Palin: What Would Hitler Do? Create BP Gulf Victims Fund

June 25, 2010


Comments

5 Responses to “Palin: What Would Hitler Do? Create BP Gulf Victims Fund”

  1. Ying Yang on June 25th, 2010 4:53 pm

    I’m no Palin supporter, and perhaps this was not the right way to make a point. Obama is Suing Arizona because immigration is “technically” a federal issue, and Arizona side stepped “due process”. This is the same to me. Where in the constitution or anywhere else does it say he has this authority? That’s what we have a judicial branch for. I wonder how much of this fund is being claimed by our government (in dyer need) as a “government service fee” or something like that. Heck, out her they are trying to evoke a tax on septic tank owners because they don’t pay “waste disposal fees”! You can’t crap for free! I bet my life, a large chunk gets pinched off by Uncle Sam, when ALL should go to the people.

  2. Alyssa on June 25th, 2010 5:03 pm

    I think the escrow fund is a great idea. Especially after BP tried to get residents to settle for less than what their damages were so they didnt have to pay out as much. This company has already proven to be deceitful so i think it was a great idea to make them set this money aside for the residents. Just shows that Republicans would try to screw the Americans just as much as a foreign company. And is it just me or have these Republicans reverted to their inner child? Throwing fits and lashing out when things dont go their way. Making accusations, trying to throw anything out there that might turn people off to our President. They talk about being patriotic and really standing up for our country, but how can you preach that and not support our President? He is just trying to clean up the messes that our previous Republican Presidents have left for him. And this mess from BP – a company im sure Republicans got much wealth off of. You should be saluting him for stepping up to the plate.

  3. Marcus Brutus on June 25th, 2010 5:33 pm

    This is the note I sent to Mr. Barr at Politico after he wrote this piece.

    Dear Mr. Barr,

    Your article entitled “Palin Praises Hitler Column” is misleading. It could just as easily have been entitled “Palin Defends 5th Amendment”. While I don’t doubt that you are well-intentioned, and are merely using this provocative title to attract readers, it is still unfortunate that you must stoop to the level of sensationalizing an extremely important constitutional question, one which previously has on several occasions, including in the Youngstown Steel case, reached final adjudication before the Supreme Court. Instead of recognizing that Palin is not arguing that BP should not pay for the damage it has caused, up to the legal maximum it is bound to, by virtue of the enforcement of the company’s constitutional right to the equal protection of the laws, you post material which conflates her opposition for federal confiscation of property without due process from the shareholders of BP, with opposing holding BP responsible.

    The comparison Professor Sowell made, which the former governor agrees with, is that, raising the liability cap on BP, while seemingly common-sensical, is in fact unconstitutional, as it is an ex post facto law, and a confiscatory taking in violation of the 5th Amendment. Indeed, as William Blackstone wrote over 200 years ago, “it is better for ten guilty to go free than one innocent perish.” Applied in this circumstance, it is better for a guilty party, like BP, to go free (of having their shareholder’s property being confiscated in violation of the 5th Amendment), than to damage the rule of law by passing ex post fact confiscatory laws which could later be utilized by some as-yet unelected unscrupulous president.

    Even if you did not wish to use Sarah Palin as a “profile of courage” for adopting a politically unpopular stance in order to remain true to the constitution, you could at least have listed the constitutional problems inherent in confiscating property, and question why precisely a former constitutional law professor who has taken an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. constitution would side with a violation of the Taking’s Clause, while a relatively poorly educated former half-term governor would champion the constitution. Now that would be a story that would be worth reading.

    Most sincerely,

    A former reader.

  4. cjohnthan on June 26th, 2010 6:12 am

    Hi, Ying Yang,

    i am no palin supporter just like you. in addition, i don’t want myself falling into the racism’s trap.

    i read some people call her butterfuly gal, witch, they used to call her moron, idiot.

    so hereby i clain i am not palin supporter, and i hate palin:-)))

  5. zd14689 on June 26th, 2010 11:37 am

    Obama is sitting between a rock and a hard place. What ever he does in regard to BP will be used against him.

    1) BP pays money into E screw fund – Government is hindering big business
    2) The presidents does nothing and request from congress to pay the bill – The GOP will block the spending request and will ask that it should not add t the deficit and that BP actually would be responsible.

    This is all only mid term election rhetoric and has nothing to do with real issues. This is only about how to win the mid term elections and nothing else, this is not about helping the effected people, just dirty politics to win elections!

Got something to say? **Please Note** - Comments may be edited for clarity or obscenity, and all comments are published at the discretion of ChattahBox.com - Comments are the opinions of the individuals leaving them, and not of ChattahBox.com or its partners. - Please do not spam or submit comments that use copyright materials, hearsay or are based on reports where the supposed fact or quote is not a matter of public knowledge are also not permitted.