Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (944110)	7/1/2016 4:24:23 AM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577224

rofl… when will the "left" realize Obama is Bush III? +++ JUNE 30, 2016 Obama Administration Approved Over 1,500 Offshore Fracking Permits by STEVE HORN On June 24, the independent news website TruthOut broke a doozy of a story: the Obama Administration has secretly approved over 1,500 instances of offshore hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in the Gulf of Mexico, including during the Deepwater Horizon offshore spill disaster. Albeit released on a Friday, a day where many mainstream media reporters head out of the office early and venture to late-afternoon and early-evening Happy Hour specials at the bars, the story has received deafening silence by the corporate-owned media apparatus. Google News, Factiva and LexisNexis searches reveal that not a single mainstream media outlet has covered the story. TruthOut got its hands on the story via documents provided by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). CBD explained in press releasethat they “obtained the information following an agreement that settled a lawsuit challenging the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement’s failure to disclose documents regarding the scope of offshore fracking in the Gulf under the Freedom of Information Act.” CBD also has published a list of all of the instances of offshore fracking in the Gulf of Mexico provided to it by BOEM, both in list-form and in visual map form. CBD says more documents are on the way too, which means the number of frack jobs that have occurred offshore in the Gulf could rise. A case in point: a well that recently leaked and spilled 90,000 gallons of oil into the Gulf was, as reported by CBS affiliate WWL, fracked by spill culprit Shell Oil. “Proprietary Information” U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) officials did not provide comment to TruthOut. But BSEEofficials did tell WWL that the chemicals, undisclosed because the list may contain “proprietary information,” would be dumped into the Gulf of Mexico regardless — a jaw-dropping revelation itself. “This explanation by BSEE presents a whole other set of environmental issues that the public should be outraged about when it comes to fracking in the Gulf of Mexico,” Jonathan Henderson, who runs Vanishing Earth, told WWL. “One of those being that after those fracking chemicals were cycled back to Shell’s rig, Shell eventually dumped those chemicals right back overboard into the Gulf. This in spite of no testing having been done to determine the impacts to the marine environment and ultimately human health as a possible consequence of eating Gulf seafood.” “Troubled Waters” CBD released a scientific analysis in September 2014, ” Troubled Waters,” which raised troubling questions about the chemicals used in offshore fracking in California. That report concluded fracking in offshore California is a seismic risk, an air quality risk, and that “10 fracking chemicals routinely used offshore in California could kill or harm a broad variety of marine species, including sea otters and fish.” These findings have moved CBD to conclude that offshore fracking should be banned. “Offshore fracking is an inherently dangerous activity that simply doesn’t belong in the Gulf of Mexico,” CBD attorney Kristen Monsell said in the group’s press release. “And the federal government certainly has no right to give the oil industry free rein to frack our oceans — or to keep coastal communities in the dark about this toxic industrial activity.” And speaking of keeping the public in the dark, where was the mainstream media when these facts were brought to light by TruthOut and CBD?

To: combjelly who wrote (944110)	7/1/2016 11:42:24 AM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By locogringo Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1577224

I'm really only going over this once. I have no idea the extent to which this money influenced the decision to approve or not approve. Of course, Clinton could have blocked the deal if she had chosen to do so. But what is important is the Left's willingness to overlook ANY ethical violation -- no matter how serious -- that woman was involved in. You cannot, as Secretary of State, have people with whom you are involved as a government official, giving you money -- whether it is through your foundation or otherwise. I understand ethics is not your strong suit. But the situation on the plane this week, taking money from people when you have to make a decision on their business dealings, all of it, gives the appearance of impropriety. You cannot do that and expect people not be outraged by it. That is why the Code of Ethics for professionals consistently call for independence and do not allow dealings that bring into question the integrity of a member. That is a key difference between professionals and others. You must maintain objectivity and integrity, and doing anything that even suggests otherwise is unacceptable. Ms. Lynch did the right thing this morning and put her mess behind her. But Hillary Clinton cannot do that. Forever, these dealings (like the commodities transactions, like her (and his) association with Marc Rich, like him visiting Lynch on her plane, like all this foreign money flowing into their foundation) all of these things add up to a total lack of integrity. Even if it just looks bad, it looks very bad. This stuff matters to thoughtful people.