ORCHESTRATING THE OIL SPILL

Yesterday, federal judge Martin L.C. Feldman struck down the moratorium on offshore drilling that was imposed on Louisiana by the Obama administration.   The 22 page ruling commented on the lack of proof that a blanket ban was required, as well as the burden it would place on the citizens of the state.   The people of Louisiana are really hurting.  The ban would send the oil rigs, and thus even more local jobs, to places like Brazil and Africa. 

At the inquisition Congressional hearings last week, oil company executives testified that a six-month blanket ban on drilling would force them to move their drills to other countries, as an idle drill can cost upwards of $1 million per day.  That seems to be the sum total of the information we managed to get out of them at the hearings - how much did that congressional circus cost the taxpayers again? Considering the damage to the other major industries of the state - fishing, shrimping and tourism - they cannot afford to have another industry shut down for no reason (via the New York Times): 

“The blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger,” wrote Judge Feldman

The most interesting remarks in the injunction were on the report presented to the judge by the Interior Department.  This report included the much touted peer review by experts assembled by the National Academy of Engineering - a review the administration had insisted backed the ban.  The judge noted that the findings of the experts were "misstated".  In reality, the findings by the experts that a moratorium was the way to go were complete fabrications.  This act of deception on the part of Salazar and the administration to manipulate the situation is shameful in the extreme, not to mention flat-out fraudulent.  Where are the calls for Salazar's resignation?

The real story is that the report was signed off on by the experts, but the paragraphs recommending a moratorium were added after the fact.  The experts have been vocal in their opposition to the shenanigans regarding the report - opposition that the administration attempted to shrug off, but the judge's findings leave little room for doubt about their authenticity.  In response to his ruling, the left is in full attack mode, of course.  Secretary of the Interior Salazar is going to attempt a new moratorium, this time more specific and targeted, insisting a deepwater ban in necessary.  Maybe this time they will get a more sympathetic judge to see things their way.  For the sake of Louisianans, let's hope not. 

On another front in the 'war' on the oil spill, the feds have halted dredging for sand berms.  They feel the area that is being dredged is environmentally detrimental and want to move the operation two miles further out into the gulf.  All dredging is to be halted until the move is complete - seven precious days.  In a letter to Obama, Plaquemines Parish President Billly Nungesser pleads for compromise: 

"Once again, our government resource agencies, which are intended to protect us, are now leaving us vulnerable to the destruction of our coastline and marshes by the impending oil," Nungesser wrote to Obama.

Nungesser requested that the dredging be allowed to continue for the next seven days as they move dredging equipment in an effort to placate the U.S. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife.  No doubt dredging is damaging to the environment, but could it really be worse than what the oil spill will do?  It's high time  federal agencies like Fish and Wildlife and the Department of the Interior look at the bigger picture here. 

It's beginning to seem like this is no longer a question of incompetence - it is now moving into the realm of active interference.  But for what reason?  Considering how adamant (and blatant) the administration is about passing Cap and Trade legislation on the back of this tragedy, it's not too hard to figure out.  It's hard to believe our government is willing to allow such damage to the country in order to pass their agenda.  It seems far-fetched, because our government should have our best interests at heart, but it is getting harder and harder to believe they do these days.  Their continued insistence on passing wildly unpopular legislation raises questions about their motives.  The recent revelations that Obama has stated there will be no securing the borders until amnesty comprehensive immigration reform is passed illustrates how willing this administration is to hold the American public hostage in order to obtain the desired results.  Let's not forget that, according to the patron saint of Progressives, Saul Alinsky, the ends justify the means (numbers 1, 3 and 10 in particular).

At best, this is a perfect illustration of Ronald Reagan's nine scariest words in the english language - "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".  At worst, our government is allowing a major catastrophe to become even worse so that they can pass their dream agenda.  An agenda that will further cripple us with massive taxes and skyrocketing energy prices. 

Talk about orchestrating chaos....

A LITTLE SALVE FOR THE SOUL

I highly recommend an op-ed from the Wall Street Journal for your consumption.  Dorothy Rabinowitz has written an insightful piece on the victimization of muslims in this country.   The journey begins with Tom Hanks, and ends with a New York cabbie: 

It can't have come as a surprise that one of the now entrenched myths about America—namely, its ongoing victimization of Muslims—should have been voiced again by a leading citizen of our myth-producing capital, Hollywood. The citizen was Tom Hanks, and the occasion his March interview in Time Magazine in which he declared that our battle with Japan in World War II was one of "racism and terror." And that, he noted, should remind us of our current wars.

I have tried to remain mum on Hanks because I really like his work, but good gravy, what an asinine, deep-in-the-bubble, Hollywood lefty remark is that!?  It truly makes me wish he'd never said it, because it's just so ridiculously out-of-touch that I'm afraid I won't be able to see one of his movies without thinking of it.  What is really frightening is that he is becoming considered the "historian-in-chief" of the nation.  Considering many of these historical events are no longer taught  (or taught incorrectly) in our schools, that means the man who thinks race was the main driver for WWII is the most influential "expert" many sectors of our society, not to mention the rest of the world, will have contact with.  Frightening thought.

Mr. Hanks is representative of a narrative that is taking hold in this country, and Ms. Rabinowitz dissects the psychology of it beautifully.  She discusses the three page spread (6 on the internet) the Washington Post did on a muslim soldier who, according to the article, "battles on friendly ground".   Whomever is intimidating Spec. Zachari Klawonn is obviously in need of intervention, but considering the base this happened on, there is a degree of understanding as to why counselling might have been required anyway:

The latest reflection of this trend, grown steadily since the attacks of Sept. 11, came with a three-page spread in the Washington Post on March 24 about the tribulations of a Muslim soldier who reported being subjected to slurs, various other insults, and also a threatening note. His commander suggested he might do well to move to housing off base. The base in question was Fort Hood, where, last November, army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan murdered 13 fellow American soldiers.

The question Ms. Rabinowitz poses is, just how common is this anti-muslim narrative, and how pervasive has it become?   She makes a compelling argument:

The pain of these confrontations was undoubtedly great, as such treatment always is. Ask the members of religious and racial minorities who served, say, in World War II, when it wasn't unusual to hear slurs like "kike" and such hurled at them. Ask black Americans who had the incomparably worse experience of serving in a racially segregated military, where they were relegated to the worst duties. Not to mention being made witness—in parts of the country—to the sight of German POWs held in the U.S. eating in restaurants barred to black Americans in uniform, and otherwise being accorded respect that those Americans could not hope to receive.
Still, there were no instances of those enduring this treatment undertaking mass murder of other American servicemen. There was rage, and there were some riots, but no cases of U.S. soldiers enlisting in the service of the enemy as Maj. Hasan had. (Hasan, it was explained after he had cut down those unarmed servicemen and women packed into that room in Ft. Hood, had suffered prejudice-related pressures as a Muslim in the armed services.)

She mentions the usual suspects that perpetuate the myth by only highlighting the rare instances of bad behavior, and the press, naturally, figures centrally.  This dovetails beautifully into a recent article from Lane Wallace of The Atlantic.   In her piece titled "The Bias of Veteran Reporters" she discussed the tendencies of veteran reporters to make assumptions and only ask questions angled to prove that assumption.  She also mentions their 33% accuracy rating.   Rabinowitz's article is like an expanded example that proves Ms. Wallace's hypothesis. 
 
But Rabinowitz doesn't just prove the point, she uplifts it.  Just when the ire starts to boil at the broad-brush accusations, she quenches it will a much needed reassurance.  It is a reminder that those stories, although unacceptable and upsetting, are the exception, not the norm.  Yes, there are those out there who push things too far, but Ms Rabinowitz reminds us of our national character; what it truly means to be an American and why so many seek our shores.
 
That is where we meet a nameless, faceless New York cabbie.   His simple words of empathy and gratitude are touching.  In speaking of 9/11 and the aftermath, the former resident of Pakistan recounts a meeting with his judeo-christian neighbors after the attacks that brought home to him just what kind of country he has chosen to raise his children in:
 

"...Do you know," he said, in a voice suddenly sharp, "what would have happened if Americans had done this kind of attack in my country? Every American—every Christian, every non-Muslim—would have been slaughtered, blood would have run in the streets. I know the kind of country this is. Thanks be to God I can give this to my children."

 
Amen.
 
I urge you to read the whole article.  I left out a pertinent fact about the cabbie's story - something that would never make a three-page spread in the mainstream media.  It just doesn't follow their narrative.  Check it out.  In these rancorous times, it's nice to hear, for a change, that we are not necessarily as evil as we are portrayed.
 
 

BEWARE THE TRAP Updated

I was quite skeptical of the 'health care summit' proposed by President Obama.  Considering the sneaky, backdoor dealings of this administration so far, I figured it was just a trap. The more I hear about it, the more I think my first instinct was right.  I had hoped that the democrats had seen the writing on the wall and were tacking to the center, but, as usual, it seems to be all smoke and mirrors. 

This whole things smacks of  a show for the American people by a remarkably media savvy administration.  The Democrats are attempting to look reasonable and willing to compromise.  If the republicans refused the meeting, they would look surly and partisan.  Unfortunately, accepting is just as much of a trap, because now they will be harangued, browbeaten and used as political cover for the mess of a bill that democrats are single-mindedly trying to ram down our throats.   Republicans requested starting from scratch and the Democrat's response is to bring their 2000 page nightmare of a bill (public option included) to the table, along with the hollow threat of reconciliation.

It's incredible that they are still talking about reconciliation - if this is possible, why haven't they done it?  Why bother with this meeting?  This whole exercise is pure propaganda, in my opinion.

Obama saying he will look at any options the Republicans bring to the table is more empty talk.  Sure, he'll look at their proposals - and then discard them for the behemoth public option he is so desperate to pass.  This isn't about reconciliation and compromise - it's about the Republicans bending to Obama's will and passing the 2,000 page nightmare Pelosi and Reid have cooked up and can't get enough of their own people to vote for.

This is just a dog and pony show to try to make the Republicans look like the party of no yet again.

Personally, I think the 'party of no' designation is a good thing.  They have been staunch in their denial of all things socialist.  They have been united in their condemnation of the insane spending policies of this administration.  They have held the line and refused to bend to pressure, bribery and threats.  They listened to the millions of Americans protesting the actions of this administration and tried their best to do the will of the people.  They said no to the radical agenda being pushed on us, and I, for one, am grateful, because it seems like those in power just aren't listening.  So, please 'obstruct' away!

This whole 'summit' idiocy is a desperate ploy by the Democrats to place the blame on the Republicans for health care reform not passing, because they realize the American people know that the only thing holding them back is themselves. 

Democrats are great at shifting blame - after all, they managed to blame all of Nancy Pelosi's spending and deficit inducing policies on George Bush (oh, and Pelosi refused to approve a 2009 budget from Bush, so the whole "budget for the entire [2009] fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House" argument is a load of hooey).  The President may suggest the budget and spending policies, but Congress holds the purse strings. 

We were finally bouncing back from 9/11 and Katrina and bringing down the deficits when Pelosi took over.  In 2007, the year Pelosi became Speaker, the deficit was $163 billion - down from a high of $413 billion in 2004.  In 2008, Pelosi's agenda started to affect the country.  The result?  A $455 billion deficit, which has been blamed entirely on Bush.  But that wasn't enough.  They have also tried to blame the staggering $1.3 trillion deficit of 2009 on Bush and the Republicans as well.  They blame TARP for most of the deficit - a bill they voted for as well, including Pelosi, Reid and then-Senator Obama.  But TARP wasn't what blew up the deficit - Stimulus, the omnibus spending bill and a $3.6 trillion budget did that.  They increased spending by about 18%, and are still trying to blame the resulting deficit on a man who hasn't been in office for over a year.

Over and over again this administration has proven themselves to be duplicitous, conniving, hyper-partisan and willing to stoop to any low to further their socialist agenda.

I personally hope the Republicans boycott this sham of a summit.  It's a trap, pure and simple.  I suggest they embrace the title 'Party of No' and say no to this summit and this health care plan.   They are in agreement with more than 60% of the country if they do.

UPDATE:  Via HotAir' s Quote of the Day:

“And then when unemployment numbers started proving to be much, much tougher and it started becoming more clear that the stimulus package hadn’t worked properly, they just kept plowing ahead on health care. And this isn’t a communications problem. This is a reality problem. And I think they just made some grave miscalculations and as it became more clear that they had screwed up, they just kept doubling down their bet.
“And so I think, no, this is one of the biggest miscalculations that we’ve seen in modern political history.”

The exit quote for Cook's interview is fantastic:

But if I had a choice of the Republican Party's problems right now or the Democratic Party's problems, I think you could triple the Republican Party's problems and I'd still rather have their problems than the problems facing Democrats.

Amen, brother....

THE CALIFORNIA MICROCOSM

There are those of us who have been a bit riled up over the drastic increase in government since President Obama took office, and feel that government should be small and not intrude into everyday life (not to mention our free markets) too much. Those on the left saw fit to ridicule us and reiterate how necessary it is for a prosperous country to have a large, strong, omnipotent government dictating and regulating all facets of American life.

So who is right?

Well, if California is anything to go by, I'd have to say that the left are not just wrong, but delusional. A study of regulation and bureaucracy by California State University at Sacramento (a state-run school, not a private entity, by the way) found that a major reason for the economic collapse of the state is due directly to the ridiculous amount of regulation involved. To the tune of nearly $500 Billion.

Imagine the tab if they manage to 'fundamentally transform' the rest of the country in California's image. Considering it seems like San Francisco's Nancy Pelosi is in charge of the domestic agenda, that possibility isn't as remote as most of us would like.

As the trendy folk might say, we're Californicated.

Check out the whole report here.