Is Obama's BP Shakedown an Impeachable Offense?

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
Is Obama's BP Shakedown an Impeachable Offense?

By Raymond Richman

<!--google_ad_client = "pub-4560167926987914";google_ad_width = 300;google_ad_height = 250;google_ad_format = "300x250_as";google_ad_type = "text_image";//2006-11-22: AT - Articles - 300 by 250google_ad_channel = "0110545599";google_color_border = "336699";google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";google_color_link = "999966";google_color_text = "000000";google_color_url = "003399";//--></SCRIPT></SCRIPT>
As former counsel and trainer in political tactics for ACORN, President Obama used a well-known ACORN tactic, the shakedown, in getting BP to create the $20-billion escrow (slush!) fund without any law, legal controls, or binding rules to guide it on how and how much those injured materially by the oil spill (and whom among them) will be paid. Attorney Kenneth Feinberg, well-respected and well-known for heading the September 11<SUP>th</SUP> Victim Compensation Fund, was appointed by the president to administer the escrow fund. BP will pay $5 billion into the fund for four years, starting in 2010.

BP announced early after the spill that it would pay all justifiable claims resulting from the disastrous oil spill. It opened 25 claims offices. As of June 15, BP approved initial payments that amounted to $63 million, expected to rise to $85 million by the end of the week, to businesses claiming $5,000 or more in damages. Why did the president insist that his own personal organization take over the job of paying claims? After all, supervising reparations is a judicial function, not an executive function. BP created its own fund, appointed its administrator, and determined how it will be staffed with a view to ensuring only qualified persons, businesses, and governments would be reimbursed for its losses. Now those decisions will be made politically.

It is obvious that BP's CEO agreed to create this fund and allow the president to administer it to prevent President Obama from bankrupting their company. After all, the president was on record saying that he would "kick BP's ass," and a cabinet members declared he would "put his boot on BP's neck." The president, when announcing the creation of the fund, stated that the terms of the fund would keep BP viable. He cannot know this. BP's liability is not affected by the fund except to the extent claims are voluntarily settled. Those refusing to settle and their lawyers are not bound by it, nor are juries that will hear their lawsuits.
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
I am not questioning that Scott,

the writer of the article is questioning the the way Barry went about it.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Another example of how he cannot win in this case. You have republicans protecting an irresponsible corporate giant - based in another country, no less, other republicans saying he's not doing enough, Teabaggers saying he's doing too much and should leave private business alone. I can only assume this because you agree with the the last part specifically - being a Ron/Rand Paul supporter. Many dems saying he's not doing enough against the company(s) that caused this disaster.

So, go ahead and keep us posted on what "other" people are questioning...
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
Chad,

you are correct, It is a Libertarian stance, but it realy shouldn't just be that, should it? It should be in a sense an American stance. O' has taken over Auto Companies, Financial Institutions and now 20B from Beyond Petrol. using a Barry appointed shill to "distribute" the cash as he deems necessary. It's only a matter of time that something besides the Corexit starts to stink in the Gulf. In the real world it is going to take far more the 20 B to fix this shit, duh ! We can't have the POTUS strong arming private industry this way. He has now set a precedent for the next disaster that occurs, hard to imagine what that could be, and what could come close to this oil mess, but the POTUS cannot force XYZ Widget Works to deposit 100B into a Government account. I am hoping and depending.... :shrug: on most people to do the right thing and pay for their mistakes and clean up efforts and I also understand why the POTUS does what he has done, but it's too much government involvement.

I hope this came across clearly, my head isn't very clear today, a small headache has started and I am medicated, not burning, yet.... ? :SIB
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
Barack Obama, Dictator

Barack Obama, Dictator

Barack Obama, Dictator

Jacob Hornberger
Campaign For Liberty <SUP>[1]</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
June 23, 2010

What better example of dictatorship than President Obama?s dictate to BP to deliver $20 billion to a special fund that will be distributed by some political appointee to victims of the BP oil disaster?

Either a nation is ruled by a dictator or it?s governed by the rule of law.

Under a dictatorship, the dictator simply dictates to people what they?re going to do and not do. Those who refuse to obey are punished severely.

Under the rule of law, if a company commits a tort against other people, the victims have the right to sue in a court of law for damages. That?s one of the reasons we have courts ? to enable people to peacefully resolve their differences by following well-established judicial processes.

Someone might say, ?But America is a representative democracy and, therefore, can?t be a dictatorship.?
Nonsense! It is entirely possible for a society to democratically elect a president who then exercises dictatorial powers.

Some might say, ?But Obama only requested BP to do it, and BP could have chosen to reject his request.?

Anyone who believes that also believes in the tooth fairy. What would have happened if BP had refused to go along with the president?s dictate? Just ask Joe Nacchio, former CEO of Qwest Communications. He was the guy who, unlike his counterparts in other U.S.telecommunications companies, refused to go along with President Bush?s illegal NSA scheme to spy on the American people. Today, Nacchio is residing in a federal penitentiary, serving a 6-year sentence for violating insider trading laws.
Oh, U.S. officials would say, Nacchio wasn?t really punished for refusing to obey President Bush?s illegal dictate but instead for violating economic regulations.

But, you see, that?s the big
benefit of the regulated economy. Whenever they want to get a businessman who hasn?t been cooperative, they know that there is always some criminal or civil regulation that they can go after him for. Every businessman knows that given thousands of regulations, there is no way a business can be in compliance with all of them during every minute of every day. The regulated economy provides a standby power to federal officials to ensure cooperation and submissiveness of those within the business community.
Here?s how the slimy bureaucrat Dr. Floyd Ferris put it in Ayn Rand?s Atlas Shrugged:
?Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed??said Dr. Ferris. ?We want them broken. You?d better get it straight that it?s not a bunch of boy scouts you?re up against ? then you?ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We?re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you?d better get wise to it. There?s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren?t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What?s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted ? and you create a nation of law-breakers ? and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that?s the system, Mr. Rearden, that?s the game, and once you understand it, you?ll be much easier to deal with.?
Leftists continue to declaim that the BP drilling disaster reflects a failure of free enterprise. It would be difficult to find a better example of nonsense than that. In fact, the disaster reflects a textbook case of the failure of public (i.e., government) ownership and government regulation.

After all, the federal government owns the seabed under which the well was drilled. As the owner, it had the right to set whatever terms it wanted when it leased the property to BP for drilling. Thus, this was a dream-come-true for proponents of government regulations. As the property owner, the federal government could have come up with a thousand-page book containing a million regulations, which it could have incorporated into its lease with BP.
So, obviously whatever regulations the federal government did incorporate into its lease failed to prevent the disaster.

And this is precisely what we libertarians have been saying from the get-go about government regulations. They cannot and do not protect people. They simply create the false appearance of protection, lulling people into a false sense of security until disaster strikes.

Of course, President Obama can?t bring himself to admit the fundamental failure of public (i.e., government) ownership and government regulations. Instead, he circumvents America?s judicial process and adds fuel to the Gulf fire by seizing the crisis to become a modern-day, democratically elected American dictator.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
...and the beat down goes on... I see these references to the Obama appointee to oversee the payments to victims of this disaster - caused by BP and partners on the rig (Halliburton, etc.). By all accounts I've seen, the appointee is a good person to have running that show - initially appointed during the Bush administration to handle the 9-11 payout scenario, later the Virginia Tech payouts.

But of course NOW, it's a political thing, a negative Obama thing. :rolleyes:
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
to me it's always a problem Chad. It doesn't matter who appointed the individual and what secenario he is working under. Government Crook= No Good
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top