LIVE Gold Prices $  | E-Mail Subscriptions | Update GoldSeek | GoldSeek Radio 

Commentary : Gold Review : Markets : News Wire : Quotes : Silver : Stocks - Main Page >> News >> Story  Disclaimer 
Latest Headlines

COT Gold, Silver and US Dollar Index Report - May 17, 2019

Gold Miners’ Q1’19 Fundamentals
By: Adam Hamilton, CPA, Zeal Research

Three safe-haven reasons to own gold
By: Richard (Rick) Mills, Ahead of the herd

Trump’s China Blunder
By: Peter Schiff, President and CEO Euro Pacific Capital

Is the Trade War a Catalyst for Gold?
By: Jordan Roy-Byrne CMT, MFTA

Bitcoin Mania Is Back! Are You Ready to Rumble?
By: Rick Ackerman, Rick's Picks

Precious Metals Update Video: Gold support around $1,282
By: Ira Epstein

Asian Metals Market Update: May-17-2019
By: Chintan Karnani, Insignia Consultants

GoldSeek Radio Nugget: Louis Navellier
By: Chris Waltzek, GoldSeek Radio

Gold: Ratio Charts Offer the Key to the Bull
By: Rambus


GoldSeek Web

The Goldsmiths—Part CXLV

-- Posted Friday, 11 June 2010 | | Source:

By R. D. Bradshaw


The news media has been ablaze the past several days with statements by President Obama and Admiral Thad Allen, the US Government’s point man for the BP Gulf Oil Spill.  For example, on Jun 8, Drudge had a headline from which said that “Obama Goes Street: Seeking ‘Ass to Kick’” (Over Oil Spill).  Repeatedly, Obama has been going to the American people with threats that he is going to make BP pay for everything and pay every last dime they owe to the people along the Gulf.  But another Jun 8 Drudge headline was closer to the truth with “Spill Reveals Obama’s Lack of Executive Experience.”  Some would even charge him and/or his administration with gross incompetence.


Moreover, while BP continuously tries to make statements about stopping the oil leak and minimizing the spill (the BP media spin on Jun 9 was there are no oil plumes in the sea and BP will soon be capturing virtually all of the alleged oil leak) and cleaning up the beaches (so while BP may claim little or no oil leaking, the crisis at the beaches is proving them wrong), Allen’s pitch has finally reached the real world that the leak may not be fixed by August but may extend into the fall of 2010. 


Some analysts even argue that the oil spill can go beyond the fall to who knows when (a Jun 7 news report suggests that oil is coming from several different places on the seabed which enormously complicates things; and the latest on Jun 8 is another off shore leak—at the Ocean Saratoga or a nearby abandoned drill hole which has been leaking since Apr 30).  On the matter of the cleanup of the beaches, Allen has finally reached the real world that this thing will take many long years.  The problem is awesome.


Too, last week’s Goldsmiths, Part CXLIV, assessed the Gulf Oil Spill in the context of the vast damages involved to people and businesses and the certainty of a huge number of lawsuits suing any and all parties to the maximum extent possible.  The losses to people and businesses will be catastrophic in the multiplied billions if not trillions of dollars.  Lawyers are already flocking to the Gulf coast trying to get their share of the coming lawsuits and some big jury awards. 


This Goldsmiths will continue that theme with a focus on how the losses and lawsuits may proceed to temporarily bring down the Rothschild Cabal control over the financial markets.  Here, the reader may ponder how in the world the BP oil crisis in the Gulf could affect the Rothschild Cabal of bankers in their continuous manipulation of the American financial markets.  Surely, many will say the two issues cannot connect.  But here, evidence will be presented showing that indeed there is a linkage. 


As outlined in the Goldsmiths 144, US law limits the liabilities of oil companies in a spill like this one to $75 million in non-clean up costs (assuming no loop holes); but with companies facing the full impact of clean up costs.  So all the Obama talk about making BP pay may be limited to $75 million plus clean up costs.  Of course, clean up costs will be enormous and possibly even bankrupt BP.  But otherwise, BP’s losses will be very limited which the president may not fully understand. 


In 2009, BP bought and paid Extortionist Politicians for Protection


But the Goldsmiths 144 had another little revelation which almost no one wants to talk about for fear of embarrassing Obama and the other politicians who have been taking money from BP.  While some may think that BP was stupid and wrong, everyone must wake up to the real world that money pay offs to politicians can bring huge benefits/rewards.  Thus, in 2009, BP paid Obama $one million and some $15.9 million to other politicians--both Democrat and Republican--per a Reuters report on May 5 (surely, BP was busy making payoffs in prior years as well as this is routine for vested interests to pay off politicians). 


Some could build a case that the payoffs to politicians are made because of threats/danger from politicians who run an extortion racket demanding that people or businesses wanting protection or government benefits must make these payments (making pay offs and bribes to politicians is just a matter of doing business in the US).  So, as noted in the Goldsmiths 144, it was this payoff to Obama which may have prompted him on March 31, just before the oil spill, to announce that he was greatly expanding off shore drilling operations (per CNN and a story in the Apr 1 Washington Post). 


Also, there could be other benefits from this money BP paid to Obama and the other Washington politicians, as will now be addressed.  So while the Obama administration does not want any publicity or public knowledge or discussion about the BP pay offs, some news has leaked out in conjunction with some real world facts suggesting that indeed BP was massively rewarded and benefited by making these “intelligent” business payments to the Obama team in 2009. 


In order for an oil company to drill in off shore waters, the company has to go thru a long, drawn out and costly process of getting a lease and permit from the US government (via the Mineral Management Service [MMS] of the US Department of the Interior and be subject to US oversight and monitoring).  But somehow, the law allows the government to waive and by pass some of the required procedures. 


So after shelling out millions to Obama and the other conscientious politicians, BP went thru the process and received waivers on safety and environmental damage issues (although there is some question about which permits/waivers were granted by the Bush team and which by Obama; possibly Bush issued the overall lease and waiver in 2008 to Transocean while Obama apparently issued an individual permit and waiver to BP for the Deepwater Horizon site in 2009-2010).  In any case, the BP investments/bribes paid off. 


This real world situation has prompted some of Obama’s supporters on the left to be angry.  In particular, environmentalists have had some sharp criticism and complaints as revealed in a May 24 article from on “Despite Gulf Disaster, Seven New Drilling Permits Issued” which cited data from the New York Times.  Per the story, government regulators have been criticized for giving BP’s Deepwater Horizon and hundreds of other drilling projects waivers from full environmental review and for failing to provide rigorous oversight of these projects (as will be shown below, Obama at a May 27 news conference admitted the issuance of permits/waivers to BP).


President Obama, reacting to these complaints, has been voicing mock frustration with the regulators and vowing to change how they operate.  Mr. Obama announced on May 14 a moratorium on drilling new wells and the granting of environmental waivers and said:  “It seems as if permits were too often issued based on little more than assurances of safety from the oil companies.  That cannot and will not happen anymore.” 


But the cited article also indicates regulators continued (after May 14) granting the environmental waivers and permits for types of work like that occurring on the Deepwater Horizon.  This suggests that President Obama may not be truthful with the American people on the subject or may not be really in charge of things. 


With this backdrop in mid May, the pressure began building up.  And of course, the president has taken the stance that he is responsible for everything that happened since Apr 20; but the events happening were because of the failures and wrong actions of others and not him.  It is not totally clear whose ass that Obama intends to kick, but as a minimum, he has been going after BP, the Bush administration and people in the MMS for being too close/connected to oil companies. 


By May 27, some things began to unravel. had a story on May 27 that Chris Oynes, MMS Associate Director for Offshore Energy and Minerals Management would step down and retire effective May 31 as he had come under fire for being too close to the industry officials he regulated.  On the same day, MMS Director Elizabeth Birnbaum departed. had a story on May 28 which put her problem in perspective with this headline:  Gulf Oil Spill After-effects: Elizabeth Birnbaum Fired or Resigned? 


The consensus was that Obama appointee Birnbaum was told to resign (this action suggests that Elizabeth, under Obama’s supervision, did in some way issue permits or waivers to BP as well as failing to exercise oversight on permits and waivers issued by the Bush team). 


Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has been on record that there is a cozy relationship between people in MMS and the oil industry and that he will clean house.  Evidently, the departures of Obama appointee Birnbaum and Oynes was a part of the Salazar cleaning house operation.  With this backdrop, the President had a press conference on May 27.  Among other things, he said:


“… The American people should know that from the moment this disaster began, the federal government has been in charge of the response effort.  As far as I’m concerned, BP is responsible for this horrific disaster, and we will hold them fully accountable on behalf of the United States as well as the people and communities victimized by this tragedy.  We will demand that they pay every dime they owe for the damage they’ve done and the painful losses that they’ve caused.  And we will continue to take full advantage of the unique technology and expertise they have to help stop this leak.  But make no mistake: BP is operating at our direction.  Every key decision and action they take must be approved by us in advance.


“… When Secretary Salazar took office, he found a Minerals and Management Service that had been plagued by corruption for years –- this was the agency charged with not only providing permits, but also enforcing laws governing oil drilling.  And the corruption was underscored by a recent Inspector General’s report that covered activity which occurred prior to 2007 -- a report that can only be described as appalling.  And Secretary Salazar immediately took steps to clean up that corruption.  But this oil spill has made clear that more reforms are needed.  For years, there has been a scandalously close relationship between oil companies and the agency that regulates them.  That’s why we’ve decided to separate the people who permit the drilling from those who regulate and ensure the safety of the drilling.”


In the question and answer session, Steve Thomma asked about dispatching equipment to the Gulf.  In his reply, the president said:


“… I think there was a lack of anticipating what the worst-case scenarios would be.  And that's a problem.  And part of that problem was lodged in MMS and the way that that agency was structured.  That was the agency in charge of providing permitting and making decisions in terms of where drilling could take place, but also in charge of enforcing the safety provisions.  And as I indicated before, the IG report, the Inspector General’s report that came out, was scathing in terms of the problems there. 


“And when Ken Salazar came in, he cleaned a lot of that up.  But more needed to be done, and more needs to be done, which is part of the reason why he separated out the permitting function from the functions that involve enforcing the various safety regulations.  But I think on a whole bunch of fronts, you had a complacency when it came to what happens in the worst-case scenario. 


“I'll give you another example, because this is something that some of you have written about -- the question of how is it that oil companies kept on getting environmental waivers in getting their permits approved.  Well, it turns out that the way the process works, first of all, there is a thorough environmental review as to whether a certain portion of the Gulf should be leased or not.  That’s a thorough-going environmental evaluation.  Then the overall lease is broken up into segments for individual leases, and again there’s an environmental review that’s done. 


“But when it comes to a specific company with its exploration plan in that one particular area -- they’re going to drill right here in this spot -- Congress mandated that only 30 days could be allocated before a yes or no answer was given.  That was by law.  So MMS’s hands were tied.  And as a consequence, what became the habit, predating my administration, was you just automatically gave the environmental waiver, because you couldn’t complete an environmental study in 30 days.” 


Chip Reid asked the following:


“Thank you, Mr. President… with regard to the Minerals Management Service, Secretary Salazar yesterday basically blamed the Bush administration for the cozy relationship there, and you seemed to suggest that when you spoke in the Rose Garden a few weeks ago when you said, for too long, a decade or more -- most of those years, of course, the Bush administration -- there’s been a cozy relationship between the oil companies and the federal agency that permits them to drill.  But you knew as soon as you came in, and Secretary Salazar did, about this cozy relationship, but you continued to give permits -- some of them under questionable circumstances.  Is it fair to blame the Bush administration?  Don't you deserve some of that?” 


The President replied:  “Well, let me just make the point that I made earlier, which is Salazar came in and started cleaning house, but the culture had not fully changed in MMS.  And absolutely I take responsibility for that.  There wasn’t sufficient urgency in terms of the pace of how those changes needed to take place.  There’s no evidence that some of the corrupt practices that had taken place earlier took place under the current administration’s watch.  But a culture in which oil companies were able to get what they wanted without sufficient oversight and regulation -- that was a real problem.  Some of it was constraints of the law, as I just mentioned, but we should have busted through those constraints.”


The essence of the above is that the president admits that the government has screwed up but he blames the Bush administration.  He says he is now doing things right and that his appointee Salazar has or is cleaning house at MMS and ending the “corrupt practices” and “cozy relationship” between MMS and the oil companies.  This admission by Obama and Salazar, of corruption and a cozy relationship between oil companies and government regulators in the Department of Interior, is prima facie evidence of corruption and conspiracy at a very high level involving oil companies and government regulators to violate laws and defraud the American people. 


As far as the so-called excuse by Obama—that the law only allows a thirty-day review process when more time is needed prompted regulators to just blindly issue waivers and ignore the legal demands for the review process to insure safety standards—it is pretty flimsy and it’s hard to imagine that an intelligent person would respond with that absurdity.  The truth is that Obama and his predecessors could always go to Congress and have the time for the reviews extended if that was the case. 


Well, as far as I can tell, none of them ever tried to change the law and the American people were operating on the premise that the law was being obeyed.  In other words, the American people were being lied to and deceived that the law was being complied with when in fact it was being ignored (to primarily benefit the big oil companies owned by the Rothschilds and Roggenfelders/Rockefellers; although by now, perhaps both the Rothschilds and Roggenfelders have bailed out of BP.  News reports said Goldman Sachs sold much of their BP holdings some two weeks before the spill happened). 


Finally, Obama should acquaint himself with the allowance for overtime work or the hiring of additional staff people in order to meet deadlines.  Surely, in drilling a mile below the surface of the water, there must be some concern over safety and environmental questions.  Per Obama, there was no concern and they simply closed their eyes and granted waivers for BP to proceed without meeting safety concerns. 


A Contrary View


Although not discussed by Obama, it is factual that it was the Obama administration, and as a minimum Obama appointee Elizabeth Birnbaum, which issued the individual authorization to BP to drill and waived the environmental requirements (although the overall lease, permit and waiver may have been issued by Bush in 2008 to Transocean).  Of course, the incompetent Bush was involved.  But Obama can’t now blame Bush for his own lack of oversight and monitoring of the situation.  Regardless, the president is on record that the US government failed to obey the law and issued a drilling permit (evidently both the overall lease perhaps by Bush and individual permits mentioned above by Obama) to BP with waivers and without providing any review or monitoring of the BP actions. 


A blog at on a May 18 article by Jake Sherman on the oil spill under a microscope said:  “The MMS is a government agency under the control of Obama.  Obama cannot separate himself from the role of MMS in this matter and he is ultimately responsible for the successes or failure of that agency.  Obama appointed S. Elizabeth Birnbaum to be the head of that agency in 2009.  It was Obama's MMS that gave BP a waiver on April 6, 2009 that exempted BP from EPA requirements.  It was Obama's MMS that gave BP permission to drill that well without a NOAA permit.  It was Obama's MMS that decided in 2009 that an acoustically-control(l)ed shut-off valve (BOP) would not be required as a last resort against underwater spills at the site.


“It was the Obama administration that dithered when this episode first started, and that seems to have led to a much more devastating incident.  Obama did not address the issue for more than a week because he was busy traveling around complaining about an Arizona immigration enforcement law that he had not read, and he had fund raising dinners to attend.  Obama's EPA head couldn't address the issue for more than a week because she was busy attending Earth Day events all over the country and appearing on the Daily Show with John Stewart.  I guess practicing those jokes for the comedy program that she was a part of was more important that coordining (sic) the government’s efforts to mitigate the damage from the oil leak. 


“The government had plans in place to address an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that were included in legislation and regulations passed in 1986, 1990, 1994 and later.  NOAA had the ‘In-Situ-Burn’ plan that was developed in 1994 to respond to this type of incident.  The 1994 plan included a burn waiver that would have allowed responders to immediately begin burning off oil without having to go through the 10 day plus federal permit process.  Did Obama implement the ‘In-Situ-Burn’ plan? No! 


“The burn plan was not implemented because the government did not own a fire resistant oil boom.  The booms only cost a few hundred thousand dollars each, and one boom is capable of burning 75,000 gallons of oil an hour or 1,800,000 gallons a day.  The Gulf of Mexico was calm enough to use the booms for the first 3 days of the incident, and one boom could have burned 5.4 million gallons of oil during that 3 day period.”


I have been unable to verify the above from, but assuming the facts are right, Obama is primarily responsible for the oil spill and not BP or Bush.  Therefore, is it possible that the $one million BP gave Obama paid off?  As a minimum, there was corruption and conspiracy to defraud the American people present as allowed by both Obama and Salazar.  


A Revisit to the Lawsuits


Based on the above facts, it is clear that while BP will have to pay out huge clean up costs, BP is otherwise limited to $75 million which is almost nothing in comparison with the billions/trillions of dollars in damages to the people and businesses along the Gulf coast.  And as this thing spreads up the US eastern coast, these damages could accelerate to incredible heights.


As I told subscribers at, if I was a smart lawyer, I wouldn’t waste time on BP, I’d concentrate on the source of the problem which does have deep pockets—the US government.  While BP has been taking the blame by hostile remarks from Obama, their position will change once the court cases start going beyond the $75 million (which will be very soon).  BP is going to logically blame the Bush-Obama Administrations/US government. 


In a way, we have had a RICO type conspiracy involving BP, probably Transocean, and the Bush/Obama Administration people.  BP made payoffs to the politicians (which clearly can be construed as bribes made for protection from extortion).  The Bush/Obama people delivered by granting BP waivers to needed safety requirements and proceeded to issue the drilling permits (possibly Bush issued the overall lease to Transocean with Obama issuing the individual permits and waivers to BP since Obama appointee Elizabeth Birnbaum was involved). 


Then to make matters worse, the Obama administration made no follow-up, supervision or reviews to insure that safety and environmental needs were met with Deepwater Horizon.  Even if the original overall lease/permit was issued in 2008, during the Bush years, Obama had a follow up duty which he clearly failed to discharge with due care and with the presence of prima facie conspiracy.  This opens the door to a civil action for damages in Federal Court and perhaps a further RICO cause of action based on evidence of corruption and conspiracy by the government regulators and the oil companies to violate laws and defraud the American people.  The matter of BP paying off Obama and the other politicians seems pretty strong evidence of corruption and conspiracy.  There even could be some huge class action suits over this matter. 


In filing a RICO civil action, it seems plausible that BP, Transocean and the government/Interior/individually responsible people may be named as defendants.  BP of course might plead for a dismissal based on the $75 million cap (which may or may not work).  But the government/Interior should logically remain.  While Obama can blame Bush, the truth is that the US government/Department of Interior and/or the people responsible individually would seem to be liable.  While there might be a question of suing Bush/Obama personally (because of court granted presidential immunity), petitioners may perhaps go after the government/Interior/the Bush-Obama conspiratorial agents and workers like Birnbaum, Oynes, etc. 


When these cases go before US juries, can you imagine what type of judgments will ensue?  I can speculate that juries may award millions/billions to the various petitioners. 


While the above should not be construed as legal advice for others, it is what I would do if I was so injured.  People living in the Gulf area and damaged by the suggested government-oil companies conspiracy and corruption should contact a competent lawyer and raise questions about their options for restitution. 


A recent Lawyer Move


The web site of Newsome Law Firm of Orlando, Florida ( had this article:  BP Oil Spill Lawsuits Target U.S. Department of Interior, dated May 26.  It said:


“On top of the 100 lawsuits already filed against British Petroleum, Transocean, Halliburton and Cameron, Inc., the Sierra Club and Gulf Restoration Network have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Interior's Mineral Management Service (MMS). The lawsuit asserts that MMS contributed to the disaster because of lax enforcement of existing regulations.  MMS waived several safety regulations regarding oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, according to the lawsuit.  The organization allegedly did not insist on documentation that required companies to explain their plan to handle a ‘worst-case scenario.’  The lawsuit notes that federal law calls for this documentation before any approval of exploratory offshore drilling.


“MMS issued the wavier in 2008 with validity through 2013.  It excuses the oil companies that have drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico from presenting their blowout scenarios and response plans.  In the meantime, several Louisiana coastal parishes have filed lawsuits against BP, seeking compensation for harm to wildlife caused by the oil spill.  St. Tammany and Terrebonne Parish filed the initial lawsuits and other parishes have their own legal actions under consideration.  The state Conservation Fund and the district attorney’s office would split any money received from the lawsuits. 


“…  Even though BP has already paid claims to businesses and people harmed by the oil spill, these amounts could be miniscule compared to the major class-action cases that involve thousands of plaintiffs in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida and Texas.  These plaintiffs include fishermen, shrimpers, seafood processors, restaurants, hotels for tourists and property owners. Most of these businesses have suspended their operations since the oil spill. They will lose money and possibly face the permanent loss of their livelihood. 


“If you own or operate property or a business that has been affected by the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, contact Newsome Law Firm and fill out a case evaluation form today.  Our team of attorneys has experience specific to complications associated with environmental disasters.  Not only can they give you the legal guidance you need, they can help you get the compensation you deserve.”  By the way, in mentioning Newsome, please be advised that I have no connections with this firm or any law firm that might be involved. 


The Bottom Line


It doesn’t matter whether there was incompetence and wrong actions by the Bush Administration and/or the Obama Administration, the government/Interior/people involved can be made to appear in court and answer civil complaints and especially based on allegations of RICO in connection with damages suffered.  So while it may end up that it will be hard to get anything from BP (beyond the $75 million), unless criminal charges stick in some manner to allow attachment of liability, the government and government people involved can likely be made to answer.


Now what has this got to do with the Rothschild Cabal of bankers manipulating the financial markets to also conspiratorially rip off and defraud the American people.  On this, let me suggest that hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars in court judgments coming against the US government and/or against its official employees could bring on a huge adverse foreign reaction.  If there is not already hundreds of good reasons for foreigners to abandon and flee the US dollar and US debt, hundreds or thousands of hostile court judgments could completely shake up the entire US financial markets. 


All along, for two years now, I have been suggesting a loss of Cabal control as being the catalyst to bring on the demise of the dollar and dollar assets with huge offsetting gains in commodities, to include gold and silver.  While a true natural disaster, crop loss, internal terrorist attack and/or the US attack on Iran must still be on the table for this course, we can logically also look to a number of losing lawsuits to upset the status quo of the dollar and US debt.  This could be the instrument to bring the dollar down and end its manipulation by the Cabal bankers.  With any appreciable loss of Cabal control over the US financial markets, gold and silver will look great. 




Back issues of the Goldsmiths, by the editor of the Analysis of News, can be accessed from a Google or Yahoo search engine by typing in “R. D. Bradshaw” Goldsmiths.  Several hundred web sites can be found with the back issues and with translations to Spanish, Italian, German, Dutch, Polish, Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian, Serbian, and other foreign languages.  Finally, the “Archives-Goldsmiths” of this website ( ) has all of the Goldsmith articles issued to date. 


Besides the revelations contained in the Goldsmiths’ articles, the work of the plutocratic financial market manipulators to conspiratorially manipulate and control the financial markets (to make more profits and install a world government under their management) is also addressed at length in the periodic analysis of the news and in other articles produced at  This website has an article of interest to any person interested in understanding the market Manipulators.  It is the Hidden Secret of the Manipulators, why they succeed and how to follow their manipulations. 


Readers of the above articles are invited to visit and become a subscriber to regularly read some of the material from the world of information which will further reveal how extensive the manipulation, control and dishonesty realities are in the financial, currency and commodity markets, not only in the US but indeed around the world. 


To go to the Home Page of this web site, click here:


-- Posted Friday, 11 June 2010 | Digg This Article | Source:


Increase Text SizeDecrease Text SizeE-mail Link of Current PagePrinter Friendly PageReturn to >> Story

E-mail Page  | Print  | Disclaimer 

© 1995 - 2019 Supports

©, Gold Seek LLC

The content on this site is protected by U.S. and international copyright laws and is the property of and/or the providers of the content under license. By "content" we mean any information, mode of expression, or other materials and services found on This includes editorials, news, our writings, graphics, and any and all other features found on the site. Please contact us for any further information.

Live GoldSeek Visitor Map | Disclaimer


The views contained here may not represent the views of, Gold Seek LLC, its affiliates or advertisers., Gold Seek LLC makes no representation, warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy or completeness of the information (including news, editorials, prices, statistics, analyses and the like) provided through its service. Any copying, reproduction and/or redistribution of any of the documents, data, content or materials contained on or within this website, without the express written consent of, Gold Seek LLC, is strictly prohibited. In no event shall, Gold Seek LLC or its affiliates be liable to any person for any decision made or action taken in reliance upon the information provided herein.