What's the real reason behind Obama's "War on Oil Spills" speech?


This note speaks to: Why did Obama freeze development in the Gulf?

The deeper I look, the odder and more bizarre this spill and the events surrounding it seems. It puts the "grassy knoll" to shame for drama content.

rainball Deep wells have an excellent safety record, but this spill was all but inevitable because: Federal Safety regulations were waived -- "donations," gifts and impropriety were commonplace. No one cared. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050404118.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/12/1676352/an-urgency-for-change.html BP, lacking expertise in deep wells, cut corners and made blunder after blunder, consistently ignoring or overruling its subcontractor experts at the firms hired and tasked with doing this work. This odd behavior, which normally would get people fired, is a huge red flag. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6617#more

rainball Obama waited almost two months, and then gave his "War on oil spills" speech, which incredibly avoided talking about the only two issues that matter, stopping the leak (even his young daughter got that right), and cleaning up the mess.


rainball Obama refused foreign help with experience in cleaning up deep spills.


rainball Obama blocked the Gulf States from taking action to lessen environmental damages.


rainball The main actions that Obama did take had nothing to do with fixing or cleaning up the spill.
  • Obama shut down deep development in the Gulf (now overruled by a Federal Court) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704198004575311033371466938.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories
    • Obama blamed this shut-down decision on his own experts, changing their report (and saying the opposite) after it was signed (now overruled by a Federal Court, appealed, etc.)

    rainball Obama is turning the spill disaster into another run at passing his Cap and Trade policy (which has now failed in the Senate three times, plus at Copenhagen). He's using it to advance his political agenda.

    * Obama set up "TARP II" (bypassing the courts, accepting money from BP without due process, and putting $20 Billion under the control of yet another unaccountable Czar who reports to Obama. This money might be dispensed to those damaged, but it also could be returned to BP or used for anything, including funding Obama's programs or candidates. There are no checks and balances, and there is no oversight by the courts or Congress.


    rainball Obama doubled-down on his shut-down executive order, bypassing Congress. He set up an ObamaCare style "death committee" for all future oil drilling.


    Prison Planet speculates that Obama and BP are joined at the hip: The Obama administration has aggressively exploited the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to manufacture an artificial urgency in an effort to speed the passage of cap and trade in pursuit of a green economy, an agenda firmly supported by the transnational oil corporations Obama is claiming to be reigning in. British Petroleum is one of the founding members of the cap and trade lobby, and has consistently lobbied for greenhouse gas restraints and subsidies for oil pipelines, solar panels, natural gas and bio-fuels.

    The list of "odd connections" goes on and on, endlessly. John Podesta was in charge of Obama's transition team. He selected Obama's Radical Czars and now works for Soros, advocating anti-Petro causes. His brother, Tony Podesta, is BP's lobbyist. BP pays large sums to prominent Green groups, etc.


    OK, so that's the big picture. Wall to wall collusion, donations, corruption, and the exploitation of another crisis to push Obama's political agenda. So far, the media and the public seem to ignore this is Obama's spill. But why is he so intense about shutting down the Gulf?

    Glenn Beck of Fox News says it's about Money!!! Glenn makes a compelling case that Obama's handler behind the curtain, George Soros, stands to make huge profits. The rigs in the Gulf will go to develop a major new oil field off Brazil, and -- incredibly -- it will paid for with US Taxpayers money.


    Glenn's theory, ridiculed by the Left, checks out as true. This has been underway since long before the spill. Soros made major investments in the Brazilian firm developing this oil field, Petrobras, last summer. A few weeks later, Obama came though with a $2 Billion government loan to develop this very oil field, which was reported by Wall Street Journal in August 2009.


    Some were outraged that the U.S. would fund development of foreign oil, while blocking development of US oil fields. The Obama Administration deflected this by saying that it wasn't really the Administration that was funding Petrobras, it was the EX-IM bank, an entirely different entity.

    Here's what was said (source WSJ on-line comments) at the time to refute this: "There seems to be some confusion that the EX-IM bank is independent of taxpayer money. This is article IV of the bank's charter: Ex-IM Bank Charter: Section 4.

    Sec. 4. The Export-Import Bank of the United States shall have a capital stock of $1,000,000,000 subscribed by the United States. Certificates evidencing stock ownership of the United States shall be issued by the Bank to the President of the United States, or to such other person or persons as the President may designate from time to time, to the extent of payments made for the capital stock of the Bank.

    To say the US government is not involved and not using our tax dollars is a smoke screen put out by those who do not for some reason want us to think that this is a government controlled entity. Drill here, drill now. The US achieved its greatness because of cheap energy, which we still have more than an abundant supply. Use it, or lose our world standing, which for some reason is what the current administration wants to do."

    ANSWER TWO: Some claim there were other suspicious near-term financial manipulations, saying, among other things, that Obama (through Vanguard) dumped BP stock shortly before the spill as did BP's CEO. Here's one video discussing this:


    Source: This charge is asserted by the writer of a reputable investment newsletter, Bob Chapman.

    Day 63: Obama To Earn Nearly $85 Million From Gulf Oil Disaster

    "Goldman Sachs wasn't alone either in its astute "fore knowledge" of the collapse of BP's stock value due to the Gulf disaster as BP's own chief executive, Tony Hayward, sold about one-third of his shares weeks before this catastrophe began unfolding too.

    But according to this FSB report the largest seller of BP stock in the weeks before this disaster occurred was the American investment company known as Vanguard who through two of their financial arms (Vanguard Windsor II Investor and Vanguard Windsor Investor) unloaded over 1.5 million shares of BP stock saving their investors hundreds of millions of dollars, chief among them President Obama.

    For though little known by the American people, their President Obama holds all of his wealth in just two Vanguard funds, Vanguard 500 Index Fund where he has 3 accounts and the Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund where he holds another 3 accounts, all six of which the FSB estimates will earn Obama nearly $8.5 million a year and which over 10 years will equal the staggering sum of $85 million.

    CHECK OUT Bob's website 

    If you don't know who Bob Chapman is: Read about the writer,

    Are these allegations true? Beck's part is. I don't know about the rest, but it could be verified. All trades are a matter of record. But the media, with a few exceptions, is not holding Obama responsible for the spill even though Federal Rules were waived and key officials resigned. Even the Republicans haven't said much.

    MY ANSWER: I think it warrants an independent investigation. Huge amounts of money are involved, and the charges of collusion and misconduct are serious. Consider that White House involvement with a minor burglary brought down the Nixon Administration and Clinton suffered impeachment over a blue dress. If a crime has in fact been committed, this one is huge, involving billions of dollars, eco-terrorism on a massive scale, and lasting harm to America.

    My personal opinion is this: "Obama put a ban on drilling because he can." It's that simple. Energy Rationing is a well-known part of Obama's predetermined political agenda. He wants Federal Control of energy and Congress won't pass his legislation, so he's having EPA regulate carbon, having his new "death panel" bureaucracy block US oil drilling, etc. He may even have been setting the Republicans up when he offered to allow offshore drilling before the spill (another chance to blame Bush?) in return for their votes on Cap and Trade.

    ACTION: Please forward this as far as you can, and stand by. An ObamaCare type 'Impenetrable' attack to pass Cap and Tax is imminent. It's not about climate: it's about money, power, and freedom.


    If you learn anything, please pass it along. Meanwhile, here is what is currently known and verifiable. This is the largest environmental disaster in history, and how it is being handled and reported is, at best, very odd. So far the "mainstream" media is not holding Obama accountable.

    Say what?
    Part One
    Who's fault?
    Part Two
    Frozen collusion?
    Part Three
    The Plot Thickens
    Part Four
    The End Game
    Part Five
    Part Six


    rainball Homepage

    John D. Trudel, Consultant Emeritus, Inventor, Engineer, Author, retired Adjunct Professor (U. of Oregon), and Novelist.

    Based in beautiful Oregon, sunny Arizona, and Cyberspace. The Trudel Group was established in 1988.