Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Judge Blocks Obama's Offshore oil Drilling Ban

As Obama's War with America continues the White House says they will appeal immediately.

I have to wonder what "immediately" means. Before or after the golf game?

Obama, who takes months with no response to States requesting help on curbing the violence on our border, or the months and months to respond to General McCrystal's request for more troops, the month after month after months of attacks on the majority of Americans not approving the Gov. take over of health care while ignoring the over-regulated unemployment disaster, or the months to respond to this oil emergency, does not have a very good track record for immediate.

Perhaps Obama will work much faster when it comes to his own immediate interests or that of Petrobras Oil. Isn't it completely ironic, or hypocritical, that Obama shuts down U.S. oil drilling while, as many of us wrote last year, his approval of a 2-10 billion dollar loan (for even deeper oil drilling) to the Soros Green Investment Act in Brazil.
[also see Glenn Beck - Obama & Crime INC. - No Less Than Treason ]

But I digress as always.

[The Courts 22 page ruling, on Obama's drilling moratorium, lifting the ban, here.]

U.S. Federal District Judge Martin Feldman, based in New Orleans, called the moratorium too arbitrary.

"An invalid agency decision to suspend drilling of wells in depths of over 500 feet simply cannot justify the immeasurable effect on the plaintiffs, the local economy, the Gulf region and the critical present-day aspect of the availability of domestic energy in this country," Feldman wrote.

"Much to the government's discomfort and this Court's uneasiness, the summary also states that 'the recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.' As the plaintiffs, and the experts themselves, pointedly observe, this statement was misleading," Judge Feldman said in his 22-page ruling.

The experts charge it was a “misrepresentation.” It was factually incorrect. Although the experts agreed with the safety recommendations contained in the body of the main Report, five of the National Academy experts and three of the other experts have publicly stated that they “do not agree with the six month blanket moratorium” on floating drilling. They envisioned a more limited kind of moratorium, but a blanket moratorium was added after their final review, they complain, and was never agreed to by them. A factor that might cause some apprehension about the probity of the process that led to the Report.

Misleading? Oily misrepresentation? "factually incorrect?"

Yes,.. they "misspoke"...why is it that politicians and Government speak a different watered down truth language than honest folk and get away with it?

Inserting text AFTER someone has signed off on a document sounds more like fraud to me.


Post a Comment