Saturday, July 24, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Another Excuse For Honor Killings
Please, tell me again about Islam-the religion of peace. Tell me how women are free, even though they can be stoned to death based on nothing more than rumors. Tell me how high minded Islam is in regard to children, that can be used as shields, bartered for trade or killed outright for any infringment of parental authority regardless of the law of the land.
Now tell me that Canada is not complicit in allowing this to happen. Tell me that allowing the women who murdered her own daughter somehow deserves freedom of house arrest while her daughter lies dead in her grave. This is political correctness gone mad. To allow this based on the previous sufferings of the mother is to give tacit approval to sharia law and by association to a host of abusive family behaviors just because Canadian courts are too cowed by the implied threat of someone being mad at them.
Shame on you Canada, shame.
"(CTV News Calgary) — Lawyers for a Calgary woman who killed her 14-year-old daughter during a fight say she shouldn’t go to prison.
A judge is hearing sentencing arguments in the case of Aset Magomadova.
She was convicted of manslaughter for strangling her daughter Aminat in 2007 with a scarf.
During her trial, Magomadova testified that Aminat attacked her with a chair and threatened her with a knife.
The teen had a history of drug abuse.
Prosecutors say Magomadova should spend 12 years in prison.
Much of the focus of the hearing is on the trauma Magomadova suffered during the Chechen War.
A psychologist is on the stand Wednesday talking about Magomadova’s mental state.
The 39-year-old refugee’s husband was killed by a bomb in Chechnya.
She was badly wounded during the Chechen war.
When she came here in 2003, her children had a tough time adjusting to life in Canada.
Aminat got in trouble with the law and drugs.
But prosecutors point out that Magomadova showed no remorse or even regret for her daughter’s death.
They say she sees herself as the victim.
Doctor Patrick Baillie says Magomadova suffered from post traumatic stress disorder."
THERE IS NO EXCUSE.
Now tell me that Canada is not complicit in allowing this to happen. Tell me that allowing the women who murdered her own daughter somehow deserves freedom of house arrest while her daughter lies dead in her grave. This is political correctness gone mad. To allow this based on the previous sufferings of the mother is to give tacit approval to sharia law and by association to a host of abusive family behaviors just because Canadian courts are too cowed by the implied threat of someone being mad at them.
Shame on you Canada, shame.
"(CTV News Calgary) — Lawyers for a Calgary woman who killed her 14-year-old daughter during a fight say she shouldn’t go to prison.
A judge is hearing sentencing arguments in the case of Aset Magomadova.
She was convicted of manslaughter for strangling her daughter Aminat in 2007 with a scarf.
During her trial, Magomadova testified that Aminat attacked her with a chair and threatened her with a knife.
The teen had a history of drug abuse.
Prosecutors say Magomadova should spend 12 years in prison.
Much of the focus of the hearing is on the trauma Magomadova suffered during the Chechen War.
A psychologist is on the stand Wednesday talking about Magomadova’s mental state.
The 39-year-old refugee’s husband was killed by a bomb in Chechnya.
She was badly wounded during the Chechen war.
When she came here in 2003, her children had a tough time adjusting to life in Canada.
Aminat got in trouble with the law and drugs.
But prosecutors point out that Magomadova showed no remorse or even regret for her daughter’s death.
They say she sees herself as the victim.
Doctor Patrick Baillie says Magomadova suffered from post traumatic stress disorder."
THERE IS NO EXCUSE.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
How Come We Didn't Hear About This in 2008?
It seems something strange is happening in regards to the DNC. Suddenly all those claims that voter fraud occurred are starting to take on lives of their own. I witnessed voter intimidation as Obama supporters surged into a caucus and took over the meeting. Whereas the Texas polling was fairly close, former Clinton strongholds were suddenly tipping for Obama. Now a documentary has come out. And it's by a Democrat who is appalled at what is happening to polling places and voters in the name of controlling power. To keep up, just this week it was released that felons who may not have had the permission to vote, votes for Al Franken, putting him in office. And then the Big One, Obama campaigns strongarmed many precincts in many states into submission. There are some big questions to be answered and the Clinton campaign tried to get the media to pay attention, but they were too busy with the coronation of Obama. Right now I see Hilary sitting back and watching it all unfold. It doesn't hurt that her old hunting buddy James Carville is polling negatives for teh DNC right. In short, there is trouble in DNC paradise.
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/04/texas-caucus-fraud/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGZFgMNM-UU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXNqFQmGxDU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4XFvq5XMk8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnclKiHwatw
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/04/texas-caucus-fraud/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGZFgMNM-UU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXNqFQmGxDU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4XFvq5XMk8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnclKiHwatw
Sunday, July 11, 2010
On Impeachment: A Serious Discussion
In browsing through Half Price Books Political Section, I came across the book entitled "The Genuis of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism" by John Nichols. Written during the GWB years, and including a forward by Gore Vidal, well known radical Leftist, I expected it to be more or less a diatribe against the Bush Administration. To an extent, it was. But there were also quotes from Founders and previous elected officials and presidents that apply in depth to this administration. The application to current events has as much to do with time as with people. Many of those who are currently rallying to protect this administration from impeachment are the same folks who as young congressmen and women were actively involved in The Impeachment in the form of the Nixon presidency and resignation. Because so many of them are still in office, they tend to believe that their party holds some sort of moral supremacy simply based on their partisanship. Read some of the comments below and ask yourself if it doesn't make you stop and go hmmmmm.......My comments are in blue
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone."--Thomas Jefferson
We are increasingly approaching a day when common decisions by free individuals will be taken out of their hands. We have already seen the subjugation of a large part of the population via the vehicles of public assistance. Assistance means help, but what help is it when in order to recieve money you must jettison marriage and male parents leaving broken families in the wake. This is the legacy of public assistance and it's result is generational poverty with the offshoots of crime, illegitimacy, addiction and death.
"No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment shall be continued. Shall any man be above Justice?"--George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights addressing the Constitutional Convention 1787
Consider for a moment that the use of a crisis, any crisis, to leverage partisan legislation has already been disingenuously used by the current administration. They have breeched the trust of the people through hiding the true costs and the mechanisms and agencies used to enforce their agenda. The healthcare bill would be one example, but the positioning for Immigration is also one that allows citizens to be imperiled while the adminsitration uses incipient danger to push their cause in a panic mode. No legislation should be compelled by such extortive methods.
"If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that eighteenth century document should be abandoned to a twentieth century paper shredder."--Barbara Jordan in reference to the Nixon impeachment
We currently have a candidate for the Supreme Court that is of the school of thought that the Constitution is a "living document" and that it must conform to the fluidity of political thought. By that light, we no longer have structure in government, but instead have a type of magic carpet mentality that would allow for fluidity in the face of the rule of law. This is the type of situational ethics that allows for illegal immigrants to work, receive services and live in this nation without contibuting in the same way citizens are expected to respond.
"Some say this is a sad day in American history. I think it could perhaps be one of our brightest days. It could be really a test of the strength of our Constitution, because what I think it means to most Americans is that when any president violates his sacred oath of office, the people are not left helpless." --Con. Charles Rangel
I wonder if Charles Rangel now would echo those words, of if he simply wrapped himself in the Constitution when it suited his purposes.
"I am fully aware that many American people consider that the president is being attached by sinister forces in this country, by the left-wing press or by the Democrats, and I can assure this gentleman that it matters not to me his party or his position. He is subject to the rule of law and to justice, and in my role under my oath he will get it, be he president or be he pauper."--James Mann, referencing the Nixon impeachment
Note that President Obama has banished Fox News and repeatedly complained about unfair treatment any time his actions are called into question. This type of childish behavior calls into question whether citizens are even allowed to question the actions of the administration. Indeed, in the more liberal media circles, such doubting would be hooted down with cries labeling you as racist or rednecked or simply stupid. This is the type of treatment that groups such as Tea Partyers, Sarah Palin Supporters and others have recieved regularly. The fact that a wealthy background supporter funds groups organized to disrupt, brings into question the propriety of having such a person regularly giving input to national issue.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic ans servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American People."---President Theodore RooseveltTreasonable.
That's an interesting term. So if the compliant media, in failing to allow criticism and indeed in framing public addresses such as the one in Grand Isle, LA in such a light that favors the White House and President Obama, is shielding the president from criticism, are they committing treason? And if they are getting suggestions for stories or angles that flatter the White House, are they in fact abdicating their roles as members of a "free press?
"I do not believe that our people can tolerate the formation of a presidential precedent which would permit any occupant of the White House to exercise his untrammeled discreation to take over the industry, communications system or other forms of private interprise in the name of "emergency." --George Bender, Republican of Ohio in reference to Truman's takeover of the steel industry, 1952
Note how many industrial bases have been taken over by this president in power. Automaking, banking, mortgage loans, medical services, drug manufacturing and more. If we are truly a free enterprise economy, those corporations that did bad things would fail. Instead we propped them up and at a great cost to this generation and future ones in the form of taxes. This would seem to grossly overstep the powers of the Chief Executive's office and be almost a type of coercion for compliance within political circles as in a "don't rock the boat" type message.
"The powers of impeachment is the Constitution's paramount power of self-preservation."--Robert McClory, Republican of Illinois, 1974
Once again, the collusion of partisan ideals between Legislative and Executive Branches of government leave the Judiciary as the only possibility of recourse or dissent. Stacking the court with partisans that accept situational ethics over Constitutional rule of law will permit egregious actions in absolute defiance to the will of the people. It is dangerous.
"When the Chief Executive of the country starts to investigate private citizens who criticize his policies or authorizes subordinates to do such things,then I think the rattle of the chains that would bind up our constitutional freedoms can be heard, and it is against this rattle that we should awake and say no."--Con. William Cohen, Maine, in regards to the Nixon impeachment
There have been repeated suggestions that President Obama might be given the power to control the Internet. Already the ability to oppose the government in the media is being attacked via the misnamed "Fairness Act" that would impose programming limitations intending to drive largely conservative Talk Radio off the air. There are also actions in play to subsidize failing newspapers. How objective do you believe these news outlets would be when the government controls what they receive. One of the first actions taken by usurpers and tyrants is to control the media. When we have these messages being accepted by members of one party, everyone should be concerned. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
" ..For Barr, it had never been about sex with interns. He had become enraged at a much earlier stage in the Clitnon presidency, after it was revealed that White House staffers had obtained confidential files on Republican officials, apparently for political purposes...'Initially, primarily watching the way the people in the White House operate, it rasied some very serious questions in my mind. They didn't seem to care at all what the law allowed then to do or prohibited them from doing.....'What bothers me most is the abuse of power'...'The Constitution provides a mechanism, a political tool for a political offense.In our system of government, the only vehicle we have to remove somebody from office, if they abuse their office, is impeachment."--quote from book by John Nichols, referencing Con. Bob Barr, Georgia, on the impeachment of President Clinton, 1997
It's ironic that political history parallels sports history. When SMU was given the Death Penalty by the NCAA, the devastation of their athletic programs made the NCAA hesitant to give such a penalty to larger players in places like Alabama, Nebraska, Oklahoma for fear of similar total meltdowns. After the impeachment of Nixon and his resignation in disgrace, many in Congress were reluctant to approach the idea of impeachment even though many of the crimes noted were just as bad or worse in the Clinton White House. Such reticence continues although within the general population outside the Beltway, people are repeatedly asking why this adminsitration continues to behave in such highly partisan and destructive ways. The punishment of Red States through dismissal of their claims or dithering, as witnessed with the Oil Spill, is causing many to fear that this has become yet another Imperial Presidency where there is retribution and revenge exacted for failure to comply with their agenda.
"Our country is in danger, but not to be despaired of. Our enemies are numerous and powerful; but we have many firends, detemining to be free and heaven adn earth witll aid the resolution. On you depends the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important question, on which rests the happiness and liberty of millions yet unborn. Acti worthy of yourselves."--Joseph Warrne, Boston Massacre Oration, 1775
And, I would add, Remember in November.
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone."--Thomas Jefferson
We are increasingly approaching a day when common decisions by free individuals will be taken out of their hands. We have already seen the subjugation of a large part of the population via the vehicles of public assistance. Assistance means help, but what help is it when in order to recieve money you must jettison marriage and male parents leaving broken families in the wake. This is the legacy of public assistance and it's result is generational poverty with the offshoots of crime, illegitimacy, addiction and death.
"No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment shall be continued. Shall any man be above Justice?"--George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights addressing the Constitutional Convention 1787
Consider for a moment that the use of a crisis, any crisis, to leverage partisan legislation has already been disingenuously used by the current administration. They have breeched the trust of the people through hiding the true costs and the mechanisms and agencies used to enforce their agenda. The healthcare bill would be one example, but the positioning for Immigration is also one that allows citizens to be imperiled while the adminsitration uses incipient danger to push their cause in a panic mode. No legislation should be compelled by such extortive methods.
"If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that eighteenth century document should be abandoned to a twentieth century paper shredder."--Barbara Jordan in reference to the Nixon impeachment
We currently have a candidate for the Supreme Court that is of the school of thought that the Constitution is a "living document" and that it must conform to the fluidity of political thought. By that light, we no longer have structure in government, but instead have a type of magic carpet mentality that would allow for fluidity in the face of the rule of law. This is the type of situational ethics that allows for illegal immigrants to work, receive services and live in this nation without contibuting in the same way citizens are expected to respond.
"Some say this is a sad day in American history. I think it could perhaps be one of our brightest days. It could be really a test of the strength of our Constitution, because what I think it means to most Americans is that when any president violates his sacred oath of office, the people are not left helpless." --Con. Charles Rangel
I wonder if Charles Rangel now would echo those words, of if he simply wrapped himself in the Constitution when it suited his purposes.
"I am fully aware that many American people consider that the president is being attached by sinister forces in this country, by the left-wing press or by the Democrats, and I can assure this gentleman that it matters not to me his party or his position. He is subject to the rule of law and to justice, and in my role under my oath he will get it, be he president or be he pauper."--James Mann, referencing the Nixon impeachment
Note that President Obama has banished Fox News and repeatedly complained about unfair treatment any time his actions are called into question. This type of childish behavior calls into question whether citizens are even allowed to question the actions of the administration. Indeed, in the more liberal media circles, such doubting would be hooted down with cries labeling you as racist or rednecked or simply stupid. This is the type of treatment that groups such as Tea Partyers, Sarah Palin Supporters and others have recieved regularly. The fact that a wealthy background supporter funds groups organized to disrupt, brings into question the propriety of having such a person regularly giving input to national issue.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic ans servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American People."---President Theodore RooseveltTreasonable.
That's an interesting term. So if the compliant media, in failing to allow criticism and indeed in framing public addresses such as the one in Grand Isle, LA in such a light that favors the White House and President Obama, is shielding the president from criticism, are they committing treason? And if they are getting suggestions for stories or angles that flatter the White House, are they in fact abdicating their roles as members of a "free press?
"I do not believe that our people can tolerate the formation of a presidential precedent which would permit any occupant of the White House to exercise his untrammeled discreation to take over the industry, communications system or other forms of private interprise in the name of "emergency." --George Bender, Republican of Ohio in reference to Truman's takeover of the steel industry, 1952
Note how many industrial bases have been taken over by this president in power. Automaking, banking, mortgage loans, medical services, drug manufacturing and more. If we are truly a free enterprise economy, those corporations that did bad things would fail. Instead we propped them up and at a great cost to this generation and future ones in the form of taxes. This would seem to grossly overstep the powers of the Chief Executive's office and be almost a type of coercion for compliance within political circles as in a "don't rock the boat" type message.
"The powers of impeachment is the Constitution's paramount power of self-preservation."--Robert McClory, Republican of Illinois, 1974
Once again, the collusion of partisan ideals between Legislative and Executive Branches of government leave the Judiciary as the only possibility of recourse or dissent. Stacking the court with partisans that accept situational ethics over Constitutional rule of law will permit egregious actions in absolute defiance to the will of the people. It is dangerous.
"When the Chief Executive of the country starts to investigate private citizens who criticize his policies or authorizes subordinates to do such things,then I think the rattle of the chains that would bind up our constitutional freedoms can be heard, and it is against this rattle that we should awake and say no."--Con. William Cohen, Maine, in regards to the Nixon impeachment
There have been repeated suggestions that President Obama might be given the power to control the Internet. Already the ability to oppose the government in the media is being attacked via the misnamed "Fairness Act" that would impose programming limitations intending to drive largely conservative Talk Radio off the air. There are also actions in play to subsidize failing newspapers. How objective do you believe these news outlets would be when the government controls what they receive. One of the first actions taken by usurpers and tyrants is to control the media. When we have these messages being accepted by members of one party, everyone should be concerned. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
" ..For Barr, it had never been about sex with interns. He had become enraged at a much earlier stage in the Clitnon presidency, after it was revealed that White House staffers had obtained confidential files on Republican officials, apparently for political purposes...'Initially, primarily watching the way the people in the White House operate, it rasied some very serious questions in my mind. They didn't seem to care at all what the law allowed then to do or prohibited them from doing.....'What bothers me most is the abuse of power'...'The Constitution provides a mechanism, a political tool for a political offense.In our system of government, the only vehicle we have to remove somebody from office, if they abuse their office, is impeachment."--quote from book by John Nichols, referencing Con. Bob Barr, Georgia, on the impeachment of President Clinton, 1997
It's ironic that political history parallels sports history. When SMU was given the Death Penalty by the NCAA, the devastation of their athletic programs made the NCAA hesitant to give such a penalty to larger players in places like Alabama, Nebraska, Oklahoma for fear of similar total meltdowns. After the impeachment of Nixon and his resignation in disgrace, many in Congress were reluctant to approach the idea of impeachment even though many of the crimes noted were just as bad or worse in the Clinton White House. Such reticence continues although within the general population outside the Beltway, people are repeatedly asking why this adminsitration continues to behave in such highly partisan and destructive ways. The punishment of Red States through dismissal of their claims or dithering, as witnessed with the Oil Spill, is causing many to fear that this has become yet another Imperial Presidency where there is retribution and revenge exacted for failure to comply with their agenda.
"Our country is in danger, but not to be despaired of. Our enemies are numerous and powerful; but we have many firends, detemining to be free and heaven adn earth witll aid the resolution. On you depends the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important question, on which rests the happiness and liberty of millions yet unborn. Acti worthy of yourselves."--Joseph Warrne, Boston Massacre Oration, 1775
And, I would add, Remember in November.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
University of Illinois Instructor Fired Over Catholic Beliefs
The following story deals with intellectual narrowing of our universities. A Catholic professor, teaching a course on Catholicism is anonymously accused of hatespeech for daring to claim that he conforms to the belief that homosexuality is flawed. The University of Illinois is no long a true university as it only allows for the limited expression as defined by the politically correct and the politically leftist mentality. This is wrong. It smacks of the turning over of those that failed to adhere to the Communist Party Line during the bad old days of the USSR. What next? Pogroms? At what point are Americans going to be allowed to truly have freedom of speech, freedom of thought. This is appalling. University of Illinois should be ASHAMED.
University of Illinois Instructor Fired Over Catholic Beliefs
University of Illinois Instructor Fired Over Catholic Beliefs
Friday, July 09, 2010
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Monday, July 05, 2010
Friday, July 02, 2010
Obama and the Oil Spill: Points to Ponder
The Gulf Oil Spill will go down as one of the most disastrous manmade catastrophes in modern history, of that there is no question. But such accidents don't happen in a vacuum. A friend of mine that is a police officer said "Fatality accidents are usually a series of bad decisions." I believe that axiom could also be applied to this crisis as well.First, a long time ago a raw young senator was plucked by very powerful millionaires to carry the banner for what they hoped would be a more easily controlled, "less cowboy" president. Names like Soros, Pickens, Buffet carry a great deal of political and economic power behind them. And rich people have rich friends. While the elite of the wealthy often have charities and such, they also indulge in pay for play, meaning that they massage the political strata and expect conciliatory payback down the line. British Petroleum was also an early corporate contributor to the Obama campaign. These powerful groups mobilized with their fellow millionaires to create a perfect storm of an election. Whether it was supplying ad space, or brokering air time or actually creating out of whole cloth a web site whose only purpose seemed to be to push Obama into the presidency, these folks were willing to do it.Obama gets elected after an exercise of some of the most egregiously biased media coverage of the history of the nation. In a type of casting like "American Idol" opposing candidates are pushed aside. Media time cannot be bought and newspapers will not cover some of the candidates early on in the primary season. Instead just a few are covered-Obama, Clinton, Romney and McCain. McCain is bringing up the rear, but suddenly gets a flurry of media coverage. Nobody bothers to ask why.The casting is complete, old guy vs, young hip minority guy, aging veteran vs. Ivy League lawyer. McCain, not surprisingly, loses. Obama, shaped by a coalition of very powerful people is in office.
Once Obama's in office, policy is set based on political premise over pragmatic goals. British Petroleum weighs in heavily to advising the White House on energy policy. Just days before Deepwater Horizon blows out, inspectors give it a clean bill of health. LIkewise, despite over 700 violations, BP gets awards from the government. When compared to other operators in the area, BP has the lion's share of violations, but is still given slaps on the wrists, until the wellhead blows killing 11 people. April 20, 2010, Deepwater Horizon explodes. This is unusual for a few reasons. First, while it is flammable, oil itself is slower to burn than gas, Any gas layers into the system should have set off alarms. It is believed that methane was the culprint for the explosion. The first reaction was to blame the entire process of deepwater drilling.This totally ignores that beach communities have pushed for oil rigs to be out of sight. This moves rigs beyond areas where repairs could be completed using divers. Once you are in the middle of the Gulf, you are in deep sea water.
The next blame was justifiably placed on British Petroleum. They cut corners and people died as a result. But who allowed the corners to be cut? Where were the inspectors on this issue?Moving forward, trying to spin the problem, in-house BP advisors tell the White House that sure it's a bad spill but that it can be fixed. Obama, believing them, puts off definitive action. This is critical to realize that had some actions like skimmers and booms been mobilized immediately much of the coastal marshland could have been salvaged. Instead, Obama,Emmanual, Axelrod, those guys who don't like to waste a crisis and knowing Cap and Trade was on the horizon, make the decision to delay thinking that a little oil on the water off shore from hardline Blue Dog and Republican coastal states would mobilize them into blindly supporting Cap and Trade provisions that would limit domestic off shore drilling. Unfortunately, British Petroleum is a British corporation. They don't really owe allegiance to this White House or to anything beyond making a buck off the Yanks.
BP lied. They knew the spill was far worse than imagined and that capping it would not happen easily. Two months and counting and only now have twelve of the thirty countries that offered assistance been contacted. Doesn't it make you wonder how long this crowd would take to act after a hurricane, and earthquake or God forbid, a terrorist attack?Even more glaring that this is the "out of sight, out of mind" attitude with which this crisis and all other issues outside the Beltway are attacked. It seems that photo ops and rehearsed speeches are issued while state governors like Bobby Jindal have had to repeatedly ask for the EPA, the Coast Guard and other federal groups to stop throwing up roadblocks to taking action. Jindal requested permission to build sand berms the day after the spill. Two months later he was still asking and when they finally started, the EPA gets huffy when the sand is taken from wildlife nesting areas. Here's a news flash for the EPA, if Lousiana doesn't get to build the berms sooner rather than later, those birds are going to die anyway. In addition skimmers were stopped because of fears that there weren't enough life jackets. Seriously, if someone is trapped in a car wreck do you stop the rescuers because they don't have enough flashlights?
Now the White House is trying desperately to spin this crisis their way. Obama's last Gulf speech was on a pristine beach in Florida. Why was he not in Biloxi or Grand Isle? Probably that was because the White House staff could not insure a benevolent welcoming backdrop for their president. In fact, given the attitude right now along the Gulf, they would have been luck had people not started throwing the toxic goo at him-Secret Service be damned. Biden shows up saying nothing and doing less. There are stories about clean up crews that show up while the Prez and VP are talking but which disappear once they are through. The folks along the Gulf may not be Harvard graduates, but they are adults and they know when they are being used and lied to. And when Petrobras agents show up at New Orleans drilling supply companies offering to take charge of rigs that have been shut down due to the moratorium, and the dots are connected right back to Obama supporters George Soros, well let's just say folks down there are not happy.
In the meantime the DNC are passing bills, ignoring budget deadlines and in general NOT DOING THEIR JOBS while the headlines about the Oil Spill gives them continuing political cover. Secretly the White House staff must be overjoyed that this crisis has taken the border war in Arizona off the front pages. While oil has spewed in the Gulf, armed drug cartels have taken over a national park. And the Feds solution is to put up signs warning people to keep out. I guarantee had this been any other president there would be mobs with pitchforks and torches parked on the White House lawn. Why is it that so many people, especially those in the media, continue to give this bumbling excuse of a president a free pass? Why do they not research the history of BP's relationship with those in the Democrat Party elite? When the mayor of San Francisco has his money in Transocean and has his wife's money in BP and when White House insiders also have a vested interest in seeing British Petroleum prosper, then you have to wonder if they are more interested in solving the problem or in just using the problem for political effect. So the final question is, when does the investigation begin?
Once Obama's in office, policy is set based on political premise over pragmatic goals. British Petroleum weighs in heavily to advising the White House on energy policy. Just days before Deepwater Horizon blows out, inspectors give it a clean bill of health. LIkewise, despite over 700 violations, BP gets awards from the government. When compared to other operators in the area, BP has the lion's share of violations, but is still given slaps on the wrists, until the wellhead blows killing 11 people. April 20, 2010, Deepwater Horizon explodes. This is unusual for a few reasons. First, while it is flammable, oil itself is slower to burn than gas, Any gas layers into the system should have set off alarms. It is believed that methane was the culprint for the explosion. The first reaction was to blame the entire process of deepwater drilling.This totally ignores that beach communities have pushed for oil rigs to be out of sight. This moves rigs beyond areas where repairs could be completed using divers. Once you are in the middle of the Gulf, you are in deep sea water.
The next blame was justifiably placed on British Petroleum. They cut corners and people died as a result. But who allowed the corners to be cut? Where were the inspectors on this issue?Moving forward, trying to spin the problem, in-house BP advisors tell the White House that sure it's a bad spill but that it can be fixed. Obama, believing them, puts off definitive action. This is critical to realize that had some actions like skimmers and booms been mobilized immediately much of the coastal marshland could have been salvaged. Instead, Obama,Emmanual, Axelrod, those guys who don't like to waste a crisis and knowing Cap and Trade was on the horizon, make the decision to delay thinking that a little oil on the water off shore from hardline Blue Dog and Republican coastal states would mobilize them into blindly supporting Cap and Trade provisions that would limit domestic off shore drilling. Unfortunately, British Petroleum is a British corporation. They don't really owe allegiance to this White House or to anything beyond making a buck off the Yanks.
BP lied. They knew the spill was far worse than imagined and that capping it would not happen easily. Two months and counting and only now have twelve of the thirty countries that offered assistance been contacted. Doesn't it make you wonder how long this crowd would take to act after a hurricane, and earthquake or God forbid, a terrorist attack?Even more glaring that this is the "out of sight, out of mind" attitude with which this crisis and all other issues outside the Beltway are attacked. It seems that photo ops and rehearsed speeches are issued while state governors like Bobby Jindal have had to repeatedly ask for the EPA, the Coast Guard and other federal groups to stop throwing up roadblocks to taking action. Jindal requested permission to build sand berms the day after the spill. Two months later he was still asking and when they finally started, the EPA gets huffy when the sand is taken from wildlife nesting areas. Here's a news flash for the EPA, if Lousiana doesn't get to build the berms sooner rather than later, those birds are going to die anyway. In addition skimmers were stopped because of fears that there weren't enough life jackets. Seriously, if someone is trapped in a car wreck do you stop the rescuers because they don't have enough flashlights?
Now the White House is trying desperately to spin this crisis their way. Obama's last Gulf speech was on a pristine beach in Florida. Why was he not in Biloxi or Grand Isle? Probably that was because the White House staff could not insure a benevolent welcoming backdrop for their president. In fact, given the attitude right now along the Gulf, they would have been luck had people not started throwing the toxic goo at him-Secret Service be damned. Biden shows up saying nothing and doing less. There are stories about clean up crews that show up while the Prez and VP are talking but which disappear once they are through. The folks along the Gulf may not be Harvard graduates, but they are adults and they know when they are being used and lied to. And when Petrobras agents show up at New Orleans drilling supply companies offering to take charge of rigs that have been shut down due to the moratorium, and the dots are connected right back to Obama supporters George Soros, well let's just say folks down there are not happy.
In the meantime the DNC are passing bills, ignoring budget deadlines and in general NOT DOING THEIR JOBS while the headlines about the Oil Spill gives them continuing political cover. Secretly the White House staff must be overjoyed that this crisis has taken the border war in Arizona off the front pages. While oil has spewed in the Gulf, armed drug cartels have taken over a national park. And the Feds solution is to put up signs warning people to keep out. I guarantee had this been any other president there would be mobs with pitchforks and torches parked on the White House lawn. Why is it that so many people, especially those in the media, continue to give this bumbling excuse of a president a free pass? Why do they not research the history of BP's relationship with those in the Democrat Party elite? When the mayor of San Francisco has his money in Transocean and has his wife's money in BP and when White House insiders also have a vested interest in seeing British Petroleum prosper, then you have to wonder if they are more interested in solving the problem or in just using the problem for political effect. So the final question is, when does the investigation begin?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)