In conjunction with the First Family's much publicized visit to Panama City and the Gulf Region (the furthest Gulf beach in the Florida panhandle from the site of the Louisiana oil spill), it was announed by Barack Obama's point man on the disaster, retired Coast Guard official, Thad Allen, that it won't be until Tuesday or Wednesday until officials have some final results from some tests before giving the go ahead to finish another relief well. So, just why is a retired Coast Guard official now in charge of this oil spill, I ask?
I mean, the Coast Guard is charged with protecting America's ports and shorelines, not with negligent corporate entities that dump at last count millions of barrels of oil into American waters under illegal leases.
Just when are those leases going to be rescinded anyway in light of the devastation which has occurred, and economic impact both in barrels lost to those Brits, and wildlife - not to mention now 26 American lives lost to this corporate petrol glutton.
Doesn't that make three relief wells since this disaster started?
So, instead of one well and a contractual amount of America's oil reserves given under those leases, BP now has three wells, and literally hundreds of thousands of extra barrels of oil outside of those leases due to the "hands off" policies of this Administration during this three month "clean up" effort?
Governor Crist, most likely another heavily invested BP stockholder if the number of those in the federal judiciary invested in oil stocks in that region is any clue, announced that Mr. Obama's visit was the "biggest single commercial you could imagine."
While the Attorney General of Alabama is now suing (outside those reserves set aside for the mere citizens affected) seeking "unspecified economic and punitive damages" for the State of Alabama's coffers for the spill. Apparently, the actual victims and citizenry have been precluded from their Constitutional redress, but the state and municipal governments have not.
What's wrong, once again, with this picture?
Showing posts with label oil spill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oil spill. Show all posts
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Deepwater Horizon: Blaming The Coast Guard?
It was interesting this weekend to see articles in the mainstream media now reporting that the Coast Guard has been "authorizing" British Petroleum to use "contaminants" in order to break up the ever widening oil spread in the Gulf after the Deepwater Horizon incident over three months ago.
It appears the spins continue almost as far and wide as this oil has now spread.
In light of the questions of just how and why Congress and the Obama Administration has, for all intents and purposes, given British Petroleum free rein in the containment efforts since this tragedy began, a story such as this bears question. Since it is quite possible that the only "containment" efforts that have been ongoing is the "containment" of thousands of extra barrels of oil for the benefit of the British under those illegally given mineral rights to America's offshore oil reserves.
Now blaming the Coast Guard due to the negligence of this Congress and Administration in originally and immediately pulling BP's offshore leasing rights in light of this SECOND incident involving the loss of American lives and property does seem that Washington and those media moguls are sinking to a level not seen in this country ever before.
The Coast Guard is primarily there for regulation of the domestic coastline perimeter in "directing traffic" and also civilian and commercial safety issues and distress entering and exiting America's ports, with no real legal authority over this ongoing disaster in the magnitude and breadth it initially and has continued to impact the Gulf waters.
Placing the blame and asking failure of our press to ask the fundamental questions does appear that they are attempting also to protect their "global" interests and not report with any accuracy the ongoing saga of Deepwater Horizon.
But continue to wonder why their bottom line profits are deteriorating also by the day, week and month as their advertising and sales revenues continue to decline.
The "global" mainstream media bailout seems to be another disaster just around the bend.
The top news stories were this, and the wedding of Bill and Hillary Clinton's daughter, to a former Goldman Sachs employee and hedge fund manager, under "cottony clouds in New York" (a direct quote from the AP report).
I won't publish the "adjective" I came up with after reading that story.
It appears the spins continue almost as far and wide as this oil has now spread.
In light of the questions of just how and why Congress and the Obama Administration has, for all intents and purposes, given British Petroleum free rein in the containment efforts since this tragedy began, a story such as this bears question. Since it is quite possible that the only "containment" efforts that have been ongoing is the "containment" of thousands of extra barrels of oil for the benefit of the British under those illegally given mineral rights to America's offshore oil reserves.
Now blaming the Coast Guard due to the negligence of this Congress and Administration in originally and immediately pulling BP's offshore leasing rights in light of this SECOND incident involving the loss of American lives and property does seem that Washington and those media moguls are sinking to a level not seen in this country ever before.
The Coast Guard is primarily there for regulation of the domestic coastline perimeter in "directing traffic" and also civilian and commercial safety issues and distress entering and exiting America's ports, with no real legal authority over this ongoing disaster in the magnitude and breadth it initially and has continued to impact the Gulf waters.
Placing the blame and asking failure of our press to ask the fundamental questions does appear that they are attempting also to protect their "global" interests and not report with any accuracy the ongoing saga of Deepwater Horizon.
But continue to wonder why their bottom line profits are deteriorating also by the day, week and month as their advertising and sales revenues continue to decline.
The "global" mainstream media bailout seems to be another disaster just around the bend.
The top news stories were this, and the wedding of Bill and Hillary Clinton's daughter, to a former Goldman Sachs employee and hedge fund manager, under "cottony clouds in New York" (a direct quote from the AP report).
I won't publish the "adjective" I came up with after reading that story.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Hail, Britannia: Britannia Rules The Gulf (And Its Ports)
It was reported that the big news today is that BP has finally once again capped the oil spill in the Louisiana Gulf, at least halting the flow for a few more days.
No promises, of course, that the continuing saga of Deepwater Horizon is truly over.
Meanwhile, it was reported that over 184,000,000 (yes, those were the commas) gallons of oil have spewed into the Gulf, with those Brits then solely in charge of both containing the spill, and the cleanup of the existing oil residue then in the Gulf.
As stated previously, oil and water do not mix, so I just wonder how many of those 184,000,000 gallons of crude went sailing out through the Port of New Orleans to be refined by those Brits at their home refineries, and then sold back to the American people at a profit - which means that the American people will be paying in a roundabout way for all those fines, fees and reimbursements to those in Louisiana affected - since Obama even took away unconstitutionally the rights of those victims to sue in U.S. District Court BP directly for their actual damages, and not simply damages that the BP claims adjusters deem worthy.
With the Prime Minister cautioning those BP executives about "excessive" claims. And apparently authorized and afforded by Washington and Congress under those leases or Obama dictates to use their own claims adjusters working for BP. Now I just wonder whose "bottom line" those claims adjusters are going to be charged to protect, and from all reports BP's "authorized" adjusters are few and already the backlog of claims increasing by the day.
Just how does the Obama Administration and Congress have any authority to circumvent the U.S. Constitution in this respect removing "due process" rights of those individuals and businesses so affected under this supposed reserve. This does seem to be a British mentality and Rule of Law once again. Making the process not public, but private and away from the American public's view also on just how those claims are being settled, and ultimately at the American public's expense since their profit margins are gained at the pumps throughout the South and who knows where else in this now "global" economy. But suffice it to say a good deal of their bottom line profits are gleened from their American service stations and "lease" agreements.
And just how much is "excessive" in light of the loss also of eleven American lives due to this huge global corporations' negligence, one of the largest global industries in the entire world that STILL holds lease rights to America's offshore oil in both Louisiana and in Alaska from all reports.
And since this is the second disaster which has involved bodily injury and loss of American manual laborers lives, which of course were deemed "the little people" by those Brits, just why isn't Congress and the Obama Administration rescinding their lease rights, lease rights that Congress actually had no business handing out to foreign global corporations, especially Britain, to America's offshore oil reserves anyway.
Especially since we are still in a War in the Middle East primarily for Britain and the loss of their holdings to those lease rights when the Shah of Iran was removed from power, and the Ayatollah and the religious leaders took over basically the area and country back in the 1970's.
I mean, Iraq's "new" government is another basically Constitutional monarchy, with a Prime Minister and Parliament and in no way mirrors the intended structure of the U.S.'s own, which simply goes to prove just who is in charge of the War in the Middle East on "terrorism."
While, of course, the two subsequent attacks which were circumvented since that time by the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber were actually British citizens, one of whom's father was a high ranking banking official in the Middle East that worked for the London bankers from British reprots.
Canadians are now in abundance in this country, and now even being trained under "free trade" agreements apparently at the U.S. public's expense at many of the U.S. military bases and installations. And more and more foreigners are gaining admittance even into U.S. military colleges and universities in both the West and East.
This "joint" security is costing the U.S. citizens most of all, it appears, rather than the Canadians or the British and placing more and more foreigners on U.S. soil by the year since 9-11.
And hasn't the U.S. learned about training foreign troops only to have those troops eventually turn on the American people eventually, and its civilian population now also per 9-11?
There was even a published report in a newspaper in Colorado that the city and state governments are looking into exercising eminent domain procedures against many Colorado ranchers in order to seize their land and property for the expansion of the military bases which are deemed needed due to the ever expanding "theatres" in the Middle East of Iraq and Afghanistan.
And this is ending a war as "reasonably and safely" as possible? While also expanding then the medical provisions for those suffering from PTSD after six or seven tours of duty at this point, this is working our way toward ending this "undeclared" war on a noun?
Gee, between those flashing signs on most major U.S. highways warming about the consequences of failiing to wear a seatbelt, or "Drink and Drive....Do Time (not even "drunk and drive" due to progressively lower and lower blood alcohol percentages not even Washington but "globally" determined, with "technology" also again being brought forth as "prima facie" evidence throughout the country), I would say that to most the "terrorist threat" in the Middle East is only a matter of degree from that found now at home.
Especially due to even "globalizing" our nuclear reactors and selling shares of them over the global stock exchange to foreigners, along with our mineral rights and infrastructure PROGRESSIVELY.
I just wonder, how long ago was it really that the British took over both the Rule of Law, and the Port of New Orleans in the good ol' U.S. of A?
Maybe that is truly why all these Canadian troops are now stationed on U.S. domestic shores.
And if Posse Commitatus was originally supposed to protect Americans from military overstep and is being used as the "excuse" for not militarizing America's southern borders most of all, just what is protecting the American people from the British, when even its military is now "globalized" and amalgamated with them to this degree? Certainly not Obama or this Congress who are, in fact, in bed with them also it appears in this "joint venture," being dictated quite obviously from London.
Who then speak of the "little people," and actually back in those founders time demeaned those "colonials, Yanks and savages," as somehow not gentlemen or worthy of note.
Seems much hasn't changed from '76 in that respect and so many, many others PROGRESSIVELY REGRESSIVELY by the day, week and month.
Hail, Britannia. Britannia rules the Gulf (and clearly its ports too).
No promises, of course, that the continuing saga of Deepwater Horizon is truly over.
Meanwhile, it was reported that over 184,000,000 (yes, those were the commas) gallons of oil have spewed into the Gulf, with those Brits then solely in charge of both containing the spill, and the cleanup of the existing oil residue then in the Gulf.
As stated previously, oil and water do not mix, so I just wonder how many of those 184,000,000 gallons of crude went sailing out through the Port of New Orleans to be refined by those Brits at their home refineries, and then sold back to the American people at a profit - which means that the American people will be paying in a roundabout way for all those fines, fees and reimbursements to those in Louisiana affected - since Obama even took away unconstitutionally the rights of those victims to sue in U.S. District Court BP directly for their actual damages, and not simply damages that the BP claims adjusters deem worthy.
With the Prime Minister cautioning those BP executives about "excessive" claims. And apparently authorized and afforded by Washington and Congress under those leases or Obama dictates to use their own claims adjusters working for BP. Now I just wonder whose "bottom line" those claims adjusters are going to be charged to protect, and from all reports BP's "authorized" adjusters are few and already the backlog of claims increasing by the day.
Just how does the Obama Administration and Congress have any authority to circumvent the U.S. Constitution in this respect removing "due process" rights of those individuals and businesses so affected under this supposed reserve. This does seem to be a British mentality and Rule of Law once again. Making the process not public, but private and away from the American public's view also on just how those claims are being settled, and ultimately at the American public's expense since their profit margins are gained at the pumps throughout the South and who knows where else in this now "global" economy. But suffice it to say a good deal of their bottom line profits are gleened from their American service stations and "lease" agreements.
And just how much is "excessive" in light of the loss also of eleven American lives due to this huge global corporations' negligence, one of the largest global industries in the entire world that STILL holds lease rights to America's offshore oil in both Louisiana and in Alaska from all reports.
And since this is the second disaster which has involved bodily injury and loss of American manual laborers lives, which of course were deemed "the little people" by those Brits, just why isn't Congress and the Obama Administration rescinding their lease rights, lease rights that Congress actually had no business handing out to foreign global corporations, especially Britain, to America's offshore oil reserves anyway.
Especially since we are still in a War in the Middle East primarily for Britain and the loss of their holdings to those lease rights when the Shah of Iran was removed from power, and the Ayatollah and the religious leaders took over basically the area and country back in the 1970's.
I mean, Iraq's "new" government is another basically Constitutional monarchy, with a Prime Minister and Parliament and in no way mirrors the intended structure of the U.S.'s own, which simply goes to prove just who is in charge of the War in the Middle East on "terrorism."
While, of course, the two subsequent attacks which were circumvented since that time by the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber were actually British citizens, one of whom's father was a high ranking banking official in the Middle East that worked for the London bankers from British reprots.
Canadians are now in abundance in this country, and now even being trained under "free trade" agreements apparently at the U.S. public's expense at many of the U.S. military bases and installations. And more and more foreigners are gaining admittance even into U.S. military colleges and universities in both the West and East.
This "joint" security is costing the U.S. citizens most of all, it appears, rather than the Canadians or the British and placing more and more foreigners on U.S. soil by the year since 9-11.
And hasn't the U.S. learned about training foreign troops only to have those troops eventually turn on the American people eventually, and its civilian population now also per 9-11?
There was even a published report in a newspaper in Colorado that the city and state governments are looking into exercising eminent domain procedures against many Colorado ranchers in order to seize their land and property for the expansion of the military bases which are deemed needed due to the ever expanding "theatres" in the Middle East of Iraq and Afghanistan.
And this is ending a war as "reasonably and safely" as possible? While also expanding then the medical provisions for those suffering from PTSD after six or seven tours of duty at this point, this is working our way toward ending this "undeclared" war on a noun?
Gee, between those flashing signs on most major U.S. highways warming about the consequences of failiing to wear a seatbelt, or "Drink and Drive....Do Time (not even "drunk and drive" due to progressively lower and lower blood alcohol percentages not even Washington but "globally" determined, with "technology" also again being brought forth as "prima facie" evidence throughout the country), I would say that to most the "terrorist threat" in the Middle East is only a matter of degree from that found now at home.
Especially due to even "globalizing" our nuclear reactors and selling shares of them over the global stock exchange to foreigners, along with our mineral rights and infrastructure PROGRESSIVELY.
I just wonder, how long ago was it really that the British took over both the Rule of Law, and the Port of New Orleans in the good ol' U.S. of A?
Maybe that is truly why all these Canadian troops are now stationed on U.S. domestic shores.
And if Posse Commitatus was originally supposed to protect Americans from military overstep and is being used as the "excuse" for not militarizing America's southern borders most of all, just what is protecting the American people from the British, when even its military is now "globalized" and amalgamated with them to this degree? Certainly not Obama or this Congress who are, in fact, in bed with them also it appears in this "joint venture," being dictated quite obviously from London.
Who then speak of the "little people," and actually back in those founders time demeaned those "colonials, Yanks and savages," as somehow not gentlemen or worthy of note.
Seems much hasn't changed from '76 in that respect and so many, many others PROGRESSIVELY REGRESSIVELY by the day, week and month.
Hail, Britannia. Britannia rules the Gulf (and clearly its ports too).
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Remember, America: Cornwallis Never Surrendered
Aside from the spins that are now occurring on the Gulf Deepwater Horizon disaster, and all the blustering of those members of Congress looking for some face time in the media and photo ops, the fundamental question that needs to be answered due to now this over six week "containment" effort is, just how many extra barrels of oil has Great Britain gained that have been shipped out of the Port of New Orleans since this disaster began?
Several thousands, maybe?
I mean this is the largest oil spill outside the Exxon Valdez incident (close to Canada also), and oil and water do not mix.
So just how much have the British syphoned off of the U.S. oil reserves in the Gulf?
While Prime Minister Cameron offers not a single apology to the American people, but warns of "excessive claims" against that bogus reserve account that Mr. Obama has widely (and nationally) televised, and then continues to put BP in charge so that he can address the problems of the "global" economy with the G-20? (Global or Government 20, that is), with the Queen?
Just when is that Union Jack going to replace the Stars and Stripes officially?
And isn't it interesting that the State of Louisiana is now "governed" by a Governor whose parents were immigrants from India, another British Territory? And who has been getting more and more national attention as the disasters in Louisiana multiply?
It appears the British Empire and its insatiable needs for world dominion quite clearly in this country did not end with the American Revolution, but simply a different strategy has been in the works for literally decades.
Using naturalized or even native born "Ameuro" Tories to continue the war, which may be why Cornwallis never showed up at Yorktown.
It would have been against the future battle plan.
Several thousands, maybe?
I mean this is the largest oil spill outside the Exxon Valdez incident (close to Canada also), and oil and water do not mix.
So just how much have the British syphoned off of the U.S. oil reserves in the Gulf?
While Prime Minister Cameron offers not a single apology to the American people, but warns of "excessive claims" against that bogus reserve account that Mr. Obama has widely (and nationally) televised, and then continues to put BP in charge so that he can address the problems of the "global" economy with the G-20? (Global or Government 20, that is), with the Queen?
Just when is that Union Jack going to replace the Stars and Stripes officially?
And isn't it interesting that the State of Louisiana is now "governed" by a Governor whose parents were immigrants from India, another British Territory? And who has been getting more and more national attention as the disasters in Louisiana multiply?
It appears the British Empire and its insatiable needs for world dominion quite clearly in this country did not end with the American Revolution, but simply a different strategy has been in the works for literally decades.
Using naturalized or even native born "Ameuro" Tories to continue the war, which may be why Cornwallis never showed up at Yorktown.
It would have been against the future battle plan.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Cashing In On the BP Disaster: And This Is Due Process?
There appeared an article today printed by the AP regarding the political games that are now being played with respect to the civil lawsuits which have been filed over the Deepwater Horizon disaster in Louisiana, so far over 150 cases.
There is even a move being made to "consolidate" the cases under one U.S. District Court judge, thus removing and reassigning Constitutional jurisdiction over these cases outside Constitutional authority by the panels and individuals who are now "regulating" just how these cases are going to be handled - and where.
So far due to personal investments, there is also a problem that more than half the U.S. District Court judges having jurisdiction depending on the specifics of the case involved, although most of them so far involve Louisianna plaintiffs, are shareholders of BP, Halliburton or Transocean.
Or else are invested in the oil and gas industries in other unrelated companies - although other than direct investments in those three companies, any other financial interests do not automatically preclude them, under U.S. District Court Rules it appears, from recusing themselves or removing themselves from the judicial pool.
What is even more interesting has also been left unsaid, and just goes to show what this country in the future very clearly may be facing.
Over half of the U.S. District Court judges have been deemed ineligible at this point.
Just think.
I won't go into just how totally strange it is that these "public servants" have enough discretionary income to be able to afford to invest in oil and gas stocks in any measurable way.
But with that new bogus Supreme Court ruling affording unlimited campaign contributions from corporate entities (since the Supreme's failed to limit in their published opinion or even restrict their holding to citizen, and not commerical organizations although corporations, even those for-profit non-profit nominally grass roots organizations, are not people at all, but property), just how long before there are absolutely no federal or state judges who will be able to hear cases involving major global or regional industries?
Especially as those salaries and perks continue to escalate.
Our campaign finance laws are already diametrically opposed to those that the founders envisioned.
I mean, how can you have a representative government when those "misrepresentatives" are gaining their offices through major donations from big business and global industries that are not even domiciled in their home districts?
To this writer, this is the reason this country is fundamentally where it is, in addition to the 1913 treason that went on under Wilson.
And why in this article would there be a move to consolidate most of these cases under a Texas judge, if not to give a privilege and immunity to BP, Halliburton and Transocean that even U.S. citizens are not entitled to for any "capital" or civil offense without proving that any jury pool in a jurisdiction would be tainted - and these defendants are commercial entities, not even U.S. citizens, one of which clearly a British foreign domiciled corporation.
Oh, the webs we weave...and weave...and weave.
Special interest groups also are now attempting to get into the act influencing these "panels" as to the jurisdictional issues involved and number of cases.
This foreign, globally domiciled corporations disaster will end up costing the American people as a whole a fortune, no matter how high those BP fines are (which are sure to be appealed, as they did the Texas BP incident several years ago who still have not satisfied the fines levied, or the lawsuits which occurred then).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100606/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_judge_conflicts
There is even a move being made to "consolidate" the cases under one U.S. District Court judge, thus removing and reassigning Constitutional jurisdiction over these cases outside Constitutional authority by the panels and individuals who are now "regulating" just how these cases are going to be handled - and where.
So far due to personal investments, there is also a problem that more than half the U.S. District Court judges having jurisdiction depending on the specifics of the case involved, although most of them so far involve Louisianna plaintiffs, are shareholders of BP, Halliburton or Transocean.
Or else are invested in the oil and gas industries in other unrelated companies - although other than direct investments in those three companies, any other financial interests do not automatically preclude them, under U.S. District Court Rules it appears, from recusing themselves or removing themselves from the judicial pool.
What is even more interesting has also been left unsaid, and just goes to show what this country in the future very clearly may be facing.
Over half of the U.S. District Court judges have been deemed ineligible at this point.
Just think.
I won't go into just how totally strange it is that these "public servants" have enough discretionary income to be able to afford to invest in oil and gas stocks in any measurable way.
But with that new bogus Supreme Court ruling affording unlimited campaign contributions from corporate entities (since the Supreme's failed to limit in their published opinion or even restrict their holding to citizen, and not commerical organizations although corporations, even those for-profit non-profit nominally grass roots organizations, are not people at all, but property), just how long before there are absolutely no federal or state judges who will be able to hear cases involving major global or regional industries?
Especially as those salaries and perks continue to escalate.
Our campaign finance laws are already diametrically opposed to those that the founders envisioned.
I mean, how can you have a representative government when those "misrepresentatives" are gaining their offices through major donations from big business and global industries that are not even domiciled in their home districts?
To this writer, this is the reason this country is fundamentally where it is, in addition to the 1913 treason that went on under Wilson.
And why in this article would there be a move to consolidate most of these cases under a Texas judge, if not to give a privilege and immunity to BP, Halliburton and Transocean that even U.S. citizens are not entitled to for any "capital" or civil offense without proving that any jury pool in a jurisdiction would be tainted - and these defendants are commercial entities, not even U.S. citizens, one of which clearly a British foreign domiciled corporation.
Oh, the webs we weave...and weave...and weave.
Special interest groups also are now attempting to get into the act influencing these "panels" as to the jurisdictional issues involved and number of cases.
This foreign, globally domiciled corporations disaster will end up costing the American people as a whole a fortune, no matter how high those BP fines are (which are sure to be appealed, as they did the Texas BP incident several years ago who still have not satisfied the fines levied, or the lawsuits which occurred then).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100606/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_judge_conflicts
Sunday, June 6, 2010
The BP Disaster: Or Hey, Judas - You Better Make It Better
After watching almost a month now of the British Petroleum continued oil spill, and the excuses and buck passing once again being played out for the masses by the BP executives, Halliburton and all those Washington politicos, the fact remains that 11 American lives were once again lost due to foreigners and non-Americans.
Foreigners that somehow gained access to the mineral rights of the U.S. oil reserves progressively, in both Louisiana and Alaska (and who knows where else).
During any of this discourse, or Obama's highly publicized visit to the Gulf region to view the damage and measures being taken by the British to contain this spill, has there been any mention of that erstwhile U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, in filing criminal charges against those foreigners on behalf of the American people for negligence, and committing a "crime against the nation" even?
I mean, lots of pictures of oil covered wildlife have made the media, but what about the 11 men whose lives were lost?
American men hired for mostly manual labor for that cheap labor the British bankers also use to manipulate the world's economy in their favor, be it American or Mexican, actually were killed in this explosion.
Has the Queen so much as made an appearance, or statement with respect to this disaster, or the British Parliament?
Or the bankers?
We are now 30 days into this disaster, and not a peep other than excuse after excuse without THE fundamental question being asked.
Why is Washington and the State of Louisiana whose shores and wetlands have now again been compromised due to clear lack of even the minimum of regulation over those foreigners drilling into America's coastline even "outsourcing" America's oil reserves to foreigners to begin with?
Just where do they have the authority even to so do?
With America in a continued war in the Middle East that also clearly involved securing our presence for those "needed" barrels, this scenario is beginning to be quite clearly ludicrous. How many Brits are over in Iraq or Afghanistan at this point in this "war" primarily on their behalf, since it is the British that actually primarily held "mineral rights" over a great deal of Middle Eastern oil before British Petroleum was officially "privatized" in the late 1980's.
Where is the media in calling for the criminal sanctions and actions which are clearly called for here.
I know, 11 deaths aren't quite as newsworthy as, say, a 9-11 disaster.
Nor is it as close to home, New York, nor are those Southern manual laborers' lives, rather than Wall Street financial wheeler dealers or New York's finest police and firemen apparently quite so worthy of redressing.
Having a highly publicized bass guitar and piano fest with the Missus, Paul McCartney, and a host of other Washington elites singing "Hey Jude" in the midst of this crisis isn't going to cut it.
Hey Judas, make it better.
Where are you Mr. Holder and Mr. Jindal?
Do you work for the American people, or the British?
Foreigners that somehow gained access to the mineral rights of the U.S. oil reserves progressively, in both Louisiana and Alaska (and who knows where else).
During any of this discourse, or Obama's highly publicized visit to the Gulf region to view the damage and measures being taken by the British to contain this spill, has there been any mention of that erstwhile U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, in filing criminal charges against those foreigners on behalf of the American people for negligence, and committing a "crime against the nation" even?
I mean, lots of pictures of oil covered wildlife have made the media, but what about the 11 men whose lives were lost?
American men hired for mostly manual labor for that cheap labor the British bankers also use to manipulate the world's economy in their favor, be it American or Mexican, actually were killed in this explosion.
Has the Queen so much as made an appearance, or statement with respect to this disaster, or the British Parliament?
Or the bankers?
We are now 30 days into this disaster, and not a peep other than excuse after excuse without THE fundamental question being asked.
Why is Washington and the State of Louisiana whose shores and wetlands have now again been compromised due to clear lack of even the minimum of regulation over those foreigners drilling into America's coastline even "outsourcing" America's oil reserves to foreigners to begin with?
Just where do they have the authority even to so do?
With America in a continued war in the Middle East that also clearly involved securing our presence for those "needed" barrels, this scenario is beginning to be quite clearly ludicrous. How many Brits are over in Iraq or Afghanistan at this point in this "war" primarily on their behalf, since it is the British that actually primarily held "mineral rights" over a great deal of Middle Eastern oil before British Petroleum was officially "privatized" in the late 1980's.
Where is the media in calling for the criminal sanctions and actions which are clearly called for here.
I know, 11 deaths aren't quite as newsworthy as, say, a 9-11 disaster.
Nor is it as close to home, New York, nor are those Southern manual laborers' lives, rather than Wall Street financial wheeler dealers or New York's finest police and firemen apparently quite so worthy of redressing.
Having a highly publicized bass guitar and piano fest with the Missus, Paul McCartney, and a host of other Washington elites singing "Hey Jude" in the midst of this crisis isn't going to cut it.
Hey Judas, make it better.
Where are you Mr. Holder and Mr. Jindal?
Do you work for the American people, or the British?
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Same Old, Same Old: Globalism, Politics and BP
It seems according to the ongoing news reports (over a month now) of the BP disaster that the solution the federal government has come up with in order to hold BP accountable for the latest contamination of U.S. waters and fiscal impact on the American public is to hold another public tongue lashing at the public's expense, however, for this foreign based global corporation.
These hearings and special Congressional panels are beginning to mimic the old "Who's on First" routines of the slapstick era.
According to Fox New USA, an affiliate in a great deal of their political ideology and programming with BBC Worldwide, the solution to addressing the problem of the continuing oil spill is for this global corporation to get permission from the U.S. government to drill two more wells, in order to "relieve" the pressure on the well that was involved in this explosion.
Sounds like a real economic stimulus for the British at the cost of Americans once again to this writer - since a great many of those jobs (other than those of the manual labor variety) which will be provided for these new wells will, of course, go to more Brits and/or British subjects.
The fundamental question to this disaster has not been approached by the media it seems in any meaningful way.
And that is, while the U.S. is now involved in a War on Terrorism that just so happens to be focused more and more on developing a greater presence in the Middle East in order to secure many of those oil barons future wealth and prosperity, why is it that the U.S. then is giving "mineral rights" to foreign global corporations such as British Petroleum to the American oil reserves?
In other words, Britain is obtaining access to the oil reserves of the United States for primarily its citizenship's gasoline and petro needs, while the U.S. citizens are paying higher rates for those barrels that are now being imported from the Middle East?
No wonder the United States is facing its largest recession since the Great Depression in the 20's.
The British aren't simply coming, they are here, and this appears to be an economic war we are fighting with both its bankers, and its government.
Just who or what is BP?
British Petroleum until fairly recently was a holding of the British royal family, although it was "officially" privatized. From Britannica Encyclopedia Online Edition:
British Petroleum:
"British petrochemical corporation. Formed in 1909 as the Anglo-Persian Oil Co., Ltd., to finance an oil-field concession granted by the Iranian government to William Knox D'Arcy, it became one of the largest oil companies in the world, with oil fields and refineries in Alaska and the North Sea. The British government was for many years BP's largest single stockholder, but by the late 1980s it had turned over the company to private ownership. In 1987 BP consolidated its U.S. interests by acquiring the Standard Oil Co. In 1998 it merged with Amoco (formerly Standard Oil of Indiana) to form BP-Amoco. In addition to oil and natural gas, it produces chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibres. Its headquarters are in London."
It will be interesting watching these "hearings," and seeing eventually who will be left holding the bag for the "global economy" once again in this respect.
I'll bet it will be the American taxpayers, in one way or another.
Either for those salaries for this "special panel" and the lost revenue of the American people for this monumental "taking" by Britain of America's mineral rights, or through taxation for the sums that the American public will have to pay in additional gasoline prices across the board for the decades long cleanup of the Gulf Coastline for the "jobs and the economies" of mostly the resident aliens that will be involved from Britainnia.
No wonder also that there is such a push to get an amnesty passed, for that cheap Mexican labor and/or military service for the British Empire's needs both here and abroad.
With Mexico assuming the American border states progressively, and Britain once again with a strong presence in Louisiana and the Canadian border states, it appears that a great many Americans may be fleeing to Kansas, along with Dorothy.
Except that even in the heartland of America, foreigners and foreign interests have gained a foothold.
Since Kansas also has a nuclear generator and reactor whose shares are now sold over that "global" exchange, as do 31 other U.S. states which have also monumentally comprised this nation's national security, on behalf of that "global economy," placing commerce, once again, before the fundamental precepts behind that Constitution.
Whose government continues to sacrifice U.S. lives and property on behalf of foreigners interest at a greater clip by the decades, as the body counts mount.
Wonder if there will be any criminal manslaughter or criminal negligence filed against those Brits.
Don't hold your breath, America, since the sovereign London bankers and British government, those allies, are clearly calling the shots on this one, as they have PROGRESSIVELY with each Administration and Congress since Wilson.
These hearings and special Congressional panels are beginning to mimic the old "Who's on First" routines of the slapstick era.
According to Fox New USA, an affiliate in a great deal of their political ideology and programming with BBC Worldwide, the solution to addressing the problem of the continuing oil spill is for this global corporation to get permission from the U.S. government to drill two more wells, in order to "relieve" the pressure on the well that was involved in this explosion.
Sounds like a real economic stimulus for the British at the cost of Americans once again to this writer - since a great many of those jobs (other than those of the manual labor variety) which will be provided for these new wells will, of course, go to more Brits and/or British subjects.
The fundamental question to this disaster has not been approached by the media it seems in any meaningful way.
And that is, while the U.S. is now involved in a War on Terrorism that just so happens to be focused more and more on developing a greater presence in the Middle East in order to secure many of those oil barons future wealth and prosperity, why is it that the U.S. then is giving "mineral rights" to foreign global corporations such as British Petroleum to the American oil reserves?
In other words, Britain is obtaining access to the oil reserves of the United States for primarily its citizenship's gasoline and petro needs, while the U.S. citizens are paying higher rates for those barrels that are now being imported from the Middle East?
No wonder the United States is facing its largest recession since the Great Depression in the 20's.
The British aren't simply coming, they are here, and this appears to be an economic war we are fighting with both its bankers, and its government.
Just who or what is BP?
British Petroleum until fairly recently was a holding of the British royal family, although it was "officially" privatized. From Britannica Encyclopedia Online Edition:
British Petroleum:
"British petrochemical corporation. Formed in 1909 as the Anglo-Persian Oil Co., Ltd., to finance an oil-field concession granted by the Iranian government to William Knox D'Arcy, it became one of the largest oil companies in the world, with oil fields and refineries in Alaska and the North Sea. The British government was for many years BP's largest single stockholder, but by the late 1980s it had turned over the company to private ownership. In 1987 BP consolidated its U.S. interests by acquiring the Standard Oil Co. In 1998 it merged with Amoco (formerly Standard Oil of Indiana) to form BP-Amoco. In addition to oil and natural gas, it produces chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibres. Its headquarters are in London."
It will be interesting watching these "hearings," and seeing eventually who will be left holding the bag for the "global economy" once again in this respect.
I'll bet it will be the American taxpayers, in one way or another.
Either for those salaries for this "special panel" and the lost revenue of the American people for this monumental "taking" by Britain of America's mineral rights, or through taxation for the sums that the American public will have to pay in additional gasoline prices across the board for the decades long cleanup of the Gulf Coastline for the "jobs and the economies" of mostly the resident aliens that will be involved from Britainnia.
No wonder also that there is such a push to get an amnesty passed, for that cheap Mexican labor and/or military service for the British Empire's needs both here and abroad.
With Mexico assuming the American border states progressively, and Britain once again with a strong presence in Louisiana and the Canadian border states, it appears that a great many Americans may be fleeing to Kansas, along with Dorothy.
Except that even in the heartland of America, foreigners and foreign interests have gained a foothold.
Since Kansas also has a nuclear generator and reactor whose shares are now sold over that "global" exchange, as do 31 other U.S. states which have also monumentally comprised this nation's national security, on behalf of that "global economy," placing commerce, once again, before the fundamental precepts behind that Constitution.
Whose government continues to sacrifice U.S. lives and property on behalf of foreigners interest at a greater clip by the decades, as the body counts mount.
Wonder if there will be any criminal manslaughter or criminal negligence filed against those Brits.
Don't hold your breath, America, since the sovereign London bankers and British government, those allies, are clearly calling the shots on this one, as they have PROGRESSIVELY with each Administration and Congress since Wilson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
