliminate the basis for an unprecedented hike in capacity charges as a result of tax exemption uncertainty."

AARP New York State Director Lois Wagh Aronstein noted, "AARP commends Governor Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg for introducing legislation that would close a loophole that could raise electricity prices for residents of New York City. New Yorkers pay some of the highest energy costs in the nation and older adults who are on limited or fixed incomes are even less able to bear such price increases."

Let’s Move! For Military Kids and Families

First Lady Michelle Obama announces three new Let’s Move! commitments that are specifically designed for military kids and military families during a President’s Council on Fitness, Sports and Nutrition event on the South Lawn.

Video source: www.whitehouse.gov

New York State Officials Ready for Dangerous Storms

Cuomo Activates State Emergency Operations Center to Monitor Severe Weather Response

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today activated the State Emergency Operations Center to ensure a rapid and coordinated response to severe weather events occurring across New York. "With severe weather impacting large portions of New York, state government is working proactively with our partners on the local level to ensure the safety of our residents and to make sure we can respond quickly to any storm-related problems," Governor Cuomo said.

"Flooding and dangerous storms are a real threat to people and property. I urge residents in areas where severe weather is occurring to monitor local news broadcasts and heed any emergency orders from local officials."

Measures taken in preparation for the storms include the following:

The State Office of Emergency Management is in contact with affected counties and local governments for a continual and real-time assessment of safety risks and clean-up operations.

State Emergency Management field staff have been deployed to impacted areas.

State Police and the Department of Transportation have enacted their storm plans and are assisting local first responders.

State Police airboats are prepared for rescue operations.

The Office of Fire Prevention and Control's Swift Water Rescue Team is prepared for rescue operations.

As of 11:00 AM, April 29, there are approximately 21,100 customers without power statewide. The scattered outages are a result of the recent thunderstorm activity. NYSEG is reporting 8,200 customers out, National Grid is reporting 8,500 customers out, and RG&E is reporting 4,400 customers out. NYSEG and National Grid cite tree damage from the storms as the leading cause of the outages over the past 24 hours. Lightning strikes have also resulted in a number of blown fuses.

For more information on what to do in an emergency, you can visit the State Office of Emergency Management website at www.dhses.ny.gov/oem/.

Photo source: http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/headlines/dszpics.html
Author: Daphne Zaras
Permission: Public Domain

White House Briefs

PRESS SECRETARY JAY CARNEY,
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS DAN PFEIFFER,
AND WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL BOB BAUER

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

8:48 A.M. EDT

MR. CARNEY: Good morning, everybody. You can read the paperwork we just handed out in a minute. Let me just get started. Thank you for coming this morning. I have with me today Dan Pfeiffer, the President’s Director of Communications, as well as Bob Bauer, the President’s White House Counsel, who will have a few things to say about the documents we handed to you today. And then we'll take your questions. I remind you this is off camera and only pen and pad, not for audio. And I give you Dan Pfeiffer.

MR. PFEIFFER: Thanks, Jay. What you have in front of you now is a packet of papers that includes the President’s long-form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, the original birth certificate that the President requested and we posted online in 2008, and then the correspondence between the President’s counsel and the Hawaii State Department of Health that led to the release of those documents.

If you would just give me a minute to -- indulge me a second to walk through a little of the history here, since all of you weren't around in 2008 when we originally released the President’s birth certificate, I will do that. And then Bob Bauer will walk through the timeline of how we acquired these documents.

In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. We received that document; we posted it on the website. That document was then inspected by independent fact checkers, who came to the campaign headquarters and inspected the document -- independent fact checkers did, and declared that it was proof positive that the President was born in Hawaii.

To be clear, the document we presented on the President’s website in 2008 is his birth certificate. It is the piece of paper that every Hawaiian receives when they contact the state to request a birth certificate. It is the birth certificate they take to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get their driver’s license and that they take to the federal government to get their passport. It is the legally recognized document.

That essentially -- for those of you who followed the campaign closely know that solved the issue. We didn’t spend any time talking about this after that. There may have been some very fringe discussion out there, but as a campaign issue it was settled and it was --

Q When you posted this did you post the other side of it where the signature is?

MR. PFEIFFER: Yes.

Q Because it is not here and that's been an issue.

MR. PFEIFFER: We posted both sides and when it was looked at it was looked at by -- the fact checkers came to headquarters and actually examined the document we had.

That settled the issue. In recent weeks, the issue has risen again as some folks have begun raising a question about the original -- about the long-form birth certificate you now have in front of you. And Bob will explain why -- the extraordinary steps we had to take to receive that and the legal restraints that are in place there.

But it became an issue again. And it went to -- essentially the discussion transcended from the nether regions of the Internet into mainstream political debate in this country. It became something that when both Republicans and Democrats were talking to the media they were asked about. It was a constant discussion on mainstream news organizations. And the President believed that it was becoming a distraction from the major issues we're having in this country.

And he was particularly struck by the fact that right after the Republicans released their budget framework and the President released his, we were prepared to have a very important, very vigorous debate in this country about the future of the country, the direction we’re going to take, how we’re doing to deal with very important issues like education, Medicare, how we’re going to deal with taxes in this country. And that should -- that’s the debate we should be having yet.

What was really dominating a lot of discussion was this fake controversy, essentially, a sideshow, that was distracting from this real issue. And an example of that would be when major Democrats and Republicans went onto mainstream news organizations to talk about their budget plans -- including the President -- they were asked about this. They were asked about what they thought about the controversy. They were asked if they believed the President was born in the United States. And it was really a distraction.

That really struck the President, led him to ask his counsel to look into whether we could ask the state of Hawaii to release the long-form certificate, which is not something they generally do. And he did that despite the fact that it probably was not in his long-term -- it would have been in his -- probably in his long-term political interests to allow this birther debate to dominate discussion in the Republican Party for months to come. But he thought even though it might have been good politics, he thought it was bad for the country. And so he asked counsel to look into this.

And now I’ll have Bob explain that, and then we’ll take your questions.

MR. CARNEY: I just want to -- sorry, I meant to mention at the top, as some of you may have seen, the President will be coming to the briefing room at 9:45 a.m., making a brief statement about this -- not taking questions, but just wanted to let you know.

MR. PFEIFFER: And he will use this as an opportunity to make a larger point about what this debate says about our politics.

Go ahead, Bob.

MR. BAUER: Early last week the decision was made to review the legal basis for seeking a waiver from the longstanding prohibition in the state Department of Health on releasing the long-form birth certificate. And so we undertook a legal analysis and determined a waiver request could be made that we had the grounds upon which to make that request.

And by Thursday of last week, I spoke to private counsel to the President and asked her to contact the State Department of Health and to have a conversation about any requirements, further requirements, that they thought we had to satisfy to lodge that waiver request. She had that conversation with the state Department of Health on Thursday -- counsel in question is Judy Corley at the law firm of Perkins Coie, and you have a copy of the letter she subsequently sent to the department with the President’s written request.

The department outlined the requirements for the President to make this request. He signed a letter making that request on Friday afternoon upon returning from the West Coast. And private counsel forwarded his written request -- written, signed request -- along with a letter from counsel, to the state Department of Health on Friday.

The department, as I understood it, after reviewing the law and reviewing the grounds asserted in the request, came to the conclusion that a waiver could be appropriately granted. We were advised that the long-form birth certificate could be copied and made available to us as early as Monday, April 25th -- the day before yesterday. And we made arrangements for counsel to travel to Honolulu to pick it up and it was returned to the White House yesterday afternoon.

Let me emphasize again, there is a specific statute that governs access to and inspection of vital records in the state of Hawaii. The birth certificate that we posted online is, in fact, and always has been, and remains, the legal birth certificate of the President that would be used for all legal purposes that any resident of Hawaii would want to use a birth certificate for.

However, there is legal authority in the department to make exceptions to the general policy on not releasing the long-form birth certificate. The policy in question, by the way, on non-release has been in effect since the mid-1980s, I understand. So while I cannot tell you what the entire history of exceptions has been, it is a limited one. This is one of very few that I understand have been granted for the reasons set out in private counsel’s letter.

MR. PFEIFFER: We'll be happy to take some questions.

Q I guess I just want to make sure that we’re clear on this. Even though this one says “certificate of live birth” on here, this is different than the other certificate of live birth that we’ve seen?

MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. The second page there is the one that was posted on the Internet.

Q Okay.

MR. PFEIFFER: And that is a copy of the one that has been kept at the Hawaii Department of Health.

Q Okay. And this is the one that would be referred to -- that people have been asking for that is the birth certificate?

MR. PFEIFFER: They are both -- the second one is the birth certificate. The one on the top is what is referred to as the long-form birth certificate. As you can see -- and Bob can walk you through it -- it contains some additional information that is not on the second page, which was the birth certificate which was released during the campaign.

If you could just explain the difference.

MR. BAUER: There’s a difference between a certificate and a certification. The certification is simply a verification of certain information that’s in the original birth certificate. The birth certificate, as you can see, has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, who essentially oversees the maintenance of the records. It contains some additional information also -- that is to say, the original birth certificate -- it contains some additional information like the ages of the parents, birthplaces, residence, street address, the name of the hospital.

The core information that’s required for legal purposes and that is put into the actual certification that’s a computer-generated document, which we posted in 2008, that information is abstracted, if you will, from the original birth certificate, put into the computerized short-form certification, and made available to Hawaiian residents at their request.

So the long form, which is a certificate, has more information, but the short form has the information that’s legally sufficient for all the relevant purposes.

Q This first one has never been released publicly, correct?

MR. BAUER: That’s correct. It is in a bound volume in the records at the state Department of Health in Hawaii.

Q Bob, can you explain why President Obama let this drag on for four years? Was it Donald Trump that prompted you to issue this?

MR. BAUER: I’ll let Dan --

MR. PFEIFFER: Sure.

Q I know you expected that question, right? (Laughter.)

MR. PFEIFFER: He even said you would be the one who would ask it. (Laughter.)

I don’t think this dragged on for four years because this was a resolved -- for those of you who remember the campaign, this issue was resolved in 2008. And it has not been an issue, none of you have asked about it, called about it, reported on it until the last few weeks.

And as I said earlier, it probably would have been -- a lot of the pundits out there have talked about the fact that this whole birther debate has been really bad for the Republican Party and would probably be good for the President politically. But despite that, the President, as I said, was struck by how this was crowding out the debate, particularly around the budget, on important issues, and was an example of the sort of sideshows that our politics focuses on instead of the real challenges that we have to confront as a country.

And so that’s why he made this decision now, because it became an issue that transcended sort of this -- it essentially was something that was talked about, as I said, from the nether regions of the Internet onto mainstream network newscasts. In fact, Jay has been asked about this just yesterday in this room.

Q So I guess the implication is that you did get political advantage by having not released this until today, over the course of the last four years?

MR. PFEIFFER: There has been -- no one that I can recall actually asked us to -- we were asked to release the President’s birth certificate in 2008. We did that. And then no one -- it never -- up until a few weeks ago, there was never an issue about that that wasn’t the birth certificate from any credible individual or media outlet. And it hasn’t been until -- I mean, Jay was asked about this yesterday --

Q When you say that, you mean certification -- you released the certification?

MR. PFEIFFER: When any Hawaiian wants -- requests their birth certificate because they want to get a driver’s license, they want to get a passport, they do exactly what the President did in 2008. And that’s what that is. And we released that. And that’s what any Hawaiian would do to release their birth certificate. And that was good enough for everyone until very recently this became a question again. And so the President made this decision. He’ll talk to you more about his thinking on that.

Q And this is going to sound -- I mean, you can just anticipate what people are going to -- remain unconvinced. They’re going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper, you could have typed anything in there. Will the actual certificate be on display or viewable at any -- (laughter.)

Q Will the President be holding it?

MR. PFEIFFER: He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so. But it will -- the State Department of Health in Hawaii will obviously attest that that is a -- what they have on file. As Bob said, it’s in a book in Hawaii.

MR. BAUER: And you’ll see the letter from the director of the Health Department that states that she oversaw the copy and is attesting to --

Q But do you understand that this could quiet the conspiracy theorists?

MR. PFEIFFER: There will always be some selection of people who will believe something, and that's not the issue. The issue is that this is not a discussion that is just happening among conspiracy theorists. It’s happening here in this room; it’s happening on all of the networks. And it’s something that, as I said, every major political figure of both parties who’s actually out trying to talk about real issues is asked about this by the media. And so the President decided to release this. And I'll leave it to others to decide whether there’s still -- there will be some who still have a different -- have a conspiracy about this.

Q You’ve got two certified copies, according to this study. You have these physical --

MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. I showed you one. Just one.

Q You showed us a photocopy of one.

MR. PFEIFFER: No, I showed you --

Q Does that have a stamp?

MR. PFEIFFER: It has a seal on it.

Q Why does this rise to the level of a presidential statement?

MR. PFEIFFER: The President -- this in itself -- when you hear the President I think you’ll understand the point he’s making. That will be in not too long.

Q Did the President change his own mind about this? In other words, was he advocating during the campaign let’s just put it out there and get it over with, or was this an internal shift in thinking based -- in other words, was it the President who steadfastly during the campaign said this is ridiculous, I don't want to give this any more ground, and has now changed his mind? Or is this the --

MR. PFEIFFER: Let’s be very clear. You were there for the campaign. There was never a question about the original birth certificate during the campaign. It was a settled issue. I was there for the original decision to release the birth certificate. I was there when we posted it online. I'm not sure I even knew there was an original one that was different than the one we posted online because it wasn’t an issue. So it wasn’t like -- let’s be very clear. We were asked for the President’s birth certificate in 2008; we released the President’s birth certificate; and it was done. That was it.

And so there hasn’t been a discussion about this other document for years. It’s only been in the last few weeks. And so to your second question, the President decided to do this and he'll talk about this when he gets here -- decided to do it at the timeline that Bob laid out because it was a -- this was a sideshow that was distracting from the real challenges that we're facing.

It’s not just a sideshow for him; it’s a sideshow for our entire politics that have become focused on this.

Q Not to give Donald Trump more publicity than he has, but is he the person who sort of -- sort of that bridge between what you're calling a fringe and the mainstream? Do you think that he’s the reason why this tripped the switch to a level where you now have to deal with something you thought was dealt with?

MR. PFEIFFER: It’s not for me to say why mainstream media organizations began to cover this debate. They’ll have to answer that for themselves.

Q How concerned were you about running against Donald Trump in a general election?

MR. PFEIFFER: I'd refer any questions on the election to the campaign.

Q Can you address the reports of Petraeus to the CIA and DOD --

MR. PFEIFFER: You get points for that, Carol. (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY: Yes. I don't have -- but you’ll be disappointed to learn that I don't have a personnel announcement for you. The President will be addressing this -- questions about personnel tomorrow.

Q Dan, was there a debate about whether or not this deserved being discussed by the White House, whether or not -- and I'm going back to the birth certificate. I lose points, I understand. But was there debate about whether or not this was worthy of the White House?

MR. PFEIFFER: The point I'd make is that we weren't the ones who -- we're not the first ones to bring this up in this room. Jay has been asked questions about this; the President has been asked about it in media interviews. And so that wasn’t a decision that we made, and the President made the decision to do this and he made the decision to -- and when he comes down here this morning he'll talk to you about why he thinks there’s an important point to be made here.

Q Getting back to the personnel announcements, does the President understand that these announcements have been made and sourced satisfactorily for most news organizations before he speaks up and he’s not letting his White House corroborate?

MR. CARNEY: I don't have a comment on that for you, Bill. (Laughter.)

Q I mean, this is such BS. It’s all out there and you guys are -- okay, the President is going to talk about this tomorrow so we can't say anything.

MR. CARNEY: Bill, you're free to make phone calls everywhere you can. I'm just saying that we don't have a personnel announcement for you today.

Q And he'll tomorrow, he'll cover all the aforementioned switches?

MR. CARNEY: We'll have a personnel announcement tomorrow.

Q Jay, yesterday you talked about failsafe triggers as sort of a positive alternative to spending cuts. I'm wondering if the White House has any openness to including that, because it’s a White House proposal, including that in any legislation that would raise the debt ceiling limit.

MR. CARNEY: Well, what we've said very clearly, and I think Secretary Geithner said it eloquently yesterday, it is a dangerous, risky idea to hold hostage any other -- hold hostage, rather, raising the debt ceiling, a vote on raising the debt ceiling, to any other piece of legislation. The commitment this President has to moving aggressively towards a comprehensive deficit reduction plan is clear. It will be clear again when the Vice President convenes a meeting, bipartisan, bicameral meeting, next week. And he hopes that progress will be made on that very quickly.

In terms of negotiating what that would look like, I think the negotiators should do that, led by the Vice President, Republicans and Democrats together. But again, explicitly linking or holding hostage the absolute necessity of raising the debt ceiling to any other piece of legislation and declaring that we'll tank the U.S. economy and perhaps the global economy if we don't get this specific thing that we want, I think is a dangerous and unprecedented thing to do.

And we're confident, remain confident, that the leaders of both parties in Congress, as well as the President, will agree with the President, as I have said many times, that we do not have an alternative to raising the debt ceiling because, as many have said, outside observers, economists and businessmen and women, the impact of that would be calamitous at best.

Q So even though it’s your own proposal that you guys endorsed you don't want to see it as part of the final package?

MR. CARNEY: I'm not negotiating individual pieces of a package that we hope Republicans and Democrats can come together around from this podium. But again, we believe it’s essential to -- the President believes -- that's one of the reasons why we're doing this right now -- we believe that these are big debates that need to be had. They can be contentious, argumentative, serious, comprehensive, detailed, because they’re important; they’re all about America’s future. And they’re about visions of this country and where we're going that need to be debated. And this debate was being crowded out in many ways by a sideshow.

And he looks forward to having a debate on the real issues that Americans want us to talk about -- long-term economic plans, deficit reduction, investments in the kinds of things that will help this economy grow and create jobs, dealing with our energy needs, a long-term energy plan. These are all issues that have been sidetracked at least in the public debate by some of the issues that we're talking about this morning.

Q Is there a concern that more and more people were actually starting to believe its sideshow -- I mean, people have been asking about --

MR. CARNEY: I will let the President speak for himself, but what Dan was saying and I think is important is that the issue here is that the President feels that this was bad for the country; that it’s not healthy for our political debate, when we have so many important issues that Americans care about, that affect their lives, to be drawn into sideshows about fallacies that have been disproven with the full weight of a legal document for several years.

So, again, as Dan said, and a lot of political pundits have said, you could say that it would be good politics, smart politics, for the President to let this play out. He cares more about what’s good for the country. He wants the debate on the issues. He wants the focus on the issues that Americans care about.

Q Jay, the President yesterday said that he had been talking to oil exporters about increasing output. Who specifically has he been talking --

MR. CARNEY: Well, I said -- I want to clarify. I said several times I believe from this podium when asked questions about our overall handling of the issue of high gas prices that we've had conversations with oil-producing states and allies and those conversations continue. I don't have specific “the President spoke with this leader or other government officials spoke with others,” but those are ongoing conversations that, of course, we would be having in a situation like this.

Q Do you guys have any comment on the NATO soldiers that were killed in Afghanistan and any confirmation on whether there were Americans?

MR. CARNEY: I don't have anything for you on that this morning.

Q Just quickly, back on the birth certificate, yesterday you said this was a settled issue. So --

MR. CARNEY: Well, as Dan said, again, it has been a settled issue.

MR. PFEIFFER: From a factual point of view, it’s absolutely a settled issue. But the fact that it was a settled issue did not keep it from becoming a major part of the political discussion in this town for the last several weeks here. So there’s absolutely no question that what the President released in 2008 was his birth certificate and answered that question, and many of your organizations have done excellent reporting which proved that to be the case. But it continued; the President thought it was a sideshow and chose to take this step today for the reasons Bob laid out.

Q Aside from the policy distractions that was presented, did you have some concern because it was sort of reaching back into the mainstream news coverage that this could become a factor in the 2012 election with centrist voters?

MR. PFEIFFER: No.

Q Just to clarify what this document is --

MR. PFEIFFER: This is the -- the letter first and the two certified copies -- this is one of those. This is the same thing you have a copy of as the first page of your packet.

Q How did it get here?

MR. PFEIFFER: As Bob said, it arrived by plane -- the President’s personal counsel went to Hawaii and brought it back and we got it last night.

Q Last night?

MR. PFEIFFER: Last night.

Q What time?

MR. PFEIFFER: Between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.

Q When did you decide to do this gaggle?

MR. PFEIFFER: What’s that?

Q When was this gaggle put on -- when was this planned?

MR. PFEIFFER: Whatever time you received your guidance suggesting that it would be “this time tomorrow morning.”

Q Are these letters supposed to demonstrate the legal steps that were involved in releasing it to the White House counsel?

MR. BAUER: The letters that you have, the personal request from the President, along with the accompanying letter from private counsel, is merely meant to document the legal path to getting the waiver of that policy so we could get the long-form certificate.

Q The waiver of Hawaii state government policy?

MR. BAUER: Right. The non-release of the long-form certificate, which has been in effect since the 1980s -- a natural question would have been, well, what did you do to obtain the waiver, and those letters represent the request.

Q Well, isn’t it true that anybody who was born in Hawaii can write this letter? I mean, that's all there is to the waiver process?

MR. BAUER: No. Let me just explain once again because I also noticed, by the way, in one report already the wrong certificate was actually posted on the website. The certificate with the signatures at the bottom -- and that's a key difference between the short form and the long form -- the long form has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, and the mother, is the original birth certificate, which sits in a bound volume in the State Department of Health.

The short from is a computerized abstract, and that's the legal birth certificate we requested in 2008 and that Hawaiians are entitled to. Since the mid-1980s, the State Department of Health, for administrative reasons, only provides to people who request their birth certificate the short form. They do not provide the long form.

So in order for us to obtain the long form, we had to have a waiver. We had to actually determine that there was a legal basis for providing it, and then ask them to exercise their authority to provide us with the long form. The steps required to accomplish that were a letter from the person with the direct and vital interest -- the President -- so you have a letter from the President, and then there was an accompanying letter from counsel basically formalizing the request. So the reason we included that is that those were legal steps we took to obtain the long form by way of this waiver.

Q Do we have the letter from the President --

MR. BAUER: It’s in the packet.

Q And you went to Hawaii?

MR. BAUER: I did not go to Hawaii. The counsel, Judy Corley, who signed the -- the President’s personal counsel at Perkins Coie, Judy Corley, whose letter -- signed letter of request is in your packet, traveled to Honolulu and picked up the birth certificate.

Q A question on the situation regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. Yesterday Attorney General Eric Holder rejected attacks on Paul Clement, who is taking up defense of the statute on behalf of the U.S. House. Paul Clement has taken a lot of heat from the LGBT community for volunteering to take up defense of DOMA. Eric Holder said, “Paul Clement is a great lawyer and has done a lot of really great things for this nation. In taking on the representation -- representing Congress in connection with DOMA, I think he is doing that which lawyers do when we’re at our best. That criticism I think was very misplaced.” And Holder went on to compare the criticism of Clement to attacks on the Justice Department lawyers for their past for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Does the President share Eric Holder’s views on this?

MR. CARNEY: We do share Eric Holder’s views on this. We think -- as we said from the beginning when we talked about -- when I did from this podium -- about the decision no longer from the administration to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, that we would support efforts by Congress if they so chose to defend it. And so I have nothing to add to the Attorney General’s comments.

Q Following Monday’s Af-Pak Situation Room meeting, what is the President’s assessment of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan? And does he think that July drawdown is still on?

MR. CARNEY: The President’s policy, which included the beginning of a transition -- beginning of a drawdown of American troops, is absolutely still on track. I don’t have anything additionally from the meeting yesterday beyond what we’ve said. But the policy remains as it was.

MR. EARNEST: Jay, we should wrap it up here.

MR. CARNEY: Yes. Last one, yes.

Q Given the comments of the Pakistani official quoted in the Wall Street Journal, is Pakistan still a U.S. ally, and to what extent?

MR. CARNEY: Pakistan is still a U.S. ally.

Thanks.

END 9:18 A.M. EDT