-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Good New Book: ‘Precipice’
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
-
DeMint Supports Defense
May 14, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Update on Tom Perez
May 14, 2013 | 0 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I report on it here, at CFIF. This is about the long-running eco-suit against Chevron, pushed by dicey U.S. plaintiffs’ lawyers in conjunction with the corrupt, leftist government of Ecuador. Yet another judge in the case now says he was offered big bucks to rule against Chevron. Read all about it — and about why this is a public policy issue, and one where Obama, as usual, is either asleep or on the wrong side.
View all comments (25) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2013/01/30/more-allegations-of-fraud-by-a
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bob K| 1.30.13 @ 8:02PM
Quin, until you name the American Plaintiff's lawyers and their law firms and who they were connected with in the Democratic Party this will be ignored.
It's past time to go public here.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 1.30.13 @ 8:26PM
I don't see why being a conservative means that we have automatically align ourselves with the interests of international oil and natural gas firms. We should ask ourselves how many thousands (of Iraqis and Americans) have died in Iraq since we toppled Saddam, how many have died fighting the Taliban that we supported to fight the Soviets in the 80's then in the 90's (before Bin Laden declared war on the U.S.) we supported the Taliban with the hope of building a pipeline from the former Soviet Republic of Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to ports in Pakistan, there should be no doubts at this time that the Obama/NATO crusade against Ghaddafi was to secure Libyan oilfields for Western Oil firms and the Civil War in Syria is meant to undermine our (and Saudi Arabia's) energy rival in the Middle East which is Syria's ally Iran. It has even been said that our interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo and threatened intervention in Macedonia in the 90's and early 2000's was to make the Balkans safe for the Nabucco Pipeline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabucco_pipeline
which would be a rival to the Russian's South Stream project. It has even been said that the 2008 Russian-Georgian conflict over the breakaway territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia had to do with the Nabucco project.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 1.30.13 @ 8:27PM
What I'm saying is that Western oil and natural gas firms have to much power over US foreign policy and given their track record in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Balkans I have no doubt that they probably are guilty of crimes against the environment in Ecuador and Nigeria and elsewhere. I don't blame any the people in those nations if they sought to nationalize their oil reserves and cut out Western oil firms.
Simon Templar| 1.31.13 @ 12:10AM
You raise some very good points and yes, we do not have to always align out selves with oil companies wherever they do business. I think your missing the point, however.
We supported groups such as these because they are the lesser of two evils and the greater evil is dead set at threatening our national security via shutting off our life lines - oil resources. The other unfortunate reality is that these "people" who have nationalized these companies and essentially stole their capitalization and assets are not doing it because they care about the environment or their people. They are controlled by leftist dictatorships and corrupt governments that do no better in protecting the environment or redistributing profits and resources as their justification for nationalization in the first place.
You damn well should blame them as the real agenda here is government control, dictatorship, and the intentional destruction of capitalism and free markets. If oil was the only motivating factor for the wars and conflicts you listed, then it would have been a hell of a lot easier to get it drilling right here and in this continent. Oil is of course an issue but not the whole issue as their are multiple agendas at work here in these global conflicts.
One difference worth noting is our companies do not steal the oil but pay for it. Not a drop was taken form Iraq. The soviets on the other hand do "business" quite differently, ask any of the former satellites.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 1.31.13 @ 1:58AM
I get supporting the lesser of two evils and aligning ourselves with less than savory characters and groups during the Cold War, but the Cold War has been over for more than 20 years. The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore and supposedly we are on track to be the biggest oil and natural gas producer (that means domestic oil and natural gas) in a few years or less.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 1.31.13 @ 2:00AM
Therefore how would oil and natural gas in the former Soviet Central Asia be essential for US national security when that area has always been in Moscow's sphere of influence and was indeed part of the Russian Empire before the Bolshevik Revolution? The same could be said for the Balkans. The control of natural gas pipelines through the former Yugoslavia are essential for the rest of Europe not for the national security of the United States.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 1.31.13 @ 2:01AM
Also I must admit that I know little about the environmental records of Latin American oil firms that were nationalized. As for corrupt leftist dictatorships in Latin America there are plenty of corrupt pro-American dictatorships throughout the world (some that still exist i.e. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc.) that Washington has propped up (and continues to pro-up) for the benefit of Western oil firms. Like I said with us becoming the largest oil and natural gas producer in the world with rather cordial relationships with large oil producing nations to our north (Canada) and south (Mexico) I cannot see any reason to continue to use gunboat diplomacy to keep the oil and natural gas empire of Western Oil Firms nor do I see the harm in the people of Ecuador or Venezuela or anywhere else in the world being the masters of their own national resources. Even the far right Russian Nationalists like Zhirinovsky believe the oil and natural gas resources of Russia should be controlled by a state energy firm rather than private corporations. In many country's taking such a stance on the nationalization of natural resources is usually popular among the masses.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 1.31.13 @ 2:02AM
Capitalism and free markets are great....in the United States. Other nation's should have the freedom to choose what economic model they see fit and being that the Cold War is over we shouldn't automatically deem that as a threat to US national security. I will have to research about Iraq. I am sure Western Oil Firms have contracts with Maliki's government and I know that Halliburton has made a fortune swindling the American tax payer in Iraq.
What I'm saying is lets stop undermining the sovereignty of other nations for the goals of Western (some American, some English, mostly global) Oil Firms that really only have "the bottom line" as their main interest at heart. Let them do business wherever they want, but Uncle Sam shouldn't be their "enforcer". Lets drill in ANWR lets drill in Utah and Colorado where the Clinton administration federalized lots of oil rich territory making it off limits. Lets utilize our own resources, end the empire, bring the troops home and become that Constitutional beacon of light on the Hill that America is supposed to be.
Simon Templar| 1.31.13 @ 6:37AM
Yes, let's produce our own energy and I am sure oil companies would love it, but up till now they have been impeded. You are sure they are swindling, got any evidence or is it just a feeling? Undermining the sovereignty? Really? The last time I checked these nations were giving us the finger, making billions selling the oil to us and we doing all the drilling, providing the technology they seem they can not provide, and getting so filthy rich they are buying up American property.
Simon Templar| 1.31.13 @ 6:46AM
The problem is they can not do business wherever they want. They have aggressive enemy nations vying for the same resources, left wing activist all over the world trying not only to stop drilling but shut down the industry, western governments kow towing to anti-oil propagandist, american consumers demanding more and cheap more, continuing restrictions, moratoriums, and governments stuffing their pockets with enormous gas taxes that they levy on the product.
Of course, let us not forget about the nationalist and every other stripe of tyrants and unstable societies that invite you in and then rip you off later.
Makes you wonder who the real bad guys are...
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 1.31.13 @ 12:00PM
I was referring to Halliburton when I said swindling in Iraq and yes I meant swindling that's not just a feeling. When Halliburton and KBR were running empty flatbeds across Iraq that were supposed to be filled with supplies then billing the US tax payer. When Halliburton was given contracts that used to be in house military positions such as that of repairing radios and other communication equipment or preparing meals and charging us the US tax payer out the ass for it. Yes Cheney's friends in Halliburton swindled and continue to swindle the US taxpayer.
Yes we have undermined the sovereignty of nations and continue to do so. Why do you think there was an Iranian revolution in 1979 if it wasn't for our (and the U.K.) overthrow of Mossadegh back in the 50's when we installed the Shah and yes that was because Mossadegh promised to nationalize Iran's oil reserves which would have cut out Western oil firms.
Simon Templar| 1.31.13 @ 6:31AM
Saudi Arabia is not pro-American. Read their textbooks and what they teach in their schools. They have never acted on our behalf but only in their interest and have undermined us for a century. You have forgotten that they are where the terrorist have been born and bred. Prop them up? These governments of all kinds were well established before we arrived and reflect in large measure the results of their own people, their own failures and choices, and their own politics. That assumes that the alternatives are somehow better and represent the true interest of the people. Are you a big fan of Chavez? I think you are probably not. You keep reinforcing the idea that this is all for the western oil companies. Our enemies have their own oil companies and if left to their devices they would take all the oil and starve off the West if they could.
Simon Templar| 1.31.13 @ 6:31AM
Our oil firms have been in those parts of the world because we have a very vocal, political, and powerful left wing that has made it nearly impossible to drill here. They are now attempting to demonize fracking and stop the exploitation of the very resources you have mentioned.We should get out of these other nations and drill and produce our own energy and Europe needs to get off its ass and secure its own energy. I agree on that part. Government controlled energy is the most inefficient and corrupt means of providing it that has ever been tried. I could care less what some nationalist thinks who has nothing to do with American conservatism and American interest.
These left wing nationalization efforts rarely consult their people on anything but rather provide the propaganda necessary to steal the drilling equipment and such from private companies, either their own or foreign.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 1.31.13 @ 2:15PM
Chavez is a blowhard. He thinks he's Fidel Castro and this is 1960, but as I said the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore and Russia or China would not go to war against the U.S. for Chavez nor would even the Castro brothers in Cuba.
The Saudi people may not be pro-American, or the Wahhabist clerics or the text books but the house of Saud have enjoyed US government backing for decades. They sell us oil on the cheap and they buy military hardware for us and help bankroll Washington's little conflicts in places like Syria, Libya and as I mentioned before in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion.
Also how could Venezuela and Iran and Russia starve the United States which as I said has vast oil and natural gas reserves (many untapped) and is set to become the biggest oil and natural gas producer in the world?
Simon Templar| 1.31.13 @ 6:11AM
Because our economy is closely tied to Europe's economy. Many of these former satellites and spheres of influence were never willing participants nor wanted to be a part of this influence but are now aligned with the west and the US, politically and economically. Yugoslavians hated Russians and their influence and meddling.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 1.31.13 @ 2:22PM
Except for the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia as well as Georgia) this is not true. The former Soviet states will always be closer to Moscow (distance wise) then they will be to Washington DC and most of these nations speak Russian at least as a second language. It makes sense for these nations to have a common market, energy and defense agreements with Russia rather than the U.S. or U.K...Putin's government doesn't stab their friends in the back or throw them under the bus the way the Americans do.
As for the former Yugoslavia where Serbia is the largest state. Serbia is a Slavic Orthodox Christian country (like Russia) that has always had very close ties to Russia and often had an alliance with Russia. Actually one of the chief reason's U.S. Russian relations are so sour right now is because the U.S. anti-Serbian policies and conflicts during the Clinton era and the Bush regime backing Kosovo's independence.
Simon Templar| 1.31.13 @ 6:03AM
First, The Cold War is not over. The Soviet Union collapsed due to failure of a communist controlled economy over a vast empire that ceased to function economically. Russia gave up its satellites. The essential political enemies, agendas, and threats still exist and continue to be played out, look at the alliances, the conflicts, and global struggles. They are essentially the same. We are still choosing the lesser of two evils. Middle East is a perfect example among others. Sometimes we do make the wrong choices.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 1.31.13 @ 2:27PM
It was the United States government, not Russia that restarted the Cold War. It was the aggressive anti-Russian policies of the U.S. government and U.S. backing for oligarchs who many Russians perceived as stealing the natural resources of the Russian people that Russian-U.S. relations are so bad. After the fall of the Soviet Union the U.S. never respected Russia's sovereignty and sought to humiliate Russia. NATO was expanded right up to Russia's borders and in former Soviet Republic's bordering Russia. The U.S. supported the anti-Russian color coded (Orange, Rose, Tulip) that saw the leadership of the Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan became pro-U.S. and hostile to Russian interests. Not to mention the European Missile defense system that is clearly aimed at Russia.
Mnestheus| 1.31.13 @ 12:37AM
For a few million more, Chevron could get The
AmericanEcuadorian Tradition Institute, Cristobal Hornero , Propriador, to fly off to Quito , buy out the naughty Guerra, and rewrite the decision, makng Amazonia a Liberty University extension campus in perpetuity.Bob K| 1.31.13 @ 8:01AM
Dimitry and Simon,
With all due deference to you both: What the hell are you talking about? Did you read Quin's post and his link in it?
Quin is writing about a problem in America's back yard not the Middle East. This is about an Environmental Tort Action Ecuador against an American Oil Company which involves American Lawyers as Plaintiffs against an American Company. It also involves the corruption of the Ecuadoran Judiciary, possibly by these same Law Firms. Somebody bribed them. Were the American Law Firms complicit in this?
Doesn't this talk of their involvement in "Bribery Schemes" and "Ex Parte contacts with Judges" bother either of you?
Why doesn't this upset you? Because, as Quin notes Americans have their Pension Funds invested in Oil Firms like these. There seem to be plenty of corrupt Law Firms right here in the good old USA who will work with left wing governments in law suits for a piece of the profits.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 1.31.13 @ 2:35PM
Bribery in Latin America will take place with or without American lawyers. Most likely officials were bribed by the American oil company to set up shop in Ecuador in the first place (which may or may not be true because Ecuador would most likely need foreign expertise for such operations.
So a lot of Americans have their Pension Funds invested in Oil Firms does that mean that we should overthrow Ecuador's government to make the country safe for American big oil even though such actions are very much to blame for left wing, anti-American regimes such as Chavez and Ortega's coming to power in the first place. The CIA calls this "blowback".
JmsA| 1.31.13 @ 3:53PM
The president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, is a disciple and protegee of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, not to mention an avowed Marxist and anti-American. What will follow there, in Ecuador, will be "nationalization" or more accurately, confiscation of private property. Oil, remittances from abroad, Bananas, and tourism, in that order, are Ecuador's greatest sources of income. Chevron was beneficial to Ecuador and its people, not withstanding of course whatever malfeasance by the ruling elite.
Wake up and smell the coffee. There has been massive Ecuadorian emigration since Correa came to power because of the increasing dysfunctionality of Ecuadoran society and economy per the implementation of Chavez' ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas) policies by Correa.
Stop reading lefty books and listening to your union leaders; it's clouding your mind. It's not hard to figure out, really, if you try: As American influence declines, Marxism ascends in Latin America: see Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, not to mention Cuba, where it all started. Consequently, it is not blow back, but the march towards totalitarian socialism that's afoot. So don't believe everything you hear from the CIA, for although it does certain things really well, it is also not without fault, particularly insofar as some of the incompetents and lefties, take your pick, who labor therein.
Bob K| 1.31.13 @ 6:59PM
The Union you belong to also has it's pension funds invested in American Oil Companies.
And where did Quin call for "overthrowing" Ecuador's government? What he is calling for is for Obama's government to act in America's interest by using international pressures.
And, what do you know! The CIA has a new definition for stealing American assets. They call it "blowback." Those genius's have been on top of everything haven't they? That's why we are having peace and brotherhood around the world.
JmsA| 1.31.13 @ 3:12PM
I think some here are a bit too eager to buy into the "corrupt American" meme. I'm not surprised. A few years back I took the written U.S. Federal Court interpreting/translation certification test. The reading comprehension section contained an essay regarding the subject Chevron matter, and was written with much zeal, if not defamatory hyperbole against Chevron. Part of the content consisted, and I paraphrase, the unequal struggle being waged by the underdog Ecuadorians and their legal system against the Chevron/U.S. behemoth. Somehow they forgot to mention the benefits derived by Ecuadorans from Chevron's endeavors, not the least of which the many jobs it provided; while failing to mention the thinking behind Ecuador not pursuing its claim in the U.S. Courts, as allowed by U.S. Law. What we have here, I'm afraid, is but a shakedown of an American company under the direction of the Neo-Marxist and avowed anti-American, President Correa (whose daddy was reportedly caught trying to smuggle drugs into the United States).
Simon Templar| 1.31.13 @ 10:14AM
It does bother me. I was responding to Dimitry's post that contained viewpoints about Big Oil companies and global politics of which I disagree, not the article.