In recent weeks there has been growing evidence of secret collusion between the White House and BP; much of this evidence centers around the effort by both the White House and BP to limit information regarding the MASSIVE extent of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. For example, Jeremy Peters of The New York Times reports that when the operators of Southern Seaplane in Belle Chasse, La., called the local Coast Guard-Federal Aviation Administration command center for permission to fly over restricted airspace in the Gulf of Mexico, they made what they thought was a simple and routine request: A pilot wanted to take a photographer from The Times-Picayune of New Orleans to snap photographs of the oil slicks blackening the water. The response from a BP contractor who answered the phone late last month at the command center was swift and absolute: Permission denied.
Journalists struggling to document the impact of the oil rig explosion have repeatedly found themselves turned away from public areas affected by the spill, and not only by BP and its contractors, but by local law enforcement, the Coast Guard and government officials.
Peters quotes Representative Edward J. Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts who fought BP to release more video from the underwater rovers that have been filming the oil spill, as saying: "I think they've been trying to limit access for some strange reason," implying that there were deeper reasons behind the effort of both the White House and BP to limit public access on what's going on.
Journalist Karl Burkart writes:
CBS being denied access to the spill
A DEEPER REASON FOR SECRECY
But beyond these somewhat "understandable" PR reasons for limiting information regarding the oil leak to the media, there seemed to be something else; a more sinister reason that goes far beyond anything having to do with normal "cover-your-ass" PR reasons linking BP's drilling operations in the Gulf to, for instance, hefty campaign contributions from BP to the Obama presidential campaign of 2008; and that is this: That BP was "willy-nilly" testing a theory concerning something called ABIOTIC science - that oil is produced inside the Earth and is not simply the result of rotting dinosaurs and old plants (aka "fossil" fuel). If this is true, then it could be fairly said that what BP was attempting to "tap into" was an ocean of oil that is probably as large as the Gulf itself.
These underground oil oceans are under far more pressure than their ground well brethren and contain much more oil. At the depth of the Deepwater Horizon well, one mile under the sea, the per inch pressure is 2640 pounds per square inch, and heaven only knows the amount of pressure this oil is under 5-6 miles below the sea bed where the oil is actually located. The odds are the Gulf's underground oil ocean exists between 15,000 and 30,000 psi at all points. Unfortunately, today's oil equipment is not made to handle the upper end of this pressure spectrum. So caps blow off, plugs fail AND ALMOST NOTHING CAN STEM THE FLOW OF OIL NOW SPILLING INTO THE GULF OF MEXICO.
It's in connection with all this, that rumors are flying in both far-right and far-left circles that the catastrophe in the Gulf can be tied to a "wink-wink, nod-nod" understanding between BP and the White House to test the theory of ABIOTIC oil by tapping into a reservoir of oil in the Gulf of Mexico that hitherto had been too deep to get at.
It's here that we must differentiate between the two schools of ABIOTIC oil theory: The hard-liners and the soft-liners; the hard-liners are of the belief that it would be extremely dangerous to tap into a reservoir of abiotic oil that is in the depths of the ocean because of the pressure the oil is under pressure that could not be controlled by today's technology; soft-liners believe that there are pools of abiotic oil in the ocean that can be safely tapped into. Then, of course, there are those who feel that the oil reservoir under the Gulf of Mexico is just another pool of oil generated by dinosaurs (i.e., the "fossil fuel" theory).
MOST SCIENTISTS AT BP BOUGHT INTO THE THEORY ...
Most scientists at BP (as do most geologists everywhere) "buy into" the theory that the oil reservoir under the Gulf is just another fossil fuel pool of oil; then there are those who harbor the thought that even if the oil under the Gulf is abiotic, it is still safe to drill into because the inflow of oil into the pool is not so high that if anything does go wrong, relief wells could relieve the pressure on the well-head (see note above on abiotic oil).
WHITE HOUSE AWARE
Two rigs were specifically developed by BP to attempt to reach this bonanza: Deepwater Horizon and Atlantis. Both rigs began actual drilling operations in the Gulf about a year ago, and there can be no doubt that the White House was well aware of what BP was up to in these endeavors. Indeed, it appears that the Obama Administration was so "into" what BP was trying to do that it issued permits allowing BP to skirt normal safety concerns.
To say, as some are attempting to do, that those in the White House were not aware of the gamble that BP was taking is just plain stupid, and very, very naοve; this is not to say, however, that the White House distinctly approved the gamble, it's only to say that there was as we stated earlier - a "wink-wink, nod-nod" agreement between the two.
CHANGING THE DYNAMICS
LEFT verses RIGHT: Please see our article, "The Left: Seeking to Destroy the Right - Root and Branch." There are very real differences between the would-view of Obama and that of the evangelical Right just as there are very real differences between the world-view of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the Rev. John Hagee.
Obama and those who surround him saw in this gamble a means of forever clipping the wings of the military by eliminating much of the need for its existence: Which is to say, maintaining American access to the oil fields of the Middle East and Central Asia. [We URGE you to see our recent article, "The Mystery of BP's Deepwater Horizon."]
Rolling the dice on BP's gamble in the Gulf.
Moreover, the failure of the Left's "wink-wink, nod-nod" gamble with BP has left its policy of gradual disengagement from America's wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan in a shambles. Had the gamble succeeded, Obama's policy of disengaging the American military from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - and essentially leaving the people of the area to fend for themselves would have had about as much consequence to the American people that America's disengagement from the war in Vietnam had. It would, of course, hurt the pride of the American military and America's so-called "super-patriots," but what do Obama and the Left care about that. They don't!
But what makes America's military engagement in Central Asia and the Middle East so different from her military engagement in Vietnam is OIL, and even Obama knows, if some of his cohorts don't, that America must have access to oil. Only after America has secured access to some other source of oil, could Obama's policy of "benign neglect" work for the Middle East.
The American military - stabbed in the back again
"Now that President Obama and his aides have announced their plan for the United States to withdraw its troops from Iraq by August 31, 2010, they must consider what the forces engaged against the coalition and the Iraqi government plan to do ... In fact, any decent strategic analyst, looking into the Middle East future, must ask: 'What if the other side won't cooperate'? What about al-Qaeda and its Salafi-Wahabi support, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Quds force, Hezbollah from Lebanon ... will they ignore this rare opportunity to act?
"According to Obama, by that magical date of August 31, 2010, Iraq's own forces should then be able to control their county. But as any experienced military analysts will tell, to train the fledgling Iraqi security forces to fight a brutal sectarian counter-insurgency war ... might at best be wishful thinking by an overoptimistic and inexperienced U.S. president. Based on historical examples, not too distant to memory, such a statement is either totally shortsighted or sheer ignorance on existing facts in this unpredictable region. Once President Obama's 'orderly withdrawal' starts in earnest, there will be hell to pay, all over Iraq and very rapidly spilling over it's borders, engulfing much of this already explosive region ..."
McChrystal's insubordination regarding Obama's policy of "benign neglect" in the war in Afghanistan parallels in many respects the insubordination that General Macarthur evidenced against President Truman in Korea some sixty years ago.
And then there is the question of Afghanistan where Obama has tied the hands of General McChrystal to such an extent that, according to a report in The New York Times, President Hamid Karzai has lost faith in America's determination to fight on there, and he is making plans to form a government with the Taliban. The article by Dexter Filkins reads in part:
"Mr. Karzai has lost faith in the Americans ... to prevail in Afghanistan ... As a result, Mr. Karzai's has been involved in secret negotiations with the Taliban outside the purview of American ... officials ... 'Karzai told me that he can't trust the Americans to fix the situation here', said a Western diplomat in Kabul, who spoke on condition of anonymity. 'He believes they stole his legitimacy during the elections last year. And then they said publicly that they were going to leave'."
All this has led General McChrystal to do what is normally considered unthinkable for a U.S. military commander: To challenge the policy of the president and NOT in secret and behind closed doors, but out in the open, and in a foreign country to boot.
Alex Spillius, The Daily Telegraph's (UK) Washington Correspondent, reports:
"The relationship between President Barack Obama and the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan has been put under severe strain by Gen Stanley McChrystal's comments on strategy for the war.
"According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.
"In London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 NATO forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda. He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favored by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to 'Chaos-istan'. When asked whether he would support it, he said: 'The short answer is: No'.
"The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen ... In an apparent rebuke to the commander, Robert Gates, the Defense Secretary, said: 'It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations, civilians and military alike, provide our best advice to the president, candidly but privately' ...
"Some commentators regarded the general's London comments as verging on insubordination. Bruce Ackerman, an expert on constitutional law at Yale University, said in the Washington Post: 'As commanding general, McChrystal has no business making such public pronouncements'. He added that it was highly unusual for a senior military officer to 'pressure the president in public to adopt his strategy'." [We URGE you to see our article, "The Generals' Revolt against the Obama Presidency."]
The U.S. military: "Stabbed in the back by Democrats in Congress." The Generals want no more of this!! - and here they would probably even have the support of General Colin Powell who himself saw the army disgraced in this fashion in Vietnam.
WITH THE FAILURE OF OBAMA'S "WINK-WINK, NOD-NOD" AGREEMENT WITH BP TO GAMBLE ON TAPPING INTO THE OIL WEALTH OF THE GULF OF MEXICO, HIS POLICY OF "BENIGN NEGLECT" INSOFAR AS THE MIDDLE EAST AND CENTRAL ASIA WILL NOW BE IMPOSSIBLE TO SUSTAIN. The simple fact of the matter is, there is simply no way that so-called "renewable energy" sources can replace oil as the fuel that makes the world work at least not in our life-time. His presidency is now ruined - wrecked as a result of his policy of "benign neglect" in Iraq and Afghanistan, and wrecked as a result of the ever-expanding oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico, an oil slick that is threatening to foul not only the Gulf Coast, but eventually the Atlantic Coast as well.
AND IN THE MIDST OF ALL THIS, THE "GENERALS" ARE CIRCLING OBAMA LIKE A LION CLOSING IN ON ITS PREY, READY TO GO IN FOR THE KILL WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTS ITSELF. [Please see our article, "The Men Who Gathered Themselves together at Clint Murchisan's Dallas Home Forty-five Years Ago."]
More next time!
God bless all of you!
We pray that you will remember the Word of God:
"IF WE HAVE SOWN UNTO YOU SPIRITUAL THINGS, IS IT A GREAT THING IF WE SHALL REAP YOUR CARNAL [MATERIAL] THINGS?" [1 Cor. 9:11]
IN ADDITION, WE URGE YOU TO DOWNLOAD THE NEW ANTIPAS PAPERS, PRINT THEM OUT YOURSELF, AND STUDY THEM CAREFULLY; SHARE THEM WITH YOUR FRIENDS YOU MAY DOWNLOAD THEM FREE!
We need your help to spread the word concerning Antipas Ministries and the eschatological viewpoint it represents; WE NEED YOUR HELP BECAUSE WE DO NOT "LINK" WITH OTHER SO-CALLED "CHRISTIAN" WEBSITES which are, for the most part, "in the tank" insofar as their loyalty to the United States is concerned - a loyalty that has made them partners in the BLOODY trail the American military has left in its TERROR-RIDDEN rampage throughout the world, as well as making them partners in the abject poverty that American corporations have imposed on the peoples and nations the American military machine has ravaged - A BLOODY, TERROR-RIDDEN RAMPAGE THAT HAS TO A LARGE DEGREE BEEN CARRIED OUT IN THE NAME OF THE "PRINCE OF PEACE." [Please see our articles, "The Third World as a Model for the New World Order," Inside the American New World Order System" and "The American Empire: The Corporate / Pentagon / CIA / Missionary Archipelago."]
YOU CAN HELP BY EMAILING
THIS ARTICLE TO