A Culture of Substance Abuse and Promiscuity

The Obama regime plans to split up the Minerals Management Service, creating two agencies. The plan has yet to be fully developed, but regime officials familiar with the policy change told the AP that one agency would be responsible for safety and regulatory inspections and enforcement, while the other would be responsible for managing leases and collecting the billions in lease royalties.

---

Currently, the Minerals Management Service, an arm of the Interior Department, is responsible for collecting more than $10 billion a year from oil and gas drilling and with enforcing laws and regulations that apply to drilling operations.

Some critics have said the two roles are in conflict and are one reason the agency has long been accused of being too cozy with the oil and natural gas industry.

An internal investigation in 2008 described a "culture of substance abuse and promiscuity" by workers at the agency. The investigation by Interior's inspector general found workers at the MMS royalty collection office in Denver partied, had sex with and used drugs with energy company representatives. Workers also accepted gifts, ski trips and golf outings, the report by Inspector General Earl E. Devaney said.

The Associated Press: APNewsBreak: Salazar urges splitting energy agency

---

Extra Point: No one is saying which agency gets the drugs and which one gets the promiscuity.

Oh My - Kagan Urged President Clinton to ban late term abortions

This should either stir the pot and raise a ruckus from the far left, or force Obama's left flank to sit down, shut up, and support Teh One's chosen one.

---

Documents reviewed Monday by The Associated Press show Kagan encouraging Clinton to support a bill that would have banned all abortions of viable fetuses except when the physical health of the mother was at risk. The documents from Clinton's presidential library are among the first to surface in which President Barack Obama's new choice for the high court weighs in on the thorny issue of abortion.Kagan in '97 urged Clinton restrict late abortions | ajc.com

---

Knowing as little as we do about Ms. Kagan, it's entirely possible that she could become Mr. Obama's David Souter. There has been some rumbling among the left that Kagan could actually shift the overall makeup of the Supreme Court to the right. Stevens' positions on Roe and other matters near and dear to the lefty's heart were well staked out. Kagan's, not so much. Yes, she lamented the demise of socialism. Yes, she doesn't particularly care for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy and went so far as to try booting military recruiters from her Harvard campus. But she has absolutely no experience as a jurist, and her legal writings don't sound like the ramblings of a stark raving lunatic.

At any rate, it will be interesting to see how the Planned Parenthood and NOW types chew, swallow and digest the news that, at least on late term abortions, she stands in apparent conflict with the President.

Obama vs Democrats vs Republicans

Congressional Democrats just can't catch a break. After an absolutely tortuous 16 months of ramming through one big government program after the other, and the resultant death spiral in their November reelection hopes, Pelosi Reid & Co. are now getting flak from... President Obama. Teh One spent some bandwidth last week suggesting that his regime be given more leeway in removing "wasteful" pork earmarks in spending bills.

Spending bills authored by majority Democrats. Obama's own approval ratings have trended towards the tank, but the public still finds him a likable fellow (even if they're suffering a little buyer's remorse). So when a reasonably likable fellow starts calling out Congress for wastefulness, he's rubbing salt in wounds opened by near monolithic GOP criticism over the Congress' "work."

---

“Congress is working to try and rein in spending — how about pointing that out?” groused Representative Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland. Mr. Van Hollen said the political fault lines that count divided Democrats from Republicans, not the White House from Congress, and “the president has not done enough to draw those distinctions.”

Mr. Van Hollen’s sensitivity is no mystery; he is leading the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as the party braces for November losses. But he reflects a broader unease among incumbents who fear that the president’s gibes at Washington, even as they align the administration with disaffected Americans, fuel Republican efforts to get Democrats fired.
Obama Jabs, and Democrats Flinch - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

---

The anti-incumbent fever of the electorate is palpable and real. Over the weekend, Utah Republicans ousted three-term Senator Bob Bennett from the ballot and he will not be allowed to run for reelection. Florida Republicans, disgusted over Governor Charlie Crist's pandering and support for the stimulus plan, flocked in such large numbers to Marco Rubio that Crist took his marbles and left the party. What does this mean for Congressional Democrats? It means that absolutely no one is safe in this cycle. Having the most visible public embodiment of the party tsk tsk them for "wasteful spending" has them scared and chafing.

Extra Point: What's the likelihood that centrist and conservative Democrats throw up their hands, abandon Obama and start running against him?

"Audit the Fed!" Says... Bernie Sanders?

A comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve System has been a long-standing campaign plank of Congressman Ron Paul.  So it comes as a bit of a surprise that Vermont "Independent" Bernie Sanders has sponsored an amendment to the finance reform bill to allow the Government Accountability Office to conduct extensive reviews of policy decisions.

I frankly believe both Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders are certified kooks, hailing from diametrically different ends of the political spectrum.  Paul's motivations come from a misguided belief that the Fed is a dangerous institution that plays a high-stakes game of poker with US monetary policy with no accountability.  Sanders however, is an avowed socialist.  Paul's quixotic goal is to one day return the US to the gold standard and the elimination or restriction on the use of fiat currency.  Sanders' goal is completely the opposite.  His goal is to use the the Fed's enormous financial clout to promote a sort of Eurozone in North America.

The Fed needs to remain an independent entity.  The deliberations of the Federal Open Market Committee need to remain off-limits to political meddling, and releasing the name of every institution receiving loans from the discount window would cast a chill of market confidence on those institutions' financial stability.  If the Fed loses market confidence in its ability to combat inflation, the government would be forced to pay higher interest rates demanded by borrowers as a hedge against inflation risk.  And, if markets and the public lose confidence in private sector banks borrowing at the discount window, banking panics that were once a thing of the past could become commonplace again.

One of the hallmarks of economic growth over the last three decades or so has been a stable, non-inflationary period of prosperity.  The recessions suffered in the period have been relatively brief and historically shallow.  We haven't seen the runaway inflation present in the 1970's, either.  What we've seen in money supply growth is analagous to a large river that neither suffers catastrophic flooding nor severe, longlasting droughts.

The Sanders and Paul amendments threaten that. Paul's goals are much more admirable than Sanders, but neither amendment is going to make our economic system perform better.  They'll have the opposite effect.

Extra Point:

Grow up, Mr. President

In his Inaugural Address, President Barack Hussein Obama held out a symbolic olive branch to the Muslim faith, using this uplifting oratory:

---

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

---

In April 2009, barely three months into his regime, President Obama told a press conference in Turkey that "we (America) do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."




In May 2009, just a few weeks after his trip to Turkey, the radical Islamists showed us their "unclenched fist." James Cromitie (aka Abdul Rahman) allegedly recruited three converted Muslims--David Williams (aka Daoud), Onta Williams (aka Hamza) and LaGurre Payen (aka Almondo) and hatched a plot to blow up a synagogue in the Riverdale section of the Bronx and shoot down or destroy military aircraft flown by the New York Air National Guard.  Their plot was foiled by good police-work and fortunately, no one was harmed.

Just two weeks later, yet another converted Muslim, 23-year old Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, was arrested and charged with the shooting death of one US soldier and seriously wounded another at a Little Rock Army Recruiting Center. At the time, officials openly speculated whether Muhammad was part of a larger plan to attack US military targets on US soil, possibly coordinated by Al Qaeda.  Unlike the Riverdale Four plot, a life was lost in this episode.  Officials believe Muhammad's motive was anger at US treatment of Muslims and discontent over the Afganistan and Iraq wars.

On November 5, 2009, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly opened fire on fellow US soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas. When the smoke cleared, Hasan had killed 13 and wounded 30 others. Hasan is an American-born Muslim of Palestinian origin. Investigators poring over Hasan's communications discovered that he'd corresponded via email with Anwar al-Awlaki, a US-born, Yemen-based Al Qaeda operative and organizer. al-Awlaki has released video praising Hasan for the attack and urging other US Muslims to follow suit.

On December 25, the alleged Christmas Day Bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 253 in Amsterdam, bound for Detroit, Michigan. According to official reports, Abdulmutallab had an [ahem] "improvised explosive device" hidden in his underwear, which he attempted to set off as the plane made its final approach over Detroit. The bomb was a dud--igniting but failing to donate and apparently only slightly injuring  Abdulmutallab. The flight was loaded with holiday travelers, and had he been successful, the tragedy would have brought back memories of the Lockerbie tragedy.  Abdulmutallab was born in Nigeria and spent time in London, where some experts believe he may have been "radicalized."

On May 1, 2010, Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistan-born naturalized US citizen, allegedly parked an SUV loaded with incendiary and explosive materials near a popular theater in Times Square, New York. Explosives officials and investigators say that Shahzad's shoddy construction techniques led to the bomb failing to detonate. But had it been just a little better built mouse trap, it could have killed hundreds of tourists and New Yorkers. As of this writing, details of Shahzad's connections to radical islamist groups are still being developed, but indications are that he had help from someone, somewhere.

Since Mr. Obama's Inauguration Speech Olive Branch, no less than five terrorist attacks have been attempted or perpetrated on US soil. This must come as an incredulity to the young idealist in the White House, but it's time to outgrow the naivete and get back to the business of protecting the citizens of the United States against people who want them dead, regardless of who the President is. They don't care about his African heritage. They don't care about his exposure as a youth to Muslim religion or culture. And they don't care about any uplifting phraseology delivered from the steps of the Capitol.

Mr. President, it is time to grow up.

Extra Point:

Despite plan, no fire booms on hand UPDATED

More damning evidence of the botched response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  Mobile Register reporter Ben Raines has been covering this unfolding disaster since the explosion, fire and sinking of the Transocean mobile drilling unit late last month.  In today's news, Raines reports that, despite a well-developed and tested plan, officials didn't have a single fire boom on hand at the time of the spill:

---

But in order to conduct a successful test burn eight days after the Deepwater Horizon well began releasing massive amounts of oil into the Gulf, officials had to purchase one from a company in Illinois.

When federal officials called, Elastec/American Marine, shipped the only boom it had in stock, Jeff Bohleber, chief financial officer for Elastec, said today.

At federal officials' behest, the company began calling customers in other countries and asking if the U.S. government could borrow their fire booms for a few days, he said.

---

WTF? You have a plan in place since 1994, you have a tried and true process for executing it, and you're just thinking about getting the equipment you need a week after the event? Who was in charge?

Remember the "test burn" federal officials first talked about eight days after the well began spewing oil? Well, since they didn't even have a single piece of the boom on hand, and since their source had only one boom in stock, it pretty much means that a "test burn" was all they could do.

In the days after the Deepwater Horizon sank, US Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mary Landry said that the response team had all the assets and equipment it needed. We now know that this was a false statement.

We also know, from interviews Raines conducted with Ron Gouget, former NOAA response coordinator, and Mr. Bohleber linked in the story above, that the Obama regime's claims that the in-situ burn procedure serves as a "last resort" are false.

Extra Point: That is, unless you don't have the equipment. Then it's pretty much a last resort, ain't it?

UPDATE: Well, well, well.  Via Jammie Wearing Fool, guess who received the most money from British Petroleum in the 2008 election cycle? 

Secret Pentagon Program to Hoard Stuff

Via the Wall Street Journal:

---

The new plan, dubbed the Strategic Materials Security Program by the Pentagon, would give the military greater power to decide what it stockpiles and how it goes about buying the materials. It would also speed up decision making at a time when military technology evolves rapidly, commodity markets swing widely and countries around the world fight to secure access to natural resources.

"It's a risk-management program," said Paula Stead, who oversees the effort for the Defense National Stockpile Center at Fort Belvoir, in Virginia. The goal is to be able to obtain "a much broader" array of materials in "a much shorter time," she said.

---

It's only a matter of time before the birther-truther-Bilderberger types take  this thing and absolutely run with it.  The tinfoil hat crowd has been absolutely relentless in recent years, going apesheet over patently absurd conspiracy theories.  Most recently--a viral rumor that a North Korean submarine torpedoed the Deepwater Horizon rig that exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico late last month. 

The WSJ story linked above covers a program that's been in place since WWII, through which the US government maintains a strategic stockpile of materials necessary for manufacturing the machines of war.   Mundane stuff like Aluminum, Zinc and other ores and minerals.  Would metals like Gold, Silver, Platinum and Molybdenum be part of it?  Probably so--every one of those has legitimate industrial and/or electronic uses.  But the wackos running around with black helicopter stories also happen to be goldbugs, so it's only a matter of time that they leap at any chance they get to imagine that a strategic stockpiling program is really a secret government gold grab.  You watch.

Extra Point:  One of the original purposes of National Forests were to insure the US Government had a supply of wood for shipbuilding, and what's all that gooey black stuff stored in those Gulf Coast salt domes?  Oh yeah:  the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

YID With LID: Former NOAA Official Says Feds "Blew It" On The Gulf Oil Spill

YID With LID

Sammy picks up the ball on the looming political disaster for the Obama regime.

I wrote about this last week, here and again here. I attributed the regime's slow-footed response to incompetence, apathy or political malice. But Sammy raises another interesting motivation:

Since the Obama administration came into office in January of 2009, they have made a point of rejecting the advice of the people who have come before him, and procedures already put into place. In many cases, he ends up going back to the old policies that worked before (such as Afghanistan). Is the ecological disaster happening in the Gulf of Mexico the result of an act of hubris?

Hmmm...

Obama 2011 Budget Slashes US Coast Guard Funding

Wrong-headed priorities. While the 2011 budget cuts have had no impact on the current Coast Guard response effort in the Gulf of Mexico, these cuts can only have significant deleterious effects on future efforts. Mr. Obama is already coming under righteous fire for botching the response and politicking instead of leading. What sense does it make to cut the funding of one of our most important security arms?

This country needs less government intrusion into the private sector and more funding for national defense.

---

The FY 2011 budget proposal reviewed today by the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee slashes more than 1,100 positions, reduces Coast Guard, maritime and security assets, and decommissions five recently refurbished helicopters.

“It’s outrageous that the Administration would propose cutting the Coast Guard budget to this degree when it is our first line of national defense and maritime security,” said U.S. Rep. John L. Mica (R-FL), the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Republican Leader.

---

Obama Coast Guard Budget Courts Disaster - Cape May County Herald

'Obama's Katrina': an Illustrated Timeline

Doug Ross' hard hitting discussion of the time between the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the President's WTF moment of realizing that he had a sure-nuff problem on his hands.

'Obama's Katrina': an Illustrated Timeline

Ross does a masterful job of laying out how Obama fiddled while the Gulf of Mexico "burned." Pathetic.

Even that right-wing rag, The New York Times, says that the useless manchild / masterful orator we have as a President dicked around too long:

---

The timetable is damning. The blowout occurred on April 20. In short order, fire broke out on the rig, taking 11 lives, the rig collapsed and oil began leaking at a rate of 40,000 gallons a day. BP tried but failed to plug the well. Even so, BP appears to have remained confident that it could handle the situation with private resources (as did the administration) until Wednesday night, when, at a hastily called news conference, the Coast Guard quintupled its estimate of the leak to 5,000 barrels, or more than 200,000 gallons a day.

Only then did the administration move into high gear.

---

Extra Point: What's the likelihood that Mr. Obama is met with some angry Cajuns when he visits "ground zero" today?