Barack Obama

As the Spill Expands, So Does Presidential Power

More fallout from the BP oil spill

|

The other day, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked what will happen if the people running BP decline to go along with everything the administration demands of it. "The president," he replied with chilly menace, "has the legal authority to compel them to do so, and if they don't, he will."

As a matter of strict truth, Barack Obama may not have all the legal authority he would need. But punctilious adherence to the law is rarely the hallmark of American presidents.

When the head of the executive branch makes his desires known to a private corporation, the company defies him at its peril. Given the vast centralization of power in the Oval Office, Obama wields enough weapons to make BP come to heel or wish it had.

Lately, the administration seems more focused on meting out punishment than solving concrete problems in a measured way. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar boasted of his intention to "keep our boot on their neck," and Obama resolved to find out "whose ass to kick."

A villain as hated—and justifiably hated—as BP creates a temptation to indulge in excess, and Obama is not inclined to resist.

First there was the announcement that the Justice Department is considering criminal charges. It's entirely possible that in the fullness of time, evidence will emerge to support prosecution. But as a first resort, it discourages BP from working closely with the government to cope with the current emergency.

"Criminal prosecution kills cooperation," laments University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein. "How do you give information to someone who will use it to indict you?" You don't. But the president seems to think catering to populist outrage is more important right now.

Members of his party also demand that the oil company stiff its shareholders by canceling its dividend, while turning over billions to the feds to distribute as they please. Not many Democrats seem to worry about BP's obligations to its investors—which, in an economy based on property rights, take priority over the whims of politicians. But that assumes we still respect property rights.

On Wednesday, Obama forced BP to set up a $20 billion fund to compensate everyone who suffers economic harm from the spill. But it's a pernicious solution to a fictitious problem.

The idea is that if BP doesn't conserve its cash, it will run out later and leave injured claimants high and dry. Not likely. Estimates of the total costs of the spill range up to $70 billion, which sounds large only if you are not a multinational petroleum company.

The oil giant had profits last year of nearly $17 billion, reports MSNBC, and its untapped reserves are worth $1.35 trillion. The quarterly dividend is just $2.6 billion. And BP won't have to bear the whole burden, since its partners on the Deepwater Horizon rig, Transocean and Halliburton, will probably be on the hook for a large portion of the damages.

About the only thing that could keep BP from paying its share is a criminal conviction, which would wreck its ability to do business. So the administration purports to worry about BP's bankruptcy while entertaining actions that would probably lead to bankruptcy.

Even if the escrow fund were justified, turning it over to the administration isn't. Instead of trying to limit payouts to the truly deserving, the people in charge would have every incentive to err on the side of generosity to anyone who claims to have been hurt.

In his Tuesday address to the nation, Obama made a point of saying that "this fund will not be controlled by BP." He didn't say how he will assure that the administrators don't fall into a jolly impersonation of Santa Claus.

David Pettit of the Natural Resources Defense Council, which is not exactly an apologist for polluters, says the pitch from Senate Democrats to BP is: "We'd like you to escrow $20 billion, with a 'b', and we'll take over claims processing. So we'll write the checks, and it will be your money that backs them up, and you're out of the loop. If I were BP, I'd have some problems with that."

Bypass longstanding legal procedures that protect everyone in favor of granting unchecked discretion to the president? BP is not the only one that should have some problems with that.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Advertisement

NEXT: An Inside Job

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A slush fund for Obama with only $20,000,000,000 in it? While he’s no doubt just as at ease taking from Brit taxpayers as from American ones, I hardly think that tiny sum is worth all this effort.

    1. Good morning FoE. Good morning reason!

      For a Harvard lawyer Obama has a funny way of saying things. He demands an account be established weeks after BP established one and already paid millions from it. He kept demanding it the whole time it existed. Obama is so good at that he convinced Chapman that it wasn’t there until Obama demanded it.

      Obama kept demanding BP do something about the gusher, while they were doing everything possible about the gusher and his government did nothing but call BP names.

      In the meantime, the states that will be affected first asked for existing equipment to be relocated there to protect the beaches. Obama’s government either blocked or ignored every request. Destin Florida was going to clean their own beach with their own money and they were blocked from doing it by Obama’s government.

      The compensation fund has been hijacked by Obama and he says the Pay Czar, who works for him, is an “independent third party.” If he says that enough will it become true?

      Chapman says BP is “justifiably hated.” Why should anybody honestly hate BP? They drilled where they were told to by a federal government under the influence of environmentalists. They lost very expensive equipment in a natural disaster, mostly due to federal policy.

      If you are going to hate BP, hate them for playing too nice with the federal government. BP cares more about the “little people” than Maobama does.

      1. I am the world.
        I am the children.
        I am the one who’s gonna make you pay,
        so keep on giving.

      2. In Obama’s defense, he tried to stay out of it and the media and apparently many citizens were not happy with that. Same thing happened with Bush after Katrina. Nowadays the prez is supposed to be the Daddy-In-Chief and he must go to the victims and cry to show his pain and he must show that he is angry. Very angry. And he must show that he is doing something (or else there won’t be a sound bite for the news feeds and the media might actually have to work for a true story). Even if what he is doing, was already in progress or beyond his control, or ILLEGAL. It’s only important that people see/hear something that looks like someone is in charge. Kind of parallels why people don’t think a free market will work. They need to see a “czar” is in charge …..

      3. I’m with Suki – BP is the real victim here!

        Man, you guys are loonier than ever.

        1. Even murders have rights, dipshit.

        2. That’s not what Suki said. But I imagine, being a troll, you already know that.

          1. No Suki just blamed environmentalists for the oil geyser.

            Under the same logic, it’s also antiwar activists’ fault for not letting us invade and conquer Saudi Arabia to take their oil.

            1. No, not really. I don’t remember conquering Saudi Arabia ever being a considered option. At all. For any reason. Shut up.

            2. “No Suki just blamed environmentalists for the oil geyser.”

              Seeing as how their influence meant that BP had to drill in deeper water that is more risky and expensive, then they are quite correctly allocated a goodly piece of the blame for it.

              And you aren’t the lease bit capable of proving the case is otherwise, troll.

              1. I don’t have to disprove something so patently ridiculous, which, incidentally, originated with Rush Limbaugh.

                1. Now you’re going for a two-fer.

                  You can’t prove that it originated with Limbaugh either.

                  Of course being a leftist troll, you have never been capable of proving anything you have ever claimed in your entire life.

                  1. GM,

                    The “blame environmentalists” bullshit and the “slush fund” crap are both talking points from the GOP media machine. Just for future reference in case you’re tempted to carry their water some more.

                    1. Nope.

                      What they are are absolute facts.

                      And you aren’t the least bit capable of proving the case is otherwise.

                    2. I agree. I’m so tired of all these collectivist parasites with their hands out!

                      BP is Atlas holding up the world. Enviros and Maobama caused the explosion! Nothing like this happened when a republican was president! It’s a shakedown and a redistribution of wealth fund, just like Michelle Bachmann said!

            3. Suki’s main point, with which I am in agreement, was that Obama is trying to appear on top of BP, when BP couldn’t really be doing much more than they are doing, while he does almost nothing. Obama’s showing his strength for political theater.

            4. Suki was right, Tony. Your silly second point is, however, absurd.

  2. Just today I read on a whacked out conspiracy site that this is Obama’s attempt to seize BP and give its assets to Exxon-Mobil (and probably teh Joos, or something like that)… When our government starts making the whackos sound not only plausible but prescient?

    1. I just learned yesterday that the department of energy was a Carter creation in the 70’s or 80’s? Carter is so not the Joos and I could see Obama nationalizing BP US operations under DOE.

      1. Carter also created the Dept of Education.

        He was a real peach.

        But Carter has reason to rejoice now.
        Obama has knocked him right out of first place in the category of worst president in the nation’s history.

        1. The title of “worst President evah” belongs to FDR. No other Pres before or since has done as much as he did to destroy freedom and establish state power.

          President Obama is trying, but his efforts pale in comparison to LBJ who was far more successful than he.

          1. Don’t forget Woodrow Wilson. I believe we have him to thank for the income tax and the Federal Reserve Bank.

    2. No, the goal is to nationalize all of the oil companies they can, not just BP’s American assets.

      1. That’s what I’ve been saying!

        1. Have you thanked Rush yet for making your name popular during the hurricane?

          1. Yes. He told me I had a pretty mouth.

            1. ? “Gotta whole lotta shakin’, whole lotta shakin’ goin’ on! ?

  3. Temper your comments with the knowledge that five out of five Reason editors responded with the acknowledgement that they indeed voted for this Change You Can Believe In.

    1. That fact still makes me reel. Tempers my enthusiasm too.

    2. Let’s take a vote:
      Is the above comment
      a) An attempt at humor?
      b) Disingenuousness?
      c) Idiocy?
      Let the people decide!

      1. Perhaps shocked indignation? You gotta consider all the possibilities.

        1. I’m going with awed unbelievability. It’s the only one that computes.

  4. I think this is a story that demands a lot more conspiracy storys. Mainly ’cause I’m bored. I would think a story with big oil, halliburton, capntax, and slush funds would provide more interesting fantasies than we’ve seen so far.

    1. Well, Bush and Cheney aren’t around to point the finger at and be on TV every day to have the Two Minutes Hate directed at their images.

      And since there’s no Bush to blame, there isn’t as much fun to be had, is there?

      1. Actually, the fact that he hasn’t been prez for a year and a half hasn’t stopped many people from blaming bush.

  5. Shouldn’t the graphic say “RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH”?

  6. Make sure also to temper your comments on “Big Oil” with the knowledge that BP doesn’t fit into this category. 90% of the oil produced in this world is controlled by government run organizations. They only allow these “private” companies to stick around so someone can take all the heat from environmentalists and anticorporatists alike.

  7. When the head of the executive branch makes his desires known to a private corporation

    A private corporation which polluted public waters and public and private land. If Obama, boss of said waters and lands, doesn’t tell BP how to recompense the United States, who will? The companyy will repay all of its damages on scout’s honor before declaring bankruptcy, is it?

    BP has consistently made the rest of us oil companies look bad, and should not be allowed to play with the big boys. So, let’s also not make the mistake of lumping us all in with Big Oil. Some companies are better than others.

    BP’s joint venture partners, Anadarko and Mitsui, will also bear a portion of the expenses. I am going to wait for all the testimony and evidence to come out, but this looks like BP’s doing (Transocean & Halliburton had little to do with BP’s bad calls) and usually the primary operator assumes the liability and rap, not contracting companies.

    1. If Obama, boss of said waters and lands, doesn’t tell BP how to recompense the United States, who will?

      As we do not live in a dictatorship, Obama is not, legally, the boss of those public lands.

      There is a fairly well developed court system with a great deal of experience in handling such trespasses. Obama is engagin in yet another one of his extra-legal power grabs.

      Either the guy is really evil, or he is one of the most incompetent constitutional law specialists out there.

      1. As we do not live in a dictatorship,

        That was then, this is now.

      2. Option C: you’re a moron.

        There is not “well developed” precedent for dealing with something like this, except insofar as we know that litigation will stretch out for decades and the oil company will likely end up paying a tiny fraction of what it owes.

      3. Either the guy is really evil, or he is one of the most incompetent constitutional law specialists out there.

        Pretty much everything O does is a violates the consitution in one way or another.

        Makes me wonder WTF ivy league schools teach about the constitution.

        Him being a “constitutional scholar” and all.

        1. The first thing one learns in a constitutional law course is that the material studied has little or nothing to do with the Constitution.

    2. If Obama, boss of said waters and lands, doesn’t tell BP how to recompense the United States, who will?

      Um, courts of law?

  8. BP’s investors have enjoyed plenty of windfalls from cutting corners left and right – where’s the disrespect of property rights in their taking a loss arising from the abuse of their property, which they’ve gladly permitted up until now?

    1. Please fill us in on these corners that have been cut “left and right.”

      1. Safety corners, for one, but then they were cut knowing that our all-wise overlords had removed most of the incentives for them to actually spend on safety since liability caps made it a good gamble not to spend the millions needed on safety. But we must trust our all-wise overlords to get it right this time. At least that’s what Tony and Chad would probably advocate.

        1. A lesson to be learned from this episode is that a solemn pledge of indemnification from the State, even if enacted into law, is worthless.

          You might find that worth remembering if you’re considering conversion of a traditional IRA into a Roth this year.

  9. When, When, WHEN ? will one of the captains of industry take a stand against this Obama ?

    Just take the reasonable position that we have well established rule of law for bankruptcy, torts etc and point out that the President is playing politics. Of course the sh*t will hit the fan, but it will force Obama to take off the mask. Someone better stand up to this bully, and soon.

    1. It won’t be a behemoth corporation that stands up to fight the State. Even facing monumental liabilities, its executives have too much to lose by initiating a challenge to Obama. The shareholders will suffer for BP management’s unwillingness to face criminal charges. Like the story of David and Goliath, it will be some bold and fiesty small company, probably tightly owned, with little to lose.

      At least that’s the way it played out the last time the US made major strides toward economic fascism. Roosevelt’s National Recovery Administration (NRA) was not actively contested and overturned by major industrial firms. Rather, it was Joe Schechter and brothers, partners in a kosher poultry company, who challenged Roosevelt’s NRA and won.

  10. It is not surprising that a country which still embraces the death penalty as the ultimate punishment would be more concerned with satiating it’s blood lust rather than solving any tangible problems.

  11. “But that assumes we still respect property rights”

    Of course we still respect property rights. Just as long as you understand that it’s all “The People’s” property and individuals are just caretakers.

  12. Exxon Valdez was over 21 years ago yet is still being litigated. I think BP ought to bring in competent commercial business income insurance adjusters to handle the claims. They should not pay too little or too much but rather the actual provable loss incurred. This is complicated because much of the S. LA fishing industry is a cash business.

    But we learned that we can no longer permit a huge company to leverage its unlimited assets to take advantage of our legal system to the detriment of those who were negatively affected owing to no fault of their own.

    We want the fishermen to be indemnified for their loss, and we want that indemnification in a timely fashion and not 30 years from now.

  13. A mammoth oil spill and what we should really be worried about is “BP’s obligation to its shareholders”?

    You can’t make this stuff up.

    Sorry, BP broke it’s obligations to its shareholders by being negligent.

    Government didn’t break BP’s obligation to its shareholders.

    The victims of BP’s negligence should not get paid in a timely manner, but the owners of BP should?

    No wonder no one takes you seriously.

    1. Do we know with certainty the extent of BP’s negligence at this stage? Perhaps it would be prudent to wait on the outcome of a thorough investigation. Translation: Can you stow your anti-corporate slobbering for just another month or two?

      1. “Translation: Can you stow your anti-corporate slobbering for just another month or two?”

        My anti-corporate slobbering only comprises 20% of the issues I take up: can you stow your anti-government slobbering for a month or two?.

        Seriously, I’m not sure if this distinction is lost on you, but this was anti-BP, not anti-corporation.

        And also this is big news so more attention is paid to it. It’s not like everyday I get my panties in a bunch arguing over corporate bungling of minutia, while arguing over such government minutia is a way of life for you.

    2. Randy. Randi Rhodes perhaps??

    3. “No wonder no one takes you seriously.”

      Show us the detail where you’ve asked every single person in the country about it and recorded their answers along with verified names and addresses.

      1. Haha, we’ll see. If Reid loses his senate seat, then maybe I’ll be wrong.

  14. Hear, hear Mr. Chapman. Well said. The audacity of politics. Creeping Venezuelan style strongman politics where the enemies of “the people” will pay to the political benefit of the maximum leader. We have existing solutions in a system of separated powers. We live in a nation of laws. Not men.

  15. Declare war on an oil spill. That works.

  16. This article is reasonably well thought out but statements made by BP execs after the escro account was set pretty much nullify its premise:

    “BP Chief Financial Officer Byron Grote said the deal gives his embattled company a more constructive “partnership” with the Obama administration.” (quoted from Wall Street Journal 6/17/10)

    Not only that but BP stock actually rose afterwards:

    “Shares in oil giant BP PLC jumped as much as 9.8% in London a day after the company struck a deal with the Obama administration to set aside $20 billion to cover costs of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.”

    And BP has benifits from the deal in at least one additional sense:

    “Aside from the political aspects, the only advantage of the deal for BP was the scheduling of payments to the $20 billion fund over more than three years, “which avoids an emergency call on debt,” said NCB Stockbrokers analyst Peter Hutton.”

    A reasonable conclusion is that BP deal made with the Obama administration actually enhances cooperation. For better or worse.

    1. lol, i guess this makes both liberals and libertarians angry.

      libertarians are angry that they can’t say that the bogeyman Obama kept BP from acting in its shareholder’s interests, as it was in their interest to set aside money for victims.

      liberals are angry BP made the right move and that the share prices of BP are going up.

      happy? whoops, angry?

  17. There’s more: BP, a British Company, or at least mostly Britsh (Britons hold 40 percent of BP shares, Americans 39 percent), spent 16 million last year lobbying Washington, with $50,000 going to Obama during his presidential run. Yeah, that’s right, somehow “Maobama” manages to be both the socialist-in-chief and a corporatist (bought and sold) at the same time!

  18. If you create a problem that’s going to be very damaging to a lot of people, government is going to fix it, and it might not be pretty, so if you got problems with that, then don’t mess up.

  19. Isn’t it time we let the Market solve this problem? Let’s trust the intelligence of consumers’ being informed enough to avoid buying fish because the Gulf is now too dirty to fish from. The Gulf can then be dedicated purely to oil extraction without the burdensome safety regulations of days’ past. Repeat until out of unfouled bodies of water, which will incentivize private industry to discover new planets for people to fish from.

  20. Fact Check|6.17.10 @ 6:05PM|#

    This article is reasonably well thought out but statements made by BP execs after the escro account was set pretty much nullify its premise:

    “BP Chief Financial Officer Byron Grote said the deal gives his embattled company a more constructive “partnership” with the Obama administration.” (quoted from Wall Street Journal 6/17/10)

    Not only that but BP stock actually rose afterwards:

    “Shares in oil giant BP PLC jumped as much as 9.8% in London a day after the company struck a deal with the Obama administration to set aside $20 billion to cover costs of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.”

    And BP has benifits from the deal in at least one additional sense:

    “Aside from the political aspects, the only advantage of the deal for BP was the scheduling of payments to the $20 billion fund over more than three years, “which avoids an emergency call on debt,” said NCB Stockbrokers analyst Peter Hutton.”

    A reasonable conclusion is that BP deal made with the Obama administration actually enhances cooperation. For better or worse.
    reply to this
    liberalspwnu|6.17.10 @ 6:15PM|#

    lol, i guess this makes both liberals and libertarians angry.

    libertarians are angry that they can’t say that the bogeyman Obama kept BP from acting in its shareholder’s interests, as it was in their interest to set aside money for victims.

    liberals are angry BP made the right move and that the share prices of BP are going up.

    happy? whoops, angry?

    You both are made of such superficial thin gruel you deserve to stew in Hell together. Libertarians believe, and as our system of governance has actually been set, and not this lawless bullshit, that BP needs to pay out for damages to the penny be it to be found 1 billion, 10 billion, or 100 billion dollars of liability through tort which is the lawfull remedy.

    Are you so clueless about Libertarians that you think we give a fuck about BPs bottom line, or somehow our political philosophy is invalidated by BP stock prices going up after this deal? Are you really that fucking stupid and shallow?

    Do you not understand what is going to happen now given what this clown college of an administration did? Given the extortive and lawless nature of that meeting? Do you understand that you cannot have a contract forced upon you, and that contract pass muster in our court system? Probably not. BP has the upper hand to have the agreement voided if they so chose to go that route. For the next few years it will not be politically feasible, but as a long term plan, it would make sense to do so given the thoughtless way this joke of an administration went in to that meeting yesterday.

    1. Fact Check, I was a little too rough there. Your post blended in with a previous one to my mind while I was reading liberalspwnu shitscreed. I reached for the sawed off when I should have went with a more clinical 357 shot. My apologies.

    2. “You both are made of such superficial thin gruel you deserve to stew in Hell together.”

      lol, that was surprisingly pretty good, in a cutesy sort of way.

      “that BP needs to pay out for damages to the penny be it to be found 1 billion, 10 billion, or 100 billion dollars of liability through tort which is the lawfull remedy.”

      that’s all fine and good, but obama wants to get some money now, for fear BP won’t save enough. what if BP bungles again? the smart thing is to get the money now. it would be stupid to leave things to chance, as BP found out when it ignored its engineers.

      “Are you so clueless about Libertarians that you think we give a fuck about BPs bottom line, or somehow our political philosophy is invalidated by BP stock prices going up after this deal? Are you really that fucking stupid and shallow?”

      the shareholders are happy, the victims are happy, while your philosophy would have left everyone unhappy. you’re upset at the process that left all parties happy because you were privy to a closed-door meeting and witnessed Obama breaking the law.

      1. that’s all fine and good, but obama wants to get some money now, for fear BP won’t save enough. what if BP bungles again? the smart thing is to get the money now. it would be stupid to leave things to chance, as BP found out when it ignored its engineers.

        That is really stupid and disingenuous in a post hoc sort of way because there was never a question whether or not BP was going to pay out damages. This put the administration in the middle of a process which they had no role and were not needed, but due to atavistic impulses common to you leftist, they could not in a million years stay the Hell away from. Now, in spite of their protest to the contrary claiming it will not interfere, they do jeopardize the standing of claims in the long run as an agreement reached where punitive damages have already been factored carries weight in consideration to all other liability claims.

        There is no administrative concept of restitution nor of ‘making whole’ that can substitute for tort. You will get instead a stream lined production line that caters to the mutual interest of regulators and industry over the parties that have legitimate claims. It is a sell out.

  21. Ideologues such as yourself don’t really care much for facts do they? Its so much easier to spew hateful, self-rightous, speculative vitriol.

    1. See above, and yes, I’m extremely fact centric. I would expect the stock to rise after an agreement like that and they may stabilize, but it frankly does not matter to the rightness of the agreement if they do. That is where principle is more important than ‘facts.’

    2. If you have read the content of the meeting, Biden’s ‘you have no choice’, for just one of many instances, the standing of the agreement is exactly as I described it, and not speculative in the least.

  22. I believe this is what you’re refering to: “Sources told the Daily News that Biden leaned forward and bluntly informed the Blight Brigade [BP]they had no choice: If they didn’t do the right thing and put the cash in escrow, it would be done to them.”

    “Sources” huh? Sounds more like rumor than fact.

    Biden also supposedly said this: “There’s an entire way of life in jeopardy. This is just not about jobs. This is just not about whether or not the waterfowl is polluted and you can’t fish. This is an entire way of life that’s in jeopardy,” Biden added, as his voice steadily got louder.”

    Sounds like Biden might agree with you about principle being more important than facts.

    Anyway, BP doesn’t have a good track record of doing the right thing. Since 2007 they have racked up 670 willful and egregious safety violations. (To illustrate just how reluctant BP is to do the right, Exxon-Mobile had one such violation during the same period of time.) Where was you principled outrage then? Where was Biden’s?

    If you actually have the full minutes of the meeting available, then by all means share it with the rest of us.

    Otherwise, to quote from “sources” remains speculation and anyways, without placing such a quote in context, it remains something for the media to play rather than something to draw sound conclusions from.

    1. Don’t need the minutes. The reaction of the British ministers speaks volumes to how badly the administration fucked this one up.

  23. Oh, yeah, and apologies accepted. By all means please stick to your “clinical 357 shot.”

    1. Thanks. I have been edgy the last few days. There have been Steve Smith sightings in nearby counties.

  24. Since when did libertarians become corporate cocksuckers? Oh thats right they have always been. Thanks reason for proving once again why libertarianism will always be fringe.

    1. Leave it to a lefty not to understand a Goddamn thing about human existence. What fucking world do you live in that corporate cocksuckers are not taken seriously? Where does that make even an iota of sense?

      1. I’m a socialist stooge who is being hypocritical in my critique of corporations by way of using a computer to bitch about said corporations.

  25. Dear Leader just landed in my city, Columbus, Ohio. Touting the Soviet era Stimulus projects. I’m taking a shower as soon as he leaves.

  26. TO THE WEAK-KNEED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRAT…..TO ALL THE COMMUNIST IN THE IG,FBI,CIA,AND U.S. Senators and the left wing media outlets. What does this beast from the sea represent?Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama Antichrist! But Antichrist as a world government, a political power, the likes of which this world has never seen. The origin of this beast is the sea, which represents the restless nations and peoples of the earth. “The wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose water cast up mire and dirt.”That the beast has power and a throne and great authority. The Antichrist is a political reality, a new world order a global unity,,GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the ANTICHRIST Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur.
    If you Don’t care that Your President Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this, and then lower your American Flag to half-staff, because the U.S. Constitution is already on life-support, and won’t survive much longer.

    If you do care then Forward this to as many patriotic Americans as you can, because our country is being looted and ransacked! the commander

    REPOST THIS IF YOU AGREE. ,THE COMMANDER.

  27. i LIVE IN THE WORLD WERE NO ONE WOULD EVER ELECT A LIBETARIAN TO BE PRESIDENT

  28. Why is BP a villain? Why is hating it justifiable?

    This was a disastrous accident. It was not intentional. The government forces oil companies to drill in deep water by prohibiting shallow water and land drilling, gives oil companies tax breaks if they drill in deep water, and it socializes their risk with government-backed insurance.

    Just how does the government come out of this deal without blame?

    BP was doing precisely what the government encouraged it to do. So how BP is a villain?

    For whatever malfeasance it is responsible for by all means let the company take responsibility. But an accident is an accident, not a crime.

    1. Tom, while the investigation is still ongoing, it seems likely that BP cut corners in drilling that well. They skipped some crucial tests immediately before the explosion. I’ve also heard that they screwed up one of the cutouts in the blowout preventer by retracting the pipe while the preventer was in the wrong state. Also, BP has an unenviable safety and environmental record to this point. So the jury is still out, but at this point it ain’t looking good for the defense.

      Deepwater drilling is certainly a tricky and not entirely understood operation, so you can lay some blame on those that forced BP into it. On the other hand, there have been no screwups of this magnitude before. Thus it seems probable, though not certain, that everyone else has been doing things right and BP just did something wrong this time.

      In BP’s favor, they seem to be working very hard at fixing things and are willing to pay damages when they are due. They’ve certainly spent more time fixing the problem than the administration, who seem more interested in fixing the blame.

  29. Good writing ! Thank you share with us,i leaned a lot of knowledge from your article. I will continue coming to visit. i hope you will post more good aritcle !
    I realy like reading and reviewing article

  30. And some people enjoy PCP a great deal. Ketamine is a whole different class of drug. She may well have enjoyed it much more, but I’d guess she wasn’t incredibly bright considering her tree climbing demise.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.