MSNBC’s Halperin Suspended for Comment About Obama; Geithner May Leave Treasury

I had not planned to post again today but this email was too good to pass up from the co-author of the book dealing with the last campaign:

Halperin and co-author John Heilemann had incredible access to most of the 2008 campaigns for their book Game Change, which is being made into a movie, but didn’t get much inside stuff from the Obama camp. With the two journalists now working on a sequel for 2012—sold for a reported $5 million—Halperin’s locker-room epithet won’t be terribly helpful in terms of his relations with the White House and Obama reelection campaign.

This could make their next book of the 2012 campaign a must read for everyone but Obama.  White House Press Secretary already complained about Halperin's comments the day after Obama went after Republicans calling them "girls" which was no complement.  The thin skinned Obama strikes again!

MSNBC’s Halperin Suspended for Comment 

Howard Kurtz, June 30, 2011 

Time columnist apologizes for dickish description of Obama as the White House calls comments “inappropriate.” 

Barack Obama has been called plenty of names on television, as cable fans know all too well.
But I don’t think anyone has called the president of the United States a dick—at least until now.
Mark Halperin, the Time magazine columnist and MSNBC contributor, was assessing Obama’s performance at a news conference when he delivered this opinion Thursday morning on Morning Joe:  

“I thought he was a dick yesterday.”

Yup. He went there. 

Host Joe Scarborough was not pleased, saying: “Delay that. Delay that. What are you doing?” But the program has a new executive producer who didn’t react by hitting the seven-second delay button. 

Now I would be a dick if I didn’t point out that Halperin quickly tried to make amends: “Joking aside, this is an absolute apology. I shouldn't have said it. I apologize to the president and the viewers who heard me say that.” 

But as more than one wit has pointed out, playing off the title of the best-seller co-authored by Halperin, that was a game changer. Two hours after Morning Joe went off the air, MSNBC suspended him.

Read More at:  The Daily Beast

Also learned from the email that Treasury Secretary Geithner wants out at Treasury:

Geithner May Leave Treasury: Report

Tim Geithner has one foot out the door, just waiting for the ceiling to rise. That’s the debt ceiling—and the Treasury secretary has reportedly signaled to the White House that he’s thinking of leaving his post once Congress agrees to increase the national debt limit. The nation is expected to run out of headroom by Aug. 2. Geithner, 49, would be the last member of Obama’s starting economic team to exit. That’s perhaps surprising, as rumors of his imminent demise were circulating in the early months of the president’s term, but Geithner has now survived all of his comrades. A veteran of the IMF, his close ties to the banking world have been seen as both an asset and a liability.   

Source:  The Daily Beast 

Update on New Mexico Fire Near Los Alamos Labs and the new Donaldson Fire, June 30, 2011

If the fire burning near Los Alamos was not enough, New Mexico fire fighters are also fighting a fire now in southern New Mexico.  With the steep terrain, fighting the fire from the sky is one of their best choices for the Donaldson fire.

All of us need to be saying our prayers for rain and for the people of New Mexico who have been evacuated and for those who are now fighting these two new fires while wrapping up the huge fire that came out of Arizona.  Their resources have to be stretched to the maximum.

The trained firefighting crews from the Native American Tribes respond to fires throughout the West every year and with their training are a huge help to local firefighters.  Our Western states would be in real problems without the tribal firefighters.  Speaking for a lot of us, the tribal leaders deserve a huge Thank You for providing the resources to do the training and then making these firefighters available to fight these huge forest fires in the West that seem to be getting worse and closer together since you no longer have controlled burns.

Wildfire burns on NM ranch owned by Sam Donaldson

Associated Press | Posted: Thursday, June 30, 2011 6:14 am  

A wildfire burning on part of a southern New Mexico ranch owned by veteran newsman Sam Donaldson is forcing residents to evacuate. 

The fire nearly tripled in size over the past day to more than 43,000 acres Wednesday. It's burning in steep terrain. 

Lincoln County sheriff's deputies and staff with the New Mexico Livestock Board are helping residents and their animals evacuate the Alamo Canyon area. Residents were advised the day before to be prepared to leave. 

Crews are using bulldozers to cut fire lines and are conducting back-burns in an effort to rob fuel from the blaze. 

They're getting help from several single-engine planes and a C130 air tanker. 

The wildfire is believed to have been caused by lightning. 

Read more: St Louis Today

While firefighters are now fighting a new fire, the Las Conchas  fire is still threatening the Los Alamos lab based on how the wind blows or shifts during the day.  They estimate it is about 3% contained and so far firefighters have been successful in their efforts to keep it on the perimeter of the lab as only an acre of lab property has been burned and quickly put out.  Lab tests from an overflight to monitor the smoke has shown no chemicals in the smoke.  

NM fire poised to become largest in state history

P. SOLOMON BANDA, Associated Press, SUSAN MONTOYA BRYAN, Associated Press 

Updated 01:46 p.m., Thursday, June 30, 2011

Smoke from the Las Conchas fire fills the sky near the Los Alamos Laboratory in Los Alamos, N.M., Tuesday, June 28, 2011. A vicious wildfire spread through the mountains above the northern New Mexico town on Tuesday, driving thousands of people from their homes as officials at the government nuclear laboratory tried to dispel concerns about the safety of sensitive materials. Photo: Jae C. Hong / AP

LOS ALAMOS, N.M. (AP) — With firefighters bracing for another day of strong, erratic winds, a wildfire near the nation's premier nuclear weapons laboratory and a northern New Mexico community was poised Thursday to become the largest in state history.

But fire officials remained confident that the fire would not spread onto the Los Alamos National Laboratory or into the town of Los Alamos. Crews lit brush to create a 10-mile-long burned-out area between the fire and the facility that created the first atomic bomb.

"It's looking good right now," Los Alamos County Fire Chief Doug Tucker said.

The fire has chewed up tens of thousands of acres a day since it started Sunday, charring a total of nearly 145 square miles, or 92,735 acres.

Crews have contained only 3 percent of the fire near Los Alamos. They were bracing for winds that could gust up to 40 mph Thursday afternoon.

"Every day we continue to see an active fire day, and with those winds it still brings the potential for spotting," fire information officer Sandra Lopez said.

"Those are the conditions these guys and gals that are out there on the fire lines fighting the fire are enduring," she said. "It's rugged, steep country. It's hot, and there are late-afternoon winds."

As firefighters hold the line along the lab's southern border, lab officials are trying to determine the extent of how experiments at the facility have been affected by a shutdown caused by the fast-moving fire.

Lab Director Charles McMillan said Wednesday teams will quickly figure out how things stand as soon as they're able to return.

Excerpt:  Read More at Westport News  

Obama's Press Conference was Set-Up to Show a Confrontational, Campaign Mode Obama

The headline talks about a confrontational Obama but when you start calling names Republicans 'girls' then you sound like you are having a temper tantrum and need to go sit in the corner for a time out.  If he thinks this new 'confrontational' Obama calling the opposition 'girls' is going to play with Americans, he is in for a shock as it is so obvious that he is now in campaign mode and just mad because he didn't get his way.  The wannabe dictator cannot stand being told "NO!"

Obama is the President who sent his VP Biden to sit in on the talks on the debt ceiling and didn't get involved.  Finally, gets involved and after one meeting with the leaders of Congress, he comes away attacking Republicans because they wouldn't sign off on his tax increases.  He has been aloof for weeks to the talks but the spoiled, pampered President didn't get his way and now he attacks.  The way to grow the economy is not through gimmick bailouts and certainly not through raising taxes but that is exactly the path that Obama wants to follow once again.  

Obama now seems to be making the decisions on his own and not listening to his advisers which is not a good idea for the Country if his last press conference was an example.  He has trouble making decisions so who knows what he is going to do next but we will go out on a limb and say it is probably not good for the Country and will increase the deficit.  Our economy is tanking no matter what he says except in Texas and a few other states where unemployment numbers are going down and job growth is beginning to pick up.  Right to Work states lead the way no matter how much the pro-union Obama and the NLRB are trying to stop business from relocating to Right to Work states.

Confrontational Obama Rebukes Republicans On Debt Talks 

BEN FELLER 06/29/11 09:22 PM ET 

WASHINGTON — In a blistering rebuke of Republicans, President Barack Obama on Wednesday pressed lawmakers to accept tax increases as part of a deal to cut the nation's deficits and avoid a crippling government default. "Let's get it done," Obama challenged, chiding Congress for frequent absences from Washington. 

Senators from Obama's own Democratic Party quickly said they'd consider canceling next week's July 4 recess to work on a possible agreement, and as the day went on senators said they assumed they would stay. 

In a White House news conference, Obama offered one fresh wrinkle to try to give the economy and pessimistic voters a lift, calling on Congress to pass a one-year extension of the Social Security payroll tax cut that employees got this year. But he used most of the hour-long session to try to sway public opinion his way on the debt debate consuming Washington. 

Obama accused Republicans of intransigence over tax hikes, comparing their leaders to procrastinating children and painting them as putting millionaires, oil companies and jet owners ahead of needy students. One Democratic official said that in talks to date, the administration was seeking roughly $400 billion in higher tax revenue over the next decade. 

Responding quickly to the news conference, the Republican House Speaker, Rep.  John Boehner of Ohio, shot back that the president was ignoring reality.
"His administration has been burying our kids and grandkids in new debt and offered no plan to rein in spending," Boehner said as the day's events seemed only to entrench both sides. "The president is sorely mistaken if he believes a bill to raise the debt ceiling and raise taxes would pass the House. The votes simply aren't there." 

Obama insisted he wouldn't support a deal to cut the deficit unless it includes higher tax revenue, not just spending cuts. Republicans have refused to consider that. The stalemate threatens to derail an extension of the nation's $14.3 trillion debt limit, which in turn could lead the government into an unprecedented default. 

"They need to do their job," Obama said of Republicans. "Now's the time to go ahead and make the tough choices." 

Professing optimism – but with a bite – the president said, "Call me naive, but my expectation is that leaders are going to lead." 

Obama's aggressive response came with the country souring on the recovery, the Republican presidential contenders taking aim at his economic record and GOP leaders in Congress challenging him to show more leadership in the debt stalks. His re-election hinges on the economy, and Obama is trying to restore a sense of public confidence. 

The Treasury Department says the government is on pace to begin failing to pay its bills by Aug. 2 unless Congress votes to allow the limit on federal debt to rise.
Obama declared that is a "hard deadline" and warned that waiting too long could spook capital markets and prompt investors to bail. Here, too, he tried to put heat on Congress by saying lawmakers should cancel any plans to take days off in July if they can't make substantial progress by the end of this week. 

Democratic Senate leaders met later with Obama at the White House and sent word they were considering canceling next week's scheduled recess. 

"I think we are going to be here" next week, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said. "No announcement has been made, but to me it's pretty clear." 

Conrad said he would unveil a Senate Democratic budget that Democratic senators on his panel signed off on Wednesday. He said there would not be a vote  on the plan. 

Before that, Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky said that if the Democrats keep the Senate schedule "they are running from this debate." And Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said, "The fact that anyone would even consider recessing at this point in time is absurd." 

The House, under Republican control, has been in recess this week but is to return on Tuesday. Democrats hold a majority in the Senate. 

Excerpt:  Read More at Huffington Post AOL News

Obama has always seemed to be more concerned about politics the he has about taking the job of being President seriously.  It started out with "I Won!" which was used against Republicans right after he took office.  Obama does take one thing about being President seriously which is all the perks and vacations on taxpayers expense.  He doesn't think anything of flying around the Country for an hour visit on the ground and returning on AF One to DC.  This narcissist President is more arrogant today then when he took office which is hard to comprehend.  His wife, girls, and extended family just spent over $800,000 of our tax dollars for her and her entourage to take an African vacation.  Maybe she was house hunting for when he leaves office and the family can go to Africa to where he considers himself a beloved figure in Kenya or maybe even become President of Kenya.  He already has experience with campaigns there.

Texas Big Winner in U.S. Economy Shift

Texas has provided the path for other states to follow to get their economy moving with low taxes, strong tort reform, and a Governor and Legislature that has made Texas business friendly who go out and look for more jobs.

Now take a look at the Federal level where Obama is demanding new taxes and calling the Republicans names for opposing him because they want budget cuts before agreeing to raising the debt ceiling. As he threw his little temper tantrum yesterday at the press conference, Governor Perry was showing the nation how it is done with a balanced budget and yet Texas still has a sizeable rainy day fund. Texas has no income tax, no tax on capital gains, and strong tort refore made even stronger with the loser pays to stop frivolous lawsuits.

Speaking of frivolous lawsuits, how about the one from Obama's NLRB suing Boeing for daring to open a plant in the Right to Work state of South Carolina. Just remember according to Obama, the NLRB is an independent agency who has nothing to do with him even though he appointed people to serve and gets briefed what they are doing. For Obama to say a union organization has no ties to him is ludicrous to begin with. How dumb does he think people are?

ICYMI: Texas Big Winner in U.S. Economy Shift

Thursday, June 30, 2011 • Austin, Texas • Press Release
 
Texas moved past New York over the past decade to become the nation's second-largest economy, according to a USA Today examination of data released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

"Texas (GDP) notched one of the biggest increases in size in a half-century, surpassing $1 trillion in annual economic output," the USA Today article said.

According to the article, Texas' $1.2 trillion 2010 GDP represented a 26.8-percent increase since 2000.

Though California retained its first-place ranking as the state with the largest economy, the article indicated that California's share of the national economy, which peaked in 1990, shrank faster than all but three states from 2000 to 2010. Noting the growth of Texas, USA Today suggested the Lone Star State may soon challenge California for the top spot.

To view the full article, please visit USA Today .

We have a winner with Governor Perry and a loser with Barack Obama on how to grow the economy yet Obama wants four more years to tank us even more?  We say fire Obama in November 2013 and let's elect Governor Perry who has shown the way it is done in Texas and have him bring that same model to the White House so American can get back on its feet.  Time to bring those jobs back that were shipped overseas because of the unfriendly business environment thanks to the Federal Government wanting to get in everyone's business.

Governor Perry is Moving Texas Forward -- How about the Moving America Forward Next?

Email from Rick Perry.org:

With another legislative session behind us, Texans can again celebrate yet another balanced budget under Gov. Perry's leadership—attained without raising taxes—despite the destructive fiscal policies of the Obama Administration and Congress. In addition, the session yielded legislation to protect the integrity of our elections and "loser pay" elements to our legal system that do even more to combat the frivolous lawsuits that kill jobs.

As Governor Perry stands on the wall, upholding Texas values and helping our state set an example for the rest of the nation, we hope you will remain in the fight to spread our conservative message.

While liberals across the country lash out with increasing venom, the larger portion of our nation is watching our state's example with ever-increasing enthusiasm. Is there anything more fun than reminding big government advocates what's been happening in Texas as we lead the nation in job creation and economic freedom?

Gov. Perry has provided a clear blueprint that other states could follow, including an unshakeable commitment to doing the exact opposite of the job-killing, overreaching policies of President Obama. Again, Gov. Perry has proven that higher taxes and higher spending are NOT the answer to our nation's fiscal crisis. Please take a moment to view the video below ighlighting some of the most powerful legislative successes championed and signed by Rick Perry this year.




After viewing the video, check out Rick Perry.org to see the latest news from the Governor!

Lt General John Allen Reveals that Obama Ignored Military's Advice on Afghanistan

Wonder who we should believe?  A Marine Corps Lt General with years of experience fighting or a White House lackey spokesman.  For us, Marine Lt General Allen wins hands down.  Is this more of Obama not listening to his advisers and going over the edge on his own or is this Obama putting politics ahead of our military once again?  It is probably a little of both.

He wants the 30,000 surge troops home by the election but that will mean withdrawing them in the middle of the fighting season which runs from April to November so he will end up putting more of our troops in harm's way for his political gain.  Don't believe most Americans are going to buy into the Obama spin as that seems to be all he does right not as he has gone into full political campaign mode.

What is he going to do when a new much tougher and harder hitting Republican gets in the race that has already taken him on?  How is he going to handle the fact more and more of the American public are realizing that his policies have been bad for America?  How Americans going to react with Obama putting our military in Afghanistan in harm's way for his own political benefit?  We will find out soon enough the answers to these questions.

Right now politics trumps all now for Obama which is scary for America!

We want to thank Senator Graham for being willing to ask General Allen the tough questions and General Allen for having the courage to answer truthfully.

General Reveals that Obama Ignored Military's Advice on Afghanistan5:21 PM, Jun 28, 2011 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES

Lieutenant General John Allen told the Senate Armed Services Committee today that the Afghanistan decision President Obama announced last week was not among the range of options the military provided to the commander in chief. Allen’s testimony directly contradicts claims from senior Obama administration officials from a background briefing before the president’s announcement.
In response to questioning from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Allen testified that Obama’s decision on the pace and size of Afghanistan withdrawals was “a more aggressive option than that which was presented.” 

Graham pressed him. “My question is: Was that a option?” 

Allen: “It was not.” 

Allen's claim, which came under oath, contradicts the line the White House had been providing reporters over the past week—that Obama simply chose one option among several presented by General David Petraeus. In a conference call last Wednesday, June 22, a reporter asked senior Obama administration officials about those options. “Did General Petraeus specifically endorse this plan, or was it one of the options that General Petraeus gave to the president?” 

The senior administration official twice claimed that the Obama decision was within the range of options the military presented to Obama. “In terms of General Petraeus, I think that, consistent with our approach to this, General Petraeus presented the president with a range of options for pursuing this drawdown. There were certainly options that went beyond what the president settled on in terms of the length of time that it would take to recover the surge and the pace that troops would come out – so there were options that would have kept troops in Afghanistan longer at a higher number. That said, the president’s decision was fully within the range of options that were presented to him and he has the full support of his national security team.” 

The official later came back to the question and reiterated his claim. “So to your first question I would certainly – I would certainly characterize it that way. There were a range. Some of those options would not have removed troops as fast as the president chose to do, but the president’s decision was fully in the range of options the president considered.” 

(The full transcript of the exchange is below; the full transcript of the call is at the link.) 

So the new top commander in Afghanistan says Obama went outside the military's range of options to devise his policy, and the White House says the president's policy was within that range of options. Who is right? 

We know that Petraeus and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have both testified that the administration's decision was "more aggressive" than their preferred option. And there has been considerable grumbling privately from senior military leaders about the policy. Among their greatest concerns: the White House’s insistence that the 2012 drawdown of the remaining 23,000 surge troops be completed by September. That means that drawdown will have to begin in late spring or early summer—a timeline for which there exists no serious military rationale. Afghanistan's "fighting season" typically lasts from April through November. (Last year, it continued into December because of warmer than usual temperatures.) So if the White House were to go forward with its policy as presented, the largest contingent of surge troops would be withdrawn during the heart of next year's fighting season. 

Excerpt:  Read More at The Weekly Standard

Latest Update on the Fire Approaching Los Alamos Nuclear Lab

Firefighters are starting backfires along the western perimeter of the Lab which will remove the fuel the fires need to keep burning in the laboratory area.  They are hoping for a wind shift today away from the Lab and the town of Los Alamos as winds did die down some over night but then picked up again this morning.  The response in New Mexico to this fire burning out of control shows they are completely on top of the situation and doing everything possible to protect the Nuclear Lab: 

Pre-Burns to Occur on LANL Western Boundary

LOS ALAMOS, New Mexico June 29, 2011 – Fire crews on Wednesday morning will begin a series of targeted, preventative burns along the western edge of Los Alamos National Laboratory in an effort to further remove available fuels from the Las Conchas Fire. Observers may notice increased smoke coming from the LANL border. At this time there is no wildfire on Laboratory property. Laboratory facilities will be closed for all activities and nonessential employees are directed to remain off site. Personnel are considered nonessential unless they have received specific instructions from their supervisors to report to the Laboratory. Employees should check local news sources, Los Alamos County Emergency Radio on AM 1610, the LANL Update Hotline (505-667-6622) and the LANL web page (http://www.lanl.gov/) for updates.The Laboratory has posted a number of pictures to its Flickr photo site, http://www.flickr.com/photos/losalamosnatlab/ A Joint Information Center has been established at the Regional Development Corporation, 2209 Miguel Chavez Rd. in Santa Fe

 

Scientists monitor air as fire burns near NM lab
By P. SOLOMON BANDA and SUSAN MONTOYA BRYAN Associated Press © 2011 The Associated Press 

LOS ALAMOS, N.M. — As crews fight to keep a New Mexico wildfire from reaching the nation's premier nuclear-weapons laboratory and the surrounding community, scientists are busy sampling the air for chemicals and radiological materials. 

Their effort includes dozens of fixed-air monitors on the ground, as well as a "flying laboratory" dispatched by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The special twin-engine plane is outfitted with sensors that can collect detailed samples. 

Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico requested the agency's help early on in the monitoring effort near the Los Alamos National Laboratory. EPA officials said the flying lab was set to make its initial data-collection fight Wednesday, and state and federal officials have vowed to make findings from all the monitoring efforts public. 

"I know people are concerned about what's in the smoke," Udall said. He noted that the state, the Los Alamos lab and the EPA were all looking closely at air quality "so we can assure the public" there will be multiple layers of oversight. 

The blaze had grown to more than 108 square miles by Wednesday morning, but firefighters managed to hold the line along the nuclear lab's southern boundary. 

On its western edge, firefighters began targeted burns to rob fuel from the fire. Lab officials warned that people might see more smoke coming from the lab border, but they said there was no fire burning on the site as of mid-Wednesday. 

Residents downwind have expressed concern about the potential of a radioactive smoke plume if the flames reach thousands of barrels of waste stored in above-ground tents at the lab. 

Top lab officials and fire managers say there have been no releases of toxins. They say they're confident the flames won't reach key buildings or areas where radioactive waste is stored. As a last resort, foam could be sprayed on the barrels containing items that might have been contaminated through contact with radioactive materials to ensure they aren't damaged by fire, they said. 

The site's manager for the National Nuclear Security Administration said he evaluated the precautions and felt comfortable. The agency oversees the lab for the Department of Energy.
"I have 170 people who validate their measures," Kevin Smith said. "They're in steel drums, on a concrete floor." 

Despite the assurances, some residents remained concerned for the safety of their families and nearby communities. 

"If it gets to this contamination, it's over — not just for Los Alamos, but for Santa Fe and all of us in between," said Mai Ting, a resident who lives in the valley below the desert mesas that are home to the Los Alamos National Laboratory. 

Chris Valvarde, a resident of the Santa Clara Pueblo about 10 miles north of Los Alamos, questioned officials at a briefing Tuesday evening, asking whether they had evacuation plans for his community. Los Alamos, a town of 11,000, already sits empty after its residents were evacuated ahead of the blaze, which started Sunday. 

The wildfire has already sparked a spot fire at the lab. The fire Monday was quickly contained, and lab officials said no contamination was released. 

Lab Director Charles McMillan said the barrels contain transuranic waste — gloves, toolboxes, tools — and other items that may have been contaminated. An anti-nuclear group had estimated there could be up to 30,000 55-gallon drums stored at a site known as Area G, but lab spokeswoman Heather Clark said Wednesday there are 10,000 drums stored there under fire-retardant tents. 

Los Alamos County Fire Chief Doug Tucker, whose department is responsible for protecting the lab, said the barrels are stacked about three high inside the tents. 

Area G holds drums of cleanup from Cold War-era waste that the lab sends away for storage in weekly shipments, according to lab officials. 

Excerpt:  Read more:  Houston Chronicle

Obama says US companies need freedom to relocate but calls NLRB an Independent Agency

The NLRB an independent agency?  Excuse me but did the President forget who makes the appointments to the NLRB as he tries to prevent political fallout to his campaign from their decision to sue Boeing?  Is Obama hard up for donations from the aerospace community that heavily supported him the last time.  You betcha!

Obama says the case was brought by an independent agency and a judge would decide the facts.

Let's get the facts, the NLRB Commissioners are appointed by the President and hire attorneys who become Government employees and Obama wants all of us to believe they do what they want without his oversight.  He also seems very happy to on one hand say that companies should be able to locate where they want and on the hand it is fine for the NLRB to sue and take them to court when they do just that.

Obama needs to do his job as President and stop playing politics with every last item.  He holds a fundraiser in the White House and then wants us to believe it only cost $60 and was not really a fundraiser when it was.  Does he ever just tell the truth?  Obama uses a lot of spin if it benefits him politically?

This time Obama threw the NLRB members under the bus before he pulled them and said they had a right to sue and the judge will decide the facts while it is costing Boeing mega bucks.  Yet he expects Boeing to get right in line with their donations?  How dumb does he think that Boeing's board is going to be after the way they have been by Obama's NLRB?

Obama says US companies need freedom to relocateWednesday, June 29, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says it would defy common sense for Boeing Co. to have to shut down a new aircraft plant or lay off workers as a result of a labor dispute with the government. 

Obama says companies need to have the freedom to relocate work, though they must follow the law when doing so. 

The president was responding to a question about a lawsuit filed by the National Labor Relations Board against Boeing, accusing the aerospace company of illegally retaliating against its unionized work force in Washington state by opening a new production line for its 787 airplane in South Carolina, a right-to-work state. 

Obama says the case was brought by an independent agency and a judge would decide the facts. 

Source:  CNSNEWS.com

Update on New Mexico Fire Near Los Alamos Labs.

This is the latest update on the ongoing fire that is being pushed by 60 mph winds which has caused the evacuation of the 13,000 residents of the town of Los Alamos after the fire crossed the nearby Jemez Mountains.  Los Alamos is the home of the Department of Energy's Los Alamos Nuclear Lab where some 20,000 barrels of plutonium-bearing waste is stored in Area G waiting to be transported to long-term storage in southern New Mexico at the Carlsbad, NM, Waste Isolation Pilot Project site . Latest reports had fire 2 miles from the lab's Area G, and the winds blowing 60 mph can cause the fire to travel rapidly the two miles through the extremely dry areas.

The bulk of the lab's stockpile of highly-radioactive material is stored in structures specifically designed to withstand fire, lab officials say.  If the fire gets to the labs, this will be the 2nd time in 11 years it has happened.  Today teams from the National Nuclear Safety Administration are expected to arrive on-site  to help deal with any releases that might occur if the fire reaches the lab.

For those on the east coast who haven't seen tumbleweed burn, you cannot imagine how fast it can explode and set off a huge fire.  Light a match to a tumbleweed and see it in ashes in seconds with sparks flying everywhere.  Imagine a whole area of tumbleweed and the dry cedar (juniper back east), then add the 60 mph wind and any type of fire will soon spread quickly and become uncontrollable as the fire starts making its own wind inside the fire.  It is a very dangerous situation during the summer months and why there is usually a ban on open burning but some people ignore the law and burn anyway.

Because controlled burning of brush has been put off limits due to the environmentalists, the fires have grown over the years as they rapidly burn through the brush that has accumulated.  The environmentalists who want to protect various species have ended up with species' habitats being destroyed for miles and miles in a very hot fire that will grow into a huge fire storm compared to when they used to do controlled burns to get rid of the brush.  The lack of common sense in the environmental community is shocking.

A conservationist knows how to take care of the land for the benefit of all compared to the environmentalist who will put animal creatures over man including with drinking water.  Man and creatures can live together very easily when there is a balance, but balance is not a word that environmentalists want to hear.

We can only hope that this fire is brought under control very quickly and people can return to their homes and the Lab is safe.  You just never know which way the fire is going to burn if the winds shift going through the mountain passes.   This is a beautiful area of New Mexico as you drive I-25 north toward Colorado from Sante Fe and now the vegetation is  destroyed.  There is one thing we have noticed while living in the west and that is how green the ground looks in the spring after the winter snow melt compared to the trees that are blackened .  Nature has a way of rejuvenating itself starting with the grass on ground which should show people that controlled burns will never hurt the environment as much as these huge firestorms that destroy property and animals as it races across the landscape.

Posted at 01:36 PM ET, 06/28/2011Los Alamos nuclear lab to remain closed as New Mexico wildfire nears 

By Sarah Anne Hughes
A time exposure of the Las Conchas fire taken late Monday night in Los Alamos. (Pat Vasquez-Cunningham - AP/Albuquerque Journal) 

As the Las Conchas wildfire continues to burn in New Mexico, officials from the Los Alamos National Laboratory say the radioactive and nuclear materials stored there are safe. 

A small fire broke out Monday on the nuclear laboratory’s property near Technical Area 49, a site formerly used for radioactive explosives testing and now used for training purposes, but it was quickly contained, according to a U.S. Forest Service press release. “About one acre burned and the Lab has detected no off-site releases of contamination,” the release said. The lab will remain closed to all non-essential employees on Wednesday. 

The wildfire has burned an estimated 49,000 acres of land south and west of the lab, according to the Forest Service. Los Alamos’s 12,000 residents are now under a mandatory evacuation order. 

The lab will hold a press conference with public safety officials Tuesday afternoon. According to a press release, no fires burned on lab property Monday night and all hazardous materials are “accounted for and protected.” 

Glenn Walp, a former Pennsylvania State Police commissioner and author of “Implosion at Los Alamos,” told ABC News that “potential is high for a major calamity if the fire would reach” the area where “approximately 20,000 barrels of nuclear waste” are stored. 

Excerpt:  Read More at Washington Post

Facing wildfire threat, Los Alamos National Lab closes

UPDATE:  June 27, 2011, 10:50 a.m mdt

Las Conchas wildfire at 43,000+ acres; County under voluntary evacuation; Lab closed today--photos added 

Sunday, June 26, 2011 at 2:14 pm (Updated: June 27, 10:50 am) 

A wind-whipped wildfire in Jemez Springs has charred roughly 43,000 acres and the Los Alamos Fire Department and other agencies ratcheted up their efforts to battle the blaze. 

A Type I Incident Management has been ordered and in its latest advisory, the Forest Service said, three helicopters, two Hotshot crews, nine hand crews, five dozers and 13 engines have been fighting the fire and more are expected to arrive. 

"This is an interagency fire fighting effort," Forest Service spokesman Lawrence Lujan said. "In fire management we all work together. We are working with local, state and federal agencies."
Los Alamos National Laboratory activated its Emergency Operations Center and announced it would be closed Monday. The blaze had spread to within a mile of the lab's southwest boundary. 

Excerpt:  Read More at Los Alamos Monitor

*******
Amazing that the Breaking News on Los Alamos closing because of this fire came from Computerworld, not CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc.  The fire has been covered in New Mexico outlets but we think the fact that this fire is even a threat to Los Alamos is bigger news than the breaking news alerts in my inbox for violent video games can now be sold to anyone per the Supreme Court, that an AZ law on campaign financing has been overturned or Venus and Serena Williams both have been eliminated from play at Wimbledon.

Facing wildfire threat, Los Alamos National Lab closesGovernment research lab is home to IBM Roadrunner, first system to break petaflop barrierBy Patrick Thibodeau
June 27, 2011 11:23 AM ET 

Computerworld - The Los Alamos National Laboratory complex in New Mexico was closed Monday as an advancing wildfire threatened the U.S. Department of Energy research facility.
In an update posted on the lab's Web site at 8:20 a.m. MDT (10:20 EDT), Lab officials said that winds from the northwest have kept the fire from advancing on Lab property, "but forecasts call for a change by midday."

The threat is coming from the Las Conchas wildfire that began at about 1 p.m. Sunday on private land approximately 12 miles southwest of Los Alamos, according to the Incident Information System, an interagency reporting system.

The lab houses some of the world's most powerful supercomputers, including IBM's $100 million Roadrunner supercomputer that began running in 2008.

Roadrunner was the first system in the world to reach a petaflop performance, or one thousand trillion (one quadrillion) sustained floating point operations per second.

In a statement, the lab said that "observation aircraft are currently conducting aerial surveys to gauge the fire's growth and current size. Overnight, as a precaution, the Lab cut natural gas to technical areas in LANL's remote southwest area." 

The lab also reported that "all hazardous and radioactive materials remain accounted for and are appropriately protected, as are key Lab facilities such as its proton accelerator and supercomputing centers." 

"It's been a very long night for the fire crews," said Lab Director Charles McMillan in a statement. "There has been an outpouring of support from the region, the state and the federal government and for that we are profoundly grateful."

According to a twitter stream from KOB4, a local television news station and its reporters, including @GadiRoget, the fire as of 10 a.m. EDT had not breached lab property. More than 43,000 acres are involved.

A Webcam of nearby ski areas shows a large area dense with smoke.

To follow the fire on Twitter, hashtags in use include: #nmfire #losalamos #lanl #conchas. 

Source:  Computer World

Michael Reagan: Reagan's vision lives on in Texas

Over the years we have had many conservatives compared to Ronald Reagan that we went "Why?", but this time are in complete agreement.

"In short, the Reagan Revolution is alive and well - deep in the heart of Texas."  (Michael Reagan)

When you look at Texas and see the huge amount of jobs that Rick Perry has brought into the state due to a very pro-business environment, you immediately think Ronald Reagan.  Because so many candidates get compared to President Reagan, we thought we would let his son, Michael Reagan, speak to the qualities he sees of his Dad in Rick Perry.  We cannot think of a better person to write this article than Michael Reagan.

REAGAN: Reagan’s vision lives on in TexasIt’s not complicated: Limited government works 

More than three decades ago, my father took ownership of the smoking ruins of the American economy armed with nothing more than four very basic principles: Keep taxes low, restrain government spending, minimize the amount of regulation on private enterprise and keep the money supply sound. 

His approach may have appeared basic, but the results were unassailable. Over the next eight years, more than 16 million new private-sector jobs were created, a payroll expansion of 17.6 percent. 

It was called the "American Miracle" and was replicated by world leaders across the globe, who met with similar success. 

Looking back at it from a distance, it's remarkable to me that the concepts that worked so amazingly well just a short time ago have fallen so far to the wayside. 

Perhaps during this time of unrivaled Keynesian influence - an era of bailouts and budget-busting "stimulus" packages - the idea that you can improve the future by revisiting the lessons of the past seems overly simple, even quaint. 

However, if America is going to pull out of the economic death spiral in which it's locked, we have to return to the basics Ronald Reagan preached. 

If you don't believe Reaganomics can still work in this day and age, for whatever reason, I say you should look no further than the state of Texas. 

Under the leadership of Gov. Rick Perry, Texas has championed and built upon the concepts my father used to rebuild America in the 1980s. 

The results, again, are unassailable. 

Over the decade between April 2001 and April 2011, more than 730,000 private-sector jobs were created in the Lone Star State. During that same stretch of time, the next-best state added just over 90,000 and the nation as a whole lost 2.2 million. 

By almost any measure, Texas survived the global economic recession in dramatically better shape than any other state, continuing to add employers seeking to expand or relocate from across the country or around the world. 

What's the secret behind the Texas Miracle? Low taxes, predictable and limited regulation and restrained government spending. Sound familiar? 

Texas stands as an example the rest of the nation should be emulating. In fact, many states want to do so. Earlier this year, a contingent of lawmakers from California traveled to Austin to meet with Mr. Perry to try to figure out just what Texas was doing to make it such an attractive destination for relocating California businesses and residents. 

As the son of the former governor of California, I can appreciate the irony of a Golden State contingent traveling to Texas to learn the lessons originally taught by Ronald Reagan. 

Texas has not slowed down, either. Analyzing weaknesses in its already jobs-friendly climate, Mr. Perry and other state leaders recognized the need for further tort reforms to make the state even more attractive. Just last month, shortly after signing off on a budget that dramatically cut state spending, Mr. Perry put pen to paper and signed into law a "loser pays" component to the Texas court system that adds further protections to victims of lawsuit abuse. 

Mr. Perry is smart enough to realize that endless - and often frivolous - lawsuits are just another hurdle standing in the way of private companies seeking to grow their businesses. 

Excerpt:  Read More at the Washington Times

Army Corps of Engineers Intentional Flood of America's Heartland

Now the flooding is beginning to make sense because the levee's were never meant to withstand a flood plus have the Army Corps of Engineers intentionally releasing water in the spring.  Why would they release water in the spring when rainfall is at its highest?  This says it all:

'Whether warned or not, the fact remains that had the Corps been true to its original mission of flood control, the dams would not have been full in preparation for a spring pulse,' writes Herring. 'The dams could further have easily handled the additional runoff without the need to inundate a sizable chunk of nine states.' 

So once again we have the environmentalist who run the EPA right smack in the center of the flooding due to their putting protection of some species over people.  They are group that is out of control and the Obama Administration takes their side for every last creature they find that they want to protect at the expense of humans and their property.  It doesn't mean one thing to them that large areas have been flooded because of the bonehead move of the Corps of Engineers who listened to these environmentalist.

Where is the media on this issue of why the flooding was so bad this year along the Missouri River?  No wonder the dam system in the Dayton, Ohio, area has been kept under local control and not turned over to the Army Corps of Engineers. 

The Intentional Flooding of America's Heartland 

Posted by timothy on Sunday June 26, @08:24AM
from the best-laid-dams dept. 

Hugh Pickens writes

"Joe Herring writes that sixty years ago, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began the process of taming the Missouri by constructing massive dams at the top to moderate flow to the smaller dams below, generating electricity while providing desperately needed control of the river's devastating floods, but after about thirty years of operation, as the environmentalist movement gained strength throughout the seventies and eighties, the Corps received a great deal of pressure to include specific environmental concerns into their Master Water Control Manual, the 'bible' for the operation of the dam system, as preservation of habitat for at-risk bird and fish populations soon became a hot issue among the burgeoning environmental lobby. 

The Corps began to utilize the dam system to mimic the previous flow cycles of the original river, holding back large amounts of water upstream during the winter and early spring in order to release them rapidly as a spring pulse. 'Whether warned or not, the fact remains that had the Corps been true to its original mission of flood control, the dams would not have been full in preparation for a spring pulse,' writes Herring. 'The dams could further have easily handled the additional runoff without the need to inundate a sizable chunk of nine states.' The horrifying consequence is water rushing from the dams on the Missouri twice as fast as the highest previous releases on record while the levees that protect the cities and towns downstream were constructed to handle the flow rates promised at the time of the dam's construction."

Source:  Slashdot.org

Daniel Halper: A Word of Caution for Rick Perry

I clicked on this link at The Weekly Standard not sure what I was going to find.  Then when I finished the article it made perfect sense.  Couldn't agree more that too many people have toyed with getting in the race and then didn't get in leaving us with a mixed bag of candidates.  You can count me in the list of people who would be extremely disappointed if Governor Perry did not run but I have full faith in the Governor that he will be getting in the race to win the White House.

When he throws his hat in the race, Rick Perry will bring a new dynamic to the race as someone with experience who has dealt directly with this administration and been extremely unhappy with the results.  He has a record second to none and has a group of supporters ready to roll up their sleeves to work to win the primary and then the general election when Obama gets fired by the American people.  It is going to be a thrill to see Gov Perry raise his hand and take the oath as the 45th President on January 20, 2013 which happens to fall on a Sunday so there will be two ceremonies:

 But let's think ahead to Inauguration Day 2013. Though the 20th Amendment states that a president's term ends at "noon on the 20th day of January," Jan. 20, 2013 is a Sunday. 

And what happens when a holiday happens on a Sunday? The government moves it to Monday. 

So whoever is inaugurated in 2013 is likely to do it twice -- once privately and once again with all the ruffles and flourishes.

The good news is that as of noon on Sunday, 20 January 2013, Gov Rick Perry would officially become President.


A Word of Caution for Rick Perry
Daniel Halper
June 25, 2011 8:36 AM

Our friend Doug MacKinnon, a former White House and Pentagon official and author, writes:

Okay, so here are some unsolicited but heartfelt words of caution for Governor Rick Perry of Texas as he contemplates whether to enter the Republican primary for President of the United States.

As you and your trusted aides crunch numbers, take the pulse of major donors, look at various match-ups in states like Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida, please keep this in mind: The conservatives, Republicans, independents, and even the growing number of Democrats who embrace traditional values and strongly oppose Barack Obama and his socialist tendencies, are tired. They are bone tired, worried beyond words, and quite frankly sick of one pretend GOP candidate after the other leaving them at the altar. Enough.

Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi, or former Governor Mike Huckabee--all teased voters in desperate search of a candidate who might spare the nation further damage from the far-left ideology of President Obama and his allies, with a potential or pending run, and all finally declined the challenge. All offered plausible and personal reasons for not entering the area. Fine. We can respect if not understand those choices.

For tens of millions of Americans who see our Republic coming off the rails as unemployment rises, public employee unions cripple the financial well-being of a growing list of cities, counties, and states, the housing market continues to tank, corrupt teachers’ unions putting themselves well before public school children, our health-care system being hijacked by liberal zealots, our sovereign borders becoming more porous, and Islamic terrorist groups outside and inside our borders plotting their next horrific attack, it’s become harder and harder for them to understand why the minute handful of Republicans who could possibly make a positive difference have decided to take a powder on the fight of our lives. Very hard.

Now we have Governor Rick Perry. Over the course of the last few weeks, I have heard from a significant number of conservatives asking me if I thought Perry was serious? They, like me, think he is a talented, ethical, and traditional values espousing public servant and are beyond desperate for him to enter the toughest and most crucial of electoral arenas.

During his exceptional and stirring remarks at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans on June 18th, Governor Perry spoke like a man who got it. During the course of his speech -- which inspired a majority in the audience to jump up from their chairs on numerous occasions -- the Governor wondered if nothing was done to stem the liberal destruction of our values, would future generations ask, “Why didn’t someone do something?” He quickly followed up that question by saying, “In Texas we truly believe that you can’t defer tough decisions for tomorrow’s generation.”

Finally, as the Governor of a state which is responsible for over 47% of all jobs created in the entire nation over the last two years, he asked, “If we don’t do it, who will? If not now, when?”

Indeed.

During his remarks, the Governor stressed the need for, and the power of conservative principles. Millions of Americans believe Rick Perry to be a highly principled conservative. Because of that, they are willing to take that one last walk down the aisle.

However, should they be abandoned at the altar once again, not only will their hopes for a better, more prosperous, and more secure country dashed, but their faith in their leaders will be damaged to the core.

Run, Rick, run.

Source: Weekly Standard

Valedictorian Among 11 Students In Graduation Mistake

You ask how can this happen? Any parent who has dealt with some guidance counselors over the year including college will tell you they are not shocked.



The only way to prevent this is to make sure as a parent you know what is required for graduation and ensure that your children get the necessary credits. It is not only high school but it also happens in college where students in many cases have to complete their requirements the summer after graduation because their credit check before their senior year wasn't correct.

Another case where parents need to be involved in their children's education so this doesn't happen. I would shout it from the rooftops "do not trust guidance counselors" if I thought it would help.

I looked my daughter's college transcript before her senior year over and over again because I thought she was short three credit hours compared to what the counselor said when she did the credit check. She took three extra hours just in case and because of that she had the necessary credits to graduate. None of the students who had that woman for a counselor really thought she was on top of things and why my daughter asked me to also check the transcript.

This should be a lesson to not only students but their parents to check credit hours along with the subjects required to graduate and not depend on a guidance counselor or any school -- double check.

Mexican Drug Cartels now control corridor from Mexican border to Phoenix

If you want to know what this Administration is NOT doing while Obama goes around the Country fundraising, take a look at this video and ask yourself why anyone in this Country would even think of giving Obama four more years as President.  Will the drug cartels next stop be in the heart of the city of Phoenix?  It is a drug corridor now run by the Mexican drug cartels that runs from the border to metro Phoenix.



How can Obama, Holdler, and Napolitano continue to let this happen not in Juarez across from El Paso, TX, but right in the State of Arizona.  No wonder Senator McCain blames the wild fires in Arizona on illegals.




It doesn't take rocket science when the Forest Service knows when and where the fires were started to point the finger at those coming across the border into Arizona illegally. Would bet Senator McCain is correct because anyone who lives in a fire danger area would never start a fire for any reason. Hispanic liberal group leaders can say what they want but illegals coming across the border have brought crime in recent years into the border states and would bet this fire is a result of that also because Senator McCain doesn't go around making rash statements about illegals. For years the Mexican Government has been happy for their people to come here illegally and send money back to Mexico straining our healthcare and other agencies put in place to help the poor.

When you can actually identify a drug corridor, why are the Feds not more involved or does Obama not want the Hispanics mad at him for his re-election bid.  Is this all about politics just like the release of oil reserves?

Pinal County Sheriff needs help today and his request for 3,000 soldiers in the middle of June along the border should be answered immediately.  In fact, they need a fence along the border like they have in El Paso with plenty of agents at guard shacks but our Secretary of Homeland Security not only sleeps through Obama speeches but seems to be asleep as the head of Homeland Security.  She was Governor of this state and what is she doing to help stop the flow of drugs into this Country through a corridor they know about?

What a totally worthless Administration.  The Middle East is blowing up, drug cartels now control land in Arizona, economy is in the tank, deficit is rising right along with home foreclosures, unemployment is still high, inflation is taking place, we are loaning money to Colombia to upgrade their refinery but none of ours, etc.  When you ask the question if the citizens on the United States are better off then when Obama took office, it is a resounding NO!

White House Move to Tap Strategic Petroleum Reserve for Political Purposes

During the last few weeks we have been noticing the price for a gallon of gas has been dropping steadily at our local gas stations which is a welcome sight.  Frankly it was a shock when we heard that Obama was going to release oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve which is there for emergencies.  High prices for a gallon of gas is not an emergency but it hurts Obama politically.  It didn't take long to put 2+2 together and come up with it is a political move by Obama.  When did the United States start buying oil from Libya?  We didn't but Europe does import oil from Libya so we are releasing our oil reserves to help Europe?  Would they do the same for us? Doubt it.

Congressman Cole in one short paragraph has stated why this tapping of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by Obama is being done for political purposes (Obama's reelection campaign).

June 23, 2011 

Cole Statement on White House Move to Tap Strategic Petroleum Reserve 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Tom Cole (OK-04) released the following statement after the Obama administration announced its decision to release 30 million barrels of oil from the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve:  

"This is a bad decision driven by political considerations rather than sound policy. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve should only be used in cases of national emergency -- not as a gimmick to artificially reduce gas prices. If the president truly wants to bring fuel prices down, he should stop blocking American energy production at every turn. Relying on our reserves without justification is short-sighted and irresponsible."

Another reason this is a bone headed move is the fact that some of our refineries are near capacity and others are at capacity because the last new refinery built in the U.S. was Marathon Oil's Garyville, Louisiana, plant, which opened in 1976

Yet the U.S. Export-Import Bank is loaning $2.84B to Columbia to expand and upgrade an oil refinery:

The U.S. Export-Import Bank, an independent agency of the federal government, is now planning a $2.84-billion loan for a massive project to expand and upgrade an oil refinery--in Cartagena, Colombia. 

The money would go to Reficar, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ecopetrol, the Colombian national oil company.

Why is the United States not upgrading our own oil refineries instead of loaning money overseas for foreign refineries?  Does Obama want to put the US oil and gas industry on its back?

Obama's Oily Desperation 

By Ross Kaminsky on 6.24.11 @ 6:09AM 

In a move that has everyone from oil analysts to traders to petroleum producers scratching their heads, the Obama Administration announced on Thursday morning that the U.S. along with over two dozen other nations will release 60 million barrels of oil from emergency oil stock piles. Half of the total release, or 30 million barrels, will come from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 

News of the release, which will be 2 million barrels per day for 30 days beginning about a week from now, hit oil prices in futures trading. West Texas Intermediate crude oil trading in the U.S., which was already down about $1 on the day, fell more than $3 further to about $91 per barrel. Brent crude, which trades in London, fell almost $7 per barrel. 

The excuse being used by the Obama Administration and the International Energy Agency for the oil release is that reduced oil exports from Libya are raising energy prices and thus hurting world economies. 

However, the Saudis have already said they would increase production to offset losses from Libya -- and they have done so. More importantly, and partly in reaction to the Saudi move, oil prices had fallen almost 20% in about six weeks since peaking near $115 in early May over fear about Libyan and Middle Eastern unrest. 

The idea that the federal government needed to knock oil prices down further or faster for economic purposes while oil was already in what would be considered a dramatic sell-off is simply not credible. 

More likely is that the Obama Administration is sinking into desperation as its economic policies lengthen and deepen the economic downturn -- just as similar (and one would have therefore thought discredited) policies in the 1930s were substantially responsible for turning a serious recession into the Great Depression.

Excerpt:  Read More at Spectator.org

If Obama thought this release of oil was going to go unnoticed that it was a political ploy and people would be applauding him for lowering gas prices, think again.  There can be no credibility left for this White House with a majority of Americans after all of their bone-headed moves.  The moratorium in the Gulf is loosening but why did it take so long?  The Gulf is still not back to where they were before the BP spill (125 rigs were drilling ):

The Interior Department has issued 53 shallow-water permits since last June, when new safety standards were imposed, Stevens said. Permits for 14 deepwater wells have been approved since late February, when industry demonstrated it could meet new standards on containing oil spills.

What about the permits that are lying on someone's desk waiting for a permit for new drilling?  Yet Obama for political purposes talks about we need to drill more which is a bad joke because it takes forever to get a permit to start a new well offshore not to mention that Obama has put a lot of offshore drilling off limits to oil producers.  It made a good sound bite but anyone who thinks just shakes their heads thinking he will say and do anything if he thinks it will help get reelected.

Releasing 2M barrels a day for 30 days is not going to have a long term effect.  Gas prices have already been dropping at the pump but Obama isolated in the White House except for fundraising events wouldn't have a clue.  All he sees is that for his political purposes gas prices have to fall.

If paying $3.79 a gallon which is the most I paid would ensure that Obama was defeated, I would gladly pay that a gallon and more because his policies are driving up the price of groceries as well.  Is Obama going to call for the end to ethanol subsidies?

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen: Obama Afghanistan Troop Withdrawal Plan Risky

Now we have the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen, weighing in calling the Obama plan "Risky."  Looks like we are not the only ones questioning the Obama plan from his speech last night.  When a President doesn't listen to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Commander on the ground, it shows an arrogance of someone who never served in the military knowing more than our top Commanders.  Putting politics ahead of our men in the military should never happen but Obama jumping in his reelection campaign early is driving a lot of decisions it seem as he plays to his base who wants the United States out of Afghanistan at all costs.

Mike Mullen: Obama Afghanistan Troop Withdrawal Plan Risky

By ROBERT BURNS 06/23/11 10:59 AM ET (AP) 

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. military's top officer told Congress on Thursday that President Barack Obama's decision to withdraw up to 33,000 troops from Afghanistan by next summer is riskier than he originally was prepared to endorse. 

Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a House hearing that he supports the president's plans. But Mullen said they are "more aggressive and incur more risk" than he had considered prudent. 

"More force for more time is, without doubt, the safer course," Mullen said. "But that does not necessarily make it the best course. Only the president, in the end, can really determine the acceptable level of risk we must take. I believe he has done so." 

Obama announced Wednesday evening that the U.S. and its allies had achieved enough in Afghanistan to merit a drawdown of forces beginning this summer. Obama said 10,000 troops would come home by the end of this year, to be followed by as many as 23,000 next summer. That will leave about 68,000 U.S. troops there. 

Mullen, who is retiring Oct. 1, was blunt in testifying about the risks and potential rewards of Obama's decision. 

"No commander ever wants to sacrifice fighting power in the middle of a war," Mullen said. 

"And no decision to demand that sacrifice is ever without risk. This is particularly true in a counterinsurgency, where success is achieved not solely by technological prowess or conventional superiority, but by the wit and the wisdom of our people as they pursue terrorists and engage the local populace on a daily basis. In a counterinsurgency, firepower is manpower."
On the other hand, Mullen said, taking the safer course would have entailed other kinds of risks, such as increasing the Afghan government's dependence on the U.S. 

Excerpt:  Read more at Huffington Post AOL News

Gergen: Why didn't Obama listen to Petraeus?

First of all this is a good question but facts don't match the rhetoric in part of the article.  We will have more troops in Afghanistan when Obama's term is up then we had when it started.  Gergen has combined the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan which gave him the end result he desired.  We were already drawing down Iraq when Obama took office but he approved a surge in Afghanistan.  This is a lesson to anyone reading articles not to take everything at face value no matter who is reporting.

We find out from the article that Secretary of Defense Gates, and Secretary of State Clinton were on the side of the Petraeus plan to draw down while Vice President Biden and White House staff (Valerie Jarrett?) were on the opposition side.  So Obama chooses the side of Biden instead of the advisers who have been part of the Afghanistan War.  Doesn't say much for Obama.  We don't mean to nitpick by why didn't Gergen just say General Petraeus, Secretary of Defense Gates, and Secretary of State Clinton instead of:

Set against the recommendations of his top military commander and his defense and diplomatic secretaries were those coming from Vice President Joe Biden and others to speed up the withdrawal 

In the move from a ground troops counterinsurgency strategy  to a counter terrorism strategy which relies heavily on drone attacks and special forces are we going to be seeing more reports of civilians killed without hurting the ability of the terrorists to strike?  We have had a lot of problems with the ground troops being able to operate in some areas but how is going to a counter terrorism  strategy going to work?  The draw down is going to leave our special forces vulnerable which could lead to more deaths.

Since Obama took office, the amount of casualties in Afghanistan has increased. 

The average monthly casualty rate for U.S. military forces serving in Afghanistan has increased 5-fold since President Barack Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009.   

1,540 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan since Oct. 7, 2001, when U.S. forces began fighting in that country to oust the Taliban regime that had been harboring al Qaeda and to track down and capture or kill al Qaeda terrorists.

During the Bush presidency, which ended on Jan. 20, 2009 with the inauguration of President Obama, U.S. troops were present in Afghanistan for 87.4 months and suffered 570 casualties—a rate of 6.5 deaths per month. 

During the Obama presidency, through today, U.S. troops have been present in Afghanistan for 29.1 months and have suffered 970 casualties—a rate of 33.3 deaths per month.

Until I did the research, had no idea that the casualties under Obama were so high compared to the years of President Bush.  One question is WHY was this not mentioned in the article or in the mainstream media when they attacked President Bush relentlessly on casualties?  The rate of 6.5 deaths a month versus 33.3 deaths per month is huge, but we hear crickets from the mainstream media.

Why didn't Obama listen to Petraeus?
By David Gergen, CNN Senior Political Analyst
June 23, 2011 9:25 a.m. EDT 

(CNN) -- There was something deeply unsettling about President Obama's speech on Afghanistan and much of the commentary that surrounded it -- or at least there was to me, as someone who clings to some old-fashioned traditions about U.S. foreign policy.
It should be said up front that the speech itself was well crafted. More importantly, President Obama deserves credit on two fronts. 

First, he has kept his promises as a candidate and then in the Oval Office that he would wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in ways that he considered responsible. When he came into office, the U.S. had approximately 190,000 troops deployed in the two war zones; the wind-downs that are under way will mean that by the end of this year, we will have less than 100,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Promise kept. 

Second, the president deserves credit for having the guts to order up a surge in Afghanistan in 2009 -- against the wishes of many in his party -- and for overseeing many successes from the surge, including devastating blows against al Qaeda. Promise kept. 

But the issue before him in his East Room speech was where to go from here in Afghanistan. Everyone in his administration agrees that it is time to begin winding down the Afghanistan surge, as he promised in his West Point speech in 2009. The central question was how to do that. 

Going forward, Gen. David Petraeus -- who runs the military operations in Afghanistan -- was widely reported to favor a slow, moderate reduction in U.S. forces, ensuring that the U.S. would continue to keep strong troop strength not only in 2011 but through the fighting season in Afghanistan in 2012. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared that view, according to reports. (In a wonderful bit of commentary, Joe Klein of Time has posited that the fighting season in Afghanistan starts in the spring when the opium crop has been harvested and ends in November or so when the harvest season opens for marijuana.) 

Set against the recommendations of his top military commander and his defense and diplomatic secretaries were those coming from Vice President Joe Biden and others to speed up the withdrawal and shift quickly from a counterinsurgency strategy (which requires more troops) to a counterterrorism strategy (which requires fewer troops, depending more on pinpoint attacks by drones, special forces and the like). 

As someone who has seen a lot of military decisions made in the White House, I am accustomed to presidents paying great heed to the views of their commanders on the ground. 

In this case, Petraeus was not just the commander on the ground -- he is one of the very best American generals in modern history, a man who has turned around the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. One might think that given his extraordinary success and the great respect in which he is held on Capitol Hill and around the country, Obama would give Petraeus the benefit of the doubt and go with his preferred option. 

But that is exactly what the president decided not to do. Instead of a 3,000-5,000 troop withdrawal this year, as Petraeus is understood to have recommended, Obama went for 10,000. And instead of protecting two full seasons of strong American troop presence in Afghanistan, Obama set forth a plan that almost certainly will compromise next season's fighting. 

As a top general at the Pentagon told me, there is great fear that once troops know they are definitely coming home next summer, they will be focused on getting out of there safely -- not on serious engagement with the Taliban.
Petraeus will loyally support the president in public, as he should. So will Gates and Clinton, even though both accepted the president's decision reluctantly, according to The New York Times. 

Excerpt:  Read More at CNN  

Editor's note: David Gergen is a senior political analyst for CNN and has been an adviser to four presidents. He is professor of public service and director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Follow him on Twitter: @david_gergen