Posted on 05/26/2010 6:43:32 PM PDT by Welshman007
Where has the EPA been in the midst of the Gulf oil spill disaster? Nowhere to be found. Their boss, Barack Obama, has refused to deploy the EPA--the Environmental Protection Agency--or FEMA to the region to help minimize the disaster.
Why?
BP has proved that it certainly isn't capable of doing the job, despite its assurances to Obama.
And why would Obama accept the word of BP and allow the company to take on a massive oil spill of historic proportions? Perhaps multi-millions of dollars in campaign contributions provide that answer.
The EPA is there for a reason. What better use of taxpayer resources and manpower than to protect the environment in the event of a catastrophic disaster?
However, we know that the EPA has 'more important things to do,' such as dictate to citizens what they can and cannot do with their own private property using the excuse of its 'environmental impact.'
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
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.