By Jon Christian Ryter
June 19, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

First, let's get this right. While this article will refer to the Gulf oil spill as the BP oil spill, we need to understand from the gitgo, this is Obama's oil spill. He didn't cause it, but he converted it into the crisis it has become for his own personal reasons and his own personal political gain..

By this time, the American people—if they are smart enough to tie their own shoes—have to be asking themselves a question. Or maybe two or three. I know it was a long time ago, but do you remember when the Deepwater Horizon well and platform explosions happened? In case you forgot—April 20, 2010. When White House resident Barack Hussein Obama stopped partying at the Party Palace on Pennsylvania Avenue long enough to decide he had let the BP oil crisis develop long enough that it would require a social progressive "crisis solution," it was May 15. Obama let the BP oil spill dump what is now estimated to be 2.52 million gallons of crude oil per day into the Gulf of Mexico. That's a total of 88,200,000 gallons of oil in 35 days. Yeah, that reeks of a crisis.

Most Americans don't know that three days after the Deepwater Horizon platform sank to the floor of the Gulf of Mexico, along with any evidence of what caused the underwater pipeline explosion below the safety cutoff valves, the Dutch government called Obama and offered to loan BP ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and a plan to quickly build sand barriers to protect the marshlands that everyone knew would be affected worst if the seepage was left uncontained and the oil reached the Louisiana coastline. The Heritage Foundation reported that, according to one Dutch newspaper, the European oil companies that offered to help BP said that left to do the job alone they would have contained the oil and completely cleaned all of the oil scum from the Gulf of Mexico in four months. With the help of the US government, the report said, the cleanup would have be complete in three months or less. According to estimates from US Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen and BP, the cleanup would take an estimated nine months—after they got the leak plugged.

Again, what the American people don't know is that 13 different countries offered to help clean the oil sludge from the Gulf. And, finally, what the American people don't know is that the Obama Administration turned all of them down. Obama had a crisis in the making and as Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel so aptly told the media during the housing and credit disasters that led to the piling on of over $3 trillion in new taxes on generations of Americans in February, 2009, you "...never let a crisis go to waste."

Had Obama allowed those 13 nations to contain the oil leak and clean up the mess within the first two weeks of the BP oil spill, the marshlands would not be devastated and the tourists would be flocking to the beaches along the Gulf of Mexico this summer. Instead, in the height of tourist season—June 15 until Labor Day—those who usually flock to the Gulf coast will be spending their vacations in North Carolina, or Cape Cod...or in their backyards at home wondering when Obama's next crisis will devastate the industry they work in and end their jobs.

When Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal tried to get the White House to allow willing nations, experienced with oil spill cleanup in the North Sea, to come into the Gulf of Mexico to help, Obama cited the Jones Act as his reason for being forced to decline their offer of help. The Jones Act (also known as the Sailors's Rights Act, Title 46 USC) is a protectionist piece of legislation that mandates that all goods transported by sea between US ports must be transported by US flag ships that are owned by US citizens and whose crews must be at least 3/4 US citizens.

However, the law provides a waiver in times of emergency. President Bush-43 used the waiver twice during his second term. First, in 2005 during Hurricane Katrina. He allowed foreign ships to transport oil and natural gas between US ports in the Gulf. In 2006, a waiver was issued so a foreign ship could bring a jack-up rig into Alaska's Cook Inlet. Thus, emergency waivers are common. Which raises the question why Obama declined the offer of help which, had he accepted it, would likely minimized or eliminated the oil spill crisis in the Gulf.

But what should worry the American people most is the new life Obama's oil crisis has pumped into the failed Cap & Trade legislation. Remember Cap & Trade? The Carbon Fuel tax? Cap & Trade or, if you prefer, Cap & Tax, didn't die during the December, 2009 blizzard that greeted the environmental bureaucrats flying into Copenhagen, Denmark to attend the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (which was initially called the UN Framework Convention on Global Warming) until climate skeptics hacked hundreds of computer files and private emails exchanges between the world's leading global warming "experts," and released the data to the media in Europe on Nov. 9, 2009, less than a month before the Copenhagen Conference. Obama intended, on the last day of the conference, to back door Cap & Trade into the United States by signing what was known as the Copenhagen Protocol. Preparing for the Conference, the House enacted their version of Cap & Trade, the Waxman-Markey Bill (be sure you remember both Henry Waxman [D-CA] and Edward Markey [D-MA] on election day.) That legislation will ultimately bankrupt every American, and control the settings on the thermostat in your house, summer and winter alike. (That is, if you still have a home after Cap & Trade destroys the company you work for and you no longer have a job.)

The data proved conclusively that, for years, global warming advocates had colluded to manipulate data that supported the view that global warming was real when, in fact, the scientists and "experts" in natural and anthropogenic climate change who claimed the planet was heating up at a phenomenal rate knew the Earth was cooling down, not heating up. They knew the data they were presenting as fact was pure fiction based on corrupt computer models built on the philosophy of "garbage in, garbage out." But, to punish the industrialized world for not sharing its wealth with the impoverished third world, the social progressives needed a catalyst that would allow them to tax the industrialized worlds for their greed.
Not in the least deterred after being caught in their lie, the global warming advocates arrogantly became "climate change" advocates. The conference was renamed, assuming without saying what everyone would know was ridiculous, the climate change advocates want us to believe that global cooling is also caused by man, and his misuse of carbon fuels. In reality, carbon dioxide is critical to the production of oxygen. Oxygen is a necessary component in the air we breathe and the water we drink. Without oxygen, and thus, without carbon dioxide, we all die...and the world the climate change advocates claim they are trying to save dies, too.

Cap & Trade was too important to let a little thing like that stand in their way of imposing a wealth-draining tax on the industrialized world and mandating a draconian reduction in carbon dioxide which, of course, will reduce crop yields worldwide at a time when a growing global population demands the production of even more food that requires—you guessed it—carbon dioxide to feed those plants and grow the food the world needs. Cap & trade is the catalyst that the world government advocates intend to use to redistribute the wealth of the world from the industrialized nations to the overpopulated third world—tomorrow's key consumers and the future profit in the "profit and loss statements" of world's Fortune 1000 companies. The fact that it will reduce crop yields, reduce the quality of air you breathe, and reduce water levels worldwide is of no importance to them because, in their view, there are too many people in the world and if a few million more die of starvation the world will be a better place for those who survive.

Since it is unlikely the US Senate, which knows it's already in trouble with the voters, will let Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] put Cap & Trade back on the table, Obama has already authorized the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Where does he get that authority? From the US Supreme Court, which decided on April 2, 2009 that the EPA has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions—i.e., carbon dioxide. The court also ruled that the EPA had an obligation to regulate greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming unless they (or hopefully, someone with a brain) present a scientific basis for not regulating them. In a separate decision, the high court also ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and factories.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the dissenting opinion, said that the broad coalition of cities, counties and environmental groups that brought the lawsuit had no legal standing as litigants, and the case should never have been accepted by the high court. His dissent was joined by Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, Jr. When the social progressives on the high court hold 4 seats and can usually depend on the one swing vote, they can hear any case they wish to hear; and when they pull that swing vote left of center, they can win any case, whether it has legal standing or not. Once they prevail, those 5 judges have more power than 535 members of Congress.

The Obama EPA took the issue to court to undo 8-years of Bush-43 policy during which time President George W. Bush insisted the government did not have the authority to regulate carbon dioxide since it is a natural element necessary to sustain human life. Giving the EPA the authority to greatly reduce breathable air and drinkable water on Earth were Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Stephen Breyer and swing vote Anthony Kennedy. Since Souter has retired and Stevens is about to, and its likely that Ginsburg will step down before Obama leaves office, it appears only Breyer will need to be impeached for judicial stupidity and ignorance of basic chemistry. Of course, all of the justices and any federal judge appointed by non-citizen Obama need to be replaced as well since the Constitution of the United States does not allow illegal aliens, even if they reside in the big white house at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, to sign legislation into law or appoint judges to the federal courts.

Obama's remarks on the oil spill on May 15 were easy to predict since he did a test run of the speech at the Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh earlier in the week. When Obama tied the BP oil spill to Cap & Trade, his words sealed the deal. "I will make the case for clean energy whenever I can," he said, "and I will work with anyone to get this done. And we will get it done."

Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who joined the Obama Administration advocating for a system in which all government funds used on government building projects should be required to hired only minority workers even if they were not qualified for the projects, called for the US government to seize BP. In an op ed piece, Reich, now a University of California at Berkeley professor, said: "It's time for the federal government to put BP under temporary receivership, which gives the government authority to take over BP's operations in the Gulf of Mexico until the gusher is stopped." Perhaps Obama should appoint Hugo Chavez as temporary CEO of BP while he's at it since Chavez is one of the world's experts on seizing oil companies.

Reich, Obama and Emanuel may not realize this since none of them have likely ever read the Constitution, but there is absolutely nothing in the founding document of the United States that gives any President the power to temporarily declare martial law over one or more corporations and actually seize the operating control of that business entity because the president or his men think they can run it better than the duly elected corporate management of that corporation. Nor, by the way, does a US president have the authority to fire the head of any private company, large or small, in the United States.

© 2010 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights Reserved