BEARWITNESS     MAIN     BEAR MINIMUM     EDUCATION     ACTION ALERTS     OF CURRENT INTEREST     BIRTH CERTIFICATE     SOCIALISM     ABOUT US     CONTACT US     LINKS AND PARTNERS      
SORO'S OIL SPILL PAYOFF

Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling ...Obama Administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil.

Even though President Obama is against offshore drilling for our country, he signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayer dollars (which we can't afford to loan since we're broke) to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil! The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use
of China and NOT THE USA !

Now here's the real clincher...the Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels"..

We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever!

Wait, it gets more interesting.

Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as upset as I am. Not a word of this transaction was broadcast on any of the other news networks! Are they doing their job? Think about it.   Posted by FairLady

 

Soros’s Oil Spill Payoff

 Posted by Tait Trussell on Jun 22nd, 2010,  FrontPage.

 

Within 48 hours after President Obama issued the six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling, the George Soros-backed Brazilian oil company, Petrobras, contacted a large New Orleans company, Laborde Marine, which services the deep-water drilling market. The company was seeking to lease all its vessels.

 

“If the moratorium on deep-water drilling is not lifted, 33 semi-submersible rigs and/or drill ships affected will simply go to other countries where they will be well received, such as Brazil,” Cliffe F. Laborde and J. Peter Laborde, Jr. wrote in a June 4 letter to their Louisiana Senators.

Could this be merely a happy coincidence for George Soros, the major financial backer of Obama’s presidential campaign who also has $811 million invested in the Brazilian oil company, Petrobras? Wasn’t it enough of a payback to Soros when the Obama Administration loaned up to $10 billion to Petrobras? Soros, with his far left-wing organization, MoveOn, is called the Godfather of world socialism. But most relevant currently is that he has been an enthusiastic proponent of global warming and environmental liberalism. He has urged adoption of a global carbon tax. Could it be more than coincidence that his position is strikingly similar to what Obama called for in his June 14 Oval Office speech on the Gulf oil spill and future energy actions?

“Seizing on the widening calamity in the Gulf of Mexico, to push for legislation he had advocated [a carbon tax] since his campaign” a New York Times article noted. “Mr. Obama said he was willing to look for approaches from Republicans as well as Democrats….” Obama delivered the speech the evening before he was to meet with British Petroleum top executives to demand that they agree to the creation of a multi-billion dollar escrow account to pay claims stemming from the disaster when the company’s rig blew up and spewed oil into the Gulf.

The moratorium could mean the loss of at least 20,000 jobs, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal wrote in a letter to Obama. “The last thing we need is to enact public policies that will certainly destroy thousands of existing jobs while preventing the creation of thousands more,” Jindal’s statement said. Each drilling platform idled by the ban puts 1,400 jobs at risk, according to the National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA), a group of drillers and companies that support oil production. Lost wages could reach $10 million a month for each rig, according to Jangal. NOIA has said: ”The offshore industry is responsible for nearly 200,000 jobs in the Gulf of Mexico alone, and provides 30 percent of our nation’s domestic oil production….[W]e must be careful not to make things worse.”

 

The Labordes, in their letter to their senators, wrote: “To shut down the entire industry is overkill and analogous to shutting down all commercial air traffic after one plane crash due to pilot error.” The Labordes also wrote,

Over the last three years, we have built in U.S. shipyards or acquired new U.S. built and flagged vessels primarily designed to service the deep water drilling market. We own and/or operate 21 vessels. Our annual payroll is over $14 million. Now, the U.S. government is telling us to simply ‘park’ our vessels for at least six months. Never in the history of the United States has the government decided to shut down an entire industry for six months. That decision seems to be a knee-jerk reaction based on an emotional response to the spill, and made without a full appreciation of the consequences which will adversely impact tens of thousands of hard working people who are engaged in the industry. It is a decision that advances the Administration’s agenda for transferring to a clean/alternative energy economy, but at an enormous cost to the thousands of us engaged in offshore exploration and development.

If the moratorium on deep water drilling is not lifted, the 33 semi-submergible rigs and/or drill ships will simply go to other countries where they will be well received [and] will not return to the Gulf of Mexico for years if ever. The damage to our industry will be irreversible….For us to move internationally, we will have to compete with vessels built in foreign yards at a much lower cost and often subsidized by foreign governments. It will not be a level playing field. The moratorium may well be the death-knell for U.S. businesses engaged in the energy service sector….While alternative energy is a laudable goal, it will be decades before alternative fuels make a dent in our county’s needs….This is the United States of America, where reason and sound judgment have always been the foundation of our system of government—not poorly thought-out and capricious reactions that destroy the livelihoods of thousands of its citizens in order to promote a partisan political agenda….”

By siding with liberal Democrats who oppose off-shore drilling or even much safer drilling on the continent, Obama is costing the nation trillions in revenues and scores of thousands of new jobs. Meanwhile, his pal and sponsor, George Soros will see his investment in Brazil’s Petrobras turn a pretty profit when oil prices rise, as surely they will if U.S. resources are not tapped. The American Petroleum Institute estimates that we have U.S. resources to generate nearly 160,000 new, well-paying jobs and $1.7 trillion in revenues to federal, state, and local governments, with $1.3 trillion from offshore drilling alone.

 

 

The Real Cost of Obama's Drill Ban

Tuesday, June 22, 2010
By Glenn Beck

 
 
 
 
Obama Declares War on Spill

Thursday, June 17, 2010
By Glenn Beck

We're entering a new phase, gang, and you're seeing it played out in the media right now. We are no longer being nudged to get in line. You are getting shoved.

 

There's a war being fought and it isn't against the oil spill, it's a war on your very way of life. The words I'm hearing in the media right now are some of the most shocking words I've ever heard. And they call me crazy? I'm going to play some of the clips for you tonight — you won't believe it — but first I want to look at the president's address on the BP spill.

They're comparing it to Jimmy Carter's "crisis of confidence" speech, where Carter was his usual inept, wimpy self. No, Obama didn't blow it; he did exactly what he wanted to. This speech was a declaration of war — listen to the language:

 

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The one approach I will not accept is inaction. The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is somehow too big and too difficult to meet. You know, the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II.

 

And this one:

 

OBAMA: I've returned from a trip to the Gulf Coast to speak with you about the battle we're waging against an oil spill that is assaulting our shores and our citizens.... Tonight I'd like to lay out for you what our battle plan is going forward.

 

Battle plan; assault on our shores; World War II — George Stephanopolous described it as "martial language":

 

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC: Those Oval Office addresses are often used when the nation is at war and tonight the president used martial language. He talked about a "siege," the "assault on our shores" and his "battle plan" to fix it. And he said we have to "rally together." And I think what the White House was reaching for tonight is the feel of Franklin Roosevelt during World War II and those fireside chats. And the president even said that during World War II they said we couldn't build enough planes and tanks, but we did. We can beat this as well.

Make no mistake, this was a war speech.

It was Obama's first speech from the Oval Office as president. Presidents usually only give an address from the Oval Office for extremely unusual events, like major economic news, addressing a tragedy or an announcement of war.

Don't get me wrong: This oil spill is a disaster. It's an actual crisis, not a manufactured one like health care. But remember, it's Obama who went on national TV to plead for the passage of the stimulus bill, because America may not make it if it doesn't pass and he didn't use the Oval Office for that one.

 

So the complete and total collapse of America doesn't warrant a speech from the Oval Office, but an oil spill that the president has waited months to address (and golfed six times and went to McCartney concerts in the meantime) suddenly does?

 

Why is Obama declaring war on the oil spill? As usual, the answer is found in history. This speech may as well have been given by Woodrow Wilson or FDR. Progressives need a crisis with the moral equivalent to war to pass unpopular bills. That's not my theory — remember, it was Woodrow Wilson propaganda specialist Edward Bernays who was so excited about how well their war propaganda worked that he wanted to expand the idea:

 

"It was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda during the war that opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments of life to the possibilities of regimenting the public mind. It was only natural after the war ended that intelligent persons should ask themselves whether it was not possible to apply a similar technique to the problems of peace."

 

Bernays was an incredibly influential man. He was mentioned in diaries of Goebbels. The Nazis learned propaganda from us. It was the emergency propaganda that led Jews to the ovens: Jews were causing problems, they'd take over banks according to them. Some of the worst villains in all of history have used the idea of propaganda the way the American Bernays (under Woodrow Wilson) intended it to be used. It's a progressive tactic and it works on both manufactured and real crisis. Because if there is a crisis, people will say "you've got to do something!"

 

George W. Bush, a progressive, put the massive Patriot Act through after Sept. 11. It was easy; we had to do something against a foreign enemy. And so we created the Department of Homeland Security and we took off our shoes and our belts and we believed it. We believed Bush was going to keep us safe. Until we didn't fix our borders, then we realized it wasn't really about protecting us, it was about something else. It was about big government and control. It didn't feel right.

 

As president, one of the first things Obama did was change the name "War on Terror" to an "overseas contingency operation." He said there is no War on Terror or Islamic extremism. But now he's announcing a war on an oil slick. Again, it doesn't feel right.

We saw on the border, if the government really wanted to protect us, they would stop the flood of illegal immigrants first. And if this were really about stopping the oil spill, before talking about energy taxes and cap-and-trade and solar panels, you'd stop the oil. It's called a tourniquet!

 

Obama says this is a war, yet he's only meeting with the CEO of BP for 20 minutes? The people on his "commission" know almost nothing about oil wells, except for the fact that they are activists who want to stop offshore drilling.

 

Fran Beinecke, the head of the White House National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, has no oil experience, but she is the president of the Natural Resources Defense Council and has publicly voiced opposition to traditional energy sources.

 

The president is using this to gain power, to take advantage of crisis and use it to jam through legislation that otherwise would never have a chance. And right now, the things progressives want have no chance. Leading Democrats are saying there is no political will to pass the climate bill. Obama wants to do what he believes is right: Pass the climate bill. But he can't. If he just had some people to help force him do what he believes is right. Wait, where have I heard that before? Oh yes, from the communists and the socialists.

 

Remember the video we showed you from the progressive America's Future Now conference? They were throwing stuff at Nancy Pelosi because they are upset. Van Jones told the crowd that the president is on your side, he really wants to do things — but he needs the will of the people behind him! So you have to start from the bottom up

 

 

VAN JONES, FORMER WHITE HOUSE GREEN JOBS "CZAR": This week will mark an historic inflection point when progressives decided to be progressive again in this country.

 

So now your challenge, as you leave here — our challenge — is to take care of that bottom-up part and that inside-out part: the heart part. That's where we're weak now.

 

He can't go it alone. He needs an atmosphere that allows the president to know what he is doing is right. Got it? And Van Jones said at that conference that something has changed. Even the people at CNBC are noticing something's wrong:

 

MATT NESTO, CNBC: But I'm very troubled by the fact that the president has once again created his own sense of, of a legal system…. It's not his job to create laws. It's his job to enforce laws.

 

That's CNBC noticing something is wrong. But the president couldn't get that to happen unless those who want fundamental transformation to start creating the conditions where president can do what he knows is right.

Rosie O'Donnell is out there calling for government to seize BP:

 

ROSIE O'DONNELL: I say seize their assets... right now. Seize their assets today. Take over the country, I don't care. Issue an executive order and say, BP, guess what? Call it socialism. Call it communism. Call it anything you want. Let's watch Rush Limbaugh explode on TV. Seize the assets, take over BP.

 

MSNBC, the same network who has called me crazy for suggesting that we are heading down a big government road that could eventually lead to a dictator — maybe the next president, maybe not Obama, but down the road — well, listen to this:

 

ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC: Mr. President, I want to see the boot on the neck of BP tonight. I want to see some finger-pointing whether it's in your personality or not. And it's OK tonight to act kind of like a dictator and call the shots, saying this is the way it's going to be.

 

Don't you think this is a moment where President Obama has to make sure that he lets everybody know that he's calling the shots, and almost in words of maybe a dictator, that this is the way we're going to do it?

 

They are calling for him to act like a dictator? I get in hot water for showing how we are expanding government so much that if the wrong guy gets in there we'll have a dictator. But MSNBC can literally demand that the president start being a dictator and there's crickets?

 

Everyone is saying that the president is in trouble because he's lost MSNBC, the thrill up the leg network. Yes, this is exactly as designed by Van Jones and other progressives at the America's Future Now conference. They're working from the bottom up and creating an environment where fundamental transformation can take place. And they are using every device they can.

 

Time Magazine and everyone else ridiculed me as Howard Beale. They said he was dangerous, crazy. But now MSNBC is now touting Dylan Ratigan as Howard Beale. In a profile interview, Ratigan was asked about being an "angry anchorman" like Beale — and the interviewer said the host was "happy to acknowledge" that: "We need that guy from 'Network.' At some point somebody has to walk in the room and be like, 'None of you are solving the problem!'"

 

Isn't it amazing that the media is now calling for an angry, forceful Howard Beale-like character from the president, just to get things done? One host is actually calling for a dictator. The media doesn't seem to have a problem with the president making up his own laws. As it always is in history with progressives, they're never responsible for their own problems.