29 April 2006
Exxon Mobil Profit Rises on Soaring Prices
Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest publicly traded oil company, on Thursday reported that quarterly profit surged, driven by rising oil prices. Anger over gas prices is gaining traction in many midterm races around the nation as Democrats attack Republicans for being too close to oil companies.
Exxon Mobil Profit Rises On Soaring Prices
It doesn't get any better than this! Big oil has been setting profit records for years now, and around the time EXXON reported a 40 percent increase in a single quarter the Republican Congress handed out $14 billion worth of tax breaks to big energy corporations. Then, last year, EXXON posted the largest profit in history. This year they gave their outgoing CEO a $400 million - that's MILLION - retirement package.
Chevron Corporation's first-quarter profit soared 49 percent to $4 billion, joining the procession of US oil companies to report colossal earnings as lawmakers consider ways to pacify motorists agitated about rising gas prices.
This week the big oil giants are expected to report, for the first-quarter alone, $16 billion in profits - that's BILLION. The common theme throughout this entire heist? Consumers paying ever increasing prices at the pump. That, however, isn't the really good part.
After having been "kicked around" by the media, politicians, and, oh yes, the consumer, big oil is going to spend $30 million - that's MILLION - to convince the masses that they aren't the greedy pigs that they are.
needless to say …..
Republicans are demanding oil companies' tax information from IRS to ensure, as Grassley put it, "the oil companies aren't taking a speed pass by the tax man." I think what Grassley and Republicans will find regarding big oil's taxes is that some idiots - GRASSLEY AND THE REPUBLICAN HOUSE AND SENATE - gave them huge tax BREAKS to the tune of some $14 BILLION! They did, and they gave these tax breaks to big energy producers at the time they were MAKING RECORD PROFITS!!!
"You've Gotta be Joking - Republicans gave big energy $14 BILLION tax break, now want to see oil companies' tax records"
meanwhile, the world’s most powerful gangsta, President “bugsy” Bush …..
Rejected calls by some lawmakers for a tax on oil company windfall profits, saying the industry should reinvest its recent gains into finding and producing more energy. He also said: "These oil prices are a wake-up call. We're dependent on oil. We need to get off oil.
and Buzzflash says …..
Talk about gas, this administration is full of it.
In fact, it's all about oil and gas, always has been.
Bush and Cheney are covered in the sludge from oil with dollars from oil profiteering and oil company money wrapped around them.
Bush appointed himself head of the investigation into his Katrina failure. Now, he's going to probe as to why we have high gas prices. He was also going to find out who was responsible for the PlameGate leaking.
We could go on and on.
But all roads lead back to Bush - and Cheney.
What a couple of con artists.
Everytime you go and spend half of your weekly salary on a tank of gas, just remember: we've been had by a couple of snake oil salesmen in the White House.
and our own little rodent & “cossie” costello’s response …… fuel prices are going up because the price of oil has increased!!!
and we pay these crooks?
26 April 2006(0) comments
25 April 2006
‘More precisely, this story could be called "The President’s Youngest Brother, Marvin Bush, and a Trail of Corrupt Government Officials from Page County, Virginia to Richmond."
For most people, Page County, in the Shenandoah Valley, is a lovely and tranquil place. For others, Page County is a criminal profit center, humming with illegal activity.
As a result of this illegal activity, George Bush’s favorite brother is owed $34 million by the residents of Page County. And so far he’s getting his money, every damn penny of it.’
‘Joining Illinois, California has become the second state in which a proposal to impeach President Bush has been introduced in the state legislature. And this one includes Cheney as well.
California Assemblyman Paul Koretz of Los Angeles (where the LA Times has now called for Cheney's resignation) has submitted amendments to Assembly Joint Resolution No. 39, calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney. The amendments reference Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives, which allows federal impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of a state legislature.
The resolution, in the words of Koretz's press release, "bases the call for impeachment upon the Bush Administration intentionally misleading the Congress and the American people regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify an unnecessary war that has cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives and casualties; exceeding constitutional authority to wage war by invading Iraq; exceeding constitutional authority by Federalizing the National Guard; conspiring to torture prisoners in violation of the 'Federal Torture Act' and indicating intent to continue such actions; spying on American citizens in violation of the 1978 Foreign Agency Surveillance Act; leaking and covering up the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson, and holding American citizens without charge or trial."’
I wonder if our close allies would consider adding the names of “aussie tony” & “the rodent” to their list?
‘Jordan’s King Abdullah said Monday that Israel should disarm its nuclear weapons in the wake of international pressure on Iran to end its uranium enrichment program.
The Jordanian monarch urged the international community to pressure Israel to close down its nuclear facilities, in an interview with Spanish newspaper El Pais.
The United Nations decided in February to issue a verdict statement that the Middle East should be a “nuclear weapons-free region” in its general statement policy on nuclear energy.
The decision was reluctantly supported by the United States as a concession to Egypt, who insisted on inserting the clause.
‘It is generally agreed that worldwide petroleum supply will eventually reach its productive limit, peak, and begin a long term decline. What should the United States do to prepare for this event? An objective look at the alternatives points to the Nation's untapped oil shale as a strategically located, long-term source of reliable, affordable, and secure oil.
The vast extent of U.S. oil shale resources, amounting to more than 2 trillion barrels, has been known for a century. In 1912, the President, by Executive Order, established the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves. This office has overseen the U.S. strategic interests in oil shale since that time. The huge resource base has stimulated several prior commercial attempts to produce oil from oil shale, but these attempts have failed primarily because of the historically modest cost of petroleum with which it competed. With the expected future decline in petroleum production, historic market forces are poised to change and this change will improve the economic viability of oil shale.
It has been nearly two decades since meaningful federal oil shale policy initiatives were undertaken. In that time technology has advanced, global economic, political, and market conditions have changed, and the regulatory landscape has matured. As America considers its homeland security posture, including its desired access to diverse, secure and abundant sources of liquid fuels, it is both necessary and prudent to reconsider the potential of oil shale in the nation's energy and natural resource portfolio.’
Twelve hours is the maximum time necessary for American bombers to gear up and launch an unprovoked sneak attack – a Pearl Harbor in reverse – against Iran, the Washington Post reports. The plan for this "global strike," which includes a very viable "nuclear option," was approved months ago, and is now in operation. The planes are already on continuous alert, making "nuclear delivery" practice runs along the Iranian border, as Sy Hersh reports in the New Yorker, and waiting only for the signal from President George W. Bush to drop their payloads of conventional and nuclear weapons on some 400 targets spread throughout the condemned land.
And when this attack comes – either as a stand-alone "knock-out blow" or else as the precursor to a full-scale, regime-changing invasion, like the earlier aggression in Iraq – there will be no warning, no declaration of war, no hearings, no public debate. The already issued orders governing the operation put the decision solely in the hands of the president: he picks up the phone, he says, "Go" – and in twelve hours' time, up to a million Iranians will be dead.’
24 April 2006
‘You ask about the motivations, and that is one of the patterns that comes through when you look at these things all together.
There’s really a three-stage motivation that I can see when I watch so many of the developments of these coups. The first thing that happens is that the regime in question starts bothering some American company. They start demanding that the company pay taxes or that it observe labor laws or environmental laws. Sometimes that company is nationalized or is somehow required to sell some of its land or its assets. So the first thing that happens is that an American or a foreign corporation is active in another country, and the government of that country starts to restrict it in some way or give it some trouble, restrict its ability to operate freely.
Then, the leaders of that company come to the political leadership of the United States to complain about the regime in that country. In the political process, in the White House, the motivation morphs a little bit. The U.S. government does not intervene directly to defend the rights of a company, but they transform the motivation from an economic one into a political or geo-strategic one. They make the assumption that any regime that would bother an American company or harass an American company must be anti-American, repressive, dictatorial, and probably the tool of some foreign power or interest that wants to undermine the United States. So the motivation transforms from an economic to a political one, although the actual basis for it never changes.
Then, it morphs one more time when the U.S. leaders have to explain the motivation for this operation to the American people. Then they do not use either the economic or the political motivation usually, but they portray these interventions as liberation operations, just a chance to free a poor oppressed nation from the brutality of a regime that we assume is a dictatorship, because what other kind of a regime would be bothering an American company?’
Traumatized and outraged by the horrific events of September 11, the majority of Americans supported the war in Afghanistan. Most people believed the U.S. Commander-in-Chief when he said that the replacement of the Taliban regime was required to safeguard our country against another catastrophic attack by al-Qa'ida forces. Even Princeton Professor Richard Falk, a long-time anti-war activist, wrote in The Nation ("Defining a Just War," Oct. 29, 2001) that the war in Afghanistan was "the first truly just war since World War II." But was it?
Since last October, thousands of people have participated in anti-war rallies, marches, and teach-ins in New York City, Washington, San Francisco, Houston, and other cities. People opposed to the war have made clear that they condemn the atrocity of September 11. But they also condemn the U.S. role in the deaths of thousands of Afghan people who had nothing to do with the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.’
23 April 2006
‘A major government watchdog group is charging that Muslim charities are being shut down for supposedly backing terrorist causes, while giant firms like Halliburton are receiving the full protection of U.S. law for allegedly breaking government sanctions against doing business with Iran - a country designated as a sponsor of terrorism.
"There is unequal enforcement of anti-terrorist financing laws," says the Washington-based non-profit OMB Watch.
The group says the USA Patriot Act gives the government "largely unchecked power to designate any group as a terrorist organisation". And once a charitable organisation is so designated, all of its materials and property may be seized and its assets frozen. The charity is unable to see the government's evidence and thus understand the basis for the charges.
Since its assets are frozen, it lacks resources to mount a defence. And it has only limited right of appeal to the courts. So the government can target a charity, seize its assets, shut it down, obtain indictments against its leaders, but then delay a trial almost indefinitely.’
At an outdoor ceremony, Bush told Hu:
China has become successful because the Chinese people are experiencing the freedom to buy and to sell, and to produce – and China can grow even more successful by allowing the Chinese people the freedom to assemble, to speak freely and to worship.
Seconds later, one of the people assembled on the White House south lawn actually tried to speak freely right there in America – about both the lack of free speech and religious freedom in China.
That free-speaking woman was promptly hauled-off & arrested.’Woman Arrested For Speaking Freely Right After Bush Call For "Freedom...To Speak Freely"