President Obama, At It Again.

The President seems to be unable to stop blaming the Bush administration for everything that has gone wrong in this country, and some things that are not wrong, but do not fit Mr. Obama's ideology. He blames everyone else at every opportunity. This time he is trying to remove blame from himself for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, even though it all happened on his shift. Truthfully, I do not blame President Obama for the oil spill, but his insistence that it's not his fault only makes me lose respect for him. Blaming others is not the mark of a leader.

During his remarks concerning the oil spill on May 27th, he said,

"When Secretary Salazar took office, he found a Minerals and Management Service that had been plagued by corruption for years –- this was the agency charged with not only providing permits, but also enforcing laws governing oil drilling. And the corruption was underscored by a recent Inspector General’s report that covered activity which occurred prior to 2007 -- a report that can only be described as appalling. And Secretary Salazar immediately took steps to clean up that corruption. But this oil spill has made clear that more reforms are needed."

This tells me that:

1. His Minerals and Management Service (MMS) issued the permits for the Deep Water Horizon drilling project. Meaning they looked over the project plans, equipment, qualifications of the personnel, contingencies and safety precautions and approved them.

2. The guy he put in charge of MMS, Interior Secretary Salazar, knew of supposed corruption and yet had done nothing to rectify the situation. He probably still hasn't changed anything except to fire Ms. Birnbaum.

3. He is trying to remove himself and his administration from fault by blaming the Bush administration.

4. He claims he's been in charge since the beginning.

I just have to wonder if he believes that anyone is swallowing this tripe. But it doesn't stop there, He he nails the premise with this...

"For years, there has been a scandalously close relationship between oil companies and the agency that regulates them. That’s why we’ve decided to separate the people who permit the drilling from those who regulate and ensure the safety of the drilling."

Again, assuring that everyone understands that it not his administration that is at fault here.

I have to wonder what it is about himself that forces him to continuously try and divert attention from his actions to anyone or anything else, including throwing his subordinates out with the trash.

BP Gulf Oil Spill: Priorities

UPDATE: May 31, 2010

Sadly, I was right.

I hope I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the primary reason British Petroleum (BP) has wasted over a month in attempts to stop the spewing of oil into the Gulf of Mexico is because they are trying to get oil into tankers so they can sell it.

Think about it.

What have all of their plans included:

1. Attaching a pipe to siphon off oil from the leak in the pipe that is way down the road from the wellhead.

2. A secondary well to "ease the pressure" by pumping the crude into tankers. (I wonder if they will use the same blow off preventer (BOP)?

3. The 70 ton hat trick had what? A pipe to siphon off oil from the leak.

Now they have to plans working in "parallel":

1. One where they would pump "heavy mud" into the blow out preventer (BOP) and clog the leak, then make the seal permanent with concrete. Surprisingly, this one would not involve attaching a pipe to grab the oil.

2. The lower marine riser package (LMRP) cap containment option calls pulling the old riser off the BOP and for cutting off the pipe, then and inserting what amounts to another riser onto the BOPand siphon off oil to the Discoverer Enterprise drillship, putting them back in the oil capturing business. (Rigzone.com)

I have to ask these simple questions:

1. Why did BP not try the heavy mud option the day after the Deep Horizon blew up, sank, and they discovered the oil spewing into the Gulf? Did it take them over a month to think of that? I would find that hard to believe as they have used the heavy mud process before.

2. If cutting off the pipe and putting another connection on it is an option, why didn't they try that the day after they discovered the leaking oil?

I predict the heavy mud plan will fail in favor of the LMRP option to siphon off oil.
(note: I hope I am wrong about this one.)

Now don't get me wrong. I am a big supporter of capitalism and oil companies keeping the nation and the world running on the energy they provide. We would not have any of the modern conveniences, medical treatments, or anything else worthwhile without the freedom that capitalism and oil provide. But their comes a time when businesses must put safety and ecology ahead of profits. This is one of those times and BP apparently is not doing the right thing.

States Rights. What?

Watching news programs, reading newspapers, listening to talk radio and participating in several blog sites, I learned that states have rights. At least that's everyone seems to agree on. Maybe it's another reflection of our public school system and the greater agenda of making everything "right".

Well, I'm not really comfortable with the term "states rights".

Only people are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable "rights": not states, or any level of government.

States have "powers" and the federal government has "enumerated powers" (that means powers limited to those specifically listed in the US Constitution). The government derives their just powers granted to them from the people.

Check your US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Federalist Papers, for the facts.

Immigration: What would Teddy Roosevelt Say?

Lately I've been hearing a lot about how "progressive" President Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt was. The left seems to believe that he was a rare good Republican who reflects their position on life in the United States. So now I'm going to help relieve them of that nonsense.

The following picture and text was taken from an email that is circulating. I can't swear the picture goes with the speech, but it looks believable. And it has been associated with the speech at many web sites. I checked at Snopes, who label it "True" As an side, there is more to be learned about President Roosevelt and immigration at the Snopes page.

Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.

'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Roosevelt 1907

History. It is a wonderful thing.