[StBernard] Murphy Oil will pay millions for releasing

[Westley Annis]

"I thought we were in favor of less government regulation, not more. Why
isn't anyone sticking up for Murphy? --Richard"

Jer responds: Yes, less government interaction if at all possible, yes.

HOWEVER, and about any conservative would agree:  The main focus for
non-action is action. The country's first mission besides the defender of
the constitution is the preservation of human life.

Oil companies are huge (especially those that are foreign-bred or bought and
sold). Venezuela, for example or BP.  Since everyone hates lawyers,
insurance companies and governments, there is the little man who can't fight
for his privilege to remain safe alone.  Insurance companies, of course will
be sued by attorneys. 

The federal government's laws must protect us from big-money pollution,
because they have huge amounts of high-end attorneys. 

The PEOPLE according to the constitution must elect responsible
representatives in our REPUBLIC  (Not Democracy) who will stand up for us
and ensue laws which will protect us from carcinogens. 

Remember, a nation whose government governs least, governs best.  However, a
Republic cannot act in a vacuum and MUST bear the responsibility for
protection of the masses (at any cost). To vacate the government totally is
create either pure communism (after Utopia is achieved and the "state
withers away" to allow us total freedom to "prance" or dally through the
tulips;

Or anarchy, which leaves NO government, but an eventual push with a power
struggle at some point to dictatorship or monarchy. 

Therefore,  if Murphy, BP or any entity is attempting to bypass legislation
(EPA passed by Congress),  ignores the rule of law, or ignores the deaths of
people (-and some people want to eliminate class-action, insurance
companies, slick-tongued lawyers, etc.),  sticking up for irresponsible
corps is failing the people as well. 

The main focus is on safety and defense of the constitution of American
Citizens at any cost.  

Example: That's what's happening with the borders presently: the government
stays out of the way and without support to protect the country from
illegals and dangerous criminals.  We therefore compromise lives of the good
for the benefit of evil or unjust. And it is unjust to ignore law-breakers
from getting into the country (no matter what the socialists love to do to
change the demographic and political balance of the political spectrum of
numbers).

Yes, less government regulation is best, but always back-seat to safety. A
delicate balance, perhaps.

--jer--

-----------------------------------------------------
I thought we were in favor of less government regulation, not more. Why
isn't anyone sticking up for Murphy?
Richard