Obamacracy: Thoughts on BP, Rule of Law, Joe Barton, shakedowns, czars, and the Chicago Way


While Obama vacations, plays golf, and plays BP shakedown artist on the side, our quote of the day comes from Erick Erickson at Red State:

Had British Petroleum affiliated with Al Qaeda and tried to blow up an airplane, it would have gotten due process rights, a court appointed lawyer, and Miranda warning while avoiding Henry Waxman.

So true and so funny, if not so serious.  If only Obama took our real enemies as seriously as he does his fight against “big oil” and Capitalism. 

You can like or dislike Rep. Joe Barton of Texas for apologizing to BP, but what happened with the $20 Billion slush fund WAS a shakedown.  Erickson also states:

Let’s be honest. The White House meeting with British Petroleum was a shakedown.

The White House threatened criminal prosecution of BP, the President gave a miserably received speech, then he hauled BP into the White House and put the Attorney General in the room with the CEO to stare at him, then the President demanded $20 billion.

It was a shakedown.

The rest of Erickson’s post is mostly on the mark….especially the part about BP being in the hip pocket of Dems and Obama….and perhaps Barton should have apologized to the American public instead of BP…..perhaps BP got what they deserved, albeit unconstitutional.

But let’s continue our honesty: Who the heck cares besides Joe Barton? What planet has the man been living on? Has he not seen what BP has done and not done? He thinks we owe BP an apology? I don’t think so. [Note: Yeah, I do care that this is probably unconstitutional, but BP is a willing collaborator with Obama. They're made for each other. Barton should be apologizing to the American public, not BP — this administration continues to operate as a thugocracy.]

My view on Barton and the shakedown?   

Barton did not disparage setting aside the money, but rather the manner in which it was accomplished…you don’t have to like Barton nor his oil campaign money to understand that.
Libs and Obama apologists complain about Republicans and oil companies, but the fact is that oil companies are more and more entrenched in the cesspool of Democratic politics.  They seem to want to partner with the snakes currently leading our government.
 

As time goes by, Mr. Hayward comes increasingly to resemble the character James Taggart in the Ayn Rand novel “Atlas Shrugged.” Both men came to run mighty businesses created by more talented managers. Both were beguiled by cunning creatures of government who sought to bring wealth and wealth-creators under the heel of the state. James Taggart sought the love of the aptly named lobbyist-turned-economic-dictator “Wesley Mouch.” Hayward and his contemporaries throughout Big Oil crave a similar acceptance from those who plot their destruction, and on their way to that end, the erosion of the rule of law.

Indeed, it is a canard of the left that Big Oil is a bulwark of capitalism and private property rights that hinders the march of progressivism. 

BP has sought cozy relations with liberal environmental groups. It has donated $10 million to the Nature Conservancy and $2 million to Conservation International. 

It has a partnership with groups like the Sierra Club, the Natural Resource Defense Fund, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. 

Other Big Oil giants play a similar game. In 2008-09, Chevron peppered Washington, D.C. subway stations with sanctimonious ads showing people vowing to lead green lifestyles and use less of Chevron’s own product. 

Last year, Chevron’s CEO agreed in a debate with the Sierra Club’s executive director that there ought to be a new energy tax. 

Currently, Chevron’s website on corporate social responsibility has a link to the left wing Human Rights Campaign, whose notable contribution to the 2004 presidential race was printing stickers declaring “George W. Bush: ‘You’re Fired.’”

And, of course, Obama received almost as much campaign cash from BP alone ($71,000) as Barton has from the oil industry as a whole since early 2009 ($100,000) — but I guess its OK for Obama to do so, approve the well, watch it explode, and then sit on the response for weeks on end.
There is no legal precedent for Obama’s forcing BP (and their weak management) to open such an account for one of Obama’s “czar” cronies to manage. Especially since some of the funds are set aside for “oil workers”…aka union members.
The legal precedent is for those with damages to sue and the process is played out in that manner. We know how Obama doles out his unconstitutional slush funds…If you trust an Obama crony to get the money into the hands of businesses/individuals that deserve it without politics or his ideology coming into play, that would be the height of naivety.
 
I’m astounded at people who would rather forgo rule of law and precedent so we can make it all APPEAR better in the gulf for Obama.
Finally, I would venture to say, as would many people, that the damage to businesses, animals, coastlines would be much minimized if Obama would have acted as was his responsiblity.
 
One question remains –Who gets to shakedown Obama so that he will have to pay for the jobs lost because of his anti-oil opportunistic moratorium on drilling?
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 252 other followers