Environmentalists are again calling foul after the announcement of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar that the Obama Administration has approved the expansion in coal mining and four new permits for deepwater offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The increased coal production could cause U.S. climate pollution to rise by more than 50 percent, Glenn Hurowitz, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, has claimed that the expansion of the coal production could increase pollution by more than 50 percent.
As noted below, environmentalist are noting that the expansion occurring after a recent Harvard study found the country’s dependence on coal “costs taxpayers about $345 billion a year in medical bills for health problems and pollution that occur in and around mining communities and power plants.”
Once again, larger environmental groups appear to be relatively silent over such changes — as opposed to their more vocal opposition to the same policies by Bush. Environmentalists appear to be having the same division as other liberal groups in opposing Obama. Civil libertarians remain the most vocal and opposed to Obama among traditionally liberal groups.
Source: Mother Earth News
Uh, the loan process was started further back than that, so if it was true 18 months ago and it’s still true now.
You really are a simple creature.
18 months ago it might have been fact.
Are you kidding me. You want to give me something from 2009 and think nothing has changed because it’s from fact check.
Sources
Export-Import Bank of the United States. “Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans for Petrobras’ Brazilian Offshore Oil Exploration and Development.” 20 Aug 2009, acccessed 17 Sep 2009.
“Ex-Im Bank Chairman Fred Hochberg in Brazil to Promote Financing for Purchases of U.S. Exports.” News Release. Export-Import Bank of the United States. 29 Jul 2009.
Kishan, Saijel and Andres R. Martinez. “George Soros Cut Petrobras Stake in Second Quarter.” Bloomberg.com. 14 Aug 2009.
Posted by Brooks Jackson on Friday, September 18, 2009 at 9:39 am
Filed under Ask FactCheck · Tagged with Barack Obama, brazil, export-import bank, oil
Yes, your links do speak for themselves. Only what they say is partisan gibberish. Just like most of what you post related to politics, badtroll. So again: With all the legitimate reasons and ways to hammer at Obama’s continuance and furtherance of the Bush illegalities, why do you waste your time with this kind of bullshit?
“Why do you take fact check for gospel.”
Are you serious??
Why do you take fact check for gospel. My links speak for themselves. I didn’t link to an e-mail somebody sent me.
What do you think of the Steven Lerner plan? Are you down with that? We know he’s been in the Whitehouse.
Not only did I vote for Obama, I donated $ and I blogged for him and to help Michelle.
I am totally upset with DOJ under Obama. I have a Privacy Act claim. DOJ filed ““this Court held that PTS records concerning Mrs. Sieverding are exempt from Subsection (e)(7)” “The systems of records the Sieverdings appear to attack in this action – with one exception6 – are the same ones that featured in Sieverding V and are exempt from Subsection (e)(7).”On one occasion, the Sieverdings mention the USMS’s “Automated Booking System” [sic], which is also exempt from Subsection (e)(7).” However, 5 USC 552a is specific in that no system of records can be exempted from e(7) and an e(7) claim does not even require a system of records. [An e(7) claim is unauthorized possession of First Amendment records.]
DOJ also wrote “18 U.S.C. § 242, which forbids “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States,” any such claim fails because they have not asserted that their membership in a protected class was the reason for the alleged deprivation. 18 U.S.C.
§ 242 (requiring that the deprivation be on “account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race”)” That is total B.S. — USDOJ.gov advanced search shows recent DOJ press releases about 18 USC § 242 prosecutions and none of the ones I read even mentioned race at all. Furthermore, we all need protection of 18 U.S.C. § 242. American Jurisprudence describes § 242 as having huge potential rights protection powers.
Yep.
BIL,
Great minds think alike? 🙂
“His, Soro’s and SEIU”
Bogus Brazilian Oil Claims
September 18, 2009
Q: Did Obama loan $2 billion to Brazil’s oil company to benefit China and George Soros?
A: The president had nothing to do with the loan, which the Export-Import Bank approved for Brazil to buy U.S.-made equipment and services.
FULL QUESTION
I received this in an e-mail. Is it true?
Today even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for oil for this country. He signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is 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. The Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil”.
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, Liberal businessman who is a radical left wing supporter, finances MoveOn.org as well as other liberal programs and was President Obama’s largest and most generous 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 on any of the other news networks.
FULL ANSWER
This claim stems from a “preliminary committment” made back on April 14 by the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. The bank intends to loan up to $2 billion to finance exports to the Brazilian oil company Petróleo Brasileiro S.A., known as Petrobras, over the next several years.
The e-mail is false on two counts.
■The message falsely says the decision was due to an “executive order” by the president. No presidential order was required. Furthermore, none of President Obama’s appointees had joined the Ex-Im board at the time of the vote, which was unanimous, and bipartisan. The Ex-Im Bank states: “In fact, at the time the Bank’s Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush.”
■The message falsely claims that “we have absolutely no gain” from the loan. In fact, the loan is being made specifically to finance purchase by Petrobras of U.S.-made oilfield equipment and services. The mission of the Ex-Im Bank is to encourage exports by making such loans.
The bank’s chairman and president, Fred P. Hochberg, underscored the purpose of the loan during a trip to Brazil at the end of July:
Ex-Im Bank President Hochberg, July 29: I chose Brazil as my first international destination for good reason: Brazil is a powerhouse among South American economies and offers tremendous opportunities for U.S. exporters in many sectors. I want Brazilians to know that Ex-Im Bank has the will and the capacity to finance their purchases of U.S. equipment, products and services
Obama appointed Hochberg to the Ex-Im Bank on April 20, nearly a week after the board voted to approve the loan. He was confirmed May 14 and sworn in May 21.
The message claims that George Soros would “benefit most” from the loan, but that is also a baseless accusation. Soros is a favorite whipping boy of conservatives because of his early financial help to the liberal group MoveOn.org. And he is indeed a major investor in Petrobras, through his New York-based hedge-fund firm, Soros Fund Management LLC. But the hedge fund recently sold 22 million shares of common stock in the company (which carry voting rights) while buying 5.8 million shares of preferred stock (which is non-voting.) As reported by Bloomberg News, Soros reduced his stake in the company before any of the Ex-Im Bank’s promised loan has been dispensed.
There is some truth to the claim that China would benefit, but not much. Brazil recently agreed to export 200,000 barrels of oil per day to China in coming years. But that was in return for a loan by China of $10 billion, five times more than the U.S. Ex-Im Bank is lending to finance purchase of U.S. gear.
The Ex-Im Bank also would like it known that no loan has yet been made, and that the “preliminary commitment” could eventually result in either a direct loan or a loan guarantee. Either way, the Ex-Im Bank states, “no taxpayer dollars are involved.” The bank is self-sustaining.
-Brooks Jackson
Sources
Export-Import Bank of the United States. “Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans for Petrobras’ Brazilian Offshore Oil Exploration and Development.” 20 Aug 2009, acccessed 17 Sep 2009.
“Ex-Im Bank Chairman Fred Hochberg in Brazil to Promote Financing for Purchases of U.S. Exports.” News Release. Export-Import Bank of the United States. 29 Jul 2009.
Kishan, Saijel and Andres R. Martinez. “George Soros Cut Petrobras Stake in Second Quarter.” Bloomberg.com. 14 Aug 2009.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/bogus-brazilian-oil-claims/
Regurgitating bullshit propaganda again, badtroll? You should really stop eating that stuff. It’s bad for you. Garbage in, garbage out.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/bogus-brazilian-oil-claims/
“FULL QUESTION
I received this in an e-mail. Is it true?
Today even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for oil for this country. He signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is 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. The Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil”.
We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever.
⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏
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, Liberal businessman who is a radical left wing supporter, finances MoveOn.org as well as other liberal programs and was President Obama’s largest and most generous 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 on any of the other news networks.
FULL ANSWER
This claim stems from a “preliminary committment” made back on April 14 by the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. The bank intends to loan up to $2 billion to finance exports to the Brazilian oil company Petróleo Brasileiro S.A., known as Petrobras, over the next several years.
The e-mail is false on two counts.
* The message falsely says the decision was due to an “executive order” by the president. No presidential order was required. Furthermore, none of President Obama’s appointees had joined the Ex-Im board at the time of the vote, which was unanimous, and bipartisan. The Ex-Im Bank states: “In fact, at the time the Bank’s Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush.”
* The message falsely claims that “we have absolutely no gain” from the loan. In fact, the loan is being made specifically to finance purchase by Petrobras of U.S.-made oilfield equipment and services. The mission of the Ex-Im Bank is to encourage exports by making such loans.
The bank’s chairman and president, Fred P. Hochberg, underscored the purpose of the loan during a trip to Brazil at the end of July:
Ex-Im Bank President Hochberg, July 29: I chose Brazil as my first international destination for good reason: Brazil is a powerhouse among South American economies and offers tremendous opportunities for U.S. exporters in many sectors. I want Brazilians to know that Ex-Im Bank has the will and the capacity to finance their purchases of U.S. equipment, products and services
Obama appointed Hochberg to the Ex-Im Bank on April 20, nearly a week after the board voted to approve the loan. He was confirmed May 14 and sworn in May 21.
The message claims that George Soros would “benefit most” from the loan, but that is also a baseless accusation. Soros is a favorite whipping boy of conservatives because of his early financial help to the liberal group MoveOn.org. And he is indeed a major investor in Petrobras, through his New York-based hedge-fund firm, Soros Fund Management LLC. But the hedge fund recently sold 22 million shares of common stock in the company (which carry voting rights) while buying 5.8 million shares of preferred stock (which is non-voting.) As reported by Bloomberg News, Soros reduced his stake in the company before any of the Ex-Im Bank’s promised loan has been dispensed.
There is some truth to the claim that China would benefit, but not much. Brazil recently agreed to export 200,000 barrels of oil per day to China in coming years. But that was in return for a loan by China of $10 billion, five times more than the U.S. Ex-Im Bank is lending to finance purchase of U.S. gear.
The Ex-Im Bank also would like it known that no loan has yet been made, and that the “preliminary commitment” could eventually result in either a direct loan or a loan guarantee. Either way, the Ex-Im Bank states, “no taxpayer dollars are involved.” The bank is self-sustaining.
-Brooks Jackson
Sources
Export-Import Bank of the United States. “Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans for Petrobras’ Brazilian Offshore Oil Exploration and Development.” 20 Aug 2009, acccessed 17 Sep 2009.
“Ex-Im Bank Chairman Fred Hochberg in Brazil to Promote Financing for Purchases of U.S. Exports.” News Release. Export-Import Bank of the United States. 29 Jul 2009.
Kishan, Saijel and Andres R. Martinez. “George Soros Cut Petrobras Stake in Second Quarter.” Bloomberg.com. 14 Aug 2009.”
So it would appear that the Bush family stands to benefit and may have assisted Soro’s investments, not Obama.
Also, the SEIU represents health care workers, property service workers and public service employees, not oil workers. They don’t stand to benefit from a Brazilian oil deal in any manner other than some of their members might have to take care of people harmed by or clean up after the inevitable mess the oil industry will make.
Seriously, with all the legitimate reasons and ways to hammer at Obama’s continuance and furtherance of the Bush illegalities, why do you waste your time with this kind of bullshit? I have a theory. It’s because you consume too much propaganda without thought and lack the skills and/or filters to see the bullshit you read for the bullshit it is, bdaman. You are simply lacking the proper anti-bodies to fight propaganda infections. That or you are simply a partisan hack.
OT, but seems relevant to Obama’s rolling back …
Department of Justice
Thursday, Mar 24, 2011 09:24 ET
Obama rolls back Miranda rights
By Justin Elliott
President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric HolderThe Obama administration has created a new interrogation policy in which investigators may waive the Miranda warning if they think it necessary to get timely intelligence from a terrorism suspect, the Wall Street Journal reports.
I reported in January that the Justice Department had created a new — but secret — policy on Miranda. The rule, named after a 1966 Supreme Court decision, holds that information from an interrogation is inadmissible in court unless the criminal suspect has been informed of his right to remain silent, and to a lawyer.
Now, the WSJ’s Evan Perez has gotten his hands on Obama’s new policy. While the WSJ didn’t print the full text, here is a taste:
A Federal Bureau of Investigation memorandum reviewed by The Wall Street Journal says the policy applies to “exceptional cases” where investigators “conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat.” Such action would need prior approval from FBI supervisors and Justice Department lawyers, according to the memo, which was issued in December but not made public.
The Supreme Court had previously recognized a “public safety exception” to Miranda under which police could interrogate suspects, typically for an extremely short period of time, about matters that could be an imminent threat. The classic example is: “Where’s the gun?”
But now there appears to be a new standard under which investigators can waive Miranda in order “to collect valuable and timely intelligence,” in the absence of an immediate threat.
Following the interrogation of the man who tried to blow up a plane in Detroit on Christmas Day 2009, legal experts suspected that the Obama administration had alteredMiranda rules. The suspect in that case, Umar Abdulmutallab, was apparently interrogated for several hours before he was informed of his rights. At the time, some congressional Republicans demanded that Miranda be given up for terrorism cases altogether.
Asked about the WSJ story, Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd sent along this statement:
The evolving nature of the terrorist threat demands that we keep the men and women on the front lines advised of all lawful and appropriate tools available to them to identify, locate, detain, and interrogate terrorism suspects. Law enforcement has the ability to question suspected terrorists without immediately providing Miranda warnings when the interrogation is reasonably prompted by immediate concern for the safety of the public or the agents. Because the complexity of the threat posed by terrorist organizations and the nature of their attacks — which can include multiple accomplices and interconnected plots – creates fundamentally different public safety concerns than traditional criminal cases, we formalized guidance last year that outlines the appropriate use of the well-established public safety exception to providing Miranda rights in the terrorism context.
The question now is whether this doctrine will be challenged in the courts, and whether the Supreme Court will let it stand.
http://www.salon.com/news/department_of_justice/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/03/24/obama_rolls_back_miranda
Is there any category that Obama is not failing in? Let me return to my continuous state of vomiting in reaction to how he is running the country.
Obama says US to be major purchaser of Brazilian oil
President Barack Obama has pledged that the United States will be a “major customer” for Brazilian oil in the coming years amid continuing unrest in the Middle East.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businesslatestnews/8393292/Obama-says-US-to-be-major-purchaser-of-Brazilian-oil.html
When Obama said change he meant which pocket all the money was going to go in. His, Soro’s and SEIU
WASHINGTON, March 18 (UPI) — Washington has given Petrobras America Inc. permission to start oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico, a regulator said.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement gave Petrobras approval to use a floating production storage offloading facility at its Cascade-Chinook project in the Gulf of Mexico.
The approval marks the first time FPSO technology will be used in U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2011/03/18/Petrobras-gets-permit-for-US-deep-waters/UPI-87891300453143/#ixzz1HB359R6t
http://sadhillnews.com/2011/03/20/another-gulf-oil-spill-near-deepwater-drilling-site-wts-matterhorn-seastar
I have given up trying to figure it out.
frank & BIL,
My sentiments exactly. This is so not what I signed up for.
I’m sure Big Oil and Massey are doing cartwheels right now …
frank,
When I voted for Obama I didn’t think I was voting for a liberal either. I thought I was voting for a Constitutional scholar who would respect the rule of law and restore the justice and equity in government the Bush criminal cabal had destroyed with their manifestly illegal actions. Instead, as you noted, what I got was just another corporatist stooge just as willing to abuse our civil rights and piss on the Constitution and the rule of law as the previous criminal administration.
When I voted for Obama I didn’t think I was voting for a liberal, nothing in his history suggested he was a liberal. But I did think I was voting for a democrat. Instead he is actually a corporate Republican. One of those guys like the senior Bush, not much good except as a friend of large industry.
There is the state of current American politics. Two party system:
Corporate Republican vs. Batshit Insane