February 28, 2011 Obama Nixes Safe Drilling By Jeffrey Folks Interior Secretary Ken Salazar was in Houston this weekend talking with oil executives who are eager to start drilling again in the Gulf of Mexico. That may sound like progress, but after the meeting Salazar said that nothing had changed. He was not ready to approve any new drilling. Despite everything that energy companies have done to devise advanced containment systems, Salazar is unwilling to issue a single new permit. Systems constructed by the nonprofit Marine Well Containment Company and other entities are now able to handle a flow equal or greater than that experienced during the Deepwater Horizon accident last summer. But that's not enough for Salazar, who stated that even the most advanced systems have "limitations on water depth and barrel-per-day containment capacity." Well, yes. Any system that could be devised would have limitations on depth and per-barrel capacity. But that's not the point, as Mr. Salazar must know. The question is whether the new systems are able to handle the sorts of accident that might actually take place. Not the worst scenario that someone from the Interior Department could dream up. Combined with safely protocols now in place, the new containment equipment can do just that. So why no permits for new drilling? It appears that the Obama administration is more interested in kowtowing to environmental donors in advance of the 2012 election than it is in controlling energy prices. Even with a federal court order to decide on new drilling in the Gulf by March 20, the Obama administration remains obdurate. By refusing to grant a single deep-water permit in the Gulf, Obama has shut down access to one third of America's oil supply. With Libyan oil fields now closed indefinitely and with uncertainty about future production elsewhere in the Middle East, it is a dreadful time to be shutting down America's oil fields as well. Turmoil in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, or Iraq would drive the price of oil up above $150 a barrel, at the very least. A prudent policy would be to increase domestic production in light of uncertainty abroad. Some Americans are already paying $4 a gallon for gas, but this is not just because of what's happening in the Middle East. Government action on Gulf drilling permits would immediately calm the oil markets and bring down prices, even though new production would not come on line for several years. But instead of reducing prices, Obama seems is intent on driving them up. It's not just the Gulf of Mexico that is off limits. Obama opposes drilling anywhere offshore, including in the rich arctic region which is known to hold billions of barrels of oil reserves. Just as bad, in his FY2012 budget Obama proposes cutting $4.4 billion of annual tax deductions for oil and gas drilling -- deductions for depreciation and amortization that date back to 1913. Those tax deductions help energy companies pay for exploratory projects that then result in lower energy costs for all Americans. At a time when Obama is throwing away $100 billion on risky alternative energy boondoggles, a number of which have already gone bankrupt, he wants to end those modest tax advantages that actually result in the production of large quantities of new energy. That sort of accounting only makes sense to a politician. Obama, in fact, is doing everything possible to curtail domestic energy production, and yet he says that "our dependence on foreign oil threatens our national security." If reliance on foreign oil puts America at risk, why not produce more oil at home? New drilling techniques including fracking, horizontal drilling, and deep-water drilling now make it possible to do just that, but Obama opposes all of these. If the President knows that dependence on foreign oil threatens our national security and that new drilling techniques can increase domestic supplies, why is he intent on destroying our domestic oil and gas industry? America is going to need new oil and gas production in a big way. In a new report, Charles T. Maxwell, the dean of U.S. energy analysts, has gone on record saying that regardless of what happens in the Middle East, oil prices are going up, way up. In a Barron's interview Maxwell stated that oil prices will hit $300 by 2020. Maxwell arrives at this number by way of a straightforward calculation. By about 2015 global oil production will peak, but demand will continue to increase on a global basis. That leaves Americans paying $12 a gallon for gas, which is just about what Obama has said he wants. That certainly will help to end our dependence on foreign oil. The problem is there won't be anything to take its place. At $12 a gallon, we won't be driving around much in large SUVs or in small SUVs, either. Nor will we be enjoying cheap air fares or discounted cruises. The cost of transporting goods will triple, as will the cost of heating homes, schools,

JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER DAY SINCE HE'S BEEN IN OFFICE FURTHER AND FURTHER DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE IT'S SURREAL A DISTORTED LOOKING GLASS JUST LIKE A MIRROR IN A 50 CENT FUN HOUSE March 01, 2011 The Vanishing Constitution By Bill Costello The Obama administration plans to continue with implementation of ObamaCare despite recent rulings by two federal district judges that it is unconstitutional, despite lawsuits to block it by more than half of all states, and despite polls showing that 60 percent of Americans want it repealed. This is the most recent example of the arrogant notion that elected representatives are not required to operate within the bounds established by the Constitution or act on behalf of the people who elected them. The federal government has increasingly assumed unlimited powers and acted against the will of the people. When they can't legislate, they regulate. The attitude is: We know you don't want it, but we are going to force it on you anyway. Who are you to know what is best for you? You are just a pesky voter. We are entitled to discount what you say because you cannot possibly grasp our progressive agenda. Progressives began the gradual erosion of constitutional principles around the beginning of the 20th century. The goal? To impose their superior wisdom on the rest of us. The way progressives measure progress is by moving up from the vision of the founding fathers. But the Constitution gets in the way with its restrictions on the arbitrary powers of government. So it must be bypassed. We the People have been undermined by all three branches of government, despite the words and intentions of the founding fathers. The legislative branch has been passing laws before anyone could learn what was in them. The executive branch has been sidestepping the confirmation process prescribed for Cabinet members in the Constitution by appointing "czars" who hold even more power than Cabinet members. And the judicial branch has been manipulating the letter and spirit of the law through constitutional misinterpretation. Among the three branches, the judiciary has been the worst offender. It has enabled progressives to amass authority sheltered from election cycles and changing public attitudes. Through the judiciary, progressives have been able to read their own meaning into the words of the Constitution and proclaim their own version of the law. President Woodrow Wilson was an early progressive who actively rejected what the founding fathers said and intended. He argued that the meaning of the Constitution should be interpreted by judges, and not based on its words. In his book, Constitutional Government in the United States, Wilson wrote: "We can say without the least disparagement or even criticism of the Supreme Court of the United States that at its hands the Constitution has received an adaptation and an elaboration which would fill its framers of the simple days of 1787 with nothing less than amazement. The explicitly granted powers of the Constitution are what they always were; but the powers drawn from it by implication have grown and multiplied beyond all expectation, and each generation of statesmen looks to the Supreme Court to supply the interpretation which will serve the needs of the day." Wilson and other progressives have failed to understand the consequence of rewriting the Constitution's meaning and ignoring the intentions of the founding fathers. If this generation is not bound by yesterday's law, then future generations will not be bound by today's law. If law is not a body of rules and can be arbitrarily manipulated, then the rule of man trumps the rule of law. And the founding principle that "all men are created equal" is replaced by "some men are more equal than others." When people are governed by self-anointed rulers instead of elected representatives, they cannot be free. When the Constitution was written, it was a radical departure from the despotic governments of its time. While Europeans were being ruled by the arbitrary edicts of kings, Americans revolted so they could become a self-governing people. Because the founding fathers understood human nature, they structured the Constitution to permanently protect the people from the human shortcomings of their leaders. Human nature has not changed since America's founding. So the need still exists for the protection provided by the Constitution. When elected representatives take an oath, it is not to the country, Congress, or constituents; it is to uphold and defend the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of America. It is the blueprint that made America the envy of the world. It has become increasingly apparent that progressive judges, justices, and elected representatives do not represent the interests of most Americans. For too long, the will of the people has been ignored. If we are to continue with the gloriously successful American