Dakota Beacon

Suppose this scenario: The president, Robert Gibbs and Rahm Emanuel invite “Yachtsman” Tony Hayward to the White House.  They repair to the Rose Garden, where Yachtsman Tony is shot by the government trio.  The president emerges to greet the press and informs us that justice has been dispensed. Will the press gloat?  Will the crowd cheer?  Is there anything wrong with seeing that Yachtsman Tony pays?  How would you react to this news?  IS there anything wrong with doing things this way?  If so, just what? Because if you substitute the words “extorted for $20 billion” for “shot”, you would have what happened last week.

Had a member of Congress stood up and said, “That’s not how we do things in America – we don’t want this kind of thing going on in the Rose Garden,” would YOU have condemned his speech?  How would you have reacted had his own party’s leadership – the “loyal opposition” to the president’s party – punished him and exacted a retraction from him?  Because that, too is what happened.

We have a Constitution.  This president thinks it is too “restrictive” to fit his bigger-than-life persona and his administration’s radical agenda.  The question is whether we are a “nation of laws and not of men”. The reaction of Americans to the president’s shakedown will provide the answer.

Last week Congressman Joe Barton apologized to BP for the “shakedown”.  He was promptly spanked by faux conservative Republican Party leadership and brought to his knees to retract his words.  His word, by the way, was accurate.  We looked it up in the American Heritage Dictionary. :  “shakedown” -  NOUN: 1. Slang Extortion of money, as by blackmail.  True, Barton could have expressed himself better – it would be enough to say that our Constitution was breached by the president.

It is true that BP is no hero – “Beyond Petroleum” contributed to Obama’s campaign and stood up for Cap and Trade. There are many faults here.  We discovered that the president had offers of help from 15 nations and refused them.  The pretext was the Jones Act, which could have been waived for a massive emergency such as this – surely that would have been in the best interest of the United States right now – but that is not a priority with this administration. 

This emergency was seen as that crisis which must not go to waste, an opportunity to advance anti-energy policies  Whip the masses into a panic and in their frenzy they will accept anything.  One thing we’re going to be accepting is the shutting down of drilling in the Gulf. Obama ordered a “six-month moratorium”.  This means a permanent end to drilling.  How many of these companies will twiddle their thumbs for six months to see whether the moratorium will be extended?  How many will move to friendlier waters – say, Brazil?  And why should they come back?  What will this do to the economy of America and the Gulf Coast? Governor Bobby Jindal is right to condemn this “moratorium”.  He knows what it is – the second wave of tragedy for his state.  Stopping drilling – and allowing the pressure to build would be a dangerous course of action in any case.

The greater issue is the Constitution and the Rule of Law.  The Seventh Amendment states: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”    In 1688, the people of Britain established their right to trial by jury.  This was one of the most significant steps forward on the road to freedom, taking absolute power from the King.  King George III abolished this right in the American colonies, giving them one more important reason to rebel, for without THIS right, Americans understood that they had NO rights.

One of the greatest benefits of the Rule of Law is the economic benefit.  This is a major component in the incredibly successful economy which has powered the United States. What happens to this when we substitute a cult of personality for our Constitution and laws?  Look at the example of Beyond Petroleum.  The president invited Yachtsman Tony to the White House, presented him with a deal he couldn’t refuse and came out, happily reporting that he had “secured” $20 billion in a “trust fund” for the “benefit” of the victims of this spill. 

What happened there?  What if a sheriff had taken Pantybomber Farouk Abdulmutallab into his inner office and come out with a confession and a list of some 200 imams who were recruiting, indoctrinating and training Jihadists in the Midwest?  This much we know: there would be a hue and cry from the press and liberals across the nation that he had violated the Panty’s Miranda rights.  So where were the charges and the Miranda rights for Yachtsman Tony?  Where was the trial?  Following the shakedown in the White House, Tony was tossed, like raw steak, to Congress, where the likes of Henry Waxman set upon him. And we all know that what was going on in Congress had nothing to do with an “investigation” – no gathering of evidence, no counsel, no charges, nothing but showboating.  It was much like a Soviet show trial, where the scapegoat is paraded, insulted and punished and eventually forgotten.  In fact, the handling of Beyond Petroleum by the Obama administration has been a facsimile of a Vladimir Putin show.  This is just what he’d have done. Which, by the way, is one reason the Russian economy never picks up.

Everyone benefits from the rule of just laws.  Citizens know what to expect, businesses know where they stand and everyone has an opportunity to have his day in court and appeal to a jury of peers – not a potentate.  This is why we should all be so concerned about the modus of this president.  So far, finding the Constitution too “restrictive”, Obama has overridden our laws continually since he was sworn in.  First it was the bankruptcy laws.  Obama found some businesses too big to fail.  He nationalized GM, handing over their assets to the labor union which had contributed heavily to the bankrupting and leaving investors out to dry. He fired CEO’s and replaced them with his cronies. He closed dealerships – those owned by contributors to Republican campaigns – and demanded that they turn client lists over to his friends. 

Now he has set aside the Seventh Amendment, substituting Chicago-style extortion for due process.  The authorities he consults are fellow Chicagoans Al Capone, Bugs Moran, Big Tuna Tony Accardo, Sam “Momo” Giancanna, the Scalisi brothers, not our Founding Fathers and the Framers of our Constitution.  Wise Guys know it’s more efficient to take a guy to the warehouse district and threaten to hang him on a meat hook (in this case the “meat hook” was a probably a federal grand jury) unless he comes forth. For them, making a “deal” is better than going to court. By the way, we looked up “extortion” in the American Heritage Dictionary:  NOUN:

   1. The act or an instance of extorting.
   2. Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.
   3. An excessive or exorbitant charge.
   4. Something extorted.

Of course, “extortion” is a crime, with a legal definition as well.  Searching law.com Law Dictionary, we find this: “extortion:  n. obtaining money or property by threat to a victim's property or loved ones, intimidation, or false claim of a right (such as pretending to be an IRS agent). It is a felony in all states, except that a direct threat to harm the victim is usually treated as the crime of robbery. Blackmail is a form of extortion in which the threat is to expose embarrassing, damaging information to family, friends or the public.
See also: blackmail  robbery  theft” (emphasis ours)

The commission of a felony in the White House by a sitting president is overshadowed by the disgusting behavior of the Republican Party leadership, which, in turn, made Congressman Joe Barton an offer he couldn’t refuse.  If this is the “leadership” we can expect from Republicans our future is growing dim, indeed.  This has no place in our politics.  If a man is not free to speak the truth, or voice an opinion in Congress, we are in trouble.  One can wholeheartedly disagree that Beyond Petroleum is innocent – there is reason to believe that their negligence caused terrible damage.  But that is no reason to cancel the Constitution and its requirement of trial by jury.  Anyone ready to do this must be ready to surrender his own rights as well, for if the law does not protect everyone it protects no one.

A pattern is emerging.  Students of history will recognize it.  Mussolini followed much the same path.  He first attacked a company, then took control, then nationalized the industry as a government-run monopoly.  And soon private industry and commerce disappeared altogether as the State rose supreme.  We know where that went, and what went with it.  This system, admired by statists and dictators for its “efficiency” has no place for free enterprise or individual liberty.  It is also ultimately an economic failure wherever it is tried. There is little difference in operation and effect among the various ”flavors” of totalitarianism.  Communism, Marxism, Socialism, Nazism, Fascism – all demand government control of industry and commerce, all erode or kill outright individual freedom, all seek to manipulate the basest human instincts of envy, greed and vengeance to advance their plans. They don’t appreciate “restrictive” laws.  Americans must keep these facts in view. 

As tempting as it is to beat up on BP, as angry as we are at the destruction, we need to observe the law.  We need to condemn the president for his felonious conduct last week and see it for what it is.  We need to condemn John Boehner and his henchmen in Congress for their sickening attempt to censor members of Congress.  Barton is to be pitied for his unwillingness to stand up for his own beliefs.  BP and Yachtsman Tony should have their day in court – a day which many believe the administration does not want to see because this means presenting evidence, some of which will undoubtedly expose contributory negligence by government. 

How will this $20 billion slush fund be distributed? Will this preclude legal court actions?  Who will get preference in satisfaction of their claims – will it be handled like the car dealership closings?  A deal was made last week.  BP got something for the $20 billion.  It is probable that it was nothing but payment to call off the Attorney General.  Will this episode mark the end of our experiment in Fascism or just a milestone on the narrowing path to its establishment?  These questions must remain at the forefront as we approach the November elections. God help us if the Republican response to this affair is an indication of their capacity to lead.

Sally Morris is a member of Americans for Constitutional Government.