And So I Go: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

Archive for the ‘National News’ Category

Articles: Republican Delusion is Obama’s All-Too-Secret Weapon.

Republicans are known RIGHTLY! for being adept at snatching defeat from victory.  Why this is so often baffles many of us, but this article in American Thinker has some serious answers and perhaps can serve as a warning to those of us who react in the ways outlined in the article.  It seems the most important and potentially devastating Republican characteristic in self-defeat is overly optimistic and willing to believe verbal please of innocence even against all evidence of past negative actions.  In other words: STOP BEING MR. NICE GUYS!  BB

If you have limited time for the Internet I suggest American Thinker be at the top of your list of sites to go to first.  Just run thru the titles of articles and choose those that appear to offer you the information you need and I promise you will remain or become well informed on national and international affairs.  BB

Advertisements

The Scandal of ‘Gun-Walking’ – Jim Geraghty & Cam Edwards – National Review Online.

Move evidence that Obama and his cronies are traitors to America!  How long will we allow this kind of actions against America to continue?   Read this entire story carefully. BB

March 28, 2011 4:00 A.M.

The Scandal of ‘Gun-Walking’
Why did the Justice Department allow Mexican cartels to purchase 2,500 U.S.-made guns?

Why did the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives stand by and watch as guns were transported across our southern border to Mexico, to be used by violent drug cartels?

The phenomenon of “gunwalking” appears to be a standard sting-operation tactic that in this case has gone wildly awry. The idea was that federal authorities would approve firearms purchases that seemed suspicious, and then monitor the buyers to see where the guns ended up. But the scale of the purchases was massive, and the agents on the ground kept anxiously waiting for the order to stop monitoring and intervene, according to stunning accounts from ATF agents and documentation uncovered by CBS News and other sources. As early as March 2010, ATF agents were finding the “monitored” firearms in the hands of suspected criminals in Mexico. One ATF e-mail reported,“Our subjects purchased 359 firearms during March alone,” including “numerous Barrett .50 caliber rifles.”

According to the dozen ATF agents who have come forward as whistleblowers, the concept was not the half-baked idea of a rogue manager. Reported CBS:

ATF Agent John Dodson and other sources say the gun walking strategy was approved all the way up to the Justice Department. The idea was to see where the guns ended up, build a big case and take down a cartel. And it was all kept secret from Mexico.

ATF named the case “Fast and Furious.”

Last Wednesday, President Obama said that neither he nor Attorney General Eric Holder approved the operation. But who within the Justice Department did authorize the dangerous operation? And who decided to ignore the judgment of the agents in the field? An e-mail from a group supervisor told ATF agents who were upset about the operation’s risks, “Whether you care or not, people of rank and authority at HQ are paying attention to this case and they also believe we are doing what they envisioned the Southwest Border Groups doing.”

Even the gun shops themselves were wary of selling the firearms; the purchasers were paying with cash out of paper bags. But the sellers were assured by the ATF that they should go forward with the transactions. One of the purchases was for 575 semiautomatic rifles for “personal use.” One agent estimates the total number of guns purchased by suspicious buyers under ATF monitoring at 2,500; other officials put the number closer to 2,000. Nearly 800 were recovered “as a result of criminal activity on both sides of the border.”

Worst of all, the guns that the ATF agents were ordered to let slip into Mexico were not merely used in cartel violence in Mexico, but were used against American citizens and law enforcement. CBS News noted:

On Dec. 14, 2010, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terrywas gunned down. Dodson got the bad news from a colleague. According to Dodson, “They said, ‘Did you hear about the border patrol agent?’ And I said, ‘Yeah.’ And they said ‘Well it was one of the Fast and Furious guns.’ There’s not really much you can say after that.” Two assault rifles ATF had let go nearly a year before were found at Terry’s murder.

Only after Terry’s death did the ATF round up and charge 34 individuals believed to be involved with moving the guns across the border.

The Department of Justice initially denied the whistleblowers’ claims. Last week, however, DOJ sent a confidential memo to U.S. Attorneys in southwestern border states, declaring, “We should not design or conduct undercover operations which include guns crossing the border. If we have knowledge that guns are about to cross the border, we must take immediate action to stop the firearms from crossing the border, even if that prematurely terminates or otherwise jeopardizes an investigation.”

So, the DOJ appears to have initially lied about the circumstances, and it is now insisting the men at the top didn’t know what was going on. The Department of Justice at first referred the allegations to its own inspector general, an unusual choice in that the whistleblowers claim they already contacted the IG and never had their phone calls returned. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) is pushing for an outside investigation. Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, wrote ATF acting director Kenneth Melson, charging that “you are not cooperating with congressional inquiries about Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious.” Issa has asked for documents about the genesis of the operation as well.An ATF assistant director told the Center for Public Integrity that new tactics aimed to collect evidence that would help dismantle major drug-trafficking organizations in Mexico, instead of focusing on the prosecution of small-time straw buyers.

The revelations are a new wrinkle in the strange record of the Obama administration when it comes to guns. President Obama’s record in the Illinois state senate and the U.S. Senate demonstrates a hostility to the Second Amendment. He is accurately characterized as an anti-gun president, who selected an anti-gun vice president, an anti-gun secretary of state, and an anti-gun attorney general.  (Anti-gun when it comes to American citizens defending themselves YES, but not when it comes to guns used against Americans.  BB)Shortly after he was confirmed, Attorney General Eric Holder stated that the Obama administration would seek to reinstate the assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004. But that proposal spurred quick and vehement opposition from 65 pro-gun House Democrats, making passage of a new ban all but impossible. Since then, when President Obama has mentioned the word “guns,” it has usually been in appearances with the Mexican president, talking about the need for “an enforcement strategy that slows the flow of guns into Mexico.”

With the president himself talking about the need to stop guns from crossing the border,why would the ATF allow just that to happen? Why would they take such an enormous risk of harming innocent life in both Mexico and the United States, to say nothing of risking exactly the sort of embarrassment and outrage that the current revelations are generating? What made this operation worth overruling the objections of the agents on the ground monitoring the transactions?

What we know about the “gun-walking” operation is already deeply troubling; nothing less than a full investigation to the satisfaction of the whistleblowers, Grassley, and Issa will suffice. The facts at present point to a dangerous and extraordinarily risky operation executed without the knowledge or consent of the top officials in our government, accurate claims initially falsely denied, and whisteblowers dismissed and ignored by the official watchdogs.

— Jim Geraghty writes the Campaign Spot on NRO. Cam Edwards hosts NRANews’s Cam & Company on Sirius XM from 9 p.m. to midnight weeknights.

Debt-Ceiling Debate – Andrew Stiles – National Review Online.

The most important issue before Congress is not health care or jobs but the Debt Ceiling!  If Obama and his fiends are given more money then the jig is up for the United States.  Our law makers must not allow this to happen.  Make the cuts to keep within the amount of money coming into the government every day and then make the cuts to get us back in the black.

Any deals made with Obama and the Democrats can be and WILL BE broken the moment they have been given another piggy bank to raid.

Pay close attention to the comments by the  politicians  in this article and it will tell you exactly who not to vote for in 2012.  I am assuming there will still  be the “show” of a national election ion 2012 but if Obama gets more power now it is a fact that he will win the  “for looks” election in 2012.   It all depends on what our new elected Republicans can get the old dogs to do.  Get on the phone people!  If your congressman comes home see him at his office face to face with as large a group as possible and let him know you meant NO MORE SPENDING (that is also what Obama will call “investing” in our country.)

Be sure to go to the articles (Blue print) that the author recommends seeing.  BB

*****************************

January 24, 2011 4:00 A.M.

Debt-Ceiling Debate
Republican lawmakers and presidential hopefuls debate the best approach to the debt ceiling.

There has been a lot of discussion recently about how Republicans, fresh off their monumental victory in the midterms, should approach the impending vote to raise the federal debt limit. It was reportedly a hot topic at the Republicans’ annual retreat in Baltimore. There has also been a considerable amount of nuance in the debate. For example, few politicians who say they’re “against” raising the debt ceiling actually mean it in the purest sense. Rather, the emerging consensus among GOP lawmakers is that Republicans should use the debt-ceiling vote as a “leverage moment” by agreeing to raise the debt limit, but only in return for serious concessions from congressional Democrats and the Obama administration, namely in the form of spending cuts.  (This is so much BS People!  BB)

White House officials, on the other hand, have denounced the “insanity” of “playing chicken” with the debt limit and have warned of the “catastrophic” consequences that would result if the ceiling isn’t raised. They argue that failing to increase the debt limit would cause the United States to default on the national debt. But not all Republicans agree with that assessment.

Potential 2012 GOP presidential candidates are divided on what to do about raising the debt ceiling — running the gamut from “absolutely not” to “yes, but only if . . . ,” and everywhere in between. Here’s a look at what some of them have had to say on the matter.MICHELE BACHMANN
Bachmann, along with Rep. Ron Paul (R., Texas), is one of the few Republicans in Congress to vocally oppose raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances. In a recent op-ed, she wrote that the upcoming vote is “one of the most significant challenges” facing the 112th Congress.

“Congress simply cannot continue to operate under the pretense of ‘gangster government,’ raising the limit upon our whim,” she said. “We aren’t going to find financial stability by allowing ourselves to fall further down the rabbit hole.” Instead of “giving ourselves an excuse to delay the inevitable” by raising the debt ceiling, Bachmann says, Congress should start to cut spending immediately.  (Bachmann is a very smart lady and should be listened to  but the old dog Republicans have done everything they can to push her to the side lines.  Get behind her 100%.  BB)


HALEY BARBOUR
The Mississippi governor echoes the GOP consensus position. “I think [the debt ceiling] should be [raised],” he said in an interview with Fox News. “America would suffer enormous consequences.” Still, he urged Republicans to “use the debt ceiling as a tool” to bring down spending through forced concessions.

This is a tool to get spending cuts,” he said. “To make the Left and anybody else understand [that] the debt ceiling is going to go up [only] when we have a plan that puts us on a path and doesn’t just say we’re going to do something, but starts making the cuts.”  (Let us just leave this damned fool in Mississippi!  BB)

 

JOHN BOLTON
The former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations predicts a “war of nerves” between Republican lawmakers and the Obama administration over the upcoming vote. In a statement to NRO, Bolton said that contrary to the “disinformation” coming from the White House, refusing to raise the debt ceiling need not entail default. For instance, Republicans could pass short-term resolutions to keep the government funded, or simply vote to raise the debt ceiling in smaller increments, which would increase pressure on the president to make a deal. (This might be a possibility.  Have the Republicans who have forever been stupid in the past stay the course and win the battle?  BB)

“The responsible Republican position is that there will be no default on the national debt, and there will be no government shutdown,” he says, adding that Republicans should refuse to raise the debt ceiling “until the Obama administration agrees to binding commitments to reduce government domestic spending back to fiscal-year 2008 levels, if not even earlier if we can do so.”

 

JIM DEMINT
In a statement to NRO, the South Carolina Republican says he will “continue to oppose any effort to increase the debt limit.” In fact, he says he’ll filibuster the vote “unless the Senate passes a constitutional amendment to force Congress to balance the budget without raising taxes.”Furthermore, DeMint doesn’t buy the administration’s doomsday rhetoric. “Those who say the sky will fall if we don’t increase the debt limit,” he says, “fail to recognize that the sky is already falling with all this reckless debt and uncontrolled spending.” (Stick with Demint!  BB)


NEWT GINGRICH
A spokesman says the former House speaker believes the debt ceiling “should be raised only if it is accompanied by significant spending cuts.”MIKE HUCKABEE The former Arkansas governor has urged Republicans to challenge President Obama over comments he made back in 2006. Then-senator Obama said that raising the debt limit was a “sign of leadership failure.”

“What the Republicans need to do is to not become the bad boys, but to simply take the president at his word, and say, ‘Mr. President, we certainly don’t think you’ve made this radical a change in just a few years, so we’re going to take you up on it. You were right then. Rarely do we think you’re right, but by golly, we think you’re right this time. We’re going to do what you suggested,’” he said in an interview with Fox News.  (Let’s allow the Newt to continue teaching at the universities with the other “thinkers” and not “doers”.  BB)

 

GARY JOHNSON
“Governor Johnson [the former governor of New Mexico] is opposed to increasing the debt ceiling,” a spokeswoman tells NRO. “Here’s why: One of the reasons for our outrageous deficits is the fact that debt ceilings haven’t been taken seriously in the past — and they need to be. If by not raising the debt ceiling, it precipitates serious spending cuts in Congress, then that’s a good thing.”


SARAH PALIN
In an appearance on Laura Ingraham’s radio show, Palin said her position was likely to “get some people all wee-weed up.” (She was right.) The former Alaska governor denounced the administration’s request to raise the debt limit and pointed to President Obama’s past comments — that raising the debt limit was a sign of “failed leadership” and “weakens us domestically and internationally.” She argued that by supporting a debt increase now, Obama was “hell-bent on weakening America.”

“What Obama is doing [is] purposefully weakening America because he understood that debt weakens America . . . and yet now he supports increasing debt,” she said.  (Sarah is my pick for president 2012 and I think she can win.  she doesn’t have the “intellectuals” but she is talking the talk of the man on the street.  All we have to do is get that man on the street mad enough to go vote and if he doesn’t have a job by 2012 he will.  BB)

 

RON PAUL
Paul’s position shouldn’t come as a surprise. On raising the debt limit, he falls in the “No, not under any circumstances” category. He has said the vote on the debt ceiling will be “an interesting litmus test” for the new Republican majority, specifically for freshman members closely tied to the Tea Party.

“If the new Congress gives in to establishment pressure and media alarmism about ‘shutting down the government’ by voting to increase the debt ceiling once again, you will know that the status quo has prevailed,” he wrote in an op-ed. “You will know that Congress, despite the rhetoric of the midterm elections, is doing business as usual.”  (Really he is wrong here because raising the debt ceiling will not mean “doing business as usual” at all, it means Obama and the Communist have won the game.  Stalin said that communist would crush America without firing a shot and this vote will be that non-shot. BB)


TIM PAWLENTY
In a recent Washington Postop-ed, the former Minnesota governor urges Congress to refuse to raise the debt limit in order to “force hard choices now” on spending. But Pawlenty goes one step further, arguing for “dramatic” reforms to entitlements in addition to discretionary spending cuts.He says the White House is offering a “false choice between more debt and default.” If Congress enacts significant spending cuts and passes a law directing the Treasury to “sequence” and “prioritize” its debt payments, then default can be avoided. This, he argues, would be “only the beginning” of a larger argument over federal spending, debt, and entitlements. He thinks Washington should try what he did in Minnesota: “Set some priorities, and then cut funding for just about everything else.”   (He is looking good for President too.  BB)

 

MIKE PENCE

Conservatives in Congress will not support an increase in the debt ceiling unless it is married to very real and significant reductions in spending in the short term and in the long term,” said Pence. “This country’s going broke. We’ve got to use the leverage of the debt-ceiling vote to demand that this administration and what remains of Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate work with us to change the fiscal direction of this country.”  (Another old dog who is still playing the DC game.  Let him hand around but certainly don’t put any stock in him.  BB)

 

JOHN THUNE
“The best way forward would be for President Obama and Senate Democrats to agree to spending cuts and budget reforms,” Thune said in a statement to NRO.  (I was disappointed with this response from Thune as he was beginning to show me something.  Guess we can just let him go back to the woods.  BB)


Republicans will be taking their cue from President Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday. Depending upon what the president says, we could see a clearer strategy begin to materialize. Either way, the vote will be a crucial political test for the GOP as it begins to make its case for the White House in 2012, whoever the nominee may be.

— Andrew Stiles is a 2011 Franklin Fellow.

The Case for Social Security Personal Accounts | Cato @ Liberty.

Personal Accounts for  retirement is a MUST for our future retirees.  There is no getting around it.  The cry is  “there is plenty of money in the Social Security Trust Fund to handle the current and future retirees”.  Well, YES  the money will be found somewhere, But then definitely NO.

Yes there should most certainly be more money in the trust fund if it were in the trust fund.  But what we have in the trust fund is a bunch of unfunded Treasury Notes.  You see the government took the money paid in and replaced it with Treasury Notes which are merely the US Government’s promise to pay the value of the note.  But guess what?  There is no money to pay the value of the note!   The money is all gone and we are now borrowing $.40 of every dollar the federal government spends.  This is certain to go up as the years go on if our politicians and PEOPLE don’t get their heads straight.

NO.  There isn’t enough money that has been paid in to sustain the current Social Security System even if the money were there!  This is FACT people.  Why?  Because every person who retires collects every cent they put into the system within two years after they retire.  This you can verify yourself if you care to.  SS keeps a record of all you have put in over your working life which they will gladly send you and then all you have to do is a bit of math.

So the bottom line is that anyway you want to chop up the problem it means the retirees of the future will be SOL because we old geezers in our fear of losing our Social Security teat to the Nanny State  have screamed down every politician who has dared to mention the words Social Security.  Are we all so old we have lost our brains or ability to read the hand writing on the wall?  The Ponzi scheme is over, the jig is up.  Our young workers will continue to pay for “our” last days but for God’s sake can we wise up enough to allow a sane dialog about “their” retirements?

I sincerely hope so and this dialog must begin soon and with all options on the table.  Personal Savings Accounts are a viable option and the following articles (please go to all referenced articles also) will explain them.  It behooves all of us to understand these new fangled things because young or old we all have a stake in them.  the young peoples stake is obvious; the old people’s stake is that it is our children’s futures here. BB

The Case for Social Security Personal Accounts

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

There are two crises facing Social Security. First the program has a gigantic unfunded liability, largely caused by demographics. Second, the program is a very bad deal for younger workers, making them pay record amounts of tax in exchange for comparatively meager benefits.

Social Security reform received a good bit of attention in the past two decades. President Clinton openly flirted with the idea, and President Bush explicitly endorsed the concept. But it has faded from the public square in recent years. But this may be about to change. Personal accounts are part of Congressman Paul Ryan’s Roadmap proposal, and recent polls show continued strong support for letting younger workers shift some of their payroll taxes to individual accounts.

Equally important, the American people understand that Social Security’s finances are unsustainable. They may not know specific numbers, but they know politicians have created a house of cards, which is why jokes about the system are so easily understandable.

President Obama thinks the answer is higher taxes, which is hardly a surprise. But making people pay more is hardly an attractive option, unless you’re the type of person who thinks it’s okay to give people a hamburger and charge them for a steak.

Other nations have figured out the right approach. Australia began to implement personal accounts back in the mid-1980s, and the results have been remarkable. The government’s finances are stronger. National saving has increased. But most important, people now can look forward to a safer and more secure retirement. Another great example is Chile, which set up personal accounts in the early 1980s. This interview with Jose Pinera, who designed the Chilean system, is a great summary of why personal accounts are necessary. All told, about 30 nations around the world have set up some form of personal accounts. Even Sweden, which the left usually wants to mimic, has partially privatized its Social Security system.

It also should be noted that personal accounts would be good for growth and competitiveness. Reforming a tax-and-transfer entitlement scheme into a system of private savings will boost jobs by lowering the marginal tax rate on work. Personal accounts also will boost private savings. And Social Security reform will reduce the long-run burden of government spending, something that is desperately needed if we want to avoid the kind of fiscal crisis that is afflicting European welfare states such as Greece.

Last but not least, it is important to understand that personal retirement accounts are not a free lunch. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, so if we let younger workers shift their payroll taxes to individual accounts, that means the money won’t be there to pay benefits to current retirees. Fulfilling the government’s promise to those retirees, as well as to older workers who wouldn’t have time to benefit from the new system, will require a lot of money over the next couple of decades, probably more than $5 trillion.

That’s a shocking number, but it’s important to remember that it would be even more expensive to bail out the current system.

Drilling Is Stalled Even After Ban Is Lifted – WSJ.com.

President Obama has all but  destroyed the oil industry in this country.  This of course has been his agenda.  To destroy a nation as quickly as possible make it dependent upon other countries.  Three extra cheers when these other countries are enemies of the nation one wishes to destroy and the nations who have the oil are all our enemies!   Gasoline prices are going up and expected to hit $5 a gallon by this Fall.  This of course does not take in the other uses for oil from heating our homes to the making of plastics and polyesters which will impact just about every industry and aspect of our life.  All this when we are in the greatest depression since the 1930’s.

President Franklin Roosevelt also did everything he could to destroy our nation’s agricultural culture  and he succeeded.  He did such things as ordering 2 million hogs slaughtered while millions of people in the country were starving!  But he got what he wanted as the United States lost its family farms to huge agri-businesses.  Progressive Presidents are a plague to a nation and freedom.  Remember that as you read this article.  BB

*******************************

More than two months after the Obama administration lifted its ban on drilling in the deep-water Gulf of Mexico, oil companies are still waiting for approval to drill the first new oil well there. Experts now expect the wait to continue until the second half of 2011, and perhaps into 2012.

[DEEPRIGsub] Getty Images
(Dear Readers I usually  highlight what I feel are important points.  I haven’t highlighted here because it is ALL important points.  BB)

The Deepwater Horizon oil rig burns on April 21; the spill halted deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico for months.

The administration says it is simply trying to enforce new safety rules adopted in the wake of the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, which killed 11 workers and set off the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history. Environmental groups say the administration is right to take its time because the Gulf disaster exposed the risks of offshore drilling.

(Remember that this same President and his Dem. Congress gave Mexico millions to drill in the Gulf of Mexico!  They also made oil drilling grants to Brazil and Venezuela,  BB)

But the delay is hurting big oil companies such as Chevron Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC, which have billions of dollars in investments tied up in Gulf projects that are on hold and are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars a day for rigs that aren’t allowed to drill. Smaller operators such as ATP Oil & Gas Corp., which have less flexibility to focus on projects in other regions, have been even harder hit.

The impact of the delays goes beyond the oil industry. The Gulf coast economy has been hit hard by the slowdown in drilling activity, especially because the oil spill also hurt the region’s fishing and tourism industries. The Obama administration in September estimated that 8,000 to 12,000 workers could lose their jobs temporarily as a result of the moratorium; some independent estimates have been much higher.

The slowdown also has long-term implications for U.S. oil production. The Energy Information Administration, the research arm of the Department of Energy, last month predicted that domestic offshore oil production will fall 13% this year from 2010 due to the moratorium and the slow return to drilling; a year ago, the agency predicted offshore production would rise 6% in 2011. The difference: a loss of about 220,000 barrels of oil a day.

Drilling in waters of less than 500 feet also has been snared by the government’s increased scrutiny. Regulators requested modifications to 101 shallow-water drilling plans in 2010, compared with 59 such requests in 2009 and just 31 in 2008. Rig operators say drilling permits once approved in a matter of weeks have taken up to five months to process as the government introduced new rules.

[SHALLOWRIGS02]

The lengthy delays in reviewing new permits have caught the industry off guard. When the Obama administration lifted its ban on deep-water drilling on Oct. 12, many experts had expected a few permits to be issued before the end of 2010, followed by a gradual ramp-up of activity this year.

Among the new rules: Companies must hire outside engineers to certify key well-safety equipment and subject the gear to more rigorous tests. They require more worker training, more documentation and detailed plans of how they would respond to a worst-case well blowout.

Environmentalists say the Deepwater Horizon disaster proved reviews needed to be more thorough. “The process can work efficiently. Maybe not as quickly as it did before, but that’s understandable,” said Elgie Holstein, a staff expert at the Environmental Defense Fund.

But with no deep-water permits yet issued and companies still struggling to comply with new, tougher safety rules, experts say it could be 2012 before drilling approaches pre-disaster levels. Even when it does, projects that were once approved in weeks will likely take months to get past increased regulatory scrutiny.

(You understand that countries Obama & Co.  has funded for oil drilling have absolutely NO STANDARDS, codes or regulations for their rigs. BB)

“There was a sense that we would start to see deep-water permits approved by year end,” said Arun Jayaram, an energy analyst with Credit Suisse in New York. Mr. Jayaram said he now doesn’t expect much deep-water drilling at all this year.

Some companies are shifting investments out of the Gulf. BP PLC recently said it would move a brand-new rig that was meant to work in the Gulf, Pride International Inc.’s Deep Ocean Ascension, to Libya. Marathon Oil Corp. has tried to cancel a contract for a newly built Gulf rig owned by Noble Corp. Noble declined to comment, but last month it said it would “vigorously defend its rights under the drilling contract.”

Erik Milito, a senior official at the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s main lobbying group, said more rigs will leave soon if drilling isn’t allowed to resume. “They’re doing everything they can to keep the contracted rigs in the Gulf,” said Mr. Milito. “But they’re idle, they’re not able to do the work they intended to be out there doing, and that can only go on so long.”

This isn’t the first time the industry has issued such warnings. When the Obama administration first announced its moratorium on deep-water drilling in May, industry leaders predicted thousands of layoffs and a quick exodus of rigs from the Gulf. Instead, most companies either kept their rigs on stand-by or kept them busy with jobs that weren’t covered by the moratorium, such as cleaning up old wells.

There are signs that companies remain committed to the Gulf. Chevron has in recent weeks announced two major deep-water projects there, which together will cost nearly $12 billion.

“The deep-water business is a very long-term business, so we take a very long-term view,” Gary Luquette, the head of exploration and production for Chevron in North America, said in an interview. BP and Shell also have said they have no plans to sell their Gulf properties.

Editors’ Deep Dive: Oil Servicers Await Gulf Activity

Access thousands of business sources not available on the free web. Learn More

Smaller oil companies, however, are less able to wait out the slowdown. ATP Oil & Gas, one of the smallest deep-water operators in the Gulf, has seen its share price fall 27% since the Deepwater Horizon exploded, a sign investors are concerned about lost revenue from its delayed wells. ATP’s chairman, Paul Bulmahn, has said the company is now looking for projects in other countries. In a letter to President Barack Obama last month, Mr. Bulmahn pleaded for a drilling permit.

The slow pace of permitting has drawn fire even from some Congressional Democrats, especially Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, who has said the policy is hurting the region’s economy.

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources Secretary Scott Angelle pushed for a return to drilling last month. “It’s time to get the men and women of this industry back to work, as well as the other industries that are dependent upon drilling activity for survival—the welders, the boat captains, the pipefitters and caterers,” he said. “There is a multitude of individuals on the coast who want to get back to work finding the fuel to energize America.”

The Obama administration’s newly formed offshore drilling regulator, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, says it isn’t trying to stall new drilling but won’t be rushed by industry pressure. The agency notes it has approved permits for deep-water activity that wasn’t covered by the moratorium, such as modifications of existing wells.

“We will not cut corners in the permit review process,” agency spokeswoman Melissa Schwartz wrote in an email. “Our priority remains, as it must, to ensure that oil and gas drilling is done in a safe and environmentally responsible manner.”

Write to Ben Casselman at ben.casselman@wsj.com and Daniel Gilbert at daniel.gilbert@wsj.com

I have read more than several articles  on the Honor Rally but this one seemed to say the most.  At least to me.  BB

Restoring Honor 8-28-10

By Dr. Robert R. Owens  Monday, August 30, 2010

To say that climbing on a bus with fifty strangers to join a caravan of hundreds of other buses jostling our way up the yellow-brick road to Oz put this Historian out of his comfort zone would not be an understatement; it would be a gross understatement.

//
//

However, having fallen through the rabbit hole in the fifties and taken the red pill in the sixties, the slow motion train wreck that is the Progressive’s deconstruction of traditional America combined with the light speed transformation of our beloved Republic as a European-style nanny-state since the November Revolution of 08 compelled me to go.  Stoked by daily doses of Radio-free Glenn and incited by the daily drip-drip-drip of the government take-overs and serial bail-outs the anticipation has built for months.

Now that the GREAT EVENT is over we have to ask ourselves, “What did we go to Washington to see?”

Did we go to see a politician?

Did we go to see a politician?  No! Politicians are people dressed in fancy clothes or people giving eloquent speeches?  We can see those twenty-four hours a day on C-Span.  The Best Congress Money Can Buy has this down to a science.  They know how to look and sound important.  They even know how to look and sound relevant, caring, concerned, and informed.

The only problem is that time and time again we elect people to change the anti-liberty anti-individual freedom agenda rotting the core of the American Experiment, and time after time we find out that instead of sending in the cavalry we have sent in the clowns and the beat-down goes on.  We did not see a politician at the Restoring Honor Rally.  So what did we go to Washington to see?

Did we go to see a religious leader?

Did we go to see a religious leader?  Having been one myself I speak with a certain familiarity if not authority.  No! Religious leaders, though they may selflessly and honestly present the message of their particular religion, are members of organizations, and they seek the advancement of those organizations: that is their job.  We did not see a religious leader at the Restoring Honor Rally.  So what did we go to Washington to see?

Did we go to see a promoter of hate?

Did we go to see a promoter of hate?  No! Promoters of hate sent out invitations to their event based on race, saying every one of certain races should come. The people of hate displayed a huge banner with a picture of Dr, Martin Luther King labeled “The Dream” above a huge picture of Glenn Beck labeled “The Nightmare.”  The people of hate wandered through the largest crowd I have ever seen holding up signs calling the Americans of every race and nationality who attended the Restoring Honor Rally the “KKK” and other provocative slogans.  We did not see a promoter of hate at the Restoring Honor Rally.  So what did we go to Washington to see?

Did we go to see a self-promoter?

Did we go to see a self-promoter?  No! Self-promoters seek to make money and/or build their own kingdom.  Self-promoters constantly point to themselves as the answer to the questions they ask, and the solution to the problems they pose.

Self-promoters use others as props and always shine the light on themselves.  Self-promoters make it big then live large leaving others to calculate how much those serial-vacations cost as they send us the bill for one more glittering gala in the midst of a crisis too good to waste.  Self-promoters wag their finger in our face saying we should realize we can no longer lead the world as they cozy up to our enemies, insult our friends, and walk all over our Constitution.  We did not see a self-promoter at the Restoring Honor Rally.  So what did we go to Washington to see?

Did we go up to see a prophet?

Did we go up to see a prophet?  Yes! We went to the Restoring Honor Rally to see a prophet and more than a prophet.  A Prophet is never a person who declares themselves to be one, but instead is a person others recognize as one.  I am calling Glenn Beck a prophet.  He is seeing beyond the present and pointing to a horizon others cannot see.  He is drawing together people of all faiths, races, and nationality and is pointing the way out of a wilderness of our own creation, through the sea of bureaucratic newspeak, to the promised land of limited government.

Some may ask, “Who is Dr. Owens to proclaim Glenn Beck a prophet?”  I am but the chronicler of the History of the Future and my discernment that Glenn Beck is a prophet will mean little beyond the narrow pale of my columns and websites, but many hundreds of thousands of my fellow Americans echoed this discernment by traveling from all over this country to see Mr. Beck and hear what he had to say.

And what he had to say was a reminder that long ago God told His people if they ever strayed from His path the way back was found in the wisdom of His word, “if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

******************************************

The Yanks are Coming

By Philip V. Brennan  Tuesday, August 31, 2010That the Yanks are coming,
The Yanks are coming,
The drums rum-tumming
Ev’rywhere.
So prepare, say a pray’r,
Send the word, send the word to beware.
We’ll be over, we’re coming over,
And we won’t come back till it’s over
Over there.—George M. Cohan, WW I
Glenn Beck has transformed that stirring WW I battle cry to read “Over Here.”

//
//

At his behest about a half-million Yanks gathered at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington last Saturday to hear their host urge them and all their fellow Americans to reassert their faith in God and acknowledge the role of Divine Providence in guiding and protecting this nation from its very beginnings.

It was an extraordinary event, totally absent of the hatred and violence the despicable mainstream media assured their readers and viewers would accompany the rally. It was probably the best behaved crowd ever to come to Washington to express their hope for a new birth of freedom in our beloved nation.

It was also a huge surprise for our would-be omniscient media . Glenn Beck, best known for his aggressive style,  played the for-him unfamiliar role of a fervent revivalist urging his followers to follow Christ’s admonition that we love one another as we love ourselves, and that we devote ourselves to reforming a nation under God but gone astray.

Much to the media’s disappointment he failed to point a finger at his usual villains – the “progressives,” as he terms the ultra-left wing. He was instead St. Paul carrying the word of God far and wide, not the political rabble rouser portrayed by the media, and his vast audience was a congregation of genuine and peaceful Americans from all walks of life, not the angry crowd the media expected to come and tear up the turf.

One journalist wandered around the scene after the crowds had left. He found not a single piece of trash in the huge, close-to-one-mile-long area previously occupied by Beck’s giant audience. All he found was a faded piece of paper that had obviously been there before the crowd arrived. That in itself borders on the miraculous.

One must be forgiven for feeling a little giddy over the media’s disappointment but there is little time for that. Having done everything in their power to discourage the public from paying any attention to Beck’s crusade last Saturday, they now turn to flat out lying about what occurred and savaging such personalities associated with the event such as Dr. King’s niece whose own father, like her uncle, died as a victim of the struggle for equal justice for all, black and white.

Beck and his rally associates such as Dr. Alveda King, Martin Luther King’s niece, have received death threats they believe to be credible. Such disreputable groups as the Huffington Post put out the word that there was $100,000 available to anyone who could find a porn movie that might involve Beck.

These are desperate people, terrified at the reawakening of the American spirit now underway partially due to Glenn Beck’s proselytizing. And desperate people do desperate things.

It won’t work, Glenn Beck didn’t light a blazing fire of reborn patriotism, it was already there and growing, but he sure fanned the flames. And those flames are not going to turn into embers until the cleansing fire has burned away all the litter left behind by a generation of cynical left-wing demagogues.

The Yanks aren’t coming. They’re here. To stay. Thanks Glenn.

http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100614/COMMUNITIES/100613037/1005/NEWS01/U.S.-pays–400M-in-bonuses-to-federal-employees-in-2009

The Obama Administration handed out more than $400 million in  awards to federal employees last year, up by more than $80 million from  the prior year, according to new government data.

The Obama Administration handed out more than $400 million in awards to federal employees last year, up by more than $80 million from the prior year, according to new government data. (AP PHOTO)

Yes Siree, those federal workers who average a good $70,000 a year compared to the civilians $45,000 average a year are recipients of  nice little bonuses every year just because they are there.  They don’t even need to do a good job to get the bonus.  In fact several who were caught watching  x-rated sites on the Internet were given bonuses.  Dear Lord but this government is messed up!  BB


See topic cloud at bottom of page for specific topics.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 97 other followers

BB’s file cabinet