Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Obama Supports New Oil Drilling... In Brazil

In a truly remarkable statement this week, President Obama has enthusiastically announced his support for new offshore drilling for oil. Yep, you did indeed read that right. Unfortunately his support is for Brazil to commence this drilling and not the United States. This is particularly ironic because this very action is something that he and his administration have consistently banned and restricted in the United States after last year’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico from British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon rig.

Further, our president intends to back up his support for Brazil with the promise of U.S. taxpayer financing to help fund Brazil’s drilling operations, which consequently will create thousands of new jobs in Brazil. He is quoted as saying,

“We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers. At a time when we’ve been reminded how easily instability in other parts of the world can affect the price of oil, the United States could not be happier with the potential for a new, stable source of energy.”

One wonders why President Obama wants to be one of Brazil's best customers of oil and gas when there are millions of Americans who would be eager to be the best customers of new supplies of oil and gas produced by workers in Louisiana, Alaska, and Virginia? Indeed, the consequences of President Obama’s drilling moratorium last summer and the administration’s subsequent refusal to issue new drilling permits has been partially responsible for the soaring gas prices we are currently experiencing.

Further, these actions alone have cost the United States a loss of at least 20,000 jobs. The long term consequences of that moratorium and lack of new drilling permits has further caused at least seven deep water oil rigs to plan to leave the Gulf of Mexico for work elsewhere on the globe. Those jobs will likely be gone from U.S. shores for many years to come.

So while our gasoline and diesel prices continue to climb drastically, especially with the upheaval in the Middle East, our President continues to prevent the development of domestic sources of energy from going forward. He then applauds this very same development in a foreign nation and promises U.S. taxpayer dollars in support of the venture. One wonders if he realizes that he is supposed to be working to help the economy of the nation for which he presumably is the president thereof and to thus create jobs in the UNITED STATES.

The incompetence, hypocrisy, and lack of foresight in our President has reached capricious levels. One wonders what gas prices and the REAL unemployment rate will look like come 2012 accordingly?

18 comments:

Annie said...

At least he has kept up with his agenda: To destroy American by any and all means possible.

And, just was a side note, where is the outrage over our involvement in Libya?

Dave Dubya said...

Annie,
Look around a bit. Kucinich has called it unconstiotutional. Michael Moore said Obama should return the Nobel Peace Prize.

Ron Paul opposes the intervention as well, and he understands, and said, Obama is a corporatist.

Maybe if you weren't such an extreme fanatic you'd be more enlightened.

T. Paine said...

Dubya, I find it sadly amusing that you call Annie a fanatic for stating what is the truth.

Kucinich is correct. Ron Paul is not a leftist. Michael Moore is a discredited hypocritical blow-hard. So your rebuttal to Annie’s statement is that one left-wing politician disagrees, along with one conservative, and one Hollywood liberal.

All of the Democratic side of the aisle in congress and nearly all of Hollywood stood up and condemned Bush for the same thing with Iraq.

Dubya, I will definitely concede that at least Paul and Kucinich are consistent in their comments. Indeed I would agree that it would be nice to see any president follow the damned constitution when it comes to the declaration of war.

At least George Bush got congressional approval for Iraq and Afghanistan, even though some people voted for it before they voted against it. Obama hasn’t even bothered going through the motions of getting congressional approval here. Indeed, he is violating his own words from when he was a “principled” senator:

“December 20, 2007

"The president does not have the power under The Constitutio¬n to unilaterall¬y authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

-Senator Barack H. Obama”

That being said, many of your fellow political travelers on the left that were calling Bush a war criminal back then do not have the intellectual honesty and integrity to call Obama the same now, Kucinich excluded.

As for that idiot Michael Moore, he is the biggest hypocrite of all and has no credibility with ANYTHING. He decries the very capitalism that he has made millions off of and has stated his solidarity against Governor Walker and with the unions, but refused to use union workers when making his last movie. He is a modern day Pharisee.

Lastly, Obama never should have been awarded the Nobel Prize in the first place. His nomination for the prize in that cycle would have had to have been made before he was even in office a month, as I recall. He did NOTHING to deserve it. His hope and change are empty words and his administration has proven to be little more than a third Bush term on steroids. The only difference is that Bush actually believed what he was doing was right and best for the country and at least respected the troops. I am not certain that Obama can say the same truthfully.

The Warrior said...

You might want to take a look at my latest blog post....

free0352 said...

I think it's safe to say that the entire anti war movment as it existed between 2002 and 2008 was a fabrication of the Democrat party to undercut and undermine George Bush and the Republican Majority at the expense of combat troops. Democrats were for the war in Iraq before they were against it, and now they are simply back to the old play book now that loosing a war for political points is no longer expedient. Dubya, you need to go tool over to some mainsteam leftist blog and pick up your new talking points as your out of date. You can claim intelectual honesty all you want, but I'll bet my buttons who you'll be voting for come 2012. BHO.

Yeah, the hipocrisy of the left is so over the top on this is shatters the mind. It's double think on an unpresidented scale. It's pure Orwell.

Silverfiddle said...

President Obama is all for creating jobs in the energy industry... The Brazilian energy industry.

Does anybody have the stat on number of Brazilian jobs Obama has saved?

T. Paine said...

Silverfiddle, I am afraid that the only jobs that our president has saved in America have been from his Wall Street contributors and union member supporters.

The only jobs he has created have been public-sector government jobs, like the thousands hired by the IRS in order to ensure that taxes are paid in order to fund the unconstitutional Obamacare.

Dave Dubya said...

Hey, take a pill! Or whatever it is that settles you all down.

I simply answered a question with the truth and offered three examples, and I get jumped. What is it with you people?

TP,
So this is the truth? "To destroy America by any and all means possible." If you people don’t want to be accused of racism, maybe you should not say the same things the racists all say.

This is pure fascistic hatred. If you call that the "truth", then whatever else you have to say is from a sick and twisted perspective. Then again, you believe Dick Cheney is an honest man. This is not conservatism; it is a cultish belief system of a radical Right, very similar to Bush family friend Sun Myung Moon's unquestioning cult of true believers.

And speaking of Bush, and Reagan, do you remember Grenada and Panama? I’m not defending Obama, just saying he has joined their club.

Free,
For the radical Right everything is “safe to say”, but is usually wrong anyway. There were no troops in combat before the largest masses of world wide anti-war demonstrations were conveniently ignored or downplayed by sycophantic corporate media. I suppose to you they were all Democrats. Your kind accused me of treason for my dissent against the lies and war. Yes it was unpatriotic to criticize the "war president", back then. Now look what you say about a "president during wartime". Yes, you are the hypocrites. You also make no sense at all with your “out of date” remark.

At first 70 percent of Americans were against invading Iraq. Then after the lies and fabrications were used to “catapult the propaganda”, in Bush’s own words, 70 percent came to believe Saddam was involved in 9-11. Mission accomplished. You want Orwellian?

Ignorance is strength. Freedom is slavery. War is peace.

“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.” - George W. Bush

“One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.” – George W. Bush 1999

Wake up and smell the fascism.

T. Paine said...

Dubya, you are being a little silly, my friend. You tell us to “take a pill” and yet you are way over the top all the time, sir. Heck you even have “rant” in the title of your blog.

Sorry if you felt you were being “jumped” but my intent was simply to rebut your argument. (Now you know how I feel sometimes when you mean lefties gang up on me when commenting on your site.  ) Luckily I can take it and usually have facts, history, and truth on my side. Lol!

Now, being as she said so, I assume Annie does indeed think that President Obama and his policies are indeed out to destroy America. There was a time when I thought that his ill-advised plans were simply a matter of ideological differences, but with some of the overt things he has done and chosen not to do, I have come to conclude that he does NOT always have America’s best interests at heart.

If he did, why would he support oil drilling for Brazil and not for America? Why would he champion public unions instead of the tax payers that pay their salaries? Why would he have no interest in securing our borders and then fighting the state of Arizona when it tries to do so? Why will his justice department not investigate and pursue some of his union buddies and their uncovered plot this week to bring down Wall Street and Chase bank through what amounts to economic terrorism? Why does he not get the consent of congress before embarking on a third war in the Middle East with Libya, in violation of the Constitution? Why does he take over private corporations, fire their executives, tell them what products to produce, and then gives the majority of the company assets to his union supporters instead of the debt and stock holders? I can go on and on. He does these things despite the fact that his policies and decisions only strengthen the select few he deems worthy and punishes many of us who have been playing by the rules. I would point to his policies as fascistic accordingly.

And once again, I am repulsed at your unfounded implied charges of racism. My disgust of what our president has wrought has NOTHING to do with the color of his skin pigmentation. I don’t care if he was lily white and of Swedish ancestry; I still would speak up just as forcefully. This is a debate about ideals and policies and NOT about whether Obama is black or white. Again, I voted for Alan Keyes for president (a brilliant black man) long before I ever had the bad fortune to hear the name Barack Hussein Obama.

Lastly, both Bushes had congressional and international approval and indeed coalitions fighting in Iraq. As for Reagan, I assume he had approval too, but I do remember that there were United States citizens (students) being held in a medical school in Grenada that was one of the primary objectives for his sending troops thus to rescue them.

Perhaps a shot of Wild Turkey would do us both good right about now, Dubya. Cheers!

Dave Dubya said...

So, what part of this is not true?

“Look around a bit. Kucinich has called it unconstitutional. Michael Moore said Obama should return the Nobel Peace Prize.

Ron Paul opposes the intervention as well, and he understands, and said, Obama is a corporatist.”

John Myste said...

T. Paine: "Luckily I can take it and usually have facts, history, and truth on my side. Lol!"

Mr. Paine, you know I love you to death, but you couldn't even say that without laughing out loud. We all were. You can crack a good joke, my friend!

I notice some disagreement on another site that pointed to your article above.

I am in the process of writing a defense for you, sir. I think it is time one of us liberals stand up for good ole conservatism and I am the man do to it.

I would just like to say that I am not looking for a thank you or anything like that. I know of your gratitude without you having to say a word, and you are welcome, sir.

John Myste said...

Oh, sorry, Mr. Paine, it is this article

I Will Defend You!

that I am defending against vicious liberal agression.

T. Paine said...

Dubya, nothing you said in that part of your quoted statement was inaccurate. That wasn't my point.

Your tirade against us un-enlightened folk for not thinking as you do was the point. I have been accused of being over the top at times, and perhaps I am, but certainly no more so than many of my brothers and sisters on the left of the political spectrum, yourself included.

I can point to facts and history to make my case, despite John's laughing about this. Sometimes you do as well.

The part that isn't true, therefore, was not in that statement but in your assumption that when we on the right point to all of the destructive things Obama has done with seeming intent, that we are wrong or think those things because he is black.

Dave Dubya said...

Thank you for clearing up your support for my factually correct initial comment. You may freely disagree with the opinions in my rebuttal but you do so with the malevolent accusation of Obama's outright treason and intentional destruction of the country. You are compelled to reinforce the charges with terms like "seeming intent" and "any and all means possible".

Instead of disagreeing and offering constructive rational criticism the Right tends to go for the throat and demonize adversaries as mortal enemies of America. These are echoes of fascistic claims against opposition to Hitler and Mussolini.

I wish they could see the irony of the Right’s open antagonism towards democracy while claiming to be the "good guys" in their simplistic and narrow black and white views. Dictators, Fascists, Communists and Republicans are united in their opposition to workers’ collective bargaining rights and the very principles of democracy. I’m not saying the Republican Party is fascist in the extreme sense of European fascism of the last century. I am only pointing to their common ground with totalitarians.

"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.” – Heritage Foundation co-founder Paul Weyrich

In a way I understand the fervor we see from many people on the Right. They are manipulated and they are frightened.

When half of all Republican voters believe Obama is a foreign born Marxist Muslim, the Big Lie is in effect. When Beck accuses Obama of being a racist who hates white people and still keeps his multimillion dollar job as propagandist and fear-monger, the Big Lie is in effect. When Limbaugh claims that the Left, not the Right is racist, the Big Lie is in effect. When a hundred thousand pro-union demonstrators peacefully protest a governor’s stripping of their rights, and are constantly called “union thugs” anyway, the Big Lie is in effect. When liberals must be portrayed as communists, and accused of destroying America, this is fascistic scapegoating, exactly in the pattern of early Nazi propaganda.

Go ahead and say Obama’s policies are harming America. Many of them are. But if you pretend the Bush Administration’s deeds were not as harmful, and the threats to our national well being have only arisen since Obama has been president, then you are ideologically blinded.

Initiating two endless wars, incarceration without charges, warrantless surveillance of citizens, torture, and Patriot Act/FISA types of unconstitutional legislation are far more dangerous to a free democratic republic than corporate bailouts and healthcare reforms. I suppose this is utterly incomprehensible to you. Your own little tirade completely ignores the real “select few” who have most benefitted in that past decades. It wasn’t unions. It wasn’t the middle class. It wasn’t the poor. Care to guess who the real winners are?

John Myste said...

T. Paine,

I totally support pointing out facts of history SO LONG as each side agrees that they are the facts. When one side honestly disputes what the other calls facts, then each side resorts to the authorities in whom they have chosen to place their faith.

Those are the facts, ones based primarily on faith, that I dispute as credible. I don’t like having to debate someone else’s faith to try to prove my point.

However, I do appreciate the collateral damage I suffered in a debate between you and Dave thatI had consciously chosen to avoid. I am really mad at you, jerk!

I am adding this text below my statement denouncing you as a jerk only to create distance between the original accusation and the confession I am about to make. I suppose that is enough space:

No, I am just kidding. I am not mad at all. I am grateful for the recognition, and grateful that you remember my objection to using facts in debates. I only phrased it that way, because when I put it that way it makes me sound like a nut job. I suppose, I may sound like a nut job no matter how I put it, but who knows.

Dave,

In case you missed it, I was actually a little offended at your neo-con accusation at Anderson’s and despite the gag order issued by Judge Anderson, I responded (hopefully respectfully). It did make me cry. Calling a liberal a conservative is like calling a conservative a conservative. It is just insulting and uncalled for.

All,

No disrespect intended to conservatives. I love you.

Dave Dubya said...

John,
My apologies for any collateral damage. I wasn't really accusing anyone of being a neocon so much as I was hearing their echoes.

Annie, Free, and TP,
I guess I'm feeling a bit testy lately for some reason or another. I don't mean to get personal.

Like Brother John, I also love conservatives. In fact, some are family and friends.

T. Paine said...

Group hug! (And raise a glass of Wild Turkey!)

Lee said...

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.

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 PetrĂ³leo 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.