A Government By, Of And For Ed Schultz

Last week, in his video tongue-kiss to Obama before his (disastrous) “We Have Nothing To Fear But Oil Itself” speech, Fast Eddie Schultz wrote:

“Mr. PresIdent, I want to see the boot on the neck of BP tonight… it’s OK tonight to act kind of like a dictator and call the shots saying this is the way it’s going to be.”

Granted, Schultz is one of very few talk show hosts who actually is as stupid as conservative talk radio is supposed to be.

But according to Thomas Sowell, who daily excretes more intelligence than Ed Schultz ever had, Schultz may be  getting his tingly-legged wish:

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

In other words, the Republicans who “apologized” to BP – over the perversion of US law, as opposed to over accountability – were right?  Hmm.

Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP’s oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.

But our government is supposed to be “a government of laws and not of men.”

If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.

But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without “due process of law.”

Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.

Because the problem is the next victim of government overreach won’t be a big bad capitalist like a BP.

With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don’t believe in constitutional government.

Of course, many liberals don’t.

29 thoughts on “A Government By, Of And For Ed Schultz

  1. Wasn’t Ed, and these other Obama People, the same folks who shrieked and cried and moaned and stamped their feet that GW was a dictator?

  2. This was very ugly. What was the implied threat? That Obama would criminally prosecute the company’s officers and board members if they didn’t pay up? There is a tacit quid-pro-quo here, but because it was not done via the courts we don’t know what it is, and the parties don’t know what it is.
    Obama is a small-time Chicago pol in over his head. He can’t solve the country’s problem, but he can keep the money rolling in make sure everyone in the organization gets his cut.

  3. Oh, geez, what was the name of the steel magnate in “Atlas Shrugged” who went to DC to “consult” and got his business stolen from him?

  4. Pingback: The Greenroom » A Government By, Of And For Ed Schultz

  5. Mr. President, I’d love to see a very large size boot up Fast Eddies ASS rather than on his neck. Sadly the only problem in accomplishing that is there’s no room given the fact that his big empty head is already fully inserted there!!!

  6. We are frequently reminded that Obama was a professor of constitutional law. What in the world was he teaching his students? Can we retroactively revoke credit for his class?

  7. Of course, many liberals don’t.
    Not liberals. “Progressives”. Wilson, Mussolini, FDR, Hitler, and now Obama.

  8. Instapundit links to this dailycaller piece:
    http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/22/the-danger-of-armchair-lawyering/
    These people can’t build a thriving economy, or create a single job. All they can do is take money from those that has it and give it those that don’t. Their is no room for prosperity in their philosophy.
    Bonehead Krugman (another lib who can’t create a job or build a thriving economy) chimes in:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/opinion/21krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
    Krugman says deficit spending is with us forever, mostly because of rising health care costs (!). He says we can mitigate it with a 5% vat (a tax paid mostly by the poor and working class who spend on consumables nearly everything they earn). He also says we have to watch out for inflation when the economy improves and unemployment gets “down to” 7%. In two years.
    A 5% vat is essentially a 5% pay cut for working Americans. The money will go to the government. Inflation is a tax on capital –that is, savings. The combo of a vat & inflation means you will lose money when you spend it, and lose money when you save it. In both cases the beneficiary will be the US treasury.
    Why does this anti-worker, anti-capitalist, nobel-prize-winning fraud deserve a column in the New York Times?

  9. Oh, geez, what was the name of the steel magnate in “Atlas Shrugged” who went to DC to “consult” and got his business stolen from him?

    Heehee, I’m not that far thru the book yet 🙂

  10. I do not wish to see Obama acting like a dictator, per Ed Schultz, but then other than speculation, there is no indication he has done so.

    No indication is evident anywhere that any deals were made quid pro quo, no indication any coercion took place. BP is a big player, with powerful allies in the UK, and in other countries we regard as our closest allies; they entered apparently into the meeting which resulted in the agreement for the escrow account WITH their lawyers present.

    If any of this was illegal, they are more than capable of defending against it, seeking legal remedies.

    There is no indication that any prosecution or investigation has altered as a result of this negotiation.

    Lots of name calling and accusations – but no proof, no substantiation.

    Just a lot of wishful thinking from the right.

    Given the number of whistle-blowers coming out of the woodwork at BP, if there is anything improper or illegal going on, someone with proof, not just speculation, will turn up.

    I’m betting all that butt-kissing going on by the right to big oil is going to end up biting the right in their tushes later on this year. It does no so far appear to be very persuasive to the public.

  11. Oil companies aren’t particularly known to just hand out billions of dollars without getting something in return.
    As I said, DG, you are gullible.

  12. Isn’t Dog the one who *always* suggests there is no proof to substantiate criticisms leveled at The One Who Won, but *often* suggests will little if any proof to criticisms she (and the Pernicious Miss Peev) level at anyone to the right of Che and Mao?

    Just wondering.
    Sort of. 😉

  13. Dog Gone thinks Obammy walked into this private meeting with BP, showed them his Harvard Law degree, and, quaking with fear, they started shoveling money at him . . . lol!

  14. Uh, except for the $20 billion, you mean?
    And the strong-arm takeover of GM and Chrysler, the financial industry, healthcare insurance, off-shore oil drilling…

  15. Secret meeting, $20 billion changes hands extralegally, no details revealed. We know what Obama got out of the deal — 20 billion — wonder what BP got?
    Welcome to the 3rd world.

    Finally, participants said, Mr. Obama sealed the deal in a private, 25-minute session with BP’s chairman, Carl-Henric Svanberg.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/us/politics/17obama.html

  16. Terry Says:

    June 22nd, 2010 at 3:45 pm
    Oil companies aren’t particularly known to just hand out billions of dollars without getting something in return.
    As I said, DG, you are gullible.”

    Not gullible at all Terry. Grew up with some familiarity about oil leases and oil drilling actually, including investments in oil leases, companies that did innovative engineering in oil drilling equipment.

    I see the reasons this is adavantageous to BP as well, rather than coercive, and I am not persuaded that Obama actually had any coercive options on his side. Further, I am convinced that had he tried to coerce BP, in some private meeting, it would have been used against him, both here but especially in the UK where there is substantial support for BP.

    Your analysis tries to do two things – paint Obama as a thug, which I don’t think he was in this, without anything other than some unfounded assumptions; and paint poor big ol’ BP as a stupid, weak and helpless company ……that happened to go into this meeting supported by some of the top legal talent in this country on their side.

    Your analysis represents your ideology that big government is some intimidating force to be feared, that cannot be opposed successfully by either business or citizens.

    I can easily expect that Obama walked into that meeting and layed out for BP that their screw ups – things like the oil spill expert that had been dead for five years, the walruses, the number of people who died – as well as earlier BP deaths, etc. were looking bad for them. That above and beyond whatever was going to happen in US courts – and it still will, no breaks given there – that the whole world was watching how BP was doing their business. That if they didn’t voluntarily come up with a way to make both BP and the US government that had so badly failed to regulate them look responsible (and actually be responsible) that their chances for getting any further drilling leases in the US – OR ANYWHERE else in the world – was going to be pretty poor to none.

    Because the one piece of legal leverage that Obama has is that BP can’t go where they choose, they have to go where the oil IS.

    So Obama comes out with a win-win situation out of a losing situation.

    Nothing illegal, didn’t give away anything to get it, and 20 billion OVER 4 years, in the context of that company’s finances, it still something BP can live with, something that will mitigate their costs and liability, ongoing.

    I do not give Obama a pass – the regulation by the Dept. of Interior, while not as overtly corrupt and incompetent as it was for the preceding 8 year administration (anyone else remember the Sec Int.’s office bathroom remodelling to the tune of over a hundred thousand dollars?, as well as the drug and sex scandals and the uncollected oil revenues?), it has been far from cleaned up or made effective — FAR from it.

    But I am willing to look at events without trying to force them into the formula of all government bad all the time, all business good all the time simplistic formula you use Terry.

  17. Kermit, a 20 billion / 4 year deal is not evidence of wrongdoing, strong-arming, or exceeding proper authority or abuse of power.

    You and Terry, and the others making the claims you make, fail to demonstrate that the escrow deal was done other than legally or could only be done other than legally, ethically, and properly. You have further failed to demonstrate in any way – practically or theoretically – that it was not in BPs interest, or that they would not have paid those funds out without the escrow arrangment.

    Although the notion that Obama is a strong president who ‘got’ something for the American people does definitely benefit Obama (you might want to re-think promoting that talking point / chanting point/ dance move quite so emphatically)

    I would suggest you go do a little more research than only (predictable) right wing sources.

    You might want to start here:
    http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9021605&contentId=7040949

  18. Doggie claimed,
    “Your analysis tries to do two things – paint Obama as a thug, which I don’t think he was in this, without anything other than some unfounded assumptions”

    Which makes me wonder, did Obama have to take kis boot off of BP’s throat when he kicked them in the ass, or did he do his Karate Kid impersonation?

  19. Dog Gone-
    Not gullible at all Terry. Grew up with some familiarity about oil leases and oil drilling actually, including investments in oil leases, companies that did innovative engineering in oil drilling equipment.
    And I am Marie, the Queen of Roumania!
    In your world, oil companies give away billions expecting nothing in return.
    Or was their a quid pro quo?

  20. DogPrescottPile, please point to an article in a Constitution of the United States of America where executive branch is given power to shake down private companies without due process.

  21. Side bet: When any liberal answers JPA’s question, it’ll be in terms that all amount to one thing; a perversion of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

  22. Side bet: When any liberal answers JPA’s question, it’ll be in terms that all amount to one thing; a perversion of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

    That’s a sucker bet, Mitch. Then again, so is the Commerce Clause these days.

  23. Well JPA points out that what Obama has done is tantamount to a bill of attainder, which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. He gets away with it because he doesn’t use his buddies Nancy and Harry to do it.

  24. But I am willing to look at events without trying to force them into the formula of all government bad all the time, all business good all the time simplistic formula you use Terry.
    You have absolutely no grounds for making this statement, Dog Gone.
    None.
    Zero.
    Zip.
    Nada.

  25. Terry said:

    “You have absolutely no grounds for making this statement, Dog Gone.”

    What, assumptions aren’t grounds anymore? Too bad for Dog Gone.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.