With all the solutions available from the private sector and from around the world since day one, to deal with the oil spill, President Obama has stalled on allowing any of these going forward for the following reasons:
To increase the power of government over the private sector. To allow the private sector to solve the problem would defeat and undermine Obama’s assertion that only government and government-owned companies, bureaucracies and labor unions can provide the solution. Obama sees the private sector as inherently evil, as reflected in the fact that he refused to meet with BP to establish a working relationship with the company to cut through all the bureaucratic red tape.
While BP attempts to cap the Deep Water Horizon well, it has to be remembered that the government forced BP to drill at a depth of 5,000 feet, one of the deepest wells ever drilled, creating the crisis. BP had wanted to drill at a depth of 500 feet. The result of the blowout has been that the government, Obama, and Democrats in Congress have threatened and talked down BP and its efforts. On the one hand, they require BP to obtain approvals from the government to move forward, while on the other hand they vilify the BP president and CEO during Congressional hearings, due to the government’s own delays.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration failed to grant requested waivers to the 1920 Jones Act that would allow foreign ships and skimmers to enter U.S. water, refusing international assistance from 33 countries and stalling and minimizing Louisiana’s creation of sand barriers, as well as stalling numerous private sector solutions that the Administration has refused to take heed of. One such example offered on May 3 was from Dr. Henry Crichlow, the leading oil blowout specialist worldwide, who developed the blowout engineering after Gulf War I for 800 or more wells in Kuwait, who provided quick relatively inexpensive solutions to either recover the oil with the Crichlow connector from the pipe a mile down or to “Kill the Spill” completely.
As part of the orchestration of the crisis, liberals in Congress threatened to put BP into receivership, while Obama played to the radical left with a threat to take over BP’s assets, if they could not force BP to allocate $20 billion in an escrow for a government appointee to administer. The result was that despite BP’s balance sheet, the U.S. government has succeeded to cause a FITCH downgrade of BP’s unsecured debt from AA to BBB, with BP shares losing a market cap value of $90 billion. The Obama Administration demanded that BP make payments it had already agreed to make, thus financially weakening the very company the government asserts it wants to be able to shoulder the burden of the fines, the oil cleanup and claims of lost revenues for the Gulf states.
Force Obama’s Cap & Trade bill and energy tax through Congress. Under the Obama policy of “don’t let a good crisis go to waste,” such stalling and delaying mentioned above allowed the crisis to get bad enough for Obama to have the “audacity” in his Oval Office speech to the nation to contrive and justify his Cap & Trade climate bill. Since the beginning of the blowout, the private sector and the States have been fighting with the Administration to get approvals to take action. However, the longer the Administration could stall, the worse the situation would become for BP, the States and Gulf coast businesses, exacerbating a crisis further by creating a moratorium on current and new shallow water drilling threatening hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Cap & Trade, involving a Chicago carbon exchange and other companies that Obama and/or his associates may have financial interests in, was all but dead in the water until the BP oil blowout crisis renewed “hope” that he could revive it again. Cap & Trade is designed to increase the cost of energy to the private sector by more than 10 percent, lowering GDP in the process.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) studies have demonstrated that for every 1% reduction in the cost of energy there will be a 3% increase in manufacturing and industrial output. This occurred when President Reagan deregulated the oil industry, creating an economic boom. Obama is moving in the opposite direction—that of higher taxes and more federal government control on a permanent basis.
To effect “regime change” toward statism. Why would the Administration willfully let the Coastal region be damaged, destroying revenues and lives to create a crisis, as an “end justifies the means” call for Cap & Trade? The answer is that we just need to look at the cause of the systemic financial crisis itself, which was intended to achieve, as Mohamed El Erian, CEO of PIMCO, himself called it, “regime change” in the U.S. and globally. “Regime change” in the U.S. means an inexorable shift of control and ownership of private sector capital and productivity of the populous to the federal government and Federal Reserve.
“Regime change” in the United States entails a paradigm shift away from free enterprise capitalism and the establishment of a socialist government which assumes ownership and control of capital and human resources. Its projected culmination to a “New Normal” of slow economic growth and bigger government within four years will make it forever impossible for the U.S. to reinstate the free enterprise capitalist system, as every political and social act will be dictated by the elite in Washington.
Such “regime change” was facilitated by the government’s stealth regulatory change on November 9, 2007, from hold to maturity accounting to “mark-to-market” accounting, which caused the collapse in private sector capital formation and access to credit in 2008 and 2009, unless accompanied by government ownership or guarantees that allow such debt to be reclassified under the government’s sole right hold to maturity valuation.
Without the mark-to-market regulatory change, the markets would not have collapsed and we would still have a booming economy. Instead, we have a loss of over $10 trillion in private sector wealth and a shifting of private sector ownership and control of capital to the government and Fed. Thus, clearly, if the government and “special interests” are willing to orchestrate an unmitigated economic collapse allowing over $10 trillion in private sector savings to be lost to effect a “regime change” to a “New Normal” culminating in their total ownership and control of financial and human resources, then government stalling in its response to the oil spill to create a crisis to justify the resurrection of Cap & Trade to further such “regime change” is small potatoes by comparison.
To start the nationalization of oil and other major industries. An outright government takeover of BP and other oil companies could be the next phase of Obama’s “regime change” policy.
MSNBC Attacks the Tea Party Movement
By Cliff Kincaid
Radio host Alex Jones, who believes that 9/11 was a U.S. government plot and “inside job” conspiracy, was featured in Chris Matthews’ June 16 documentary on MSNBC as a leader of the “New Right” and the Tea Party movement. But Jones has absolutely nothing to do with the conservative or Tea Party movements.
In the advance promotional advertisements for the program, Jones was shown saying that the U.S. has entered the phase of “deep tyranny.” The promos make Jones appear to be the undisputed leader of the “New Right” and the Tea Party movement.
In fact, a video shows Jones disrupting a Tea Party rally in Texas by shouting at organizers and speakers with a bullhorn. This performance woke up many Tea Party members to the real Jones agenda and he has been anathema to them ever since.
“HARDBALL Looks at Conservative Movement,” the MSNBC website said.
A Media Hog
But Jones is not and never has been a conservative. Jones has much more in common with the left than the right. He is, for example, a member of the 9/11 Truth Movement, as was Van Jones, the Obama official fired after evidence of his communist background began to surface. The 9/11 Truth Movement was originally designed to undercut evidence that Muslims were behind the attacks that killed almost 3,000 Americans. Leftists joined the movement and used it to undermine the Bush Administration drive for a military response to Islamic terrorism and its base of operations in the Middle East.
On MSNBC, it seems clear that the “Rise of the New Right” program was an outgrowth of fear that the Tea Party movement could threaten liberal control of Washington, D.C.
The key to the MSNBC assault was the use of Jones.
Jones postures as a “patriot” with inside information about various plots but appears regularly on the Russia Today television propaganda channel, where he has defended Russian foreign policy. One of his themes is that the U.S. is the greatest instigator of terrorism in the world today. He also promotes legalization of marijuana as a solution to our economic woes.
These are hardly “conservative” or Tea Party positions.
Jones told the program, apparently with a straight face, that a “global guild of psychopaths” is “setting up a planetary police state” to destroy up to 99 percent of the world’s population.
Adopting its own conspiracy theory, MSNBC threw out the names of Sarah Palin, Scott Brown, Dick Armey, Rand Paul, Joe McCarthy, Glenn Beck, Father Coughlin, Pat Buchanan, and the John Birch Society, as if they are all somehow linked or share something in common.
It was classic guilt by association, with no evidence of association being presented.
But for Alex Jones, the attention serves his purposes. Having cooperated with Matthews, a former Democratic Party operative, and his producers, Jones’ associates then claimed that the script was biased to make the Tea Party movement look bad. This was the obvious intention all along, of course, and Alex Jones played his part.
The LaRouche Connection
Matthews and his “sources” in the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Media Matters group should understand that, rather than being any kind of right-wing political figure, Jones works openly and closely with such “progressive” figures as Webster Tarpley, a former high-level associate of political opportunist and extremist Lyndon LaRouche, one of the first fringe political figures to question whether Muslims were behind the 9/11 attacks. Tarpley wrote 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in the USA, blaming the U.S. for the attacks.
LaRouche, who has been on the fringes of the political scene for decades, began his career as a Marxist and his National Caucus of Labor Committees was a faction of the left-wing Students for a Democratic Society at Columbia University. During the late 1970s and 1980s, LaRouche and his operatives suddenly adopted a “conservative” posture. After that, however, LaRouche ran for president as a Franklin Roosevelt Democrat. He served prison time on financial fraud charges before re-emerging and running a movement that today is attempting to co-opt the Tea Party message.
Tarpley, who, like Jones, is a prominent figure in the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement, is a regular guest on the Jones radio show and appears in Jones documentaries that purport to expose the Obama Administration and the forces behind it. One of Tarpley’s books on Obama, published by Progressive Press, whitewashes Obama’s Marxist connections. He advertises himself as “one of the most incisive critics of Anglo-American hegemony,” demonstrating how he views the world.
One of the common themes of both Jones and Tarpley is that Muslims are being unfairly blamed for terrorist attacks such as 9/11 and that the U.S. and/or Israel are really behind them.
The problem of LaRouche operatives in the Tea Party movement is a real one and has been recognized as such. Members of the LaRouche movement have been waving the signs that are sometimes seen at Tea Party gatherings that depict President Obama as Hitler. The words “LaRouche PAC,” referring to the cult leader’s political action committee, are actually visible on some of the signs and banners.
The Matthews documentary mentions the Nazi charge against Obama, in order to discredit the Tea Party movement, without noting its LaRouche origins. It was another example of the program’s basic dishonest approach.
Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center, who began his conservative career in Young Americans for Freedom decades ago, has written that, “Forces led by Lyndon LaRouche and, in my opinion, Alex Jones, are working deep inside our movement to see it implode into fights, caused by distrust and hatred. I believe they are manipulating the media to show the freedom movement as simply a band of nuts not to be taken seriously.”
It’s hard to tell who was manipulating whom. In any case, the Matthews agenda was clear: to use Jones in an unfair effort to smear the ordinary Americans and conservatives associated with the Tea Party movement as kooks following dangerous and unstable personalities. By extension, this reasoning goes, any candidate receiving their support is questionable.
All of this is supposed to benefit Democrats such as Harry Reid running against Tea Party-backed candidates like Sharron Angle in Nevada.
The National Tea Party Federation, a broad coalition of Tea Party groups, condemned the program as a “left-wing propaganda hit piece” and “journalism at its worst.”
Nationwide Tea Party Coalition co-founder Michael Patrick Leahy, added, “Chris Matthews and MSNBC have just delivered one of the most dishonest pieces of propaganda posing as journalism in American broadcast and cable television history.”
Using high-tech forensic experiments, re-creations, eyewitness footage and in-depth analysis by experts, the National Geographic Cable channel in February aired an excellent program, “9/11: Science and Conspiracy,” debunking the most sensational charges advanced by radio personality Alex Jones, former Lyndon LaRouche operative Webster Tarpley, and their ilk. Here’s some of what they found:
Charge: The fire could not have gotten hot enough to melt the steel in the towers. Fact: Burning jet fuel on steel, combined with the fact that any fireproofing material would have been knocked off at the moment of the plane’s impact, produces a fire that results in complete structural failure.
Charge: The collapse was caused by controlled demolition. Fact: A demolition of this scale would have left clear evidence of shape charges and explosives behind, but no such traces were found at Ground Zero.
Charge: Thermite was used in the controlled demolition that brought down the towers. Fact: Even if thermite as found in the rubble, it’s impossible to know where it came from, and whether it came from the melting of the airplanes. In any case, an experiment determined that thermite was not even able to melt a column much smaller than those in the World Trade Center.
Charge: The Pentagon was either bombed or hit by a missile. Fact: Experiments showed that a bomb or a missile would not have caused the damage to the Pentagon shown in photographs of what happened to the building.
The claims advanced by the 9/11 “truth” movement are a diversion from the fact that the U.S. has real enemies and they attacked us before, after, and on 9/11.
Spotlight on the Media
Former Washington Post reporter David Remnick’s 2010 biography of Obama, The Bridge, takes an interesting different tack on the matter of Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis and his influence on President Obama. “When Obama was running for president, Remnick writes, “the right-wing blogosphere attacked Frank Marshall Davis. He was, by turns, a card-carrying Communist, a pornographer, a pernicious influence. The attacks were loud and unrelenting.”
The “attacks” were actually statements of fact and they came from those such as New Zealand blogger Trevor Loudon and Accuracy in Media taking the time to document Obama’s relationship with Davis. This is a function that should have been performed by U.S. media.
Remnick implies that the “attacks” were unjustified and false. In fact, Davis was a card-carrying Communist (as proven in the FBI file and even admitted by a Davis biographer), a pornographer (Davis wrote a pornographic novel under a pseudonym, based on his own life) and a pernicious influence (he drank and smoked dope with Obama’s grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, whose FBI file has turned up missing).
Remnick goes on to assert that while critics of Obama insisted that the Davis relationship was one element of “an ominous picture of radical associations,” it was “neither constant nor lasting, certainly of no great ideological importance.” It is certainly the case that the Obama campaign tried to play down the Obama-Davis relationship.
Davis functioned as a surrogate father or father-figure. Indeed, this is why Davis, who was black, was picked by Dunham, who was white. Dunham thought Obama needed a black role model.
No ideological importance? Obama would go on to college, where, by his own admission, he would associate with Marxist professors and attend socialist conferences. Later came his relationships with communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, etc.
In terms of ideology, Professor Paul Kengor wrote a column shortly after the 2008 election which analyzed some of Davis’s writings for a Communist Party-sponsored newspaper in Hawaii and whether they were echoed in Barack Obama’s views during the campaign on economic matters such as wealth redistribution. Her found similiarities.
Kengor’s forthcoming book, Dupes, promises to go into more detail about the Obama-Davis relationship. The subtitle is “How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.”