Even Congress Doesn't Trust Obama to Be Honest About the Gulf Oil Spill

Apparently even the Democrat-led Congress doesn't trust Obama to be honest about the Gulf oil spill. They've initiated their own panel to look at the government's mishandling of the disaster, and even 5 Democrats joined the Republicans. I guess they don't feel like the Obama-appointed panel can do the job honestly...

Reaching Honest Answers on the Oil Spill

Since President Obama took office, there has been very little wiggle room for Members of Congress to reach a bipartisan agreement. This week the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee granted the President’s push for bipartisanship, ironically by creating a bipartisan oil spill commission that would compete with the Administration’s Obama-appointed one. The Hill reports:

Five Democrats joined all 10 Republicans on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in agreeing to create a new bipartisan panel whose members would mostly be appointed by Congress.

The proposal—offered by Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY)—would establish a commission of 10 whose members would be appointed equally by the two parties, with Obama naming the chairman and congressional leaders selecting the vice chairman and remaining eight members. The commission would have subpoena power, which the Obama-appointed panel does not.

Barrasso said the newly proposed commission—which he said is modeled after the 9/11 Commission—is needed to provide a “truly unbiased bipartisan review” of offshore drilling in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico spill. Obama’s commission “appears to me to be stacked with people philosophically opposed to offshore drilling,” Barrasso said.”

One of the more contentious selections by President Obama was Natural Resources Defense Council President Frances Beinecke, who in a May 3 Huffington Post op-ed said:

As I watch coverage of the devastation, I am reminded of another energy story from last week: the approval of the Cape Wind offshore wind farm in the Nantucket Sound. What a contrast these two energy projects make: The dirty, hazardous fuel that can swamp local communities versus the clean, sustainable energy that doesn’t spill. If I were an official in a coastal state, I know which one I would choose. I would reject President Obama’s plan for more offshore oil drilling and I would invest in renewable offshore projects that wouldn’t harm my state.”

Senator Mary Landrieu (D–LA) justified her opposition to the President’s commission, saying, “I would suggest to my Democratic friends that if the shoe were on the other foot, and President Bush was the president and he had submitted a list of names like this to us and everyone was related to the defense of oil companies, we would say this is not fair. And I’m saying to my colleagues this is not fair.”

Senator Landrieu is precisely right. The President’s commission that he established May 21 would not bring about a transparent debate. In his book The Audacity of Hope, President Obama wrote, “Genuine bipartisanship assumes an honest process of give-and-take, and that the quality of the compromise is measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal.”

The agreed-upon goal is to figure out the real risk associated with offshore drilling and allow the commission to make decisions based on scientific and technological facts, not pre-determined political agendas.

Join: Email Updates

Obama on Unemployment: At Least It's Not 14%...

Our dear leader looks at the upside of the staggering lack of job creation in the US.

Join: Email Updates

Videos Tell Story of Racist Dept of Justice Under Obama

Frankly it's shocking how far we've fallen and how fast. The fact is, America is still in freefall under Obama, and while he and his supporters will claim we're on the right track, there are some frightening signposts in our rear-view mirror at this point. One of them is the application of laws based entirely upon the race of the perpetrator and the victim. Here's a few short videos that should help put this into perspective, featuring the New Black Panthers and former DOJ attorney Christian Adams - the one guy blowing the whistle on this. Robert Byrd may be dead, but racism in the Democrat Party lives on...



Join: Email Updates

Michael Steele Attacks: Afghan War "of Obama's Choosing"

Any time you hear Michael Steele speak, you have to be ready for something controversial and perplexing to come out of his mouth. Once again, he doesn't disappoint. Now he's attacking Afghanistan as a war "of Obama's choosing." It'll be interesting to see what the fallout over this will be...

GOP's Steele doubts Afghan troop surge, calls conflict "a war of Obama's choosing"

July 02, 2010 11:10 AM

ABC's Z. Byron Wolf reports:RNC Chairman Michael Steele, in comments that will put him at odds with the rest of his party and historical fact, calls American military involvement in Afghanistan “a war of Obama’s choosing” and questions direct U.S. military involvement there.

“This is not something the United States actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in,” says Steele, ignoring the invasion of Afghanistan by U.S. and NATO forces in 2001.

Steele later says of the President: “Well if he’s such a student of history, has he not understood that that’s the one thing you don’t do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan. Alright? Because everyone who has tried over a thousand years of history, has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan without committing more troops.”

Steele says the US should be playing an advisory, "background" role in Afghanistan.

“It was one of those areas in the total board of foreign policy in the Middle East, that we would be in the background, sort of shaping the changes that were necessary in Afghanistan, as opposed to directly engaging troops.”

Steele's comments can be viewed in amateur video, apparently shot at a fund raiser in North Carolina and posted on YouTube, Steele says that the American military is currently involved in Afghanistan because President Obama was “trying to be cute by half” during the 2008 election.

Join: Email Updates

Governator Puts Cali Workers On Minimum Wage

In a shocking display of common sense and responsibility, Californeeya's Governator Arnold Schwartzenegger has ordered that state workers be put on minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, until the state legislature passes a budget. I haven't been too impressed with much that the Governator's done in office, but this was a good call, in a broken-clock-is-right-twice-a-day kinid of way. Besides, that's where most state workers should be anyway, IMO - I mean, they're civil servants, right?

At any rate, this puts Schwartzenegger in a category of being way more responsible than Obama, who has let the US Congress dally and delay - they've basically just refused to pass one for 2011. What a slimy way to hide the truth from us all. Put another way, Obama and the Washington Dems are so bad, that they make the worst (Republican) Governor in America look great by comparison.

Schwarzenegger orders min wage for state workers

By CATHY BUSSEWITZ, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 2 mins ago

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Thursday ordered about 200,000 state workers to be paid the federal minimum wage this month because the state Legislature has not passed a budget, but the state controller is refusing to comply.

Department of Personnel Administration Director Debbie Endsley sent the order in a letter to the state controller, who refused a similar order two years ago. The matter is tied up in the appellate courts, leading the controller to say he will abide by whatever final ruling emerges, which could be years down the road. He said he can't follow the order now due to technical and legal issues.

Most state employees will be paid the federal minimum of $7.25 per hour for the July pay period.

Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said the change should be reflected in state employees' next paycheck. Workers will be paid in full retroactively once a budget is passed.

"It's a sad day when the boss wants to make his employees collateral damage in a budget dispute," said Patty Velez, an environmental scientist and president of the California Association of Professional Scientists, a union that would be affected by the cuts.

The Republican governor has been frustrated by the Legislature's failure to close California's $19 billion budget deficit, even as the new fiscal year began Thursday.

Schwarzenegger's order does not affect the 37,000 workers, including California Highway Patrol officers, who are in unions that recently negotiated new contracts with the administration. Those contracts included pay cuts and pension reforms that will save the state money.

Asked whether the governor was sending a message to the unions that have not yet signed new contracts, McLear said no.

"We're sending a message to the controller to follow the law," he said.

Schwarzenegger made a similar order two years ago, but it never took affect because state Controller John Chiang refused to comply. The courts later sided with Schwarzenegger, but the matter is on appeal.

"It's inevitable that this is going to end up being ruled against the controller," McLear said.

Chiang, a Democrat, is an elected statewide officer. His deputy press secretary, Jacob Roper, said Thursday that the controller's office does not intend to follow Schwarzenegger's order, in part because the state's computerized payroll system cannot handle the change.

"This is uncharted waters here," Roper said. "No city, county or state has ever taken this action before."

In a statement, Chiang said it was not possible with the state's current technology to pay some employees their full salaries and others minimum wage. He also said his office and the governor's have been working on a system upgrade, but it will not be ready until October 2012.

Schwarzenegger's order, if implemented, could cost the state billions of dollars because the action would violate employment law, Roper said. He cited the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, which he says entitles a worker to "double damages" if an employer cuts pay to minimum wage.

Salaried managers who are not paid on an hourly basis would see their pay cut to $455 per week.

Some of the state's roughly 250,000 employees would be exempt, including doctors and attorneys, because minimum wage laws do not apply to those professions. Under the order, they would not get paid at all until a budget deal is struck, said Lynelle Jolley, spokeswoman for the Department of Personnel Administration.

"This all goes away if the Legislature passes a budget this month," she said.

Service Employees International Union 1000, the state's largest employee union, declined to comment because union lawyers are still reviewing the matter. The union, which represents about 95,000 state workers, joined Chiang in the legal challenge two years ago.

SEIU 1000 employees generally earn more than federal minimum wage, in part because California's state minimum wage of $8 an hour is higher.

Join: Email Updates

There's a Depression on the Way, but Don't Expect Obama to Take Responsibility

You probably already know that a whole slew of miserable economic numbers has been pelting the markets this week, and the handwriting's on the wall - we're headed for even worse economic times, but Obama's got a plan to deal with it. No, no... not a plan for the economy. Obama has a plan to avoid responsibility for the mess he's created. And odds are it'll work just fine with his target audience, who aren't known for their critical thinking.

The unemployment numbers are not going down, despite increases in government hiring, because the government doesn't do most of the hiring in America (although I suspect Obama's doing his best to change that). Private employers just aren't hiring, and the housing market's never been worse, in terms of new homes being bought each month. Both of these trends are indicative of a pessimistic outlook by two key groups - people who create jobs (business owners), and people who have jobs (home buyers).

Up to this point, the Obama/mainstream media position has been that, aside from those two demographics- the people who create jobs and the people who have them- things are going along just fine. In fact, as Nancy Pelosi somewhat mindlessly reminded us today, a whole lot of good has been done with unemployment checks out there helping our economy recover. But that's about to change big time. The numbers are getting too bad to deny, so Plan A is being unveiled.

Just like you can often hear flatulence before you smell a fart, so also is Paul Krugman like an eerie harbinger of bad smells to come. In his most recent article this week for the NY Times, Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who should know better, but still acts as waterboy for Obama's economic policies, tells us we're on our way to another depression- but not for the reasons you think.

A year after championing Obama's stimulus package and profligate spending as a "jobless recovery," and a "postmodern recovery," he's now come to the same conclusion as those of us non-Nobel Prize winners, whose grasp of economic issues is largely constrained by common sense, but he sure got there a different way. You see, the economic malaise isn't Obama's fault. It's ours.... because we didn't let him spend enough. See, to Krugman, it's not our blind faith in Obama that got us in this mess - it's our unwillingness to close our eyes and let him and the Democrats go hog-wild that's causing the double-dip. Reminds me of what Margaret Thatcher once said... something about how eventually socialists run out of other people's money to spend.

The Third Depression

by Paul Krugman (who's smarter than us all)

Recessions are common; depressions are rare. As far as I can tell, there were only two eras in economic history that were widely described as “depressions” at the time: the years of deflation and instability that followed the Panic of 1873 and the years of mass unemployment that followed the financial crisis of 1929-31.

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Paul Krugman

Go to Columnist Page »

Blog: The Conscience of a Liberal

Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

• Read All Comments (805) »

Neither the Long Depression of the 19th century nor the Great Depression of the 20th was an era of nonstop decline — on the contrary, both included periods when the economy grew. But these episodes of improvement were never enough to undo the damage from the initial slump, and were followed by relapses.

We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression. It will probably look more like the Long Depression than the much more severe Great Depression. But the cost — to the world economy and, above all, to the millions of lives blighted by the absence of jobs — will nonetheless be immense.

And this third depression will be primarily a failure of policy. Around the world — most recently at last weekend’s deeply discouraging G-20 meeting — governments are obsessing about inflation when the real threat is deflation, preaching the need for belt-tightening when the real problem is inadequate spending.

In 2008 and 2009, it seemed as if we might have learned from history. Unlike their predecessors, who raised interest rates in the face of financial crisis, the current leaders of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank slashed rates and moved to support credit markets. Unlike governments of the past, which tried to balance budgets in the face of a plunging economy, today’s governments allowed deficits to rise. And better policies helped the world avoid complete collapse: the recession brought on by the financial crisis arguably ended last summer.

But future historians will tell us that this wasn’t the end of the third depression, just as the business upturn that began in 1933 wasn’t the end of the Great Depression. After all, unemployment — especially long-term unemployment — remains at levels that would have been considered catastrophic not long ago, and shows no sign of coming down rapidly. And both the United States and Europe are well on their way toward Japan-style deflationary traps.

In the face of this grim picture, you might have expected policy makers to realize that they haven’t yet done enough to promote recovery. But no: over the last few months there has been a stunning resurgence of hard-money and balanced-budget orthodoxy.

As far as rhetoric is concerned, the revival of the old-time religion is most evident in Europe, where officials seem to be getting their talking points from the collected speeches of Herbert Hoover, up to and including the claim that raising taxes and cutting spending will actually expand the economy, by improving business confidence. As a practical matter, however, America isn’t doing much better. The Fed seems aware of the deflationary risks — but what it proposes to do about these risks is, well, nothing. The Obama administration understands the dangers of premature fiscal austerity — but because Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress won’t authorize additional aid to state governments, that austerity is coming anyway, in the form of budget cuts at the state and local levels.

Why the wrong turn in policy? The hard-liners often invoke the troubles facing Greece and other nations around the edges of Europe to justify their actions. And it’s true that bond investors have turned on governments with intractable deficits. But there is no evidence that short-run fiscal austerity in the face of a depressed economy reassures investors. On the contrary: Greece has agreed to harsh austerity, only to find its risk spreads growing ever wider; Ireland has imposed savage cuts in public spending, only to be treated by the markets as a worse risk than Spain, which has been far more reluctant to take the hard-liners’ medicine.

It’s almost as if the financial markets understand what policy makers seemingly don’t: that while long-term fiscal responsibility is important, slashing spending in the midst of a depression, which deepens that depression and paves the way for deflation, is actually self-defeating.

So I don’t think this is really about Greece, or indeed about any realistic appreciation of the tradeoffs between deficits and jobs. It is, instead, the victory of an orthodoxy that has little to do with rational analysis, whose main tenet is that imposing suffering on other people is how you show leadership in tough times.

And who will pay the price for this triumph of orthodoxy? The answer is, tens of millions of unemployed workers, many of whom will go jobless for years, and some of whom will never work again.

Join: Email Updates

UN Set to Reveal New Age "Messiah"?

If you check in regularly with the Drudge Report, you probably remember the mysterious light spiral over Norway last year, and the multitude of explanations offered for it (I think we were finally told that it was a Russian missile experiment gone awry). Now there's a new light spiral in Australia, that isn't getting so much attention - and there aren't any Russian missile tests anywhere near there. So what gives?

A quick visit to the website of Share International, a creepy, occultist, messianic New Age group headed by Benjamin Creme, says these light spirals in the sky are a sign that the New Age Messiah is about to reveal himself to the world. It's easy to dismiss these people as kooks, but even more disturbing, at least to me, is that the New Agey, occultist kooks at Share International are funded by the United Nations, and that they were predicting these new, mysterious "stars" back in 2008.

So at the very least, we know over on 1st Avenue the United Nations is expecting some kind of a global event to precipitate the "emergence" of their leader, and there's no shortage of current and imminent threats that could provide exactly that.... the oil spill in the gulf, Iranian nukes and Israel's self-defense, currency crashes and market instability. Will any of this result in a global theocracy headed by some supernatural New Age Messiah? My crystal ball's in the shop, but I sure think these wackos are worth keeping an eye on, and we'll be doing that here at ECR. In the meantime, I've excerpted and linked a few videos and stories that you may find... interesting.

One world, one people, one leader.... sound familiar?

Spiral Light Over Norway - the 'Star' That Heralds Maitreya's Emergence

LONDON, December 11 /PRNewswire/ --

- With Photo

An enormous, spiral light with a glowing centre, seen over Norway on 9 December 2009, has excited and baffled thousands of Norwegians, including astronomical experts. What does it mean?

On 12 December 2008 Share International Foundation announced that a large, bright 'star'-like object would soon be seen in the sky. They believe it to be a sign heralding the imminent appearance of Maitreya, the World Teacher, on his first television interview, which will take place in the USA.

Share International Foundation believes that the 'star' is really one of four enormous spacecraft placed around the world. SinceDecember 2008 hundreds of sightings of the 'star' have been reported on YouTube, television news programmes and Share International magazine has received hundreds of photographs showing the 'star' in a variety of stunning colours and shapes.

The huge spiral manifestation over Norway is an extension of the work of these spacecraft and is irrefutable evidence of their reality, believes Share International. Our information is that further and different manifestations are planned.

For more information, watch 'The star sign' video on YouTube and visit Share International website: http://www.share-international.org

Background information

For over 30 years artist, author and lecturer Benjamin Creme has been preparing the way for what he believes will be the biggest event in history - the emergence of Maitreya the World Teacher, and His group, the Masters of Wisdom. Millions of people have heard his information and wait expectantly for this momentous event.

Share International claims that since 19 July 1977 Maitreya has been living in the Asian community of London, gradually emerging before the public. Long-awaited by all faiths under different names, Maitreya is the World Teacher for all people, religious or not.

He has not come to found a new religion but as an educator in the broadest sense. His message can be summarized as: "Share and save the world."

For those who seek signs of His coming, Maitreya has manifested miracles worldwide, touching the hearts of millions and preparing them for His imminent appearance.

With Maitreya and His group working openly in the world, offering Their guidance and teachings, humanity is assured not only of survival but of the creation of a brilliant new civilization.

Join: Email Updates