The time is now 6:04 am
You last visited
July 24, 2026, 10:22 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)
Great read. Both Powerlineblog.com and Steve Quayle, Q News linked to this article.
___________
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/27/were-too-broke-to-be-this-stupid/print/
Check out graph pattern forming on this short video. Scary!
___________
Thursday, May 27. 2010
Posted by Karl Denninger in Market Musings at 22:31
http://market-ticker.org/archives/2355-Whistling-Past-The-Graveyard.html
"He Was Supposed to Be Competent
The spill is a disaster for the president and his political philosophy.
By Peggy NoonanFound this video on Boortz site this morning. 
___________
The Barr Code
"Census workers can enter your apartment in your absence
"Thousands of census workers, including many temporary employees, are fanning out across America to gather information on the citizenry. This is a process that takes place not only every decade in order to complete the constitutionally-mandated census; but also as part of the continuing “American Community Survey” conducted by the Census Bureau on a regular basis year in and year out.
What many Americans don’t realize, is that census workers — from the head of the Bureau and the Secretary of Commerce (its parent agency) down to the lowliest and newest Census employee — are empowered under federal law to actually demand access to any apartment or any other type of home or room that is rented out, in order to count persons in the abode and for “the collection of statistics.” If the landlord of such apartment or other leased premises refuses to grant the government worker access to your living quarters, whether you are present or not, the landlord can be fined $500.00.
That’s right — not only can citizens be fined if they fail to answer the increasingly intrusive questions asked of them by the federal government under the guise of simply counting the number of people in the country; but a landlord must give them access to your apartment whether you’re there or not, in order to gather whatever “statistics” the law permits.
In fact, some census workers apparently are going even further and demanding — and receiving — private cell phone numbers from landlords in order to call tenants and obtain information from them. Isn’t it great to live in a “free” country?"
"Obama Revises History
Source Powerlineblog.com
May 27, 2010 Posted by John at 9:54 PM
"President Obama gave his first press conference in a long time today, and the questions were almost all about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Obama's answers were disingenuous in several ways.
First, he couldn't resist the temptation to blame the Bush administration for the spill. Is this getting a little old, or what? Obama said:
[I]n this instance, the oil industry's cozy and sometimes corrupt relationship with government regulators meant little or no regulation at all.
When Secretary Salazar took office, he found a Minerals and Management Service that had been plagued by corruption for years. This was the agency charged with not only providing permits but also enforcing laws governing oil drilling. And the corruption was underscored by a recent inspector general's report that covered activity which occurred prior to 2007, a report that can only be described as appalling.
And Secretary Salazar immediately took steps to clean up that corruption. But this oil spill has made clear that more reforms are needed.
For years there's been a scandalously close relationship between oil companies and the agency that regulates them.
But the relationship between regulators and the industry they regulate is always "cozy." This is true for at least two reasons. First, businessmen know far more about their businesses than regulators do. Regulators routinely defer to the superior knowledge and expertise of the regulated. Second, most regulators are young people who are planning a career in the regulated industry. A typical career path will begin with law school graduation, followed by a stint in a federal agency, followed by a highly-paid job with one of the formerly-regulated companies, representing that company before the same agency for which the regulator formerly worked. The regulator's prime employment qualification is his or her personal relationship with those who are still at the agency--many of whom, in due course, will follow the well-trodden path into private industry.
This is not exactly a secret. The pattern holds at least as much in Democratic as in Republican administrations. For Barack Obama to pretend to be unaware of the symbiotic relationship between the regulators and the regulated is risible, and he has done nothing whatever to change the "cozy" relationship between regulators and regulated in the energy industry or any other.
Obama's principal revisionism lay in his account of how his administration responded to the Deepwater Horizon explosion. To hear him tell it, the administration anticipated the worst from the beginning and reacted accordingly:
The day that the rig collapsed and fell to the bottom of the ocean, I had my team in the Oval Office that first day. Those who think that we were either slow on our response or lacked urgency don't know the facts. This has been our highest priority since this crisis occurred. ...
Q. On April 21st, Admiral Allen tells us, the government started dispatching equipment rapidly to the gulf. And you just said, on day one you recognized the enormity of the situation. Yet, here we are 39, 40 days later, you're still having to rush more equipment, more boom, there are still areas of the coast unprotected.
Why is it taking so long? And did you really act from day one for a worst case scenario?
OBAMA: We did.
This is pure revisionist history. A month ago, the administration's spokesmen explained that their response was graduated as understanding of the magnitude of the spill increased over time. We told the story here and here. To sum up, we can't do better than to quote the New York Times:
The federal government also had opportunities to move more quickly, but did not do so while it waited for a resolution to the spreading spill from BP....
The Department of Homeland Security waited until Thursday to declare that the incident was "a spill of national significance," and then set up a second command center in Mobile. The actions came only after the estimate of the size of the spill was increased fivefold to 5,000 barrels a day.
The delay meant that the Homeland Security Department waited until late this week to formally request a more robust response from the Department of Defense, with Ms. Napolitano acknowledging even as late as Thursday afternoon that she did not know if the Defense Department even had equipment that might be helpful.
By Friday afternoon, she said, the Defense Department had agreed to send two large military transport planes to spray chemicals that can disperse the oil while it is still in the Gulf.
Officials initially seemed to underestimate the threat of a leak, just as BP did last year when it told the government such an event was highly unlikely. Rear Adm. Mary E. Landry, the chief Coast Guard official in charge of the response, said on April 22, after the rig sank, that the oil that was on the surface appeared to be merely residual oil from the fire, though she said it was unclear what was going on underwater. The day after, officials said that it appeared the well's blowout preventer had kicked in and that there did not seem to be any oil leaking from the well, though they cautioned it was not a guarantee.
The truth is that the federal government's response to the spill was slow and flat-footed. Perhaps Obama's worst misrepresentation related to the government's use of fire booms:
Now, when it comes to what's happening on the surface, we've been much more involved in the in situ burns, in the skimming. Those have been happening more or less under our direction, and we feel comfortable about many of the steps that have been taken.
The real record with respect to "in situ burns" is quite different, as we noted here. In fact, the federal government had a plan to combat major spills in the Gulf that relied on fire booms to carry out in situ burns. But when the Deepwater Horizon disaster occurred, the government realized that it did not actually possess any fire booms. It obtained one from a company in Illinois and tried to borrow others from foreign governments. Meanwhile, the oil spread. Ron Gouguet, the former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration oil spill response coordinator who helped craft the government's plan in 1994, expressed puzzlement that the plan had never been implemented and "speculated that burning could have captured 95 percent of the oil as it spilled from the well."
So today's press conference was just another chapter in the ongoing saga of the Obama administration's dishonesty.
PAUL adds: The Weekly Standard's "Scrapbook" adds an interesting footnote to the Obama administration's response to this mess. The Department of Energy assembled a team of five top scientists to help figure out how to handle the clean-up. But one of them, physicist Jonathan Katz of Washington University, has a website on which he publishes essays on non-science topics, including (from 1999) "In Defense of Homophobia" and "Diversity Is the Last Refuge of Scoundrels."
Upon the administration's discovery that Katz doesn't toe the left-liberal line on gay marriage and affirmative action, it booted him off of the team. As the Scrapbook notes, this was a political decision by an administration that promised to "take politics out of religion" and "restore science to its rightful place."
Frankly, I don't expect the government to act flawlessly, or even all that effectively, in the face of true disasters like an enormous flood or a major off-shore oil drilling mishap. I'd be happy with an administration that avoided rank dishonesty and the use of political litmus tests in the selection of its experts.
Found this link on another site. Interesting reading and as I read it it puts the responsibility of responding to the type oil spillage squarely on our federal government's shoulders.
Also talks about a Trust Fund set up to cover costs of clean up.
My question is since Obama was so slow responding, is the Trust Fund funded or have they looted it and left an IOU in that account like they have Social Security?? Inquiring minds want to know.
All quotes
__________
Posted by David Lungren David_Lungren@epw.senate.gov
EPW POLICY BRIEF: THE OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990
As emergency response efforts continue in the Gulf, EPW Policy Brief presents a new Gulf oil spill policy series to help interested parties understand the ins and outs of federal policies, regulations, and key issues that apply to the tragic Gulf spill.
In our first installment, we provide an overview of the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990, passed in response to the Exxon-Valdez oil spill in 1989. The OPA is the overarching federal statute that delineates the roles and functions of federal agencies involved in responding to a spill in coastal waters.
We think the Congressional Research Service (CRS) provides an excellent overview of the OPA. Released on April 30, the report, titled "Oil Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters: Background, Governance, and Issues for Congress," updates CRS's earlier work on the subject. CRS provides the historical context behind the OPA to help readers understand why it was passed and delves into details of the act's key provisions and the evolution of the act's implementing regulations.
What follows are excerpts from the report that highlight the essential features of the OPA and the provisions of the law that have the most relevance to the Gulf spill:
Background
"When the Exxon Valdez ran aground in March 1989, there were multiple federal statutes, state statutes, and international conventions that dealt with oil discharges. The governing framework for oil spills in the United States remains a combination of federal, state, and international authorities. Within this framework, several federal agencies have the authority to implement oil spill regulations. The framework and primary federal funding process (the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund) used to respond to oil spills is described below."
"With the enactment of OPA on August 18, 1990, Congress consolidated the existing federal oil spill laws under one program. The 1990 law expanded the existing liability provisions within the CWA and created new free-standing requirements regarding oil spill prevention and response. Key OPA provisions are discussed below."
Oil Pollution Act of 1990
Spill Response Authority: "Oil spill response authority is determined by the location of the spill: the USCG has response authority in coastal waters, and the EPA covers inland oil spills.
- "As the primary response authority in coastal waters, the USCG has the ultimate authority to ensure that an oil spill is effectively removed and actions are taken to prevent further discharge from the source. During response operations, the USCG coordinates the efforts of federal, state, and private parties.
- "Coast Guard response efforts are supported by NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration. NOAA provides scientific analysis and consultation during oil spill response activities. "Assistance can include oil spill tracking, cleanup alternatives, and knowledge of at-risk natural resources. Moreover, NOAA experts begin to collect data to assess natural resource damages during response operations."
National Contingency Plan: "OPA expanded the role and breadth of the NCP. The 1990 law established a multi-layered planning and response system to improve preparedness and response to spills in marine environments. Among other things, the act also required the President to establish procedures and standards (as part of the NCP) for responding to worst-case oil spill scenarios."
Tank Vessel and Facility Response Plans: "As a component of the enhanced NCP, OPA amended the [Clean Water Act] to require that U.S. tank vessels, offshore facilities, and certain onshore facilities prepare and submit oil spill response plans to the relevant federal agency. In general, vessels and facilities are prohibited from handling, storing, or transporting oil if they do not have a plan approved by (or submitted to) the appropriate agency."
Liability Issues: "OPA unified the liability provisions of existing oil spill law, creating a freestanding liability regime. Section 1002 states that responsible parties are liable for any discharge of oil (or threat of discharge) from a vessel or facility to navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive economic zone of the United States (i.e., 200 miles beyond the shore)."
"OPA broadened the scope of damages (i.e., costs) for which an oil spiller would be liable. Under OPA, a responsible party is liable for all cleanup costs incurred, not only by a government entity, but also by a private party. In addition to cleanup costs, OPA significantly increased the range of liable damages to include the following:
- injury to natural resources,
- loss of personal property (and resultant economic losses),
- loss of subsistence use of natural resources,
- lost revenues resulting from destruction of property or natural resource injury,
- lost profits resulting from property loss or natural resource injury, and
- costs of providing extra public services during or after spill response.
"Mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs), like the Deepwater Horizon unit involved in the April 2010 incident in the Gulf of Mexico, are first treated as tank vessels for their liability caps. If removal and damage costs exceed this liability cap, a MODU is deemed to be an offshore facility for the excess amount.
"Offshore facility liability is capped at ‘all removal costs plus $75 million'; onshore facilities and deepwater port liability is limited to $350 million. Although these limits are much higher than under the pre-OPA liability structure, Congress did not alter the limits with the tank vessel increases."
The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund: "Prior to OPA, federal funding for oil spill response was generally considered inadequate, and damage recovery was difficult for private parties. To help address these issues, Congress established the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).
Pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 12777, the USCG created the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) to manage the trust fund in 1991. The fund may be used for several purposes:
- prompt payment of costs for responding to and removing oil spills;
- payment of the costs incurred by the federal and state trustees of natural resources for assessing the injuries to natural resources caused by an oil spill, and developing and implementing the plans to restore or replace the injured natural resources;
- payment of parties' claims for uncompensated removal costs, and for uncompensated damages (e.g., financial losses of fishermen, hotels, and beachfront businesses);
- payment for the net loss of government revenue, and for increased public services by a state or its political subdivisions; and
- payment of federal administrative and operational costs, including research and development, and $25 million per year for the Coast Guard's operating expenses.
"In 2005, Congress reinstated the 5-cent-per-barrel tax on oil, thus providing a dedicated source of revenue for the trust fund. In 2006, Congress raised the vessel liability limits, thus requiring the responsible party to pay a greater proportion of the oil spill costs. In 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA; P.L. 110-343) increased the tax rate to 8 cents per barrel through 2016; in 2017, the rate is scheduled to increase to 9 cents per barrel. The tax terminates at the end of 2017.
"In addition to increasing the tax rate, EESA repealed the requirement that the tax be suspended if the unobligated balance of the fund exceeded $2.7 billion. Under the original tax legislation (the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-239), the per-barrel tax would be suspended in any calendar quarter if the fund balance reached $1 billion, restarting again if it dipped below that number. With the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Congress raised this threshold from $1 billion to $2.7 billion.
"[T]he fund is currently projected to crest $3.5 billion by 2016. Policymakers may question whether it is necessary to have the trust fund reach this level. Others have suggested increasing the amount of trust fund monies that can be used to support oil spill research and development programs."
###
Why didn't he know?
Also during the press conference Obama did a slick segue away from the subject of bribing Sestak to not run.
https://www.lotterypost.com/blogentry/41459
___________
And yet, the president said he didn’t know whether Liz Birnbaum had resigned or been fired.
“Now, with respect to Ms. Birnbaum, I found out about her resignation today,” Obama said. “So I don't know the circumstances in which this occurred.”
That explanation flummoxed reporters in the room, who seemed surprised to learn that the president wouldn’t know exactly what had happened to one of the key figures in an ongoing federal emergency – the one he was holding a news conference on at that very moment.
The news of Birnbaum’s departure broke publicly more than two hours before Obama stepped into the East Room. ........."
Interesting events, hard questioning by this reporter. Links to Powerlingblog commentary on "Power Line - A thug too far, part 1-5" below video.
I have no problem with an orderly protest at a business but something is very wrong with a mob converging on private property right up to someone's door.
_____________
___________
Power Line A thug too far, part 3
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/05/026383.php
Power Line - A thug too far, part 4
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/05/026391.php
Power Line - A thug too far, part 5
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/05/026400.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/05/026373.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/05/026375.php
"D.C. Metro Police Escorted SEIU Protesters to Bank Of America Executive's Home
Finally someone is saying what needs to be said everywhere. Wish he could be cloned for every seat in the senate, house, and White House next several election cycles.
Christie for President...!!!!!! 
__________
"Two more Census workers blow the whistle
"You know the old saying: "Everyone loves a charade." Well, it seems that the Census Bureau may be playing games.
Last week, one of the millions of workers hired by Census 2010 to parade around the country counting Americans blew the whistle on some statistical tricks.
The worker, Naomi Cohn, told The Post that she was hired and fired a number of times by Census. Each time she was hired back, it seems, Census was able to report the creation of a new job to the Labor Department. ........."
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/two_more_census_workers_blow_the_OqY80N3DBTvL17VmxKKR0O
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.0513d49acfc29bc63d3ee39de8bd3b71.dc1&show_article=1
"Sestak White House scandal called 'impeachable offense'
'It's Valerie Plame, only bigger, a high crime and misdemeanor'
Posted: May 25, 2010
8:45 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
"If a Democratic member of Congress is to be believed, there's someone in the Obama administration who has committed a crime – and if the president knew about it, analysts say it could be grounds for impeachment.
"This scandal could be enormous," said Dick Morris, a former White House adviser to President Bill Clinton, on the Fox News Sean Hannity show last night. "It's Valerie Plame only 10 times bigger, because it's illegal and Joe Sestak is either lying or the White House committed a crime.
"Obviously, the offer of a significant job in the White House could not be made unless it was by Rahm Emanuel or cleared with Rahm Emanuel," he said. If the job offer was high enough that it also had Obama's apppoval, "that is a high crime and misdemeanor."
"In other words, an impeachable offense?" Hannity asked.
"Absolutely," said Morris.
The controversy revolves around an oft-repeated statement by Rep. Sestak, D-Pa., that he had been offered a job by the Obama administration in exchange for dropping out of the senatorial primary against Obama supporter Sen. Arlen Specter.
Sestak said he refused the offer. He continued in the Senate primary and defeated Specter for the Democratic nomination.
But Karl Rove, longtime White House adviser to President George W. Bush, said the charge is explosive because of federal law.
"This is a pretty extraordinary charge: 'They tried to bribe me out of the race by offering me a job,'" he said on Greta Van Susteran's "On the Record" program on the Fox News Channel. "Look, that's a violation of the federal code: 18 USC 600 says that a federal official cannot promise employment, a job in the federal government, in return for a political act.
"Somebody violated the law. If Sestak is telling the truth, somebody violated the law," Rove said. "Section 18 USC 211 says you cannot accept anything of value in return for hiring somebody. Well, arguably, providing a clear path to the nomination for a fellow Democrat is something of value.
He continued, citing a third law passage: "18 USC 595, which prohibits a federal official from interfering with the nomination or election for office. ... 'If you'll get out, we'll appoint you to a federal office,' – that's a violation of the law."
Staffers with Sestak's congressional office did not respond to WND requests for comment. But the congressman repeatedly confirmed that he was offered the position and refused and that any further comments would have to come from someone else.
"I've said all I'm going to say on the matter. … Others need to explain whatever their role might be," Sestak said on CNN this week. "I have a personal accountability; I should have for my role in the matter, which I talked about. Beyond that, I'll let others talk about their role."
That's not fulfilling his responsibilities, Rove said. He said Sestak needs to be forthcoming with the full story so "the American people can figure out whether or not he's participating in a criminal cover-up along with federal officials."
The Obama White House has tried to minimize the issue.
"Lawyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak, and nothing inappropriate happened," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has stated.
Gibbs told the White House press corps, "Whatever conversations have been had are not problematic."
And on CBS' "Face the Nation" he said, "I'm not going to get further into what the conversations were. People who looked into them assure me they weren't inappropriate in any way."
But the administration also is taking no chances on what might be discovered.
According to Politico, the Justice Department has rejected a request from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., for a special counsel to investigate and reveal the truth of the controversy.
The report said Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich confirmed no special counsel would be needed. But the report said Weich also gave no indication that the Justice Department actually was looking into the claims by Sestak.
"We assure you that the Department of Justice takes very seriously allegations of criminal conduct by public officials. All such matters are reviewed carefully by career prosecutors and law enforcement agents, and appropriate action, if warranted, is taken," Weich wrote in the letter.
Issa had suggested that the alleged job offer may run afoul of federal bribery statutes.
He said in a statement to Politico, "The attorney general's refusal to take action in the face of such felonious allegations undermines any claim to transparency and integrity that this administration asserts."
He's also made a decision to raise the profile of his concerns.
"The bottom line is all fingers are being pointed back to the White House," he said in a statement released as ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
"This Chicago-style politicking is an assault on our democracy and is downright criminal. President Obama faces a critical choice – he can either live up to his rhetoric of transparency and accountability by disclosing who inside his White House tried to manipulate an election by bribing a U.S. Congressman or he can allow his administration to continue this stonewalling and relinquish the mantle of change and transparency he is so fond of speaking on."
Issa suggested, "Could the reason why Congressman Joe Sestak refuses to name names is because the very people who tried to bribe him are now his benefactors? For months, Sestak has repeatedly said without equivocation that the White House illegally offered him a federal job in exchange for dropping out of the race. Was Joe Sestak embellishing what really happened, or does he have first-hand knowledge of the White House breaking the law? If what he said is the truth, Joe Sestak has a moral imperative to come forward and expose who within the Obama Administration tried to bribe him."
Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee chairman, as well as Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, have joined the chorus suggesting the White House needs to answer some questions.
Former judge Andrew Napolitano, an analyst for Fox News, said the level of the offer simply isn't an issue.
"It wouldn't matter if it was a job as a janitor. Offering him anything of value to get him to leave a political race is a felony, punishable by five years in jail," he said.
The Section 600 statute states:
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Douglas Sosnik, the White House political director for Bill Clinton, said offering jobs to political friends is "business as usual," but said Obama's promise was that "business as usual" wouldn't continue in his White House.
"It cuts against the Obama brand," he told the New York Times.
Ron Kaufman, who served under the first President Bush, also told the newspaper such offers are not unusual.
"But here's the difference – the times have changed and the ethics have changed and the scrutiny has changed. This is the kind of thing people across America are mad about," Kaufman said.
WND previously reported on the Sestak controvesy and a similar one concerning a Democrat Senate candidate in Colorado, Andrew Romanoff.
The Denver Post said Jim Messina, Obama's deputy chief of staff and "a storied fixer in the White House political shop, suggested a place for Romanoff might be found in the administration and offered specific suggestions."
Romanoff at the time was challenging another major Obama supporter, Sen. Michael Bennet, for the Democratic primary for the Senate seat from Colorado. He has since won top-line position over Bennet in a coming primary.
The report said Romanoff turned down the overture, but it is "the kind of hardball tactics that have come to mark the White House's willingness to shape key races across the country, in this case trying to remove a threat to a vulnerable senator by presenting his opponent a choice of silver or lead."
The newspaper affirmed "several top Colorado Democrats" described the situation, even though White House spokesman Adam Abrams said, "Mr. Romanoff was never offered a position within the administration."
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, who has been monitoring the Obama administration, told WND the offer of reward for some government official's actions raises questions of legal liability.
"There's a federal statute and federal law seems to make clear if you offer a government official some sort of remuneration, directly or indirectly, it's a crime," he said.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=158617
Long form or certificate of live birth???????????????????
___________________