Wednesday, July 28, 2010

The Criminal Moratorium

You may have seen or heard news reports regarding the Rally for Economic Survival event that was held in LaFayette, LA last Wednesday at that city's Cajun Dome basketball arena.  Fully 12,000 mostly ticked-off Louisianans – including Governor Bobby Jindal, Lt. Governor Scott Angele, and other elected officials - were in attendance to protest the ongoing efforts by our fascist President, Barack Obama, and his evil minions at the Department of Interior (DOI) to destroy the oil and gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico.

I felt fortunate to be there.  It was a wonderful, compelling and emotional event.  Too bad no one at the White House or at DOI was listening.

The imposition by Dear Leader Obama of a six month moratorium on drilling in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico on the pretense of allowing DOI to review safety processes in that arena in the wake of the BP disaster seems innocuous enough to the average man on the street who doesn't understand how the oil and gas industry works.  But to anyone who does have an understanding of the industry, and who has been paying attention to the collateral actions the Obama Regime has taken in the context of this moratorium, it is a de facto permanent shutdown of the enormously productive and historically safe deep water region, and a massive scaling back of oil and gas exploration activities in the shallower waters along the Outer Continental Shelf.

Here's why:  the daily rig rate – the rate just to reserve the rig for usage by a given operator – of these deep water drilling rigs and ships can run to $150,000 per day and even more.  Anyone who thinks the owners of these rigs are going to allow them to sit idle for 180 days and longer is living in a fantasy world.  Two such rigs have already been removed, one to Egypt and the other to the Congo.  The operator who is moving its rig to the Congo announced the decision was made to move the rig to a nation that had a more stable political climate than the United States of America.

Think about that for a second:  It is the judgment of the executives of that company, in making a decision that runs into the tens of millions of dollars, that the Congo has a more stable political climate than the USA.  Is that the kind of "hope" and "change" those of you who voted for Mr. Obama had in mind?

Once these rigs leave, they are not coming back for a long, long time, if ever.  They will be locked up into multi-year deals by other operators in other parts of the world – that is the reality.  The President and his minions fully understand this, and they do not care.  They are focused on placating the radical anti-development groups that fund their political campaigns to the exclusion of all other considerations.

A memo written by Interior Secretary Salazar and leaked to the media last week clearly showed that the Administration understands the true impacts of this action, and that, as Salazar stated, issues like loss of jobs and devastation of the Gulf Coast economy do not matter to this bunch of thugs.  They do not matter.  The memo further demonstrates the Administration's intent to prolong this moratorium long past their stated six month time frame, and to slow-play issuing any new permits in the shallow water as well.

To understand the impact of all of this to South Louisiana, all one needs to know is that roughly 80% of all operations in the deep water of the Gulf of Mexico are staged out of Port Fourchon at the very southern tip of the State.  A large portion of shallow water operations are also staged out of this port.  The men and women who work at that port and on those rigs are by and large Louisiana citizens, although a high number of Texas and Mississippi jobs are at stake as well.  In all, tens of thousands of direct, well-paying, secure jobs are threatened by the callous indifference of the Obama Regime.

Then you have all the indirect jobs created by all of this economic activity:  the cafes, hotels, motels, clothing stores, filling stations, movie theatres, fitness shops, furniture stores and every other kind of small business you can imagine that depend enormously on the health of two industries impacted by recent events:  the fishing industry that has been decimated by the BP disaster, and the Gulf of Mexico oil and gas industry that the Obama Regime is attempting to destroy.

We should all be concerned about the tragic effect the BP disaster has had on the Gulf Coast region.  But you won't bring back the Louisiana fishing industry by destroying the Gulf of Mexico oil and gas industry, and the thousands upon thousands of jobs that are dependent on it.

In a sane society, the people responsible for this moratorium would be brought up on criminal charges.  But in the liberal zoo, they just go on about destroying people's lives with impunity.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

The Sham That is Elena Kagan

So I was watching "Morning Joe" on MSNBC Tuesday morning.  I've gotten to where I actually like "Morning Joe" in a sadistic sort of way – spending an hour listening to the opinions of the collection of plagiarists, freaks and nitwits that appear daily on that show tells me all I really need to know about why our country is in such a sorry state today.

Anyway, on this particular morning, the show's hosts – Joe ("Morning Joe" – get it?) Scarborough and Minka Breszinski were interviewing Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island.  When asked to describe his view on the judicial philosophy that would be employed by leftist Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, Sen. Whitehouse was only able to use the words "pragmatist" and "consensus builder" over and over again:  "I think it would be one of a pragmatist and consensus builder," the Senator said, "She has been a pragmatist and consensus builder her entire career.  She was a pragmatist and consensus builder at Harvard, and was certainly a pragmatist and consensus builder as Solicitor General.  So I think you'll see a philosophy of pragmatism and consensus building when she is on the court."

Ummmm...ok.  Can somebody please let the good Senator know that "pragmatism" and "consensus building" do not a judicial philosophy make?  Not to criticize them, of course – "pragmatism" is a perfectly honorable personal trait, one in fact that we all should aspire to achieve in our own lives.  And "consensus building" is a fine pursuit to employ in life.  Why, if every one of us was a "consensus builder", we'd all end up agreeing about every damn thing, and wouldn't that be wonderful?

But somebody really ought to let Senator Whitehouse and, presumably, Ms. Kagan know that "pragmatism" and "consensus building" are not essential elements of the judicial philosophy of a justice on the United States Supreme Court.  See, the job of being a Court Justice involves a) hearing arguments from both sides in a case before the court, and b) deciding which side wins the case in the context of the text of the United States Constitution.  This is not supposed to be a bargaining process between the justices that involves "pragmatism" and "consensus building".  The Constitution says what it says, and the justices are charged with deciding which side of each given case is constitutional.  Period.

Yet, Sen. Whitehouse wants us to believe that character traits that would be admirable in any member of, say, congress or the Texas legislature, are the essential elements of what makes a fine Supreme Court justice.  This is sheer and utter nonsense.

Of course, in fairness to Sen. Whitehouse, this nonsense regarding Ms. Kagan was put into the public domain by the White House on the day she was nominated.  The President's initial statement used those same words to describe her, and those words were broadly parroted by the propaganda arm of the National Democrat Party, i.e., the establishment news media, for days afterwards.  They were obviously words that had been carefully tested in focus groups in advance of the nomination.

Leftists have to use such touchy-feely nonsense to describe their judicial nominees, because they know they cannot dare discuss the truth about their true judicial philosophy.  Poll after poll shows conclusively that an overwhelming majority of Americans utterly reject the leftwing philosophy of ignoring what the Constitution actually says in order to legislate social policies from the federal bench that Democrats could never hope to achieve through the legitimate legislative process set up by the Constitution.

Leftwingers must obfuscate and outright lie about their nominees, because the truth about Ms. Kagan is that she is a radical leftist who likely has never read the Constitution of the United States and has no intention of ever doing so.  She is a radical who hates the military and wants to destroy American society as we know it.  I mean, who else would Barack Obama nominate to the Supreme Court?  It's not like this is rocket science here.  So, neither she nor her supporters can ever honestly and directly discuss her actual judicial philosophy, because the truth about her judicial philosophy is that the Constitution is wholly irrelevant to any decisions she will issue from the Court.

Thus, to a person, they all fall back on nonsensical irrelevancies like "pragmatism" and "consensus building" when asked to describe Ms. Kagan's philosophy.

In this, as with everything else they do, the radical leftists who run the National Democrat Party believe we  are all too stupid and ignorant to figure out the truth before they get their damage done.  In 2008, they turned out to be right.

But the nation will survive the rule of Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court, because the great pendulum of 

American politics is swinging back towards traditional values and conservatism, as it always does when confronted by the ugly face of leftism.  This too shall pass, because nonsensical talking points only fool the public for so long before reality slaps us all back to our senses.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

The True Meaning of "Futbol"

Ok, it's official:  I have finally, at long last, after a lifetime spent hating the sport with a passion bordering on lunacy, discovered value in the game of soccer – or, as a young lady at work told me the other day, "futbol, as they call it in all the rest of the world" (Really?  Do the Russians, Dutch, Brits, French, not to mention the entire continents of Asia and Africa, use a Spanish word to describe the game?) – and now am officially a fan.

No, really, I'm serious here.  During the 72 month run of the FIFA World Cup "Futbol" Championships (ok, it was really only maybe 2 months, but it sure seemed like 72), there were three Saturdays and one Sunday when I desperately needed to take a nap, but because I was in pain from one ailment or another, I had a heck of a time falling asleep.  Each time this happened, I forced myself to flip the TV in my bedroom over to one of the 85 channels televising a "futbol" game (presumably, roughly 8 Americans were tuned into each channel at any given time), and I kid you not, each time I was sound asleep within five short minutes.

Those of you who have insomnia and currently take Ambien or some other medication to help with rest, I am here to tell you that you too can live a drug-free life.  Just run down to the local Barnes & Noble and purchase DVDs of any "futbol" contests that might be on the clearance rack, slap 'em into your player, and you will now be able to enjoy hour upon hour of sound, uninterrupted sleep.

I used to believe that the best thing to have on TV when trying to take a nap was golf.  But compared to socc…er, "futbol", golf is positively stimulating.  I mean, there is actual scoring in the game of golf.  On every hole, there is scoring. 

In most sports, you see, scoring is the point of the game.  But not "futbol".

No, in "futbol", the point of the game is to bore the fans in the stadium to such a high degree of frustration that they engage in riots both inside the stadium and outside.  The other object is to frustrate the leaders of the countries represented by the teams to the point that they declare war on one another, as Paraguay did with Argentina back in the '60s.  There is also a growing body of evidence that Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 not to put a buffer between his country and the Russians, but out of the incredible frustration he felt after the German and Polish national teams played to their 5th consecutive scoreless tie in "futbol".  (And yes, that's how Hitler pronounced it, too.)

I have learned that this true objective of the game of "futbol" is the reason for the senseless rule that denies the players the use of their hands.  Think about it:  If "futbol" players were allowed to use all of their God-given limbs, there would most likely be actual scoring in most of the games.  So, the prevention of scoring becomes the only reasonable explanation for why "futbol" officials would place such an idiotic restriction on those who play the game.

This also explains why the official "futbol" field of play is roughly the same size as Manhattan Island.  I mean, if the game were played on a reasonably-sized field, one that could be adequately covered on high-definition, wide-screen television, then again, there would be scoring going on, and that would greatly lessen the level of frustration felt by viewing fans and national leaders before, during and after the games.  And honestly, where would be the fun in that?

No, golf is a far more exciting game than "futbol", and thus not nearly as frustrating for the viewer or for national leaders.  I mean, you've never seen an American President declare war on Europe over losing the Ryder Cup, have you?  No, although I personally think President Bush could have made a really good case back in 2006.  But I digress.

Luckily, I didn't need to take a nap on Sunday.  So, rather than flip the TV over to the final FIFA "futbol" frustration fest, I put it on NBC and watched Paula Creamer's masterful taming of Oakmont Country Club to win the LPGA U.S. Open Championship.  Her score?  Three under par 281.  My God, there haven't been 281 goals scored in the entire history of competitive "futbol".  Yes, friends, even the LPGA is more exciting than "futbol".  No way I could have slept through that.

At any rate, I am thrilled to death that I have finally discovered the true meaning and usefulness of the game of "futbol".  Because for those of us who simply don't care about the ultimate outcome of any given "futbol" game, it is the greatest sleeping aid ever invented by the human race.

Gosh, after writing this, I think I need a nap.




Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Michael Steele Was Right! And Wrong.

So we have this dustup going now over the remark made last week by Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele that Afghanistan is now "Obama's war", and that the President should have known "you can't win a land war in Afghanistan".  Leftists in the national news media, desperate for a story, any story, that might help stem  the growing anti-Obama tide coming this November, immediately pounced on Steele's comment and have treated it as if it were the smoking gun in the Kennedy Assassination.  Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol and other conservative hawks have called on Steele to resign, and some senate Republicans – most notably John McCain and Lindsey Graham – have been extremely critical of the RNC Chairman.

There are several observations to make about this episode in the ongoing American political soap opera.

First, Steele should not have made such comments in a public setting – his critics are right that it is inappropriate for national leaders of either party to make such discouraging comments about a war while congress continues to fund a war that puts thousands of brave American soldiers in harm's way.  Steele's remarks are on a par with statements from the likes of Democrats Harry Reid and then-Senator Barack Obama that the Iraq war was "unwinnable" and "already lost", which were made just a few months before the beginning of the Surge strategy that won the war.  Steele should know better than to cast doubt on the ability of the U.S. armed forces to accomplish any goal they set out to accomplish.

Second, the rank hypocrisy of leftists in the Democrat Party and the national news media on this matter is so thick you could cut it with a knife.  If not "Obama's War", Afghanistan is without any valid argument the
Democrat Party's war.  How many thousands of times did we hear from Democrat politicians and liberal pundits in 2002 through 2008 that President George W. Bush had "fought the wrong war" by choosing to go into Iraq?

According to the national vast leftwing media/political complex, Afghanistan was the noble war, the place where the U.S. should be focusing its efforts to kill Al Qaeda, even as Al Qaeda massed its forces in Iraq and was demolished by the American military.  Not content with making grossly irresponsible statements on a daily basis about whether or not the Iraq War was "winnable", the Democrat leadership in the congress went to great lengths to actively undermine the effort for crass political purposes.  This is an inarguable truth of American history that we must never forget.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden based much of their campaign strategy in 2008 on the promise to massively escalate the Afghan War, a promise that they have kept in a big way since assuming office.  Not only have they escalated in Afghanistan – much as Lyndon Johnson escalated in Vietnam in the wake of the Kennedy Assassination – they have also ramped up U.S. incursions into Pakistan in a very big way.

For the leftwing media/political complex to now suddenly recoil at the idea that Afghanistan is "Obama's War" is absurd on its face, and a revelation of the truth about their deceitful motives for promoting its escalation since 2002:  They were doing that purely for political reasons, to damage Bush and undermine the effort in Iraq, and are even today not serious about actually "winning" the conflict there. 

Third, Vice President Biden, in his trip to Baghdad over the weekend, noted that the U.S. phased withdrawal from Iraq would begin on schedule in August, and claimed that his and Obama's strategy there has been a great success.  Huh?  Beg Pardon?  Say What?

The most hilarious aspect of this current Administration for my purposes of ridiculing the cocky, snotty leftwingers responsible for putting this collection of incompetent thugs into office is that the Obama Administration has not changed a single thing about the Bush strategy in Iraq.  A phased withdrawal once a viable Iraqi government had been established was always the Bush strategy.  The Guantanamo Bay holding facility for terrorists remains open and undisturbed despite the Obama campaign promise to close it.  

Warrantless surveillance policies enacted during the Bush years remain intact and functional.  Terrorists continue to be tried in military tribunals to this day.  Hell, Obama has even adopted the Bush "Surge" strategy for the Afghanistan War, and hired Bush's favorite general to conduct it.

The greatest irony for the dishonest lefties who put this bunch into office in 2008 is that Obama has continued the Bush policies because they were the right policies, and is now applying the Bush strategies to Afghanistan because they were the right strategies.  There is simply no other honest interpretation of the actions Obama has taken since assuming office.

But back to Michael Steele:  Should he resign?  Yes.  He was right in saying Afghanistan is "Obama's War", but wrong to doubt it is winnable.  It is winnable, thanks to Obama's decision to stick with Bush's policies, employ Bush's strategies, and hire Bush's favorite general.