All posts by Chuck Norton

I write about politics, education, economics, morality and philosophy.

Obama Advisor and GE CEO Jeff Immelt’s Agenda: “Big Government and Big Business”

This is neo-corporatist corruption in its Chicago style glory.

GE, which owned NBC and MSNBC, benefited with its relationship with the Democratic Leadership. GE has also had other ethical problems which are pointed out in the video. Of course noth NBC and MSNBC abandoned serious news reporting long ago and chose a path of highly biased and unfair reporting on one side, to nightly lies and character assassination on the other.

This leads us to another opportunity to remind you all of Norton’s First Law:

Big business loves big government, which is why big business loves domestic taxes and regulation because it keeps the small and medium sized competition out of the competition. It also causes inflation, so ultimately it is you who pays and the poor who are hardest hit. (Big business often gets loopholes written in the laws for themselves such as Nancy Pelosi trying to get a part of the tuna industry exempted from the minimum wage law).

Cong. Debbie Schultz: We need to continue to deficit spend like crazy so we can compete with China….

This is the new spin, same as the old spin: if we don’t spend like mad and continue to grow government and debt we wont be competitive…

The left puts Cong. Schultz out there because she has a cute and innocent smile and seems harmless so hopefully those big bad Republican meanies won’t blast her outrageous dishonesty and risk looking bad on TV. Do not be fooled. Schultz uses Alinsky style propaganda techniques and lies with the best of them. I have seen her roll out a dozen half-truths in a 15 second statement. You know how the old saying goes that you know a politician is lying because his lips are moving; Debbie Schultz is the poster child of that stereotype. In the video she repeats the lie that repealing ObamaCare will increase the deficit when Obama’s own Medicare Actuary numbers show the opposite. As a last resort she pulls out the “Children with cancer card”. Gimme a break…

By all means Debbie, burden us with outrageous levels of deficit spending which is now 10 times higher than what it was in 2007 because it has to be done for the children. Have you had enough of this nonsense already?

“Forget moral or ethical considerations… The end is what you want, the means is how you get it” – Saul Alinsky

What keeps us from being competitive is the highest corporate tax in the industrialized world (Japan and Canada just cut theirs). What keeps us from being competitive is that a full third of every dollar the government takes in goes to just paying the interest on the debt. What keeps us from being competitive is that our private sector is burdened with supporting a government that costs $4 trillion a year. What keeps us from being competitive is unions that over reach, public sector unions that not only over reach, but have stopped the needed reforms in public education. What keeps us from being competitive is a mountain of regulations, tax laws that no one can follow, taxes on everything that nickel and dime us, fear of bureaucrats that behave arbitrarily and all of the uncertainly these problems have caused.

Flashback: Analysis of Herman Cain vs. Bill Clinton on HillaryCare

Notice how Clinton says that it will work because it means that everyone in the business will have to raise their prices the same so it all works out; no it doesn’t. Clinton is engaging in a false assumption that destroys smaller competition and benefits the biggest players in a market.

Cain is explaining that “big pizza” has a higher base percentage of profit, based on both volume and on economies of scale, that gives them lower costs and higher aggregate profitability compared to smaller competitors. While Godfathers has a profitability of 1.5%, “big pizza” has a profitability that is likely close to 6%.

So what does this mean? If Clinton gets his way “big pizza” will not raise their prices at all, on the contrary they will have a sale and keep that sale on till smaller outfits like GodFathers who are forced to raise prices and reduce service via layoffs can’t compete and shut down. At first the barely profitable stores close, then the better ones. The result is more and more markets where “big pizza” progresses its virtual monopoly in each market. With that competition taken out of the picture “big pizza” can charge whatever it likes and prices go up, and the pressure to keep quality up starts to evaporate.

This is why companies like Philip Morris lobbied Democrats to have tobacco taxes and regulations increased.

This brings us to Norton’s First Law:

Big business loves big government, which is why big business loves domestic taxes and regulation because it keeps the small and medium-sized competition out of the competition. It also causes inflation, so ultimately it is you who pays and the poor who are hardest hit. (Big business often gets loopholes written in the laws for themselves such as Nancy Pelosi trying to get a part of the tuna industry exempted from the minimum wage law).

Baltimore Passes Soda Tax, Pepsi Closes Plant in Baltimore

Baltimore Sun:

The Pepsi plant in Baltimore will no longer make soda, and the company plans to lay off 77 people as officials have decided to stop manufacturing operations — a decision they blame in part on a controversial new beverage tax in the city.

The last cans and 2-liter bottles of Pepsi-Cola, Diet Pepsi, Mountain Dew and other sodas ran through the production line Monday morning. Executives at Pepsi Beverages Co. told workers in meetings later in the day that production would be halted for good. Pepsi officials said they would work out details regarding the layoffs, including potential severance, with the local Teamsters union.

Kristine Hinck, a company spokeswoman, said, “Given the climate, making a beverage in a city where there is a beverage tax certainly doesn’t help.” – Ya think?

You would have thought that Maryland would have learned its lesson after the state lost massive revenue after it imposed its now infamous “millionaire’s tax”.

I am going to go buy a case of Diet Pepsi today.

PBS’ Tavis Smiley Tells Ayaan Hirsi Ali that Christians in America Blow Up People Every Day…

Ayaan Hirsi Ali lives under a death mark. She needs security 24/7 and likely will for the rest of her life. She made a film with Theo van Gogh about the status of women is Islamic countries. Van Gogh was murdered in broad daylight by a militant Islamist. The knife driven through his chest had a note addressed to Ali essentially saying that she was next. Radicalized Muslim communities that function as a state within a state are popping up around Europe and the Western European governments do not have the will to stand up to it.

Ali escaped a life of forced marriage and virtual slavery from her Islamic family. She escaped, got educated, and became a Member of the Dutch Parliament. When it became clear that her security needs could not be met she came to the United States.

She writes about her experiences and how the West should stand up to preserve our freedom and our culture. Reflexively the progressive secular left in the elite media, which has been taught in American Universities that Western Culture is “the oppressor” and that Christianity is evil, often attacks her and throws the most outrageous false premises at her in an effort to embarrass her. They end up just embarrassing themselves. Watch the following exchange between PBS  Tavis Smiley and Ali.

[gigya src=”http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=XdqGZu2Guz” width=”518″ height=”419″ quality=”high” wmode=”transparent” allowFullScreen=”true” ]

How can anyone be this deranged and foolish? I saw this level of idiocy frequently among the campus left. Smiley and his close fron Cornell Belcher ‘West’ are icons among far left academics. From 2008-2010 162 Muslims have been arrested in the United States for plotting against America. How many Christians have been? It happens every day according to Smiley so how about he produce just 50? Anyone care to take that challenge?

With that said, Smiley’s outrageous statements can be debunked by anyone with  access to an internet search engine. Post offices are not blown up every day. In fact, using Google to search only two threats of blowing up post offices in the US appear; one from a homeless man who wanted money and another from a man who was likely  mentally disturbed as he false reported about an alleged bomb threat to a post office.

No one was called the N word in front of the Capitol Building. The event was being recorded from many angles by a sea of new media recording devices that captured every moment of the event which demonstrated that nothing of the kind happened. A $100,000 reward for evidence of it happening was offered by Andrew Breitbart with no takers. Of the two Democrat politicians who made the false claim, one back-pedaled and the other is the same politician who compared John McCain to Democrat Governor George Wallace  in October 2008.

The only  known acts of violence at Tea Party events have been carried out by far left extremists and paid union thugs who showed up to physically attack the participants. All of this has been reported in detail on this site (see the violence category on my old college blog as I have every incident detailed with evidence).

So what do you think? Is Smiley mentally challenged, delusional, as ignorant as the day is long, or just a liar? In any case he has won the coveted title of “Pinhead of the Year”.

“It’s always the same with these bogus equivalences: They start by pretending loftily to find no difference between aggressor and victim, and they end up by saying that it’s the victim of violence who is ‘really’ inciting it” Christopher Hitchens writing about how the elite media, in its reflexive defense of Islamic extremism, uses the most outrageously bogus moral equivalences to try to discredit Ayann Hirsi Ali.

Related:

Liberal Talker Alan Colmes: Muslims aren’t the terror problem, white males are…..

Teachers union boss takes in $428,000, then demands ‘shared’ sacrifice

You just gotta love public sector unions. To hear them talk one might think they are all underpaid victims, like missionaries working in the third world…. so sad…./sniff.

The truth is that public sector unions are usually paid more then there private sector counterparts. They also get Cadillac level benefits that they pay little or nothing for and get pensions that are so fat that states have no idea how they can possibly pay them. So far what are the results, snow that doesn’t get cleared in New York, a federal government that spent $2.08 trillion more than it took in and we have little to show for it, and public schools that range from sub-par to unsafe failures. [Even the best American public schoolers do not measure well against other top 30 industrialized nations. So if you think “our public schools are really good” you are deluding yourself – Editor]

Washington Examiner:

American Federation of Teachers president Rhonda “Randi” Weingarten has issued a statement slamming proposed cuts from the congressional deficit commission for not pushing shared sacrifice among the wealthy, but an AFT spokesman has told The Examiner that Weingarten will not be taking a paycut from the total $428,284 she received in salary and benefits during fiscal year 2010.

Weingarten wrote of the proposed budget cuts from the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform:

While we’re grateful the commission’s chairmen understood the need to hold education investment sacrosanct, count on a vigorous fight from us over proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare that would hurt an already-ailing middle class. Shared sacrifice means holding millionaires responsible for their fair share of taxes and ending truly wasteful spending, not sawing off essential lifelines for the middle class, who desperately are trying to keep their heads above water in these precarious economic times. We can help solve the financial future of Social Security and Medicare by investing in putting our people back to work, so they can pay into these programs. Nothing is more important to the future solvency of the country.

Filings from the Department of Labor reveal that the American Federation of Teachers has disbursed $428,284 to Weingarten. Her gross salary is $342,552, but benefits and other disbursements raise that number to almost half a million dollars. She also earned a six-figure salary when she was president of Local 2 in 2009, during which she received $202,319. Neither of these sums, by the way, include her expenses.

*Click to Enlarge

When The Examiner called the AFT to ask whether Weingarten was planning on taking a paycut to demonstrate her belief in shared sacrifice, the spokesman said no. “No, absolutely not. She works 24/7 on behalf of union members and the people we serve. Making sure that people get a great education in public schools in America. She works to the bottom of her soul. You can’t put a price tag on that.”

I joked that, well, there is a price tag on that, and it’s apparently $428,284, but got no response.

The spokesman also asked whether The Examiner was equally critical of Goldman Sachs “who has received taxpayer dollars” (we have been), though it’s a bit odd that a spokesman for a teachers union that lobbies to funnel more taxpayer dollars toward its members would be so critical of Goldman Sachs for taking taxpayer dollars.

The lesson from the teachers union is clear: Shared sacrifice for thee and not for me.

 

Lesson for Journalism Students: Leftist Media Attack Fox News for Memo Reminding Reporters to Always be Skeptical

There are two predominant philosophies of journalism taught in this country. The “Walter Lippmann (so called) ‘objective’ model” and what one of  my J-School profs called the “Looking out for the folks” model. The former is usually presented as the preferred model at most universities (especially the Ivy’s)

The Lippmann Objective Model is anything but objective. The Lippmann model says that journalists should associate themselves with an elite technical class of people so that these experts via/with the journalists can give the “proper” information to the public so that they can “vote the right way”.

At first, the Orwellian nature of the Lippmann Model  is not so pointedly explained, but as time goes on reporters get it and the coverage of the elite media shows it. [If you doubt me I challenge you to follow this LINK and scroll down to the quote from Dr. Rahe and the excerpt from Lippmann’s book – Editor]

For example, the reporter and/or editor has a point of view he wishes to present. So he opens his rolodex and contacts an “expert” he knows will give him the sound-bite he wants and presents him as just an objective expert who they found at random. Or said reporter will have a man on the street section, but the reporter will call a few people he knows to be on that street, complete with the narrative that the reporter knows will present.

Oh? You think I’m kidding? OK just a few examples:

CNN Debates: Unbiased and Undecided Voters Turn Out to be Democrat Operatives (most of whom had appeared on CNN before)

Of course this is a trick commonly used by PR operatives:

Washington Post: Obama Town Hall Questioners Were Campaign Ringers

Obama’s Photo Op with Cheering Troops Staged

BUSTED: Democrats putting campaign ringers in town halls falsely claiming to be doctors!

Of course the Associated Press knows this goes on, but only appreciates it when leftists do it:

AP praises Obama for using military for public relations. FLASHBACK: AP condemned Bush accusing him of using the military for public relations.

The “looking out for the folks” model is often quoted by Bill O’Reilly, but Bill, as he will tell you, is more of a commentator than a straight news man. The spirit of the kind of journalism O’Reilly did when he was a straight news man is closer to this model. The “looking out for the folks” model certainly resembles more of the ethical ideal in what people expect from journalism and is what “Lippmann Objective Model” media outlets claim to be to their consumers, but not to each other. 

Enough with the preliminary goodies and on to the meat.

Washington Examiner:

Oh the horror! Fox bureau chief told reporters to be ‘skeptical’

By Mark Tapscott

You think the most essential purpose of journalism and the reason the Founders included freedom of the press in the First Amendment was to insure independent reporting about government, politicians, and public policy issues, right?

Well, you must be wrong because Fox News Washington Bureau Chief Bill Sammon is getting a raft of garbage from liberal activists masquerading as journalists at Media Matters, some liberal bloggers and a scattering of real journalists who ought to know better.

Why? Politico’s headline captures the controversy perfectly: “Fox editor urged climate skepticism.”

A journalist being skeptical? Who would ever have thought such a thing could be. I don’t know, maybe anybody who has heard this (attributed long ago to a crusty desk editor at the illustrious City News Bureau in Chicago): “If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out.”

In other words, we journalists are paid to BE SKEPTICAL.

For the record, here’s what Sammon said in a Dec. 8, 2009, memo to his reporting staff shortly after the Climategate global warming email scandal erupted:

“Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data, we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.”

Now I am from out of town and all, but Sammon’s injuction sounds to me exactly like what editors are supposed to tell their charges – report what A claims and what B says about what A claims, but keep your personal views about both A and B out of it.

Note that Sammon includes both those who say the planet has warmed – i.e. global warming advocates – and those who claim the opposite, that the planet has cooled – global warming critics. How much more even-handed – dare I say it, fair and balanced? – can the guy be?

There is also the factual nature of Sammon’s statement that critics question data. Critics DO question the data for a warming planet. He doesn’t demand that his reporters agree with the critics about the data or tell viewers that the critics are right and the global warming advocates are wrong.

Yet, Salon’s headline claims the Fox news executive was “again caught demanding conservative spin.” And the lead that follows makes another false statement, claiming Sammon directed his “anchors and reporters to adopt right-wing spin when discussing the news.”

Are these people so arrogant as to think the rest of us are too stupid to see that Salon totally and completely misrepresented Sammon’s comment?

The back story here, of course, is that Media Matters is doing exactly what billionaire radical liberal financier George Soros paid it $1 million to do, which is to trash Fox News at every opportunity no matter what the facts might be in any given situation.

Watching this campaign unfold, it becomes clear that Fox News drives today’s extremist liberals into the same sort of eye-bulging, irrational, spittle-flying, blind rage that we saw back in the 1950s from the far right whack-jobs in the John Birch Society who claimed Ike was either a fool or a card-carrying commie.

Now, just so everybody reading this knows: Sammon is a former White House reporter for The Examiner. I count him as a friend, a respected colleague and a solid journalist. And Fox News puts me in front of a camera as a talking head once in a while.

So how long you think it will be before Sammon’s critics claim my comments here aren’t credible as a result? The reality is that the left-leaning MSNBC folks sit me down in front of their cameras to bloviate far more frequently than Fox does. Go figure.

So here’s something to ponder when the paid Fox detractors at Media Matters tell you Sammon and I are both former Washington Timesmen and are thus Republican mouthpieces:

I was inducted into the First Amendment Center’s Freedom of Information Hall of Fame a few years ago. I mention this not to boast, but because I was among a bunch of very smart people for whom I have great respect – even though they came predominantly from the liberal side of things.

But I don’t recall seeing anybody from Media Matters among the inductees.

President Obama’s jobs bill is a joke and a disaster and here is why

There are many bad sections and power grabs in the Obama “Jobs Bill”. We will be elaborating on them soon, but in general it does six things that will affect most people.

1 – Obama wants to continue the payroll tax rates which shows no evidence of creating a single job. It has a small impact on disposable income but it also further endangers Social Security.

2 – Extend unemployment benefits.

3 – Obama wants almost half a trillion dollars in new deficit spending to pay for more green jobs stimulus money that has not created long-term jobs; much of which was spent on cronies and Solyndra like boondoggles.

At the same time Obama wants to:

1 – Eliminate the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction

2 – Eliminate Charitable Interest Deductions

3 – Eliminate the partial deduction for state and local taxes.

These three changes to our current tax code would be devastating to charities, the housing market and the economy. It would also, interestingly enough, devastate States ran by progressive Democrats as they have the highest state and local taxes. States ran by Republicans would be a much better deal. Obama’s “Jobs Bill” would make Canada an even better deal as their version of the TEA Party is rewriting Canada’s tax code to a pro growth, jobs friendly policy. This is why even most Democrats are not pushing the bill.

Attention conservative laymen: ‘Think’, do not ‘react’.

News outlets are turning the primary into American Idol by trying these tricks to set up conflict, 30 second answers etc. Newt was right to chastise those Fox News reporters for this.

Are the issues of the day worth more than a 30-60 second soundbite?

Some of my conservative friends are being manipulated by the “American Idoling” of the presentation, and that only serves to get Obama re-elected.

You have two choices. Stop “reacting” and start thinking OR you can be played like a Stradivarius by every leftist propagandist who knows how to pluck your conservative heartstrings.

Your heart is in the right place, but in the age of Saul Alinsky that is no longer good enough.

Donald Trump on Economics, China, Trade, Energy, Healthcare, and START.

Now that candidates will be seeking Donald Trump’s endorsement it is good to take a second look at his positions – Editor

While I do not agree with Trump on every issue, he does make some points which should be addressed in the upcoming election.

Free trade is OK as long as the enforcement is not one sided against us as it usually is, and if we don’t have a government that passes so many corrupt regulations that choke the economy and taxes businesses to the point where they flee. Trump is right that we cannot have endless consumption without production. Trump is right that ObamaCare is causing the price of health care to skyrocket.

Trump is right about START. Trump is also right that we should not be defending wealthy countries without them at least contributing to that defense.

Trump needs to understand what happens if you have a war and leave a power vacuum.

Obama Administration implemented policy to have political appointees review all FOIA requests….

So much for transparency…

Those who understand politics and corruption know what this means. This gives political appointees time to destroy documents, colluded to “get stories straight” and time to plan prior restraint and/or retaliation against those trying to gain information. This is the administration that promised unprecedented transparency. … If Bush had done this….

Yahoo News, with some editorial comments in red:

WASHINGTON – A House committee has asked the Homeland Security Department to provide documents about an agency policy that required political appointees to review many Freedom of Information Act requests, according to a letter obtained Sunday by The Associated Press.

The letter to Homeland Security was sent late Friday by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It represents an early move by House Republicans who have vowed to launch numerous probes of President Barack Obama’s administration, ranging from its implementation of the new health care law to rules curbing air pollution to spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Associated Press reported in July that for at least a year, Homeland Security had sidetracked hundreds of requests for federal records to top political advisers to the department’s secretary, Janet Napolitano. The political appointees wanted information about those requesting the materials, and in some cases the release of documents considered politically sensitive was delayed, according to numerous e-mails that were obtained by the AP.

The Freedom of Information Act is supposed to ensure the quick public release of requested government documents without political consideration. Obama has said his administration would emphasize openness in providing requested federal records.

According to Issa’s letter, Homeland Security’s chief privacy officer and FOIA official told committee staff in September that political appointees were simply made aware of “significant and potentially controversial requests.”

Mary Ellen Callahan told them that political appointees reviewed the agency’s FOIA response letters for grammatical and other errors and did not edit or delay their release, the letter states. She also told the committee that Homeland Security abandoned the practice in response to the AP’s article, according to Issa’s letter. [WHAT!!. LOL – Political appointees are not going to have grammar nearly as good as a secretary/PR pro in a federal department. This reasoning is laughable. apparently the practice was not abandoned as the administration indicated – Editor]

On Sunday, Oversight panel spokesman Frederick Hill said Issa sent the letter “because the committee has received documents that raise questions about the veracity of DHS officials” on the matter. He did not elaborate.

Issa asked the agency to provide the documents by Jan. 29.

Homeland Security officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Last summer, officials said fewer than 500 requests were vetted by political officials. The department received about 103,000 requests for information in a recent 12-month period.

The agency’s directive said political appointees wanted to see FOIA requests for “awareness purposes,” regardless of who had filed them. The AP reported that the agency’s career employees were told to provide political appointees with information about who requested documents, where they lived, whether they were reporters and where they worked. [This is disturbing because what we have seen from the NYT, Washington Post, CBS,NBC.ABC,CNN.MSNBC is that in unison, within minutes of the shooting in Arizona these elite media outlets immediately using the same spin blamed Sarah Palin and other conservatives. Several of these same outlets talking heads chastised Sarah Palin for not speaking out, and when they did they in unison said that she was injecting herself into the news. This reminds me of the 2000 election when G.W. Bush picked Dick Cheney for VP the news in unison said that Cheney was picked because he had “gravitas” (implying that Bush had none). Why have a state-run media when the so-called legit media is willing to act as the PR arm of the Democratic leadership? A reporter is looking into something he shouldn’t, so the administration leans on said reporter’s bosses and bye-bye FOIA. – Editor]

According to the directive, political aides were to review requests related to Obama policy priorities, or anything related to controversial or sensitive subjects. Requests from journalists, lawmakers and activist groups were to also to be examined.

Under a new policy last summer, documents are given to agency political advisers three days before they are released, but they can be distributed without those officials’ approval.

Heritage: Anti-Drilling Policies Costing Federal Government Billions in Lost Revenue

Related:

Obama arbitrarily revoking coal mining permits, putting people out of work, raising energy costs.

Gas prices up 55% under Obama

Press Grilled Bush When Gas Hit $3.00 – Nada for Obama… UPDATED!

API: Recent Studies Show Obama Drilling Moratorium Will Cost 50,000 Jobs; 160,000 by 2032.

CPI: Big Polluters Freed from Environmental Oversight by Stimulus (government picking winners and losers)

Little Truth in President’s Oil Spill Comments

SCANDAL – Administration lies about conclusion by expert panel to ban off shore drilling. “We never said that” expert panelists say. Obama still refusing skimmer ships from foreign countries….

Another Lie: Obama now fully reversed on offshore drilling.

Heritage:

Billions of dollars in potential oil revenue that could help close the federal deficit is being lost as a result of President Obama’s anti-drilling agenda.

Production in the Gulf of Mexico — which normally accounts for about 30 percent of all U.S. production — is expected to drop this year by 220,000 barrels per day, according to projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

With oil currently at $90 a barrel and the royalty rate at 18.75 percent, that equals $3.7 million in lost revenue each day.

If the agency projections hold over the course of the year, the federal government would lose more than $1.35 billion from Gulf royalty payments this year.

The number grows even larger when coupled with a lack of Gulf lease sales and fewer rental payments. Those three components — royalties, leases and rent — make up a sizeable amount of government revenue.

The looming shortfall is raising red flags on Capitol Hill. Sen. David Vitter, R-LA, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration’s drilling moratorium and the subsequent slowdown in permitting, first called attention to it in September.

“It’s not only about job loss along the Gulf Coast — the federal government is losing revenue as a result of the administration’s misguided moratorium,” Vitter explained.
“I’ve been attacking the moratorium from multiple angles and will continue to do so until drilling can fully resume.”

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar canceled a Gulf lease sale last October. He postponed another in the central Gulf of Mexico, originally scheduled for March, until 2012. One planned for October 2011 in the western Gulf also could be delayed until 2012. That would make 2011 the first year since 1965 that the federal government has failed to hold a lease sale in the Gulf.

Bonus bids from lease sales averaged about $1 billion in 2009 and 2010, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE).

The lack of lease sales ultimately means the government will collect less in rent payments by lease holders. Offshore rents currently generate more than $200 million per year.

The Gulf revenue decline comes as Obama’s oil spill commission is recommending new fees for oil companies – a scenario that could be avoided if the government removed barriers to exploration and production.

“Over the years, offshore production royalties have provided billions of dollars to the U.S. government,” saidNational Ocean Industries Association President Randall Luthi, former director of the Minerals Management Service, which predated BOEMRE. “Now, at a time when Congress is looking to maximize efficiency without raising taxes, there sits millions of dollars per day uncollected,” he said.

The Obama administration has dismissed the financial impact. The revenue loss would be “negligible,” Rebecca Blank, under secretary for economic affairs at the Department of Commerce, told a Senate committee in the fall.

“It is difficult to speculate now on the specific impact the moratorium would have over the five- or 10-year budget window, but one would expect the impact on the deficit to be negligible,” Blank wrote to the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship in September.

“Revenues may be higher or they may be lower depending on future years’ oil prices and the time profile of production,” Blank said.

Energy experts said the administration’s policies are certain to have long-term consequences for the industry.

“You continually need new discoveries and new production coming online to replace what’s being depleted,” said Andy Radford, senior policy adviser at the American Petroleum Institute. “These wells taper off over time — the ones that are producing now — so without a continual flow of new discoveries and new production, the number will continue to decrease.”

A report from the economic forecasting firm IHS Global Insight estimated that federal, state and local taxes related to the Gulf, combined with royalty payments, totaled $19 billion in 2009.

Royalties, bonus and rent payments made up more than $6 billion of that number. That pot of money could go a long way toward deficit reduction. And that’s from the Gulf alone.

Significant additional revenues would be generated if the federal government opened access to exploration and production in areas currently closed to development such as the eastern Gulf of Mexico, portions of the Rocky Mountains, ANWR, and the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

recent study conducted by Wood Mackenzie for the American Petroleum Institute estimated that increased access to those areas would bring $150 billion into federal coffers by 2025.

Why leave so much money uncollected, especially in a time of rising deficits?

Originally published by the Washington Examiner.

Obama pushed Brazil to drill more, promised aid to Brazilian drilling. Imposes drilling ban at home.

Obama is doing this for three reasons:

1 – Who is a big investor in Brazilian oil? George Soros, who is likely the single largest contributor to far left causes.

2 – Like many leftist academics Obama believes that America’s wealth needs to be redistributed around the world. So as long as we buy foreign energy that is our money leaving the country.

3 – Energy companies usually tend to favor Republicans when it comes to donations. An exception to that is British Petroleum which is 45% the former Amoco.

IBD:

Energy Policy: While leaving U.S. oil and jobs in the ground, our itinerant president tells a South American neighbor that we’ll help it develop its offshore resources so we can one day import its oil. WHAT?!?

With Japan staggered by a natural disaster and a nuclear crisis, cruise missiles launched against Libya in our third Middle East conflict and a majority of U.S. senators complaining about a lack of leadership on the budget, President Obama decided it would be a good time to schmooze with Brazilians.

His “What, me worry?” presidency has given both Americans and our allies plenty to worry about. But in the process of making nice with Brazil, Obama made a mind-boggling announcement that should make even his most loyal supporter cringe:

We will help Brazil develop its offshore oil so we can one day import it.

We have noted this double standard before, particularly when — at a time when the president was railing against tax incentives for U.S. oil companies — we supported the U.S. Export-Import Bank’s plan to lend $2 billion to Brazil’s state-run Petrobras with the promise of more to follow.

Now, with a seven-year offshore drilling ban in effect off of both coasts, on Alaska’s continental shelf and in much of the Gulf of Mexico — and a de facto moratorium covering the rest — Obama tells the Brazilians:

“We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely. And when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.”

Obama wants to develop Brazilian offshore oil to help the Brazilian economy create jobs for Brazilian workers while Americans are left unemployed in the face of skyrocketing energy prices by an administration that despises fossil fuels as a threat to the environment and wants to increase our dependency on foreign oil.

Obama said he chose Brazil to kick off his first-ever visit to South America in recognition of that country’s ascendancy. He has also highlighted one of the reasons for America’s decline — an energy policy that through the creation of an artificial shortage of fossil fuels makes prices “necessarily skyrocket” to foster his green energy agenda.

In an op-ed in USA Today explaining his trip, Obama opined: “Brazil holds recently discovered oil reserves that could be far larger than ours. And as we seek to increase secure-energy supplies, we look forward to developing a strategic energy partnership.”

Related –

US Import-Export Bank gives $2 billion to Brazil to drill for oil.

 

Obama’s illegal offshore drilling moratorium explained. This will infuriate you.

This is an administration that does not act in good faith.

UPDATE I –  Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Confirms: Democrat Energy Policy is To Push For Less Energy and More Deficit Spending.

Democrat energy policy: Less drilling, more deficit spending. Pinheads like Debbie Schultz have said that there would be “no immediate” new oil if we started drilling today is cute, but they have been saying that for 20 years. Now if we started more drilling back then, or even five years ago it would be an entirely different story.  By the way Obama’s illegal drilling ban has already cost many thousands of jobs.

If I start digging a well, it will not immediately result in more water, so lets all have massive thirst. If you start your car, it will not immediately result in you being at work, so lets ban cars and have trains….

Someone is voting for these idiots.

NOTE – If Sarah Palin had uttered the shear nonsense that Schultz puts out on a regular basis it would be the headline almost every other night on the news.

Schultz has been making these kind of orbital statements for a long time. I think it is time for Rush Limbaugh to start giving her a little of what the Democrats need right now:

Solar and Wind receive 20x the govt subsidies of most other energy. China builds coal plants to make wind and solar tech to sell to us.

Solar and Wind are very expensive, harder to transmit, and inconsistent. Solar is so expensive that solar panels plants in the United States are closing and the work is going to China. China builds a coal plant every week.

All of this money going to these subsidies cannot be used for other things. Mandates on electric companies to get more energy from wind and solar are next to impossible to meet so those companies are fined, which forces energy companies to pass those fines to their customers, which helps to send more jobs overseas.

Reason TV asks, if all of these green energy mandates are going to make all of these 21st century jobs, how come in California that has totally backfired. The reasons above explain why and they are reasons that are explained in any first year macroeconomics class.

If you want to see lower energy costs and business to start coming back home there is only one solution. Throw out Democrats en mass. We have trillions in natural gas, oil and other resources that are off limits that we could use to help pay off the national debt and rebuild the economy. We also need a government that costs less than $2 trillion a year instead of the nearly $4 trillion it costs now.

Now Russia, along with Mexico, Spain, Cuba, and China are building oil wells just miles off our shores while Obama keeps Americans out. UPDATE – Steve Forbes: Obama repeating Carter’s mistakes.

Related:

Obama Administration Held in Contempt for Violating Court Order

API: Recent Studies Show Obama Drilling Moratorium Will Cost 50,000 Jobs; 160,000 by 2032.

Heritage: Anti-Drilling Policies Costing Federal Government Billions in Lost Revenue

Had enough yet?

Washington Times:

The Obama administration is poised to ban offshore oil drilling on the outer continental shelf until 2012 or beyond. Meanwhile, Russia is making a bold strategic leap to begin drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. While the United States attempts to shift gears to alternative fuels to battle the purported evils of carbon emissions, Russia will erect oil derricks off the Cuban coast.

Offshore oil production makes economic sense. It creates jobs and helps fulfill America’s vast energy needs. It contributes to the gross domestic product and does not increase the trade deficit. Higher oil supply helps keep a lid on rising prices, and greater American production gives the United States more influence over the global market.

Drilling is also wildly popular with the public. A Pew Research Center poll from February showed 63 percent support for offshore drilling for oil and natural gas. Americans understand the fundamental points: The oil is there, and we need it. If we don’t drill it out, we have to buy it from other countries. Last year, the U.S. government even helped Brazil underwrite offshore drilling in the Tupi oil field near Rio de Janeiro. The current price of oil makes drilling economically feasible, so why not let the private sector go ahead and get our oil?

The Obama administration, however, views energy policy through green eyeshades. Every aspect of its approach to energy is subordinated to radical environmental concerns. This unprecedented lack of balance is placing offshore oil resources off-limits. The O Force would prefer the country shift its energy production to alternative sources, such as nuclear, solar and wind power. In theory, there’s nothing wrong with that, in the long run, assuming technology can catch up to demand. But we have not yet reached the green utopia, we won’t get there anytime soon, and America needs more oil now.

UPDATE Steve Forbes: Obama repeating Carter’s mistakes…

You need to watch only a few minutes of cable news analysis to realize just how ludicrous our national energy policies have become. As escalating tensions and chaos unfold in Egypt, Libya and other Middle Eastern nations, one energy analyst suggested that if Libyan oil supplies were to fail, the United States would rely on Saudi Arabia for its oil needs. If that statement alone doesn’t put U.S. leaders on red alert, the looming national energy crisis may soon become reality.

The Obama administration is repeating the mistakes of President Jimmy Carter’s failed energy policies, which marred his term and stigmatized the 1970s. They are leading us straight into another national energy disaster.

Key members of the Obama administration believe this friction abroad underscores the need to move away from oil and gas entirely and shift to boutique forms of alternative energy. Their lack of political will to drill for oil and gas compromises our national security and jeopardizes economic recovery.

It skirts the colossal elephant in the room: Oil and natural gas produced here in the United States are likely to still account for at least 57 percent of domestic energy consumption by 2035. Not to mention that energy production here can relieve the U.S. from the dangerous grip of foreign petro dictators.

Unfortunately, this administration’s Department of the Interior, with the most anti-oil-and-gas record in U.S. history, is sabotaging any real chance of avoiding the pending energy crisis because of its continued hold on deepwater drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico.

When Interior Secretary Ken Salazar heads before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday, Americans — particularly the 9.2 million directly or indirectly working in the oil and gas industry — would be ill served if the question isn’t asked: Are the thousands, and counting, of out-of-work Americans in the Gulf region and beyond a worthwhile consequence of your department’s freeze?

Flashback: Rand Paul Launches on Busy Body Bureaucrat.

I disagree with Rand Paul on some foreign policy issues, but this day my hat is off to him. It must have felt SO good to tell one of these looters what we all are thinking.

Oh and if you do not know exactly what I mean by a looter please do not make yourself look silly by trying to guess.

My family had to buy one of these new, expensive “super energy saver” washers with no agitator and uses very little water and energy which is being pushed by the government. The washer is a disappointment. I always have to use the extra rinse feature and with heavy clothes I sometimes have to wash them twice.

FLASHBACK: Obama vs. Obama on War Justification

Photo caption via Bob Schneider.

Remember this:

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

Or this:

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

More at Verum Serum.

UPDATE – Human Events has some fun:

UPDATE II –  Mona Charen Blasts Obama’s Hypocrisy

In the Democratic primary campaign of 2008, candidate Barack Obama scored points because he, unlike many Democrats, had opposed the Iraq War from the start. Though a state senator at the time of the 2002 congressional vote authorizing military action, Obama had delivered a speech to an anti-war rally in Chicago.

He said, “I don’t oppose all wars … What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”

Regarding the justifications for war with Iraq, state Sen. Obama was unpersuaded: “I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity … But … Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors …”

As American forces join the war against Moammar Gadhafi, the nation is entitled to an explanation. How is the case for war against Gadhafi smarter (remember, Obama is only against “dumb” wars) or less “ideological” or more prudent than that for war against Saddam Hussein?

Certainly, with an army of only 50,000, Gadhafi represents far less of a threat to his neighbors or to us than did Saddam, who commanded an army estimated at 350,000. As for humanitarian concerns, what Gadhafi is doing to the rebels in Libya is exactly what Saddam did to his domestic enemies, but on a reduced scale. As Obama himself said, Saddam was “a ruthless man … who butchers his own people to secure his power.” Yet that didn’t justify a war, state Sen. Obama told us.

Sen. Obama did not believe that Saddam posed a danger to the United States or to his neighbors — though he had attacked or invaded three of his neighbors: Iran, Kuwait, and Israel. Yet Gadhafi has hardly ranged beyond his own borders.

m

Dallas Federal Reserve Bank Chair: US Approaching Insolvency, Fix To Be ‘Painful’

Democrats called 1.5% cuts “draconian” and that is after tripling deficit spending in 2008 over 2007 levels. The yearly deficit in 2010 level was over and 6.5 times the 2007 level.

CNBC:

The United States is on a fiscal path towards insolvency and policymakers are at a “tipping point,” a Federal Reserve official said on Tuesday.

“If we continue down on the path on which the fiscal authorities put us, we will become insolvent, the question is when,” Dallas Federal Reserve Bank President Richard Fisher said in a question and answer session after delivering a speech at the University of Frankfurt. “The short-term negotiations are very important, I look at this as a tipping point.”

Leftist conference of unions, students, legislators and leftist community groups: How we will disrupt capital and create economic uncertainty. How we can create a new financial crisis, bring down the stock market….

Editor’s Note – This was a post from just a few months ago and is a little reminder that the “Occupy” protest going on in New York right now was planned in a galaxy not so far away by the same usual suspects.

UPDATE – ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Organizer Is Marketing Analyst Whose LinkedIn Lists Work For Investment Bankers – LINK

Occupy Wall Street ‘Stands In Solidarity’ With Obama Front Group Funded by the Wealthy Financiers and Bankers They are Protesting – LINK

[Editor’s Note – and if these partially misguided protesters get their way the Democrats will pass a tax increase law that will not benefit the students, it will benefit the super rich because, as is the case with all of these “soak the rich” efforts, they either chase wealth out of the country and/or exceptions for those who are politically connected get included in the tax code and it will not be the GE’s and Google’s who pay, it will be the small and medium-sized competition who will get soaked.]

Steve Lerner SEIU

UPDATE Steven Lerner, the man in the video overtly plotting a new economic crisis, has visited the White House four times as well as the Treasury Department.

Watch this video:

Longer tape of this conversation:

Transcript and full article at Business Insider:

CAUGHT ON TAPE: Former SEIU Official Reveals Secret Plan To Destroy JP Morgan, Crash The Stock Market, And Redistribute Wealth In America

A former official of one of the country’s most-powerful unions, SEIU, has a secret plan to “destabilize” the country.

The plan is designed to destroy JP Morgan, nuke the stock market, and weaken Wall Street’s grip on power, thus creating the conditions necessary for a redistribution of wealth and a change in government.

The former SEIU official, Stephen Lerner, spoke in a closed session at a Pace University forum last weekend.

UPDATE I – Glenn Beck: This is a clear case of economic terrorism – LINK.

UPDATE II – SEIU sued under RICO statute (Via The Blaze):

Cockroaches, bugs, mold, and flies. These are just some of the props and rumors allegedly employed by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) against the American unit of French catering company Sodexo. And the company’s had enough.

Fed up with tactics that include intimidation, extortion, and yes, sabotage that apparently includes plastic cockroaches, Sodexo filed a lawsuit against the SEIU last week under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

“We work constructively with unions every day but the SEIU has crossed the line by breaking the law,” Robert Stern, general counsel for Sodexo USA, said in a statement. “We will not tolerate the SEIU’s tactics any longer.”

SEIU has been fighting to represent 80,000 hourly Sodexo employees, which is above and beyond the 180,000 hourly employees who are already union members. The union regularly stages protests against the company to make its point, like this one last fall on the campus of George Mason University. The video alleges SEIU bused in protesters, who can be heard chanting, among other things, “As long as it takes, whatever it takes, we’ll be in your face!”

Sodexo’s complaint, filed in federal court in Alexandria, VA, alleges acts of SEIU blackmail, vandalism, trespass, harassment, and lobbying law violations designed to steer business away from, and harm, the company.

And just what exactly might those acts look like? Sodexo gives the details:

The complaint alleges that the SEIU, in face to face meetings, threatened Sodexo USA’s executives that it would harm Sodexo USA’s business unless they gave in to the union, and then carried out its threats through egregious behavior, including:

  • throwing plastic roaches onto food being served by Sodexo USA at a high profile event;
  • scaring hospital patients by insinuating that Sodexo USA food contained bugs, rat droppings, mold and flies;
  • lying to interfere with Sodexo USA business and sneaking into elementary schools to avoid security;
  • violating lobbying laws to steer business away from Sodexo USA, even at the risk of costing Sodexo USA employees their jobs; and
  • harassing Sodexo USA employees by threatening to accuse them of wrongdoing.

The complaint, filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia, seeks an injunction against the SEIU and its locals and executives, as well as monetary damages to be determined by the court.

UPDATE III – Member of Congress to Attorney General Eric Holder – LINK.

A brush with the irrational.

From time to time we all run into someone with the “union” mentality; meaning that someone believes the conspiracy theories put out by the neo-Marxist union leadership in their news letters. Rarely do I run into someone, even a union member, who truly believes those conspiracy theories and takes them to heart with near total abandon.

Recently I ran into such a person who went on an emotional tirade almost yelling that “All Republicans oppose Obama because they are racist and I don’t care what anybody has to say or show me I have seen it too many times” (obviously from all of the other times in our history when we had Saul Alinsky inspired black presidents) . I was a bit astonished by this because rarely will someone just up and declare that he has a “don’t confuse me with the facts” attitude and be proud of it. At that point I realized that any rational discussion with this person was futile and I let them complete their rant, said “take care now” and left.

Aside from getting such a person to agree to a strictly formal Lincoln-Douglass structured conversation any attempt at rationality with said person is hopeless.

I could have said a few things such as:

Oh I see the Republicans (not to mention almost all independents) opposed ObamaCare for the same reason they opposed HillaryCare, because Hillary is black.

Or:

If only Joe Biden would have been the one proposing “BidenCare”, cap & trade energy taxes, tanking our domestic oil and coal production to drive up energy prices, an EPA that is out of control, abuses of power with ‘Chicago Style’ financing and kick backs with Obama’s other chosen energy buddies (like Solyndra) every Republican and Independent would have supported it overwhelmingly…. or not.

Or:

All of those who voted for Obama in 2008 and have turned against his policies now and or voted for the GOP in 2010 are somehow ‘racists after the fact’. And all of those Jewish Americans who voted for Obama in 2008 only to vote against his candidate in the recent New York special House election, as a protest vote against Obama, weren’t racist then, but they are today.

Or:

For a racist my family which includes Jews, Blacks, and Asians, finds me to be as warm and accepting as anyone (so do my homosexual friends. I supported GoProud at CPAC).

Of course such inconvenient facts would have just enraged the man even further beyond his current hostility. There will always be people who are totally demoralized by conspiracy theories, envy, class warfare emotionalism, etc. Any rational discussion with such a person is futile. It is best to just let them rant because most normal people are easily smart enough to see it for what it is.

If Herman Cain becomes president (who I would be thrilled to vote for over Obama) perhaps my default response to anyone who has even the slightest critique about President Cain will be a reactionary charge of racism. Herman Cain (who by the way is a Black American with “slave blood” as they say) just won the Southern CPAC Straw Poll in Florida which is the second largest conservative event in the country.

More truth than the demoralized can handle – LINK.

Proof the ATF & White House Intended to Send American Guns to Drug Lords in Mexico – UPDATED

UPDATE – Los Angeles Times: Sr. Justice officials knew of ATF gun-running op. Emails...

CBS News Online: ATF Fast and Furious: New documents show Attorney General Eric Holder was briefed in July 2010 – LINK

ABC News Online: Fast and Furious: GOP Says Eric Holder is ‘Either Incompetent’ or ‘Misleading Congress’ – LINK

Fox News: House Republicans Request Special Counsel to Probe Holder on ‘Fast and Furious’ – LINK

Weekly Standard: CBS News Reporter Says White House Screamed, Swore at Her Over Fast and Furious – LINK

Investors Business Daily: Cash for Cartels – LINK – See more below.

CBS News Silences Fast and Furious ReporterLINK

Arizona Sheriffs Association: Attorney General Holder Lied Under Oath. Special Prosecutor Needed – LINK

Video: Allen West asks for Eric Holder’s resignation – LINK

Obama: We’re working on gun control “under the radar” – LINK

***** Original Story*****

Bill Newell, the former Special Agent in Charge of the ATF’s Phoenix Field Office has said over and over again under oath, that at no point didn’t ATF allow guns to be trafficked into Mexico.

July 26, 2011:

“At no time in our strategy was it to allow guns to be taken to Mexico,” Newell said, adding at no time did his agency allow guns to walk.

This map along with the other documents released today prove otherwise and now over 200 people are dead as a result. Remember this was all an effort to create an excuse to pass more sweeping gun control laws. Any administration capable of this is capable of anything.

Via CBS News:

WASHINGTON – Late Friday, the White House turned over new documents in the Congressional investigation into the ATF “Fast and Furious” gunwalking scandal.

The documents show extensive communications between then-ATF Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix office Bill Newell – who led Fast and Furious – and then-White House National Security Staffer Kevin O’Reilly. Emails indicate the two also spoke on the phone. Such detailed, direct communications between a local ATF manager in Phoenix and a White House national security staffer has raised interest among Congressional investigators looking into Fast and Furious. Newell has said he and O’Reilly are long time friends.

Newly-released White House documents (pdf)

ATF agents say that in Fast and Furious, their agency allowed thousands of assault rifles and other weapons to be sold to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels. At least two of the guns turned up at the murder scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry last December.

ATF Manager says he shared Fast and Furious with the White House

The email exchanges span a little over a month last summer. They discuss ATF’s gun trafficking efforts along the border including the controversial Fast and Furious case, though not by name. The emails to and from O’Reilly indicate more than just a passing interest in the Phoenix office’s gun trafficking cases. They do not mention specific tactics such as “letting guns walk.”

A lawyer for the White House wrote Congressional investigators: “none of the communications between ATF and the White House revealed the investigative law enforcement tactics at issue in your inquiry, let alone any decision to allow guns to ‘walk.'”

ATF Fast and Furious: Who at the White House knew?

Among the documents produced: an email in which ATF’s Newell sent the White House’s O’Reilly an “arrow chart reflecting the ultimate destination of firearms we intercepted and/or where the guns ended up.” The chart shows arrows leading from Arizona to destinations all over Mexico.

Newell email (09.03.10) (pdf)

Arizona Gunrunner Impact Team chart (pdf)

In response, O’Reilly wrote on Sept. 3, 2010 “The arrow chart is really interesting – and – no surprise – implies at least that different (Drug Trafficking Organizations) in Mexico have very different and geographically distinct networks in the US for acquiring guns. Did last year’s TX effort develop a similar graphic?”

O’Reilly email (09.03.10) (pdf)

The White House counsel who produced the documents stated that some records were not included because of “significant confidentiality interests.”

Also included are email photographs including images of a .50 caliber rifle (left) that Newell tells O’Reilly “was purchased in Tucson, Arizona (part of another OCDTF case).” OCDTF is a joint task force that operates under the Department of Justice and includes the US Attorneys, ATF, DEA, FBI, ICE and IRS. Fast and Furious was an OCDTF case.

An administration source would not describe the Tucson OCDTF case. However, CBS News has learned that ATF’s Phoenix office led an operation out of Tucson called “Wide Receiver.” Sources claim ATF allowed guns to “walk” in that operation, much like Fast and Furious.

Congressional investigators for Republicans Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) have asked to interview O’Reilly by September 30. But the Administration informed them that O’Reilly is on assignment for the State Department in Iraq and unavailable. [How convenient]

UPDATE II – Cash for Cartels

Investors Business Daily:

The funneling of thousands of American guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels in the operation known as Fast and Furious was not a botched sting operation or the result of bureaucratic incompetence. It was not designed to interdict gun trafficking, but to facilitate it.

We now know that it involved not just the use of straw buyers, but also agents of the federal government purchasing weapons with taxpayer money, ordering the licensed dealers to conduct the sales off the books, then calling off surveillance of the gun traffickers and refusing to interdict the transfer of the weapon or arrest the people involved.

According to documents obtained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), agent John Dodson was ordered to buy semiautomatic Draco pistols and was provided a letter by ATF group supervisor David Voth authorizing FFLs (federal firearms licensees) to sell Dodson the guns without filling out the required form.

A copy of the letter obtained by David Codrea of the Gun Rights Examiner tells dealers to “accept this letter in lieu of completing an ATF Form 4473 for the purchase of four (4) CAI, Model Draco, 7.62X39 mm pistols, by Special Agent John Dodson” to be used “in the furtherance of the performance of his official duties.”

Scribbled on the letter is this note: “Picked up guns 6/10/10. Paid cash.”

According to Fox News, Dodson then sold the guns to known illegal buyers who took them to a stash house. Voth disapproved Dodson’s request for 24-hour surveillance and ordered the surveillance team to return to the office.

Dodson stayed behind, against orders. A week later, when a vehicle showed up to transfer the weapons to their ultimate destination, he called for an interdiction team to move in, seize the weapons and arrest the traffickers. Voth refused, and the guns disappeared without surveillance.