Investigation reveals possible criminal activity connecting Obama to BP Oil Spill

The new line of defense employed by the Obama Administration to deflect criticism of its lackadaisical handling of the BP oil spill is to launch a criminal investigation of the company. Perhaps this is the best thing that could happen. Such an investigation would, of course, uncover all of BP's connections to the Democratic Party and Barack Obama, who were the single largest beneficiaries of BP campaign contributions over the last 10 years. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh). Granted, the Obama Justice Department, under the leadership of Obama lackey Eric Holder, would never delve into any real criminal activity if it involved revelations concerning the Administration's connections to BP, as well as the cozy relationship the company has with Democrats on the Hill. Someone else, however, has already done such an investigation and has uncovered explosive information that possibly implicates Barack Obama, certain members of his Administration, and Democrats in Congress, in the committing of crimes. The key is to follow the money trail. JoAnne Moretti, along with a team of investigators, delved into records which pointed to a paper trail connecting the major players in this disaster--BP, Deep Water Horizon, Halliburton, Citigroup, Goldman-Sachs, the U.S. Government, and a company called 'NALCO.' A few recognizable names of individuals involved in the paper trail also surfaced--Warren Buffet, George Soros, John Holdren, Tony Rezko....and Barack Obama. At the heart of the scandal which Moretti reveals is the concerted effort by all of these major players to delay the cutting off of the oil flow into the Gulf of Mexico. Why? The bottom line--NALCO is the manufacturer of chemical dispersements and water purification systems that are being used in the Gulf to attempt to 'disperse the oil before it reaches the shoreline.' This is what is known as 'the top kill' method which BP has claimed is the best manner possible of dealing with the spill. The top kill method, however, does nothing to actually stop the flow of oil from its source--the well hidden deep in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The Obama Administration and BP have been noticeably lazy about stopping the flow of oil into the waters of the Gulf. Obama claimed that as soon as the explosion of the oil rig occurred, Federal SWOT teams were dispatched to the area in order to 'secure it.' The notion that the Obama Administration did not know the extent of the leak is contradicted by the announcement that federal teams were 'on the scene from day one.' Obama claims that he backed off from doing anything to stop the oil leak in deference to BP, which he claims was better equipped to deal with the situation. And indeed, that much is true. BP did, in fact, say such a thing publicly. But BP's interest in actually cutting off the flow of oil into the Gulf is just as suspect as the U.S. Government's. And here is where the story takes a sordid, and potentially criminal, turn. Moretti says the following: NALCO is associated with UChicago Argonne program. UChicago Argonne received $164 million dollars in stimulus funds this past year. UChicago Argonne just added two new executives to their roster. One from NALCO. The other from the Ill. Dept of Education. If you dig a little deeper you will find NALCO is also associated with Warren Buffett, Maurice Strong, Al Gore, Soros, Apollo, Blackstone, Goldman Sachs, Hathaway Berkshire. Warren Buffet /Hathaway Berkshire increased their holdings in NALCO just last November. (Timing is everything). The dispersant chemical is known as Corexit. What it does is hold the oil below the water's surface. It is supposed to break up the spill into smaller pools. It is toxic and banned in Europe. NALCO says they are using older and newer versions of Corexit in the Gulf.. (Why would you need a newer version, if the old one was fine?) There is big money and even bigger players in this scam. While they are letting the oil blow wide open into the Gulf, the stakes and profit rise. The Dolphins, Whales, Manatees, Sea Turtles and fish suffocate and die. The coastal regions, salt marshes, tourist attractions and the shore front properties are being destroyed, possibly permanently.The air quality is diminished. The Gulf of Mexico fishing industry is decimated. All to create a need for their expensive and extremely profitable poison. But that's not all. Goldman-Sachs, Blackstone, and Apollo are all involved in NALCO. So is Tony Rezko in Chicago--the infamous friend of Barack Obama who was convicted for fraud. And multi-millions of dollars of taxpayer-funded 'stimulus funds' went into the coffers of many of the main players in NALCO. Evidence has also been uncovered that as soon as the oil rig blew, the masterminds of the big government-big corporation complex went to work to maximize the financial reward from the disaster--'never let a good crisis go to waste.' Investors were advised to buy BP stock, and a major symposium was held involving several key players in the Obama Administration, which focused on modern technological advances in developing 'clean water.' NALCO is the major source for such 'technological advances.' It would appear that some of the main players in the Obama Administration and the 'favored corporations' of Obama's entourage wished to maximize their profits from the oil spill by delaying the cutting off of the oil flow so that the chemical dispersements and water purification systems made by NALCO would be used, thus boosting the profits of the company and the other corporations invested in it, such as Buffett's Berkshire, Goldman-Sachs, Citigroup, Blackstone, and Apollo. A criminal probe of the Obama Administration is in order at the same time the Justice Department conducts its investigation of BP.

The new line of defense employed by the Obama Administration to deflect criticism of its lackadaisical handling of the BP oil spill is to launch a criminal investigation of the company.

Perhaps this is the best thing that could happen. Such an investigation would, of course, uncover all of BP's connections to the Democratic Party and Barack Obama, who were the single largest beneficiaries of BP campaign contributions over the last 10 years.

Granted, the Obama Justice Department, under the leadership of Obama lackey Eric Holder, would never delve into any real criminal activity if it involved revelations concerning the Administration's connections to BP, as well as the cozy relationship the company has with Democrats on the Hill. Someone else, however, has already done such an investigation and has uncovered explosive information that possibly implicates Barack Obama, certain members of his Administration, and Democrats in Congress, in the committing of crimes.

The key is to follow the money trail.

JoAnne Moretti, along with a team of investigators, delved into records which pointed to a paper trail connecting the major players in this disaster--BP, Deep Water Horizon, Halliburton, Citigroup, Goldman-Sachs, the U.S. Government, and a company called 'NALCO.'

A few recognizable names of individuals involved in the paper trail also surfaced--Warren Buffet, George Soros, John Holdren, Tony Rezko....and Barack Obama.

At the heart of the scandal which Moretti reveals is the concerted effort by all of these major players to delay the cutting off of the oil flow into the Gulf of Mexico.

Why?

The bottom line--NALCO is the manufacturer of chemical dispersements and water purification systems that are being used in the Gulf to attempt to 'disperse the oil before it reaches the shoreline.'

This is what is known as 'the top kill' method which BP has claimed is the best manner possible of dealing with the spill. The top kill method, however, does nothing to actually stop the flow of oil from its source--the well hidden deep in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

The Obama Administration and BP have been noticeably lazy about stopping the flow of oil into the waters of the Gulf. Obama claimed that as soon as the explosion of the oil rig occurred, Federal SWOT teams were dispatched to the area in order to 'secure it.' The notion that the Obama Administration did not know the extent of the leak is contradicted by the announcement that federal teams were 'on the scene from day one.'

Obama claims that he backed off from doing anything to stop the oil leak in deference to BP, which he claims was better equipped to deal with the situation. And indeed, that much is true. BP did, in fact, say such a thing publicly.

But BP's interest in actually cutting off the flow of oil into the Gulf is just as suspect as the U.S. Government's.

And here is where the story takes a sordid, and potentially criminal, turn. Moretti says the following:

NALCO is associated with UChicago Argonne program. UChicago Argonne received $164 million dollars in stimulus funds this past year. UChicago Argonne just added two new executives to their roster. One from NALCO. The other from the Ill. Dept of Education.

If you dig a little deeper you will find NALCO is also associated with Warren Buffett, Maurice Strong, Al Gore, Soros, Apollo, Blackstone, Goldman Sachs, Hathaway Berkshire.

Warren Buffet /Hathaway Berkshire increased their holdings in NALCO just last November. (Timing is everything).

The dispersant chemical is known as Corexit. What it does is hold the oil below the water's surface. It is supposed to break up the spill into smaller pools. It is toxic and banned in Europe.

NALCO says they are using older and newer versions of Corexit in the Gulf.. (Why would you need a newer version, if the old one was fine?)

There is big money and even bigger players in this scam. While they are letting the oil blow wide open into the Gulf, the stakes and profit rise. The Dolphins, Whales, Manatees, Sea Turtles and fish suffocate and die. The coastal regions, salt marshes, tourist attractions and the shore front properties are being destroyed, possibly permanently.The air quality is diminished. The Gulf of Mexico fishing industry is decimated.

All to create a need for their expensive and extremely profitable poison. But that's not all. Goldman-Sachs, Blackstone, and Apollo are all involved in NALCO. So is Tony Rezko in Chicago--the infamous friend of Barack Obama who was convicted for fraud. And multi-millions of dollars of taxpayer-funded 'stimulus funds' went into the coffers of many of the main players in NALCO.

Evidence has also been uncovered that as soon as the oil rig blew, the masterminds of the big government-big corporation complex went to work to maximize the financial reward from the disaster--'never let a good crisis go to waste.'

Investors were advised to buy BP stock, and a major symposium was held involving several key players in the Obama Administration, which focused on modern technological advances in developing 'clean water.' NALCO is the major source for such 'technological advances.'

It would appear that some of the main players in the Obama Administration and the 'favored corporations' of Obama's entourage wished to maximize their profits from the oil spill by delaying the cutting off of the oil flow so that the chemical dispersements and water purification systems made by NALCO would be used, thus boosting the profits of the company and the other corporations invested in it, such as Buffett's Berkshire, Goldman-Sachs, Citigroup, Blackstone, and Apollo.

A criminal probe of the Obama Administration is in order at the same time the Justice Department conducts its investigation of BP.

Single beneficiaries? What the hell kind of writing is this? A named individual and a political party are not a single entity. Sloppy statements such as this detract from the veracity of the article and the credibility of its author.

Hold your horsies. Whatever the grammatical validity of the construction of the entire phrase (which you don't appear to have properly read), using the subclause "single largest beneficiaries" to refer to two or more persons (each of whom might be an individual, a group of individuals, or an entity) is a common construction that appears in many publications; the author is therefore neither sloppy nor unjustified in using the construction.

For reference:

(1) the google search on the quoted phrase "single largest beneficiaries" - http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22single+largest+beneficiaries%22&fp=b8a3d25e1efe4b25

(2) a quotation from the book The German economy, By E. Owen Smith (Routledge, New York, 1994) at page 414: "This does not gainsay the gratuitous fillip to domestic growth which the banks, and indeed insurance companies, enjoyed as a result of unification. They were arguably the single largest beneficiaries, ...." (emphasis added). The google books pageview for the quotation cited is here.

(3) a quotation from a NYTimes article published Dec. 20, 1998: "The single largest beneficiaries of Mr. Broad's giving last year were Pitzer College in Claremont, Calif., at $1.6 million; Michigan State University, $1 million, and the new Disney Hall concert facility in Los Angeles, also $1 million." (Emphasis added). The article can be found here.

How's them apples?

I like apples.

However, I don't care for your assumption that I did not "properly" read the entire phrase. I did, and I understand what was meant.

The citation of two instances in which similar constructs are used doesn't change my opinion. I can supply you with plenty of cases sloppy, imprecise, ungrammatical sentences or phrases that appear time-after-time in print. That does not legitimize them. How many times have you read or heard a news report saying "Several people were involved in the accident, but none were seriously injured"? Sounds ok, doesn't it?

The word 'single', when used as a numerical descriptor, has a pretty simple definition, which you can look up. It means "one". There is no such thing as 'one beneficiaries' -- there's one beneficiary or there are multiple beneficiaries. If a group is implied, it should be one "group", not one "groups".

In the interest of not wasting huge amounts of my time, I'll stop here. You can have the last word, and that's fine. If we disagree, that's fine, too. But I've learned that there's no point in spending half the day discussion English in discussion forums. (fora, if you prefer...)

I'm simply venturing an opinion, and I see your point. But that won't change my opinion, so I shall neither read nor respond to anything that you or anyone else may offer in either rebuttal or support. These things often veer off into the ditch of irrelevance through misinterpretation of previous comments and failed attempts at clarification.

Life's too short to spend arguing with strangers on the internet.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.