Image via WikipediaAs Bernays mentions in his intention to "regiment the public mind" by using propaganda, that originates with the "intelligent few," that the use of the making every problem or crisis the "moral equivalent of war" is very effective. It has been used frequently to manipulate the public mind: the war on drugs, the war on poverty, and now the "war on the oil spill." One war metaphor that is no longer acceptable is the "war on terror." That's now an "overseas contingency operation." But let's explore the war on the oil spill. Is it really about oil and the risks of deep water drilling?
Let's look closely at this "war." If it had really been about the spill you would expect that all available resources would be IMMEDIATELY directed at the problem, oil was gushing out of the hole every minute of every day. That would seem to have been a good place to start. When your house is on fire, the fire department doesn't question you about how the fire started, who might have been at fault (i.e. determining whose "ass" he should kick,) and make everyone in your neighborhood evacuate their houses (unless, of course, they are in imminent danger.) No, they put the fire out as quickly and as safely as possible.
How did this war proceed?
On May 22, 2010 President Obama established a National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. This commission was tasked with worthy goals. But there was still oil being pumped into the ocean and the leak had still not been plugged. If you look into the members of this commission I think you will agree that most of them have expertise, but their "agenda" is a much more powerful and significant aspect. (Look for a post on "eco-terrorism" from me soon.)
In June the Wall Street Journal pointed out that the White House seemed to be taking their cues on what to do from the Center for American Progress. (I know that name sounds great, but it's really a wolf in sheep's clothing.) Our friend, George Soros, is one of the largest donors, if not the largest. Why does this matter? It matters because George Soros is also a very large investor in Petrobras, a Brazilian oil company. But wait, it gets even more interesting. Billions of our tax dollars are being loaned to Petrobras to finance a huge offshore drilling projects...in even deeper water! As a summary: George Soros, who is heavily invested in Petrobras, is telling the White House what to do. The United States is sending billions of dollars to Petrobras. You think George will make any money in the process? Do you think this constitutes a "conflict of interest?" I believe the CAP seeks to support progressive goals that would emphasize the "common good" over "narrow self interest." Hmmmmmm....I think George has some narrow self interest in this situation, don't you?
We've also loaned Mexico a couple of billion dollars for drilling projects in the Gulf of Mexico. We cannot drill because it is too dangerous to our environment...but Mexico and Brazil can still do this, with funding from the American taxpayers? What is wrong with this picture? (Progressive world view translation: these actions="global redistribution of wealth.")
So, what happens to the oil rigs that were not used during a ban on drilling? They are leased to the oil companies and if the oil companies are not using them, they move to other countries. Now this isn't like packing up and going on a vacation and then coming home. If they move they are likely to not come back. It costs millions of dollars to move them. You think Brazil and Mexico will benefit from this?
Also worthy of your attention is the fact that this moratorium was recommended by experts, correct? That does not seem to be the case, so why the ban?
Why did we not promptly accept help from other countries? My previous post on the Jones act gives you some information. There is also a Business Insider site that presents a more detailed analysis. Why were local efforts thwarted? "Why" is the question you can ask to many issues in this "war on the oil spill."
So, the elections are coming and the original November 30th expiration of the ban has been moved up. Part of a "deliberative process?" I think so, but not the process Robert Gibbs would have me believe. And George Soros? He is getting out of the way of the avalanche that is coming in November. He's brilliant at making money and making his investments work for him. He's not going to put more money into the failing progressive candidates at this time. He's going to scuttle back into the woodwork and wait for another day. And on his way, he's going to move some of his investments to precious metals as he watches the managed decline of the dollar.
I sure am glad George is funding organizations that promote "American Progress" aren't you? The question is where is this progress taking our country. We need to find out.
No comments:
Post a Comment