HEARTLESS OBAMA!
The DAILY MAIL says, "British families of 9/11 victims described Barack
Obama as ‘cruel’ yesterday for comparing the terrorist outrage to the BP oil spill.
Those who lost loved ones when terrorists flew hijacked planes into the
Twin Towers of New York’s World Trade Centre said Mr Obama’s remarks were yet
another attempt to slur the UK.
Obama has consistently attacked BP and Britain for its part in the gulf oil spill.
Having taken on the responsibility for cleaning up the mess, he seems desperate to
defer the blame beyond the United States' borders.
According to Grist, "Obama's actual comment was, "In the same
way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by
9/11, I think this disaster is going to shape how
we think about the environment and energy for many years to come," Obama said."
The unfortunate comment doesn't acknowledge the difference
between deliberate, genocide by terrorists and environmental accidents.
Many believe that Obama's lack of patriotism prevents him from acknowledging
the threat of terrorism as well as the illegal invasion of the U.S. southern border.
Obama's comment is perhaps not so surprising. This is a president
who began his stay in the white house by packing up Winston Churchill's
bust and shipping it back to England.
The Wall Street Journal has Dorothy Rabinowitz' excellent op-ed article
"The Alien in the White House."
"A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of
identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs.
He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation,
because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his
ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter
having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITICS
President Obama is using the Gulf oil spill to play politics. And he went further:
he said Obama waited for the oil spill to worsen so he could shut down offshore drilling.
"This is exactly what they want, because now he can pander to the environmentalists
and say, 'I'm gonna shut it down because it's too dangerous,'" Brown told Fox's Neil Cavuto.
"This president has never supported Big Oil,
he's never supported offshore drilling, and now he has an excuse to shut it back down."
Brown's comments ring strange because Obama actually announced earlier this year
that he was expanding the allowed zones for offshore work, much to the
consternation of his supporters. The former Bush official resigned in
the wake of his tepid response to Hurricane Katrina and questions about his resume.
Brown isn't the only one making waves with his comments during the Gulf spill.
FEMA director Brown under Katrina, intimated on Fox and wasn't, I would editorially say, didn't
appear to be pushed back on real hard -- that this spill was leaked on purpose in order for
us to walk back our environmental and drilling decisions and that the leak that we
did on purpose got out of control and now is too big to contain."
Gibbs sparred with the Fox News reporter and suggested that he should
"call headquarters" and ask why the network would seemingly promote
such a theory without offering a stern counter-point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're Not Gonna Believe This!
A survivor of the Gulf Coast BP Oil rig disaster has turned up. Apparently a Russian
woman had boarded a small boat with the intention of making a Tim Horton's run
for coffee and tea.
The lucky woman apparently left the rig just minutes prior to
the explosion. She told reporters that she witnessed several torpedo-like trails
in the water beside her as she was leaving.....OK I won't continue this charade
any longer out of respect for the victims of this tragedy. I do wonder how
many people out there just blindly accept
the "truth" of the accident as told to them by the TV.
If President Obama learned that the recent Oil Rig Environmental Disaster
was caused by an intentional and successful terrorist attack, how likely do
you think he would be to tell us? We all know how our "governments"
like
to shield and protect us irrational and emotional citizens from very scary
things that might cause us to panic and do something stupid. After everyone
had their "little wake-up call" on 9/11 how do you think Joe Q Public would react
if he was told "its happened again?" How likely is it we'd be told the truth?
How much more likely is it we'd be told "it was an accident due to mechanical failure".
If you were a North Korean terrorist looking for a way to inflict harm upon the
US how attractive a target would an offshore oil rig make? You don't have to
get in the country. All you need to do is use a North Korean submarine
with a torpedo....or a few stealthy scuba guys with explosives.
Doesn't sound hard to me. I wonder why it doesn't happen more often.
Perhaps BP Oil has lapsed on its protection payments. Maybe somebody is
being sent a message...I smell a Hollywood movie.
The destruction of a BP oil rig in the Gulf Coast has led to a lot of
speculation focusing on the possibility that North Korea or North
Korean sponsored terrorists are responsible.
The sudden explosion at the Deepwater Horizon rig on April 20th killed
eleven people and eventually caused the rig to sink into the Gulf.
While BP chairman Lamar McKay has blamed "a failed piece of equipment",
many have concluded that the platform sunk due to sabotage of some nature.
Strange that no oil spills happened when Hurricane Katrina hit the area in 2005 isn't it?
Another interesting point leading people to think sabotage is at fault is the
fact that President Obama ordered SWAT teams to inspect all platforms and rigs:
The intentional sabotage conclusion has been spurred by alleged Kremiln Reports
that the Obama Administration has ordered a news blackout, preventing
reporters from gaining access to the area or discovering information that
would confirm or disprove the charges.
The dominant theory that has emerged is that a North Korean submarine
torpedoed the oil rig. Since the Deepwater Horizon oil platform was built and
financed by South Korea’s Hyundai, this leads many to consider
the plausibility of a North Korean attack.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did BP Negotiate a Terrorist's
Release in Exchange for Libyan Oil?
Is there a connection between BP and the terrorist convicted of bombing Pan
Am Flight 103? Four senators want to know what sway the oil giant may
have had in securing the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset
al-Megrahi in exchange for a $900 million offshore oil drilling deal with Libya.
Megrahi, the only person convicted of bombing that killed 270 people
in 1988, was released from prison in Scotland last August.
A Scottish
court granted the release after doctors claimed that Megrahi was terminally
ill from prostate cancer and had only three months to live.
The release, of
course, prompted plenty of outrage. The bomber is still alive,
and just this week one of the doctors that gave that dire prognosis last
year came forward to assert that the Libyan government paid him to make
that claim. Now four senators–Robert Menendez (D-NJ),
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ),
Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)—are calling on the
State Department to investigate whether the oil giant was involved
in the deal-making, and whether "BP might use blood money" to pay
for damages in the Gulf of Mexico.
In 2007, BP and the Libyan government agreed upon a $900 million
oil exploration deal for the Gulf of Sidra. Last year, BP admitted that
it had lobbied the UK government on the issue, after the company
became "concerned that a delay in concluding a prisoner transfer
agreement with the Libyan government might hurt a $900 million
oil deal it had just signed." With the oil giant back in the news, senators
are calling for a full investigation into BP's role.
"Evidence in the Deepwater Horizon disaster seems to suggest that
BP would put profit ahead of people—its attention to safety was
negligible, and it routinely underestimated the amount of oil gushing
into the Gulf," the senators wrote in a letter to Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton asking her department to investigate the matter.
"The question we now have to answer is, was this corporation willing to
trade justice in the murder of 270 innocent people for oil profits?"
This is not the first time senators have raised this concern.
Lautenberg asked the Foreign Relations Committee to look
into the agreement last September, two weeks after al-Megrahi’s
release. Lautenberg sent a second letter to the Foreign Relations
Committee today asking for an investigation, and all four senators
are asking the British government to also look into the matter.
"It is shocking to even contemplate that this company is profiting
from the release of a terrorist with the blood of 189 Americans on
his hands," wrote Lautenberg in the letter to the Foreign Relations
Committee. "The families of the victims of Pan Am flight 103 deserve
to know whether justice took a back seat to commercial interests in this case."
BP, meanwhile, is chugging ahead with its plans for the Gulf of Sidra,
and has announced plans to begin drilling there next month.
The company called this their "single biggest exploration
commitment" in a press release in 2007, noting that the oil
discoveries there totaled "more than 2000 Gulf of Mexico deepwater blocks.
" Now that their Gulf operations have gone horribly awry, the company's stake
in Libya has surely become even more valuable.
