Louisiana Congressman Anh "Joseph" Cao has called for an immediate lifting of the Gulf oil moratorium, saying it is have devastating impact on the economy of Louisiana.
Even though most resisted the oil moratorium which came about from the BP oil spill, the Obama administration pushed it through even after a just ruled against it. They simply made up a new moratorium to put in place of the old one.
Hundreds of people are out of work already from the measure, and according to Cao, thousands more could end up filing for unemployment.
This is after thorough testing of all oil rigs in the Gulf, which were given a clean bill of health by investigators.
Citing Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc. (NYSE:DO), who has already sent away two oil rigs, one to the Republic of Congo and the other to Egypt, has announced it'll send a third to Canada, shrinking the number operating in the Gulf to 31.
Estimates from the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association are that just under 1,000 jobs are lost for every rig that leaves the Gulf.
Flying over the area of the leak in a helicopter, Cao said there was only evidence of one small oil slick remaining from the spill.
While reiterating BP needs to be held accountable for the damage from the accident, Cao said the oil moratorium still needs to be lifted immediately so more of the people of the Gulf aren't hurt even worse.
Showing posts with label Obama BP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama BP. Show all posts
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
Was BP (NYSE:BP) Oil Spill an Environmental Disaster?
The hype of the media over the unproven assertion the BP (NYSE:BP) oil spill was an environmental disaster brings into question their integrity, research and sources, as now that the oil spill has been contained, the amount of oil in the Gulf has been found to be minimal, and the alleged damage to the coastlines and animals far less than originally reported and thought.
Many scientists and university professors are now calling into question whether the idea that this is really an environmental disaster is true. Facts are beginning to reveal that it isn't even close to that.
Two examples of that as far as wildlife goes, is the total death could of three dolphins. That's not a misprint or guess, that's the total count wildlife rescue teams found. And when compared with the damage from the Exxon Valdez in Alaska, the number of birds perishing have been less than one percent of that disaster.
While there has been some damage to coastlines, again, it is far less than it was thought to be, undermining the environmental disaster narrative that was assumed but never proven. Now we know it's not true at all, when measured by the degree of hype.
Incredibly, only 350 acres of wetlands in Louisiana have been found to contain oil by teams patrolling the area.
How could it be missed by such a large range, and why was the natural ability of the Gulf of Mexico to heal itself mocked so much when it was suggested by Rush Limbaugh, other than the obvious dislike by many of the conservative commentator?
Part of it was the ignorance of the media and general population over the unique factors which make the Gulf able to digest so much of the damage. That primarily includes the relationship between warm water and the oil-digesting microbes, which thrive and multiply exponentially in times like this, with oil being a major food source for them.
Oil naturally seeps into the Gulf waters all the time, and it's not an insignificant amount. Microbes have been feeding on the oil indefinitely, and it was simply a matter of adapting to the circumstances to handle the larger amount.
Some raged that the microbes could never keep up with the unknown but significant amount of oil spilling into the Gulf. They were obviously wrong.
Evaporation was the other major element, which is estimated to remove up to 40 percent of the oil released into the Gulf.
Skimming boats were, for the most part, an irrelevant factor, accounting under the highest end of estimates, for only 2 percent of the removal of oil, but probably much less.
Dispersants probably helped in the sense of breaking down the oil to make it easier and quicker for the microbes to eat. Evidence the microbes have been eating the dispersants as well bodes well for its future use, in spite of the hysteria from clueless environmentalists that it would would cause more damage than help.
The bottom line is the media hyped this story far beyond what it really was in regard to environmental damage to attract eyeballs. There's no doubt about that as the facts emerge. Either that or they're completely inept. Which title do they want to assume?
All of this focus on BP seems to be the government attempting to hide the fact that for decades, under all administration, state and federal, the region has pursued oil and gas as a major source of job creation and revenue.
Now they're attempting to demonize BP in order to call attention away from the fact they're the ones that have been behind it since drilling for oil began.
I don't begrudge them that, what I do begrudge is they're blatant attempt to distance themselves from something that has been government policy, on the state and federal level, for decades.
It'll be very interesting to see how the Obama administration decides how to use this going forward. If they measure it by the amount of oil that supposedly entered into the Gulf waters, it'll show they're using it to their own benefit, as that is meaningless in regard to damage caused from oil spill.
If they do the right thing, which is doubtful, they'll measure the actual damage and go on from there. There is no way to even guess as to how much oil left the oil well because the Gulf of Mexico is healing itself at an extremely rapid pace.
That should be included in assessing fines and costs related to damages.
We'll see the environmentalists scream loud over the next couple of weeks in order to drown out the facts, as they want to tap into the billions they're asking for from BP to, in reality, pay for the very real damages not associated with the oil spill that has been wrecking the coastlines for many years.
Many scientists and university professors are now calling into question whether the idea that this is really an environmental disaster is true. Facts are beginning to reveal that it isn't even close to that.
Two examples of that as far as wildlife goes, is the total death could of three dolphins. That's not a misprint or guess, that's the total count wildlife rescue teams found. And when compared with the damage from the Exxon Valdez in Alaska, the number of birds perishing have been less than one percent of that disaster.
While there has been some damage to coastlines, again, it is far less than it was thought to be, undermining the environmental disaster narrative that was assumed but never proven. Now we know it's not true at all, when measured by the degree of hype.
Incredibly, only 350 acres of wetlands in Louisiana have been found to contain oil by teams patrolling the area.
How could it be missed by such a large range, and why was the natural ability of the Gulf of Mexico to heal itself mocked so much when it was suggested by Rush Limbaugh, other than the obvious dislike by many of the conservative commentator?
Part of it was the ignorance of the media and general population over the unique factors which make the Gulf able to digest so much of the damage. That primarily includes the relationship between warm water and the oil-digesting microbes, which thrive and multiply exponentially in times like this, with oil being a major food source for them.
Oil naturally seeps into the Gulf waters all the time, and it's not an insignificant amount. Microbes have been feeding on the oil indefinitely, and it was simply a matter of adapting to the circumstances to handle the larger amount.
Some raged that the microbes could never keep up with the unknown but significant amount of oil spilling into the Gulf. They were obviously wrong.
Evaporation was the other major element, which is estimated to remove up to 40 percent of the oil released into the Gulf.
Skimming boats were, for the most part, an irrelevant factor, accounting under the highest end of estimates, for only 2 percent of the removal of oil, but probably much less.
Dispersants probably helped in the sense of breaking down the oil to make it easier and quicker for the microbes to eat. Evidence the microbes have been eating the dispersants as well bodes well for its future use, in spite of the hysteria from clueless environmentalists that it would would cause more damage than help.
The bottom line is the media hyped this story far beyond what it really was in regard to environmental damage to attract eyeballs. There's no doubt about that as the facts emerge. Either that or they're completely inept. Which title do they want to assume?
All of this focus on BP seems to be the government attempting to hide the fact that for decades, under all administration, state and federal, the region has pursued oil and gas as a major source of job creation and revenue.
Now they're attempting to demonize BP in order to call attention away from the fact they're the ones that have been behind it since drilling for oil began.
I don't begrudge them that, what I do begrudge is they're blatant attempt to distance themselves from something that has been government policy, on the state and federal level, for decades.
It'll be very interesting to see how the Obama administration decides how to use this going forward. If they measure it by the amount of oil that supposedly entered into the Gulf waters, it'll show they're using it to their own benefit, as that is meaningless in regard to damage caused from oil spill.
If they do the right thing, which is doubtful, they'll measure the actual damage and go on from there. There is no way to even guess as to how much oil left the oil well because the Gulf of Mexico is healing itself at an extremely rapid pace.
That should be included in assessing fines and costs related to damages.
We'll see the environmentalists scream loud over the next couple of weeks in order to drown out the facts, as they want to tap into the billions they're asking for from BP to, in reality, pay for the very real damages not associated with the oil spill that has been wrecking the coastlines for many years.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Desperate Democrats Continue BP, Lockerbie Connection Assertion
With the Democrats about to get hammered in November elections, the creation of the BP, Lockerbie boogeyman reveals the lengths they'll go to keep power, even if it accuses one of their top allies as being involved with "blood money" from Libya.
The blood money comment was made by Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer, who should probably be forced to step down once the reality sets in that there is no connection.
All reports point to their being no connection so far, and unless every person being questioned is lying, that's where it'll end up.
Another element involved here, is it has been known for a long time that BP had made overtures toward the British government to press things forward concerning Libya, and to try to make it look like that was just discovered is an outright fabrication.
What is new is the attempt make it look like BP had a role in pressuring the release of the so-called Lockerbie bomber in return for business deals. So far that has been completely refuted by everyone involved. The involvement of BP was in unrelated issues.
What is this all about then? Gerald Warner, writing for the Telegraph, rightly noted this:
"Four Democrat senators are demanding an investigation into whether BP played any role in the release of Megrahi. If the slightest evidence to that effect surfaces, BP is toast. The Obama administration will take it out. That would make Obama look strong again, it would provide a useful distraction from his other failures...."
That's what it's all about: Politics. Obama is possibly the most ineffective and arrogant president in the history of the United States, and he's basically a lame duck less than two years into his presidency. To take the attention off of himself and place it on BP, Britain, and the emotional Lockerbie situation would be a coup if any shred of dubious evidence is put forth; something that surrounded the original case as it was.
This also reveals the poor character of the Democrats, who in grasping at straws are willing to cause deep and long-term harm with an ally in order to keep their positions for another term.
The anemic Obama, and Democrats, are trying to find anything to make them look strong, and this is one of the last things they can do before mid-term elections.
I think this will backfire as the American people get an even deeper glimpse into the depth they'll go to retain power.
The blood money comment was made by Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer, who should probably be forced to step down once the reality sets in that there is no connection.
All reports point to their being no connection so far, and unless every person being questioned is lying, that's where it'll end up.
Another element involved here, is it has been known for a long time that BP had made overtures toward the British government to press things forward concerning Libya, and to try to make it look like that was just discovered is an outright fabrication.
What is new is the attempt make it look like BP had a role in pressuring the release of the so-called Lockerbie bomber in return for business deals. So far that has been completely refuted by everyone involved. The involvement of BP was in unrelated issues.
What is this all about then? Gerald Warner, writing for the Telegraph, rightly noted this:
"Four Democrat senators are demanding an investigation into whether BP played any role in the release of Megrahi. If the slightest evidence to that effect surfaces, BP is toast. The Obama administration will take it out. That would make Obama look strong again, it would provide a useful distraction from his other failures...."
That's what it's all about: Politics. Obama is possibly the most ineffective and arrogant president in the history of the United States, and he's basically a lame duck less than two years into his presidency. To take the attention off of himself and place it on BP, Britain, and the emotional Lockerbie situation would be a coup if any shred of dubious evidence is put forth; something that surrounded the original case as it was.
This also reveals the poor character of the Democrats, who in grasping at straws are willing to cause deep and long-term harm with an ally in order to keep their positions for another term.
The anemic Obama, and Democrats, are trying to find anything to make them look strong, and this is one of the last things they can do before mid-term elections.
I think this will backfire as the American people get an even deeper glimpse into the depth they'll go to retain power.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
How Will Obama Replace 46,000 Lost Jobs from Moratorium?
Outrage has been immediate at the bizarre obsession of Barack Obama and his administration in forcing a moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, even after judges struck down the notion.
Others point to the fact the deepwater rigs in the Gulf have all been tested and found to be sound.
Even so, U. S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar made this strange comment: “I am basing my decision on evidence that grows every day of the industry’s inability in the deepwater to contain a catastrophic blowout, respond to an oil spill, and to operate safely. I remain open to modifying the new deepwater drilling suspensions based on new information, but industry must raise the bar on its practices and answer fundamental questions about deepwater safety, blowout prevention and containment, and oil spill response.”
This is in spite of the solid safety record in the Gulf, other than the obvious existing one, and the fact there is no "evidence" of any type to confirm the industry can't "operate safely." They can and have operated safely, and one accident doesn't imply or prove anything, other than there was one failure. This is after decades of working in the region and thousands of oil wells dug.
So to assert one error demonizes the entire industry is irresponsible and outrageous, and a large and growing number of people agree.
Obama's own party has in some cases abandoned him here, as Darrell Issa (Dem., California), has asked the White House to explain how they're going to replace the approximate 46,000 jobs that could be lost because of the ban.
No response from the White House. That's because they're clueless and reckless in this decision, and continues the arrogant disregard for the will of the American people.
Others point to the fact the deepwater rigs in the Gulf have all been tested and found to be sound.
Even so, U. S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar made this strange comment: “I am basing my decision on evidence that grows every day of the industry’s inability in the deepwater to contain a catastrophic blowout, respond to an oil spill, and to operate safely. I remain open to modifying the new deepwater drilling suspensions based on new information, but industry must raise the bar on its practices and answer fundamental questions about deepwater safety, blowout prevention and containment, and oil spill response.”
This is in spite of the solid safety record in the Gulf, other than the obvious existing one, and the fact there is no "evidence" of any type to confirm the industry can't "operate safely." They can and have operated safely, and one accident doesn't imply or prove anything, other than there was one failure. This is after decades of working in the region and thousands of oil wells dug.
So to assert one error demonizes the entire industry is irresponsible and outrageous, and a large and growing number of people agree.
Obama's own party has in some cases abandoned him here, as Darrell Issa (Dem., California), has asked the White House to explain how they're going to replace the approximate 46,000 jobs that could be lost because of the ban.
No response from the White House. That's because they're clueless and reckless in this decision, and continues the arrogant disregard for the will of the American people.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Appeals Court Spanks Obama Over Gulf Drilling Moratorium
Drilling in the deep waters of the Gulf can now resume, as Obama was again rejected concerning the moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico, which now opens the door for drilling to resume in the region and people returning to work.
This isn't referring to the final decision, it refers to drilling being allowed in the interim while a final decision is being made.
The decision is a good one, because if the moratorium was reinstated, essentially the Obama administration would have really won, as the next step of the legal process won't be taken up until the latter part of August or into September. By that time, as Obama knows, it would be too late for the decision to matter one way or the other, as far as it relates to the six-month period.
Now the question will be whether or not the oil companies resume operations in light of the decision. If they do, than it's a victory for the workers in the Gulf region, if not, it's only a shallow moral victory but one which will keep them from providing for their families.
Those oil companies in the Gulf should all resume production, and then let the Obama administration be the ones on the defensive if they supposedly win the implementation of the moratorium, but lose politically because they put thousands of people out of work again.
This isn't referring to the final decision, it refers to drilling being allowed in the interim while a final decision is being made.
The decision is a good one, because if the moratorium was reinstated, essentially the Obama administration would have really won, as the next step of the legal process won't be taken up until the latter part of August or into September. By that time, as Obama knows, it would be too late for the decision to matter one way or the other, as far as it relates to the six-month period.
Now the question will be whether or not the oil companies resume operations in light of the decision. If they do, than it's a victory for the workers in the Gulf region, if not, it's only a shallow moral victory but one which will keep them from providing for their families.
Those oil companies in the Gulf should all resume production, and then let the Obama administration be the ones on the defensive if they supposedly win the implementation of the moratorium, but lose politically because they put thousands of people out of work again.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Judge Rejects Obama Request for Moratorium Stay
The decision by Barack Obama to place a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico was rejected by U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman, resulting in an immediate appeal from the administration.
On Thursday, Judge Feldman rejected the appeal, saying he won't change his decision to block the administration from imposing the ban.
The next step for Obama would be to request the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for a stay.
According to the Judge, the decision to ban drilling in the Gulf of Mexico was too arbitrary and all-encompassing, and didn't include the results of inspections by the government which said there were no major problems on the other rigs in the Gulf.
Taking all that into account, Judge Feldman removed the ban, and as of today, keeps his decision in place.
On Thursday, Judge Feldman rejected the appeal, saying he won't change his decision to block the administration from imposing the ban.
The next step for Obama would be to request the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for a stay.
According to the Judge, the decision to ban drilling in the Gulf of Mexico was too arbitrary and all-encompassing, and didn't include the results of inspections by the government which said there were no major problems on the other rigs in the Gulf.
Taking all that into account, Judge Feldman removed the ban, and as of today, keeps his decision in place.
Obama's BP (NYSE:BP) Oil Spill Mistakes
Obama should have consulted with Ron Paul before attempting to do too much in the Gulf of Mexico, as then he would have kept himself from making too many mistakes.
It's too bad Obama didn't heed his initial thoughts and keep clear of the BP (NYSE:BP) oil spill than he has, as the pressure from the wacky progressive base he has, resulted in one mistake after another in handling the Gulf disaster.
The first mistake was one of omission, where he refused to waive the Jones Act, which forbids foreign vessels from working in U.S. waters. This was an incredibly foolish thing to do, and it was done just to cater to his union base.
If he had allowed the foreign skimmers in, the amount of oil that could have been removed from the Gulf of Mexico would have been enormous, and we may not even be close to having the problems we are having today as a consequence of that inaction.
At the beginning I believe Obama was doing the right thing in calmly watching the situation. But that wasn't enough for his supporters, who pressured him to show some anger, and once he started that, he generated a diplomatic row with Britain that still hasn't been resolved, and left a bad taste in the majority of Americans' mouths for acting the bully.
The decision to keep berms from being built to protect the Louisiana coastline was another enormous error, although it was obviously retracted and the berms were started to be built.
But as of Wednesday, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife division halted some of that in the name of some environmental nonsense, as if the oil filling the coastlines of Louisiana aren't an environmental crisis. This is the same type of idiocy that kept the berms from being built in the first place.
And the shutting down of barges being used to siphon oil from near the coast of Louisiana in order to check for fire extinguishers and life jackets for over 24 hours was another look into Obama not having a handle on things.
The worst of it all though was the imposition of a moratorium which is doing more to harm the Gulf region in relationship to jobs than the oil spill itself.
Ron Paul said about that, "Many have criticized the federal government in the past weeks for not doing enough. The reality is there is only so much government can do to help, yet a lot they can do to prolong the problem and misdirect the pain. For example, in the interest of 'doing something' the administration has enacted a unilateral ban on offshore drilling. This is counterproductive. I am proud to cosponsor legislation to lift that ban. Why punish other oil companies and their hard-working employees who had nothing to do with this disaster, and who have better safety records?."
As Ron Paul says, the best thing in times like these is for government to get out of the way and let those who know what to do - do it.
It's too bad Obama didn't heed his initial thoughts and keep clear of the BP (NYSE:BP) oil spill than he has, as the pressure from the wacky progressive base he has, resulted in one mistake after another in handling the Gulf disaster.
The first mistake was one of omission, where he refused to waive the Jones Act, which forbids foreign vessels from working in U.S. waters. This was an incredibly foolish thing to do, and it was done just to cater to his union base.
If he had allowed the foreign skimmers in, the amount of oil that could have been removed from the Gulf of Mexico would have been enormous, and we may not even be close to having the problems we are having today as a consequence of that inaction.
At the beginning I believe Obama was doing the right thing in calmly watching the situation. But that wasn't enough for his supporters, who pressured him to show some anger, and once he started that, he generated a diplomatic row with Britain that still hasn't been resolved, and left a bad taste in the majority of Americans' mouths for acting the bully.
The decision to keep berms from being built to protect the Louisiana coastline was another enormous error, although it was obviously retracted and the berms were started to be built.
But as of Wednesday, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife division halted some of that in the name of some environmental nonsense, as if the oil filling the coastlines of Louisiana aren't an environmental crisis. This is the same type of idiocy that kept the berms from being built in the first place.
And the shutting down of barges being used to siphon oil from near the coast of Louisiana in order to check for fire extinguishers and life jackets for over 24 hours was another look into Obama not having a handle on things.
The worst of it all though was the imposition of a moratorium which is doing more to harm the Gulf region in relationship to jobs than the oil spill itself.
Ron Paul said about that, "Many have criticized the federal government in the past weeks for not doing enough. The reality is there is only so much government can do to help, yet a lot they can do to prolong the problem and misdirect the pain. For example, in the interest of 'doing something' the administration has enacted a unilateral ban on offshore drilling. This is counterproductive. I am proud to cosponsor legislation to lift that ban. Why punish other oil companies and their hard-working employees who had nothing to do with this disaster, and who have better safety records?."
As Ron Paul says, the best thing in times like these is for government to get out of the way and let those who know what to do - do it.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Obama Continues Fighting Against Gulf Jobs
Almost immediately after U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman ruled against continuing the Gulf oil moratorium, the Obama administration said they'll challenge it, and they already have.
Small businesses which operate in the Gulf filed the lawsuit to remove the moratorium, noting it's causing the loss of a large number of jobs in the region.
The judge agreed, saying the moratorium was unprecedented in its scope, and indiscriminately included everybody, even businesses that had solid safety records.
There was also a rebuke by the judge, saying there was dishonesty in the assertions made by the administration. That was a reference to leaving out of the proceedings the fact they had checked the rest of the offshore oil rigs in the Gulf and found nothing wrong with them other than a couple of minor infractions.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar responded, saying he “will issue a new order in the coming days that eliminates any doubt that a moratorium is needed, appropriate, and within our authorities.”
Using their usual thug tactics, Obama and his administration has began an ugly attack on Judge Feldman, with the Associated Press starting it off by implying Feldman was conflicts of interest because he had a small stake in Transocean (NYSE:RIG), which was less than $15,000 in 2008.
The AP report also said Feldman had some interests in Halliburton (NYSE:HAL) and Peabody Energy (NYSE:BUT).
The implication they're trying to imply is Feldman is owned by big oil, and that was the reason behind his decision. No one will be able to prove the Obama administration's hands are in this, but the way it was done and the quickness of the response had their fingerprints everywhere on it.
Either way, the fact that they're aggressively resisting the judge's removal of the moratorium shows they have no real concern for the people of the Gulf, as they're destroying thousands of jobs in the area, which very well could leave the region forever.
Small businesses which operate in the Gulf filed the lawsuit to remove the moratorium, noting it's causing the loss of a large number of jobs in the region.
The judge agreed, saying the moratorium was unprecedented in its scope, and indiscriminately included everybody, even businesses that had solid safety records.
There was also a rebuke by the judge, saying there was dishonesty in the assertions made by the administration. That was a reference to leaving out of the proceedings the fact they had checked the rest of the offshore oil rigs in the Gulf and found nothing wrong with them other than a couple of minor infractions.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar responded, saying he “will issue a new order in the coming days that eliminates any doubt that a moratorium is needed, appropriate, and within our authorities.”
Using their usual thug tactics, Obama and his administration has began an ugly attack on Judge Feldman, with the Associated Press starting it off by implying Feldman was conflicts of interest because he had a small stake in Transocean (NYSE:RIG), which was less than $15,000 in 2008.
The AP report also said Feldman had some interests in Halliburton (NYSE:HAL) and Peabody Energy (NYSE:BUT).
The implication they're trying to imply is Feldman is owned by big oil, and that was the reason behind his decision. No one will be able to prove the Obama administration's hands are in this, but the way it was done and the quickness of the response had their fingerprints everywhere on it.
Either way, the fact that they're aggressively resisting the judge's removal of the moratorium shows they have no real concern for the people of the Gulf, as they're destroying thousands of jobs in the area, which very well could leave the region forever.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Law Catching Up with Obama: Judge Lifts Gulf Moratorium
The outrageous behavior of Barack Obama in arrogantly ignoring the law has started to catch up with him, the latest being the lifting of the six-month moratorium on on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico from the BP (NYSE:BP) oil spill.
Parameters of the moratorium were the stoppage of drilling in waters over 500 feet deep, allegedly in order to study how to improve the safey of offshore drilling, even though there had already been an immediate inspections which cleared the remaining oil rigs of any safety concerns, with only two having minor infractions.
New Orleans U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman gave this as his reasoning behind the decision:
“The court is unable to divine or fathom a relationship between the findings and the immense scope of the moratorium. The blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger.”
The Obama administration said it'll appeal the decision, causing even more hardship for businesses and workers in the Gulf region.
Parameters of the moratorium were the stoppage of drilling in waters over 500 feet deep, allegedly in order to study how to improve the safey of offshore drilling, even though there had already been an immediate inspections which cleared the remaining oil rigs of any safety concerns, with only two having minor infractions.
New Orleans U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman gave this as his reasoning behind the decision:
“The court is unable to divine or fathom a relationship between the findings and the immense scope of the moratorium. The blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger.”
The Obama administration said it'll appeal the decision, causing even more hardship for businesses and workers in the Gulf region.
Judge May Lift Obama Gulf Oil Moratorium
If the question asked by U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman is a guide going forward, the six-month moratorium on oil could be lifted as early as Wednesday.
The moratorium covers the 33 existing well searching for oil in the Gulf, as well as suspending any new drilling permits being awarded in the region.
Feldom queried a government lawyer concerning why this time there was an oil spill there was a suspension of deep-water drilling, when in the case of the Exxon Valdez there wasn't a ban on other oil tankers transporting the oil, as well as in other industrial accidents which could have resulted in similar orders.
The judge is presiding over a lawsuit filed by Hornbeck Offshore Services of Covington, La., which claims Obama and his administration took the extraordinary steps without any proof the remaining drilling posed a threat in any way.
Actually, almost all of them were cleared of any problems after being checked, yet remain under the moratorium.
According to the Hornbeck lawsuit, the moratorium will probably cost the area millions of dollars in lost wages, along with thousands of jobs.
The judge will make a ruling on Wednesday on whether to lift the moratorium or not.
The moratorium covers the 33 existing well searching for oil in the Gulf, as well as suspending any new drilling permits being awarded in the region.
Feldom queried a government lawyer concerning why this time there was an oil spill there was a suspension of deep-water drilling, when in the case of the Exxon Valdez there wasn't a ban on other oil tankers transporting the oil, as well as in other industrial accidents which could have resulted in similar orders.
The judge is presiding over a lawsuit filed by Hornbeck Offshore Services of Covington, La., which claims Obama and his administration took the extraordinary steps without any proof the remaining drilling posed a threat in any way.
Actually, almost all of them were cleared of any problems after being checked, yet remain under the moratorium.
According to the Hornbeck lawsuit, the moratorium will probably cost the area millions of dollars in lost wages, along with thousands of jobs.
The judge will make a ruling on Wednesday on whether to lift the moratorium or not.
Thomas Sowell Shreds Obama on BP (NYSE:BP)
Using the BP (NYSE:BP) accident as a backdrop to expose the roots of the Obama administration and where this country is heading if it continues in the direction it is pointed toward, Thomas Sowell sliced and diced Obama and his cronies, showing the end result, if not stopped, will be tyranny in the country, and unprecedented and unchecked power.
With tyranny the idea and practice Sowell is attacking, let's look at where he starts dismantling Obama and his administration, using the extortion tactics which ended with BP caving into the demands of Obama.
Sowell asks in an editorial titled 'Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?' ... "Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere."
By the way, the tactic the thugs used to make everyone back off their criticism was the usual viciousness and hatred from the left, attempting to quickly shut their opponents up by intimidating and painting them as opposing the paying out of legitimate claims to those affected by the oil spill, essentially demonizing them with lies, using the media as their tool as usual. Bill O'Reilly from Fox joined in, not bothered at all by the shakedown Obama and the Democrats performed on BP, not seeming to have the mental capacity to understand where it will lead to as Obama does it time after time in every crisis he faces.
For O'Reilly, while I'm serious, I don't even mean it personal, I mean he really doesn't seem to have the intellectual ability to figure it out; the reason he strong-armed Michele Bachmann concerning BP being shaken down by Obama, which they in truth were.
The issue has never been one of whether those filing legitimate claims should be compensated, Obama and the Democrats knew that. The issue was Obama again taking power he doesn't have the right to take, and do whatever he wants with it, using the suffering of people to manipulate the masses to accept it, and to demonize all those who oppose it, creating what appears to be a grey area, but in fact is a direct attack upon the Constitution of the United States.
Sowell adds, "If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.
"But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without 'due process of law.'"
In what appeared to be confusion in Michele Bachman on O'Reilly the other day, it reminded me of Sarah Palin when she ran with John McCain as the vice presidential candidate. You could tell she strongly believed one thing but was given talking points which made her sound confused, and made her look somewhat anemic at the time.
This is the first time I've seen something similar in Michele, but I think she'll recover and do great, but it does point to a somewhat cowardly Republican leadership, who obviously did something to rein her in, although even more surprising is it looks like she gave in to the pressure.
You can tell when O'Reilly pressed her that she struggled with her response, not because O'Reilly intimidated her, but over whether or not she was going to toe the party line in this case.
The big deal over Barton saying it was an shakedown, and then apologizing was of course the backdrop to this interview, but even he should have stuck to his guns, and we could have gotten a clearer picture of what really was going on.
That's why Obama, the Democrats, and the media they control screamed as loud as they did. They understood the consequences of being exposed as leading America to tyranny in what they're doing, and they'll continue screaming as loud as they can every time they go beyond the Constitution and act as if they're accountable to no one.
Sowell concludes:
"With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution."
The medicine, according to Sowell, is to not just pay attention to the individual cases Obama and the Democrats are damaging the country with, but look to the core issue, which is "American democracy is being dismantled" right before us, and nobody seems to be concerned over that reality.
To battle it we must become informed citizens, says Sowell. More than anything, that's probably the reason behind the rise of Barack Obama, as people, like Bill O'Reilly, aren't able to discern the roots of tyranny, and wholeheartedly agree to it based on the end justifying the means. It never can, and its the root of tyranny to take action based on it, as we are getting taught by the Obama administration and the Democrats.
To believe in constitutional government is to believe the end can never justify the means.
So now we have an unconfirmed "czar" with access to $20 billion of BP's money to do with and award to whoever he wants to, all in the name of getting the money out quicker than BP because so many people are suffering, even though BP was doing fine with that, already dispensing of over $105 million from claims made from businesses and individuals.
This is a shakedown and it was extortion. To back off from that is ridiculous, as it could have been explained continually, and over and over again, that the fund is illegal, and it would make thing go any quicker, as we're already seeing from the new escrow fund czar, who talks a good talk, but not much else.
But even if he does a good job is beside the point. He doesn't legally have the right to have the job in the first place, and principled lawmakers should have resisted the pressure and stood together against forcing BP to put the $20 billion into the fund (over a 4-year period).
Sowell notes that a continual series of these practices has emerged, moving in unison with each crisis. Each one will give to the government a little more power, and ultimately, as Sowell concludes, it'll lead to country ruled in tyranny.
With tyranny the idea and practice Sowell is attacking, let's look at where he starts dismantling Obama and his administration, using the extortion tactics which ended with BP caving into the demands of Obama.
Sowell asks in an editorial titled 'Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?' ... "Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere."
By the way, the tactic the thugs used to make everyone back off their criticism was the usual viciousness and hatred from the left, attempting to quickly shut their opponents up by intimidating and painting them as opposing the paying out of legitimate claims to those affected by the oil spill, essentially demonizing them with lies, using the media as their tool as usual. Bill O'Reilly from Fox joined in, not bothered at all by the shakedown Obama and the Democrats performed on BP, not seeming to have the mental capacity to understand where it will lead to as Obama does it time after time in every crisis he faces.
For O'Reilly, while I'm serious, I don't even mean it personal, I mean he really doesn't seem to have the intellectual ability to figure it out; the reason he strong-armed Michele Bachmann concerning BP being shaken down by Obama, which they in truth were.
The issue has never been one of whether those filing legitimate claims should be compensated, Obama and the Democrats knew that. The issue was Obama again taking power he doesn't have the right to take, and do whatever he wants with it, using the suffering of people to manipulate the masses to accept it, and to demonize all those who oppose it, creating what appears to be a grey area, but in fact is a direct attack upon the Constitution of the United States.
Sowell adds, "If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.
"But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without 'due process of law.'"
In what appeared to be confusion in Michele Bachman on O'Reilly the other day, it reminded me of Sarah Palin when she ran with John McCain as the vice presidential candidate. You could tell she strongly believed one thing but was given talking points which made her sound confused, and made her look somewhat anemic at the time.
This is the first time I've seen something similar in Michele, but I think she'll recover and do great, but it does point to a somewhat cowardly Republican leadership, who obviously did something to rein her in, although even more surprising is it looks like she gave in to the pressure.
You can tell when O'Reilly pressed her that she struggled with her response, not because O'Reilly intimidated her, but over whether or not she was going to toe the party line in this case.
The big deal over Barton saying it was an shakedown, and then apologizing was of course the backdrop to this interview, but even he should have stuck to his guns, and we could have gotten a clearer picture of what really was going on.
That's why Obama, the Democrats, and the media they control screamed as loud as they did. They understood the consequences of being exposed as leading America to tyranny in what they're doing, and they'll continue screaming as loud as they can every time they go beyond the Constitution and act as if they're accountable to no one.
Sowell concludes:
"With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution."
The medicine, according to Sowell, is to not just pay attention to the individual cases Obama and the Democrats are damaging the country with, but look to the core issue, which is "American democracy is being dismantled" right before us, and nobody seems to be concerned over that reality.
To battle it we must become informed citizens, says Sowell. More than anything, that's probably the reason behind the rise of Barack Obama, as people, like Bill O'Reilly, aren't able to discern the roots of tyranny, and wholeheartedly agree to it based on the end justifying the means. It never can, and its the root of tyranny to take action based on it, as we are getting taught by the Obama administration and the Democrats.
To believe in constitutional government is to believe the end can never justify the means.
So now we have an unconfirmed "czar" with access to $20 billion of BP's money to do with and award to whoever he wants to, all in the name of getting the money out quicker than BP because so many people are suffering, even though BP was doing fine with that, already dispensing of over $105 million from claims made from businesses and individuals.
This is a shakedown and it was extortion. To back off from that is ridiculous, as it could have been explained continually, and over and over again, that the fund is illegal, and it would make thing go any quicker, as we're already seeing from the new escrow fund czar, who talks a good talk, but not much else.
But even if he does a good job is beside the point. He doesn't legally have the right to have the job in the first place, and principled lawmakers should have resisted the pressure and stood together against forcing BP to put the $20 billion into the fund (over a 4-year period).
Sowell notes that a continual series of these practices has emerged, moving in unison with each crisis. Each one will give to the government a little more power, and ultimately, as Sowell concludes, it'll lead to country ruled in tyranny.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Obama Haunted by Gulf Oil Moratorium
The growing realization that, among the many mistakes and omissions made by Obama in the BP (NYSE:BP) oil spill, the six-month moratorium may be the worst, and is haunting Obama, who is caught between looking like he did something about the oil crisis, and on the other hand, destroying the economy of the region because of his knee jerk reaction to it, which he still remains clueless on. At least he's getting in a good game of golf though.
Even the reasoning behind the moratorium has been found not only to be faulty, but outright dishonest.
The Washington Examiner reported this:
"The justification offered was an Interior Department report supposedly 'peer reviewed' by 'experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.' But it turned out the drafts the experts saw didn't include any recommendation for a moratorium. Eight of the cited experts have said they oppose the moratorium as more economically devastating than the oil spill and 'counterproductive' to safety."
Other possible criminal actions by Obama was the refusal to waive the Jones Act which would have allowed better-prepared and more effective foreign skimmers to come in and extract the oil from almost the beginning of the spill.
With Obama and the Democrats playing politics and not doing that in a nod to their union allies, they've done incomparable damage to the Gulf of Mexico by allowing the oil to just sit there. Unions related to this gave Democrats and Obama about $400 million for the 2008 campaign cycle.
But as for the moratorium, some oil rigs have already permanently left the area, resulting in permanent loss of jobs, and the consequences to the region overall for the six months could run into the billions of dollar and thousands of lost jobs; both in the oil industry and support businesses.
Even the reasoning behind the moratorium has been found not only to be faulty, but outright dishonest.
The Washington Examiner reported this:
"The justification offered was an Interior Department report supposedly 'peer reviewed' by 'experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.' But it turned out the drafts the experts saw didn't include any recommendation for a moratorium. Eight of the cited experts have said they oppose the moratorium as more economically devastating than the oil spill and 'counterproductive' to safety."
Other possible criminal actions by Obama was the refusal to waive the Jones Act which would have allowed better-prepared and more effective foreign skimmers to come in and extract the oil from almost the beginning of the spill.
With Obama and the Democrats playing politics and not doing that in a nod to their union allies, they've done incomparable damage to the Gulf of Mexico by allowing the oil to just sit there. Unions related to this gave Democrats and Obama about $400 million for the 2008 campaign cycle.
But as for the moratorium, some oil rigs have already permanently left the area, resulting in permanent loss of jobs, and the consequences to the region overall for the six months could run into the billions of dollar and thousands of lost jobs; both in the oil industry and support businesses.
Oil Moratoriam "Idiotic" Says Trace Adkins
Country music artist Trace Adkins responded when asked by Anderson Cooper in a recent interview what his views of the oil moratorium were, that it was "idiotic," and the same as "kicking a man when he was down."
Adkins, who used to work on oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico for six years, noted the terrific record of the oil companies in the region, and cited the restrictions which force oil companies to drill out in that deep of water as probably part of the reason for the disaster, as the oil companies have far more control in shallow water drilling than in deep.
It's incredible that Obama and the Democrats don't get this. They can't seem to put their heads around the fact that they are doing more harm to the people of the Gulf with the moratorium, as the jobs lost will be substantial, and it is all sorts of supportive businesses, not just the oil workers alone which will suffer.
Adkins, who used to work on oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico for six years, noted the terrific record of the oil companies in the region, and cited the restrictions which force oil companies to drill out in that deep of water as probably part of the reason for the disaster, as the oil companies have far more control in shallow water drilling than in deep.
It's incredible that Obama and the Democrats don't get this. They can't seem to put their heads around the fact that they are doing more harm to the people of the Gulf with the moratorium, as the jobs lost will be substantial, and it is all sorts of supportive businesses, not just the oil workers alone which will suffer.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Cameron Pushes Back at Obama over BP (NYSE:BP)
British Prime Minister David Cameron pushed back against Barack Obama over what is becoming to look like a witch hunt with BP (NYSE:BP), rather than a legitimate quest to take care of cleanup costs and legitimate claims against the company for damages to businesses and jobs.
Many British shareholders in BP are seething over the pressure from the Obama administration and Democrats which resulted in the suspension of the dividend of the company for the remainder of 2010.
Even more concerning for Cameron and the British people, was what appears to be the idea that there is no cap on what BP will have to pay, and the commitment of $20 billion to a fund over the next for years to pay for claims and other damages,
Obama stated, “This $20 billion will provide substantial assurance that the claims people and businesses have will be honored. It’s also important to emphasise this is not a cap.”
Speaking to the potential abuse from those making claims against the money in the fund, Cameron said, "They do need a level of certainty, and this is BP's worry, that there won't be claims entertained that are three or four times removed from the oil spill. This shouldn't be about going after BP for the sake of it."
Cameron is correct of course. That's why I've opposed BP caving to the demands, as immediately afterwards Obama came out and made the comment that it was "not a cap."
Nobody said it was. But the implication is he's going to continue to sock it to the company in order to attempt to generate political gain. But that's already backfiring, as the far left liberals in America are turning against Obama because he isn't using the circumstance to promote their global warming agenda via cap-and-trade legislation.
It's impossible at this time to come up with more consistency in what it could come close to costing BP, as American scientists are all over the place with how much oil is spilling into the Gulf of Mexico, as over the last several days they've thrown out everything from 20,000 barrels a day all the way up to 60,000 barrels a day.
And the Democrats and Obama call out BP on their former numbers of 5,000 barrels a day. The disparity of up to 40,000 barrels a day makes it impossible to tell what the reality is, and until BP is able to gather the majority of oil on ships in the area, no one can really accurately estimate the amount of oil, and by extension, the ultimate costs related to the spill.
Responding to feedback from the British, Cameron concluded that he will indeed need to "stand up for BP a bit more,” and that seems to imply he and the British think the bashing has gone on long enough, and there needs to be more constructive comments coming from the administration.
Pressure will continue to mount on Cameron if the Obama administration refuses to let up, and that could result in some serious diplomatic problems if there isn't some give there.
Many British shareholders in BP are seething over the pressure from the Obama administration and Democrats which resulted in the suspension of the dividend of the company for the remainder of 2010.
Even more concerning for Cameron and the British people, was what appears to be the idea that there is no cap on what BP will have to pay, and the commitment of $20 billion to a fund over the next for years to pay for claims and other damages,
Obama stated, “This $20 billion will provide substantial assurance that the claims people and businesses have will be honored. It’s also important to emphasise this is not a cap.”
Speaking to the potential abuse from those making claims against the money in the fund, Cameron said, "They do need a level of certainty, and this is BP's worry, that there won't be claims entertained that are three or four times removed from the oil spill. This shouldn't be about going after BP for the sake of it."
Cameron is correct of course. That's why I've opposed BP caving to the demands, as immediately afterwards Obama came out and made the comment that it was "not a cap."
Nobody said it was. But the implication is he's going to continue to sock it to the company in order to attempt to generate political gain. But that's already backfiring, as the far left liberals in America are turning against Obama because he isn't using the circumstance to promote their global warming agenda via cap-and-trade legislation.
It's impossible at this time to come up with more consistency in what it could come close to costing BP, as American scientists are all over the place with how much oil is spilling into the Gulf of Mexico, as over the last several days they've thrown out everything from 20,000 barrels a day all the way up to 60,000 barrels a day.
And the Democrats and Obama call out BP on their former numbers of 5,000 barrels a day. The disparity of up to 40,000 barrels a day makes it impossible to tell what the reality is, and until BP is able to gather the majority of oil on ships in the area, no one can really accurately estimate the amount of oil, and by extension, the ultimate costs related to the spill.
Responding to feedback from the British, Cameron concluded that he will indeed need to "stand up for BP a bit more,” and that seems to imply he and the British think the bashing has gone on long enough, and there needs to be more constructive comments coming from the administration.
Pressure will continue to mount on Cameron if the Obama administration refuses to let up, and that could result in some serious diplomatic problems if there isn't some give there.
Obama's Unions Hindering BP (NYSE:BP) Cleanup Efforts
Outrage is growing over the Democrats and Obama who refuse to waive the Jones Act, because of it being an election year, in order to get highly sophisticated and effective foreign ships helping in the BP (NYSE:BP) Gulf oil spill.
The Jones Act, which not only needs to be waived, but removed as law in this country, is a draconian law going back to years of prohibition where a foreign ship isn't allowed to enter U.S. waters to do work unless what is called a waiver is implemented so they are able to.
For a foreign ship to be allowed to work in American waters, it must have been built in America, a reference to unions who would throw a tantrum if these ships came in to help clean the environmental disaster the oil spill is.
President Bush quickly waived the Jones Act in order to help the disaster from the wake of hurricane Katrina; the reason Bush is considered better at this response than the hapless Obama has been.
Incredibly and with a straight face, White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs said this about waving the Jones Act in order to help the Gulf region combat the spewing oil, “If there is the need for any type of waiver, that would obviously be granted. But, we've not had that problem thus far.”
We haven't had that problem so far? Is he serious? That by the way is straight from Obama's mouth, as the White House spokesman is just that: a parrot for the President.
So in Obama's pretense of concern and outrage, he refuses to allow highly advance foreign skimming ships to come in to help in the effort to clean up the oil, protect the environment, and help the region recover quickly from the disaster.
Obama and the Democrats do this in order to placate his union buddies, who would strongly oppose the operations and show little if any concern for what really matters.
Even Democratic Senator Bill Nelson noted the stupidity of the comments, saying, "I believe the orange mousse of oil that is now in Florida’s waters is more than enough evidence that we need to take advantage of every appropriate global resource. Please advise as to whether we are taking full advantage of the offers of assistance from other countries.”
The Jones Act, which not only needs to be waived, but removed as law in this country, is a draconian law going back to years of prohibition where a foreign ship isn't allowed to enter U.S. waters to do work unless what is called a waiver is implemented so they are able to.
For a foreign ship to be allowed to work in American waters, it must have been built in America, a reference to unions who would throw a tantrum if these ships came in to help clean the environmental disaster the oil spill is.
President Bush quickly waived the Jones Act in order to help the disaster from the wake of hurricane Katrina; the reason Bush is considered better at this response than the hapless Obama has been.
Incredibly and with a straight face, White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs said this about waving the Jones Act in order to help the Gulf region combat the spewing oil, “If there is the need for any type of waiver, that would obviously be granted. But, we've not had that problem thus far.”
We haven't had that problem so far? Is he serious? That by the way is straight from Obama's mouth, as the White House spokesman is just that: a parrot for the President.
So in Obama's pretense of concern and outrage, he refuses to allow highly advance foreign skimming ships to come in to help in the effort to clean up the oil, protect the environment, and help the region recover quickly from the disaster.
Obama and the Democrats do this in order to placate his union buddies, who would strongly oppose the operations and show little if any concern for what really matters.
Even Democratic Senator Bill Nelson noted the stupidity of the comments, saying, "I believe the orange mousse of oil that is now in Florida’s waters is more than enough evidence that we need to take advantage of every appropriate global resource. Please advise as to whether we are taking full advantage of the offers of assistance from other countries.”
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Obama's BP (NYSE:BP) Connection
A lot of people may not know this, but Obama has received more campaign contributions than any other federal candidate over the last two decades from, you guessed it - BP (NYSE:BP). That includes employees of BP.
This must be an issue more thoroughly explored as to why Obama sat around for weeks doing literally nothing as oil spewed into the Gulf of Mexico.
The connections seems to get worse though, as proposal being pushed by the White House is one that was partially written by BP.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnel said this recently:
"An administration that seems to spend most of its time coming up with new ways to show how angry it is at BP is pushing a proposal that BP actually helped write. I can't understand it, and I don't think the American people will understand why that it makes sense to respond to the BP oil spill by imposing a gas-tax increase on the American people that was advocated by BP."
He's referring to the horrendous "cap-and-trade" bill which could result in the cost of gas more than doubling, along with our electricity bills.
It's incredible the apparent faux outrage of Barack Obama, who has been in bed with big oil for some time, and BP specifically, to propose this bill that would harm so many Americans if it became law, and which was co-written by his friends at BP.
This must be an issue more thoroughly explored as to why Obama sat around for weeks doing literally nothing as oil spewed into the Gulf of Mexico.
The connections seems to get worse though, as proposal being pushed by the White House is one that was partially written by BP.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnel said this recently:
"An administration that seems to spend most of its time coming up with new ways to show how angry it is at BP is pushing a proposal that BP actually helped write. I can't understand it, and I don't think the American people will understand why that it makes sense to respond to the BP oil spill by imposing a gas-tax increase on the American people that was advocated by BP."
He's referring to the horrendous "cap-and-trade" bill which could result in the cost of gas more than doubling, along with our electricity bills.
It's incredible the apparent faux outrage of Barack Obama, who has been in bed with big oil for some time, and BP specifically, to propose this bill that would harm so many Americans if it became law, and which was co-written by his friends at BP.
Monday, June 14, 2010
BP (NYSE:BP) Spill Compared by Obama to 9/11, Outrages Brits Even More
Hopefully Obama will just step down and go away, as the inexperienced politician continues to reveal his true colors, now identifying the BP (NYSE:BP) disaster as similar to the terrorist attack which killed almost 3,000 people in New York, including 67 people from the UK.
Saying, "just as the events of September 11, 2001, had profoundly shaped ‘our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy’, so the oil disaster would shape thinking on the environment and energy for years to come," people who had friends and loved ones die in 911 expressed dismay and outrage over even using the two in comparison.
Families of UK 9/11 victims said Obama was "cruel" is his remarks, adding he was using it to again demean the people in the UK, even after assuring Prime Minister David Cameron that it wasn't his intentions.
It was no different in the U.S., with the vast majority of those who had family members die in the 9/11 attack also outraged over Obama's "ridiculous" comments.
And in this ongoing cynical way of operating, Obama alluded to using the crisis as a tool to push "forward in a bold way in a direction that finally gives us the kind of future-oriented… visionary energy policy that we so vitally need and has been absent for so long."
In other words, don't let any crisis go to waste, and he sure isn't. No matter who he and the Democrats destroy, they don't care, as their fanatical and seemingly psychotic commitment to socializing America against the will of its people is being brought up in the light of every situation the emerges in this country.
Hopefully conservatives and the Republicans will oppose all of this and finally have the guts to expose and oppose this, while preparing to make great gains in the elections of 2010.
For the Brits, their love affair is over with Obama, just like the majority of Americans is. It couldn't happen too soon, and now we need to remove this evil from our government in order to get one again that truly represents the people.
Saying, "just as the events of September 11, 2001, had profoundly shaped ‘our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy’, so the oil disaster would shape thinking on the environment and energy for years to come," people who had friends and loved ones die in 911 expressed dismay and outrage over even using the two in comparison.
Families of UK 9/11 victims said Obama was "cruel" is his remarks, adding he was using it to again demean the people in the UK, even after assuring Prime Minister David Cameron that it wasn't his intentions.
It was no different in the U.S., with the vast majority of those who had family members die in the 9/11 attack also outraged over Obama's "ridiculous" comments.
And in this ongoing cynical way of operating, Obama alluded to using the crisis as a tool to push "forward in a bold way in a direction that finally gives us the kind of future-oriented… visionary energy policy that we so vitally need and has been absent for so long."
In other words, don't let any crisis go to waste, and he sure isn't. No matter who he and the Democrats destroy, they don't care, as their fanatical and seemingly psychotic commitment to socializing America against the will of its people is being brought up in the light of every situation the emerges in this country.
Hopefully conservatives and the Republicans will oppose all of this and finally have the guts to expose and oppose this, while preparing to make great gains in the elections of 2010.
For the Brits, their love affair is over with Obama, just like the majority of Americans is. It couldn't happen too soon, and now we need to remove this evil from our government in order to get one again that truly represents the people.
Why BP (NYSE:BP) Must Reject Escrow Account
The escrow account being pressed by Obama and his Democrats is a horrible idea, and BP (NYSE:BP) needs to completely reject it, as it'll put them in position to be charged just whatever they want by the U.S. government, and then they'll still have endless bills pressed on them after that happens.
Democrats are pushing for $20 billion to launch the fund, which, while being said will be run by a third party, will obviously be a tool for Democrats to distribute what they want, how they want to who they want; the obvious reason for creating the fund in the first place.
They've already done this with bailout funds in the U.S in the auto industry, where they punished political opponents who had car dealerships, while keeping their Democrat constituents in business. That is a proven fact, and the way the thuggish Democrats operate.
The idea of BP taking over the responsibility for four of the states in the region, which this is largely coming to, is criminal in its implications, and a cynical attempt by the Democrats to crush this company, contrary to what Obama asserted to the British prime minister, whom he told he wasn't trying to do.
BP has stated from the beginning that they're more than willing to pay for any legitimate claims they owe those harmed from the accident. This escrow fund would throw that completely out as Democrats would assuredly re-distribute the money to their constituents in the name of BP paying for the oil spill; whether or not it was connected to the oil spill or not.
All they have to do is attempt to find some type of tenuous link they can then blow up into a wrong that needs to be paid for, and there you have this $20 billion waiting there for them to take to pay for the alleged wrong.
This is why the Democrats, again, are sifting through every e-mail or communication BP had in order to dredge up any type of element that makes BP look bad in the oil spill, as they're preparing to pressure them to cave to their every whim and demand to extract as much money from them as they can.
BP must understand that the Democrats will do whatever they want, whether or not they successfully shake down the company or not.
In this case BP would be right to resist them, and nothing the executives do will placate the power-mad Democrats who are so drunk with power and bailing everyone out, they can't get delivered from their addiction, and BP is just a handy scapegoat to pressure to steal billions more from.
BP needs to stick to its guns and only pay out provable claims. This is the usual Obama and Democrat trick to make it look like everyone is running out of time and something must be done immediately.
For BP to succumb to that pressure will be a mistake, as Obama and the Democrats will continue on their shake down no matter if they agree or not.
Stop it now and the clowns will be forced to shut up or reveal more of their agenda from their over-response to BP not giving into it.
There's a point where BP must say enough is enough, and that point is now. If they don't, it's highly unlikely there will be a BP in the future, as once they cave on something as important as this, it'll only be a short time until more demands are presented by Obama and the Democrats to take from the oil company.
This is why Obama and his stooges don't want BP to keep their dividend. It's not because they care one way or the other in general, it's that they have their greedy eyes on the capital of the company, which they already have plans in place to use. You can count on that. And if BP caves on the dividend as well, you'll start to see all sorts of creative and destructive assertion from Obama and the Democrats as to new things that BP will have to pay for.
Democrats are pushing for $20 billion to launch the fund, which, while being said will be run by a third party, will obviously be a tool for Democrats to distribute what they want, how they want to who they want; the obvious reason for creating the fund in the first place.
They've already done this with bailout funds in the U.S in the auto industry, where they punished political opponents who had car dealerships, while keeping their Democrat constituents in business. That is a proven fact, and the way the thuggish Democrats operate.
The idea of BP taking over the responsibility for four of the states in the region, which this is largely coming to, is criminal in its implications, and a cynical attempt by the Democrats to crush this company, contrary to what Obama asserted to the British prime minister, whom he told he wasn't trying to do.
BP has stated from the beginning that they're more than willing to pay for any legitimate claims they owe those harmed from the accident. This escrow fund would throw that completely out as Democrats would assuredly re-distribute the money to their constituents in the name of BP paying for the oil spill; whether or not it was connected to the oil spill or not.
All they have to do is attempt to find some type of tenuous link they can then blow up into a wrong that needs to be paid for, and there you have this $20 billion waiting there for them to take to pay for the alleged wrong.
This is why the Democrats, again, are sifting through every e-mail or communication BP had in order to dredge up any type of element that makes BP look bad in the oil spill, as they're preparing to pressure them to cave to their every whim and demand to extract as much money from them as they can.
BP must understand that the Democrats will do whatever they want, whether or not they successfully shake down the company or not.
In this case BP would be right to resist them, and nothing the executives do will placate the power-mad Democrats who are so drunk with power and bailing everyone out, they can't get delivered from their addiction, and BP is just a handy scapegoat to pressure to steal billions more from.
BP needs to stick to its guns and only pay out provable claims. This is the usual Obama and Democrat trick to make it look like everyone is running out of time and something must be done immediately.
For BP to succumb to that pressure will be a mistake, as Obama and the Democrats will continue on their shake down no matter if they agree or not.
Stop it now and the clowns will be forced to shut up or reveal more of their agenda from their over-response to BP not giving into it.
There's a point where BP must say enough is enough, and that point is now. If they don't, it's highly unlikely there will be a BP in the future, as once they cave on something as important as this, it'll only be a short time until more demands are presented by Obama and the Democrats to take from the oil company.
This is why Obama and his stooges don't want BP to keep their dividend. It's not because they care one way or the other in general, it's that they have their greedy eyes on the capital of the company, which they already have plans in place to use. You can count on that. And if BP caves on the dividend as well, you'll start to see all sorts of creative and destructive assertion from Obama and the Democrats as to new things that BP will have to pay for.
Obama Lynching BP (NYSE:BP)?
Is the response of Obama and the Democrats going to end up destroying BP (NYSE:BP)? Some industry watchers think that is exactly what's happening, and have went so far as to call it a "lynch mob mentality."
Fadel Gheit at Oppenheimer & Co. in New York, said this, “The government has a lynch mob mentality,” said. It’s in nobody’s interest to bankrupt BP, but that’s what Obama is doing right now. Crippling BP is not going to make them clean the spill better.”
In that atmosphere, BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg will visit the White House this week, while the day after, BP CEO Tony Hayward will testify before Congress concerning the disaster.
Some of the outrage from the opposite point of view is the notion BP should be forced to pay for the wages of workers that lost their jobs because of Obama's moratorium on drilling for oil in the region.
That, and Obama and the Democrats trying to force BP to suspend or eliminate their dividend is part of the lynch mob mentality that could end up driving the company to bankruptcy.
Fadel Gheit at Oppenheimer & Co. in New York, said this, “The government has a lynch mob mentality,” said. It’s in nobody’s interest to bankrupt BP, but that’s what Obama is doing right now. Crippling BP is not going to make them clean the spill better.”
In that atmosphere, BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg will visit the White House this week, while the day after, BP CEO Tony Hayward will testify before Congress concerning the disaster.
Some of the outrage from the opposite point of view is the notion BP should be forced to pay for the wages of workers that lost their jobs because of Obama's moratorium on drilling for oil in the region.
That, and Obama and the Democrats trying to force BP to suspend or eliminate their dividend is part of the lynch mob mentality that could end up driving the company to bankruptcy.
BP (NYSE:BP) Getting Barred from US?
As Obama and politicians continue to test the political winds concerning BP (NYSE:BP), if those winds are too strong, they could end up not allowing BP to do business in the U.S. any longer as a consequence of the spill.
Supposedly this is based on what may be called a pattern of behavior, based on the current oil spill, along with the Texas City refinery explosion which killed 15 workers, and the pipeline leak in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska in 2006.
This is odd to me in that BP hasn't even been found culpable yet, as it could have been the responsibility of another company in regard to what caused the disaster, which hasn't been determined yet.
Not only could BP lose future business, but they may lose control of its oil and gas wells in America, although the idea of having American companies take over them would give a look of Hugo Chavez when he took over the oil wells and refineries of oil companies in Venezuela, something which wouldn't look good to the rest of the world.
The administration does have the power to do this, as BP could be removed as operator of any of the leases on land or offshore based on performance metrics. The Interior Department would be the arm of the government with the authority to make that determination.
In that case BP could still remain as part of the operations, so the government is perceived as destroying the company, but it would be as a minority player, and not the one with the majority interest in the projects they're currently involved in.
Some think this is a real possibility going forward.
Supposedly this is based on what may be called a pattern of behavior, based on the current oil spill, along with the Texas City refinery explosion which killed 15 workers, and the pipeline leak in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska in 2006.
This is odd to me in that BP hasn't even been found culpable yet, as it could have been the responsibility of another company in regard to what caused the disaster, which hasn't been determined yet.
Not only could BP lose future business, but they may lose control of its oil and gas wells in America, although the idea of having American companies take over them would give a look of Hugo Chavez when he took over the oil wells and refineries of oil companies in Venezuela, something which wouldn't look good to the rest of the world.
The administration does have the power to do this, as BP could be removed as operator of any of the leases on land or offshore based on performance metrics. The Interior Department would be the arm of the government with the authority to make that determination.
In that case BP could still remain as part of the operations, so the government is perceived as destroying the company, but it would be as a minority player, and not the one with the majority interest in the projects they're currently involved in.
Some think this is a real possibility going forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)