BP and Obama's Enviro-Bolshevism

June 17, 2010 4:10 PM

BP (British Petroleum) has been playing into Obama's hands concerning the oil leak which began on April 20, 2010 when a rig called the Deepwater Horizon blew up and a fire started; 11 people were killed. Since then, the leak has continued into the Gulf of Mexico and all attempts to stop it completely have failed until the time of this writing. Fisheries, the Gulf Coast tourist industry, and other local and national industries are threatened with economic catastrophe, not the least of which is the US oil industry itself because Obama has declared a moratorium on offshore drilling and is pushing his anti-industry Cap and Trade agenda under another name.

British Petroleum, a huge privately owned publicly traded oil company was leasing the rig at the time of the explosion. BP was reportedly once owned by the British Government until privatized under Margaret Thatcher, but 40% of its shares are held in the UK and almost the same in the US.

BP is no stranger to controversy or to accusations of being cavalier about safety, as for example, in the leftist Mother Jones magazine which called one of the "ten worst corporations" in both 2001 and 2005. Nevertheless, to the best of my knowledge no evidence has emerged that BP caused the Deepwater Horizon April 20 explosion, nor has any proof emerged (yet) that BP negligence contributed to it. That didn't stop BP from pandering to the mainstream media and the Obama administration by setting up a $20 escrow fund to pay off damages. BP's purported (but unproven) role in the explosion and currently unstoppable leak, and its willingness to set up the fund play right into the hands of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and its Obama agenda.

In my view, an enviro-Bolshevik is a Bolshevik masquerading as a an environmentalist. What is the difference? In my opinion, there is a huge difference.

I believe that an environmentalist is a person who advocates protection of the environment, which, to me, implies the protection of private property. A Bolshevik, on the other hand, is an advocated of Marxism-Leninism (or one of its New Left disguises) whose main goal is to establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat" on behalf of "class struggle," abolishing capitalism in the process. In my view, and I have written that elsewhere, is that Obama is an wannabe dictator and enviro-Bolshevik, not an environmentalist, and he and his cabal are willing to sacrifice as much of the environment as necessary to achieve the goal of destroying, or at least crippling capitalism, which is what Obama means by "change" in his teleprompter rhetoric. Obama's negligence and foot-dragging about saving the Gulf environment has been covered quite thoroughly on conservative blogs and by conservative talk show hosts.

I am inclined to believe that BP is more competent at running oil rigs than it is at politics, because its political decisions, past and present have been abysmal. My best guess is that BP is, without saying so, suggesting its own guilt by promising its $20 billion fund, meanwhile hoping that its lawyers will be able to minimize damage to its bottom line behind the scenes. That is, in my opinion, disgusting enough, but BP has perpetrated two other detestable acts which are worth pointing out:

The second most detestable act is its decision not to pay a dividend to its investors. These are innocent parties who, almost without exception, could not possibly have had any role in causing the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the oil leak. Why should they suffer? For the most part they are middle-class folks who are counting on the dividend for their pensions. Yet BP's oh-so-clever executives are willing to throw them under the bus.

But: there is something worse. The most detestable act perpetrated by BP was its role as the top financial supporter of the Obama campaign for the Presidency in 2008. If Obama or his cronies have returned any of the money, I am not aware as I write this. To put it bluntly, BP is a financial supporter of enviro-Bolshevism. Why?

Through world history there have been collaborations between tyrannical governments and merchants, traders, and companies who support the tyrants because the tyrants limit competition, and in some cases initiate force on behalf of the companies, not to protect the national interest, but to help the cronies mooch and loot. One term used from such companies is "crony capitalists," although in my opinion that term muddies the water about what capitalism really is, a system that defends individual rights. Are BP executives "crony capitalists," meaning "phony capitalists?" You bet.

Another term for a similar crooked collaboration, is "mercantilism," which was not only famously in play with the British East India Company and the tea monopoly which provided tea to colonial Americans, but also to an oil company called the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. That same company later changed its name to… you guessed it: British Petroleum.

But: there is a third term for a crooked collaboration between tyrants and companies who play ball with them. That term is fascism. Is the collaboration between BP and the Obama enviro-Bolsheviks a fascist collaboration? Let us watch them closely, read about behind-the-scenes developments on blogs and off the front and editorial pages of papers, and judge for ourselves.

Meanwhile, what has the Gulf oil leak really proven? I think it has proven that there are a no such things as a free lunch, job security, or reliable safety resulting from government regulation.