Monday, March 14, 2011

When George and Lennie meet Barack and us...

Of Mice and Men: “Tell me about the rabbits, Barry”.

Was it just me, or did anyone else feel overwhelmed and powerless by the onslaught of liberal legislation that was thrust upon America by this current administration and Congress in the first two years of the President’s term? After Barack Obama took office on January 20, 2009, a cavalcade of lengthy and complex Bills was offered to Congress. Portrayed as having the intent of “saving America” from certain economic doom, (but upon more serious scrutiny and after they were voted into law, were simply a redistribution of wealth of unprecedented proportions), these Bills were rammed through the Legislative Branch in breath-taking fashion. Emboldened by a super-majority in the Senate, and a comfortable majority in the House, Obama signed into law the ARRA, the Finance Reform Bill, two pork-riddled omnibus packages and a Health Care Reform Bill that cannot be viewed in any other light, but that of “taking from the rich, and giving to the poor”. All of the Bills mentioned were never read by those that voted them into law, and, in the case of the Health Care Reform Act, H.R. 3962, could not have been dissected and comprehended by anyone, even if they had two months of time prior to the vote. Forget the fact that some seriously underhanded methods of payoffs, vote buying, unkept promises and legislative shenanigans were utilized in order that the liberals passed ObamaCare. At a time in America when federal government spending is off the charts, unprecedented debt and deficits and borrowing from China with no end in sight, it was a Law we simply could not absorb financially.

The liberals touted H.R. 3962 as vital for our economy, intended to decrease the deficit while offering health care coverage for all citizens. In actuality, it buries this country in more unsustainable debt as the huge entitlement programs increase in scope and size. Oh yes, I know what the Congressional Budget Office, (CBO), predicted, with their new estimates of increased debt if the Law is repealed. But one must look past the “cooked” numbers, initially fed to the CBO by proponents of the Bill, and use common sense in evaluating this issue for themselves. Of course we can all agree that health care reform was required, but does anyone REALLY believe that adding 30 million subscribers will bring the cost of health care down without having to “rob Peter to pay Paul”? Does anyone REALLY believe that in a system that is already short of primary care physicians, that an additional 30M patients will improve access to quality care? Has anyone from the current administration been able to adequately define why mandated health care insurance waivers are prudent and necessary if the Law is such a good thing for all Americans? And perhaps most importantly, how many people honestly believe that Health Care is a right bestowed upon us by the Constitution? When then Speaker, Nancy Pelosi was asked this question, her response, “are you kidding me”, was an insult to our intelligence and a sobering, but scary reminder that she was two heart beats away from the Presidency. The far left has again shown to this writer that they believe we’re pretty stupid people, easily manipulated and analogous to Lennie in Steinbeck’s novel, “Of Mice and Men”.

The fact that 26 States, over half, are challenging the new federal law’s constitutionality, means that not only was Pelosi ignorant of the facts, but that the writers of the Bill either didn’t care, or were also ignorant of the intent and expressed purpose of the Commerce Clause, Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3. Which brings us to Barack Obama, a constitutional lawyer from Harvard Law School whom was touted by the media and liberals for his incredible intelligence, (never mind that he was a “C” student at Occidental College), aptitude in legal matters, and was President of the Harvard Law review. We heard these scholastic achievements ad infinitum, ad nauseum in the run-up to the election in 2008. So how does a Harvard Law review President sign a document that, in my humble opinion, will be shot down in the Supreme Court of the United States by a 5-4 or 6-3 vote? Please…tell me about the rabbits, Barry.










Saturday, March 5, 2011

The Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster: “Water, water, everywhere, but not a drop to drink”. Is this Obama’s albatross?

BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill timeline:

Deepwater Horizon rig blew on April 20, 2010 and the spill lasted 128 days:


Concise timeline of disaster and response:


Barack Obama’s response:

Entertaining President of Mexico, Calderon, at the White House one month later, May 19, 2010.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/98843-obama-calderon-toast-their-similarities-at-state-dinner

Obama flies to California to campaign for Barbara Boxer during the primary election on May 26th, the announcement made three weeks earlier on May 5, 2010.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=7460197

President Obama entertains the US soccer team prior to the World Cup, May 26, 2010.


Pres. Obama entertains Duke basketball team on May 26, 2010.


Obama plays golf while the oil spill continues:


Barack Obama denies Danish governments’ help in cleaning up oil spill:


Obama Administration restricts research into effects of oil spill:



Obama, under public criticism, finally meets with BP executive, Tony Hayward, two months after the oil rig exploded:


Obama has taken heat this week after admitting Monday he has not spoken with BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward since the company’s drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico began spewing oil into the ocean on April 22.
The president said Monday in a TV interview that he was “not interested in words” with Hayward because he assumed the oil executive would “say all the right things.”
“I’m interested in actions,” Obama told “The Today Show’s” Matt Lauer.

Effects of oil dispersants discussed:


The long term effects of the oil spill on the Gulf’s ecosystem may be a lot more than what is being portrayed by this administration, and it is completely possible that restricting research into the effects are keeping the information from public scrutiny. Simply put, the ocean floor has been “nuked” wherever the oil deposited, and is basically devoid of life.



Further, what little information is being leaked from independent researchers, is almost completely opposite from what the administration is stating.

Clean Water Act of 1972

President’s responsibility to ensure the clean-up MANDATED by Sec. 311 (8) of the Clean Water Act 1972:


The OPA amended the Federal authority in § 311 to respond to spills. Prior to the OPA, § 311 authorized the President to respond to discharges of oil and hazardous substances, but there was significant latitude for private cleanup efforts by the discharger. The OPA amended § 311 to mandate the President to take action to ensure “effective and immediate removal of a discharge, and mitigation or prevention of a substantial threat of a discharge, of oil or a hazardous substance.”9 The President’s removal authority is primarily carried out through the creation and implementation of facility and response plans.”

Commentary:

According to the Clean Water Act, Sec. 311(8), which was revised by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the POTUS is solely responsible for coordination of the efforts to cleanup this hazardous discharge, and do so immediately. Not only is the POTUS solely responsible, but is mandated by law to act expeditiously. The question remains who gave the orders for oil dispersants to be sprayed on the oil slick? Did the POTUS give BP “carte blanche” freedom to deal with the oil slick as they deemed appropriate? Pres. Obama has ‘some’ laxity in delegating authority, ie., US Coast Guard Admiral, Thad Allen, but is still responsible for the protection of our waters and citizens. Why weren’t the Danish boats, offered three days after the crisis began, utilized in an all out effort to minimize damage?

I believe that a strong case of negligence in this matter could be made against Pres. Obama for his mishandling of the disaster, his reticence in acting quickly as mandated by law and the apparent disconnect between reality and political spin. If what Univ. of Georgia scientist, Samantha Joye, stated is even only partially true: “The devastation, she said, could last "years or decades. It's still there and it's going to degrade very slowly”…then a case of criminal negligence needs to be considered.