MSM ignores any real news to beat the Russian Bear

Holding fast to conspiracy narratives pushed by Hillary Clinton (and her campaign of trolls) on Russia meddling, misogyny, racism that cheated her out of her destined Ovalating Office. Unfortunately, she is right, that media will follow her lead every time. While she and the entrenched media establishment are baited and trolled by Russia. They would take career Russian propagandists word or version of events over Trump’s almost every time.

It’s really easy if you are in the Kremlin hell-bent on sowing discord in America. If destroying credibility in American institutions is their goal, then the Left hands them a victory flag. So even when Trump goes to Poland to make a classical academic defense of western civilization, especially then, they have a collective panic attack and cannot recover. But intensive care could not treat their disease.

Then came his next trip to France with liberal Macron, their macaroni boy of Paris they fell for head first. This time MSM decided to downplay coverage of the visit ignoring most of the ceremony, except the presser to push Russia questions. Even the centennial of WWI and France’s Bastile Day got marginal coverage. Jake Tapper called it just a photo-op for Trump. Right a 100 year anniversary is just a photo-op , world history just gets in the way. After all, that is the way they see it.

So now, once again, another historical marker pops up that media seems too preoccupied with Russian propaganda to notice — or give due diligence to. It’s like you have this Russian spy novel playing out in the background to obfuscate any real news.

US Has Produced More Oil Than Saudi Arabia For 4 Straight Years [GRAPH]

Daily Caller

Saudi Arabia has lagged the U.S. in oil production for the last four years, according to federal data compiled by University of Michigan economist Mark Perry.

Perry created a chart Saturday showing just how far behind Saudi oil production has trailed U.S. production. Rising U.S. production combined with OPEC policies drove crude oil prices down to new lows. Monday, a barrel of oil costs $46.26, while the same barrel would have sold for $109.04 in June 2014.

U.S. oil production, on the other hand, is increasing. The U.S. imported about 60 percent of its oil in 2007, but by 2014, the country only imported 27 percent of its oil — the lowest level since 1985. Rising oil production has reduced demand for Saudi oil abroad too, keeping prices low.

Saudi Arabia can likely handle cheap oil better than other Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations, but cheap oil is still devastating the country.


Read at Daily Caller

And yet they wonder why we call MSM Fake News? Everything positive — as they define it — about their messiah’s golden throne was heralded from the mountaintops to make sure it echoed to anyone. It was unavoidable. They ran his Saturday addresses to tout all the great, but invisible, good news. It was good because they said so. Job numbers, even when bad, were called good. Or, as the Bible says, “those who call evil good and good evil.” And it worked, or saturated the airwaves to a point no one else could be heard.

Spending, national debt, budget issues. Remember Obamafiles claimed he halved the budget ‘deficit’ to cover the 2o trillion dollar explosion. The fairy dust worked, put some lipstick on that pig and sell it like the sweety-pie lie it is. He depleted the military, and budget, but who cares about that thing? All is good, they said. ‘These are the good times.’ Never mind that you did not see or feel it. You weren’t alone though. Most didn’t, still you had to listen to regurgitated talking points of how great things were going.

No, we weren’t wrong. Our instincts were not misguided. We weren’t misinformed. We were not too stupid to understand. We were not uneducated halfwits. We were just being constantly lied to on such a level, to such a degree, that Americans never were subjected to before. Even low information voters knew something was wrong. Economists, real ones that is, were not impressed. But even they had a hard time getting any information out. It was all being blurred, blotted out, and intentionally drown out by the so-called good news coming directly from, and being dictated by, the White House.

But it was all good in those days and there were no questions to ask, because no questions were necessary. Just report the White House talking points, life was easy for reporters. Obama would even tell press what stories they think should be covered, and what stories they didn’t think deserved time.

Guess what happened?

Remember Benghazi, IRS, Lois Lerner, or Fast and Furious? Leading from behind was actually a defense strategy they could get behind. Meaningless red lines were all the rage. Russian intervention? It really is not intervention when you are inviting them into Syria and altering your national policy to their liking and getting nothing in return. Of course that is not intervention. That is failed US leadership like we never experienced before either. It was complicit failure. Now they are paranoid about intervention? They opened the door, invited them in, coalesced with them. Is it any surprise Russia wasn’t the greatest or most respectful house guests, when Obama shows no respect for our own house?

Then, to top it all off, when Obama left he had them all declare that he had a completely scandal-free administration, not even a little one. Remember that? So it was an insult on reason and intelligence. It was a fraud. Obamacare was created, built and sold on lies. They named it the Affordable Care Act.

The article above, while it is good news to be ignored under Trump, will likely be co-opted for propaganda value by Obamafiles — who are just as active outside the Office as they were in the White House. So they are quite anxiuos to take credit for anything good. It is what they do. Though our growth and oil business in particular was in spite of Obama’s war on energy, not because of it. But that doesn’t stop them from laying claim.

Anyone dishonest enough to prop up Obama’s regime for 8 years is certainly going to use any dirty trick to that end, to credit Obama with a net positive. A guy like Obama that never had to live under or feel the effect of his own policies. Calling evil good was quite popular, getting even easier with practice. It was instant revision everywhere.

So now that we have oil production growth, who do you think can find fault with our achievement? That’s right, the same people who will gladly try to lay credit to it. But the Left’s “green” team will condemn it as a negative. Oil, fossil fuels is bad juju. Which is why we knew Obama was never supportive to the industry. Yet he wants credit? In your dreams, Obama. And if America was not as innovative, like we’ve always been, this could not have happened. Certainly it was nothing Obama had a hand in.

However, we shouldn’t be afaid to admit good news, because some of it took place under Obama’s tyranny. It began and was under way before him. Like Clinton had the benefit of the tech boom. But Obama did about everything he could to step on it.

Under Trump, all good news will be summarily buried, or tortured by Obama revisionists if it refuses stay in the hole. Since the Left controls the media, that is the way it is. And whatever they can tie to Obama’s Legacy of Lies, they will. Memory Lane is not a place I’d want to live, if I were Obama

RightRing | Bullright

Advertisements

Sneak attacks from Paris Accord train

I read this op-ed in the NYT, preferred toilet tissue for those in the know. However, it does pay to see what they say once in a while, even with a jaundice eye and flexing eyebrows.

The Times Editorial Board describes Trump’s jump off the Paris Accord train as “America in Retreat.” But then it does it while a terrorist attack goes down in London. See there is no time that is not a good time to attack Trump. And that is all it was.

You would think it might be laced with the benefits of staying in the Paris Accord. No, it was only a criticism for leaving it. How dare you. But it failed to mention any benefits that we would get out of it.

Sure, we know the world gains from US being in it. They want our money. Another Globul scheme that we will chiefly fund. Excuse me, aren’t we having those problems in other world organizations? So no painful losses for us bailing out of the latest Globul scheme.

Their biggest point was that we are shirking, or ceding, our leadership by fleeing from it. That’s the big problem, and that is reprehensible to their ideological view.

We just got rid of a president who believed in leading from behind, who was all for this agreement, but somehow we are foregoing our leadership by withdrawing? In all his twisted foreign policy failures, Obama never once put America first and certainly did not prove his theory correct. He gained nothing from all the apologies he spouted from Cairo to Russia. Yet now we are abandoning our leadership position? Even at home he did not put the will of the people or our priorities first. Instead, he set his priorities of green energy first at the expense of everything else, and wasted countless millions on programs that didn’t work or went belly up, along with our money. Then he branded it a success.

(NYT) Still, Mr. Trump and his team, embroiled in controversy over Russia and other matters, have shown no inclination, much less skill, to do the hard thinking that must precede any decision to alter America’s role in the world.

So right on the heels of having given the world a tragedy of an Iran deal, which benefited Iran, Obama headed straight down his homestretch to get into a Paris Deal that offered nothing but another giant expense for us. That, he claimed, was leadership. Setting up any global slush fund is now called leadership — the bigger the better.

But we were always supposed to be cautious of foreign entanglements that threaten our sovereignty. That is exactly why Obama and the left like to dabble in them so much.

Perfect example: it didn’t take long, when Trump was contemplating the withdraw from the Paris accord, for media and press to ramp up means that you would not have thought possible. Yes, they insisted that to withdraw from the Paris treaty — can we now at least call it that — was, in fact, a threat to our sovereignty. Oh yes they did! Every reason we gave for withdrawing they tried to reverse to make it a reason we should stay in it.

The exact opposite of their rhetoric was true. It was a treaty masquerading as an executive order. If it was so popular they would have had no problem getting Senate approval, which they wouldn’t do because it would not pass. It was the same Constitutional principle they avoided on the Iran deal. Yet they went ahead and did it anyway.

Now they claim we are giving up our sovereignty by withdrawing. But no one explains why that is true, just like they don’t explain all the benefits of staying in. Other countries had to do nothing. So they, namely the left, are angry because there is no replacement for our funding. Their claim is that without us in the treaty everyone else is going to reap the benefits now. But they were the ones who were going to benefit anyway.

It is just one more deal which doesn’t consider America’s priorities. Yet they lie and say getting out does not preserve our priorities, it threatens them. Then there is Democrats’ universal closing argument for everything that “people are going to die.”

Ironically, the only thing that seems to usurp media’s attacks on Trump are intermittent terrorist attacks that the world has no immediate answers to. So maybe if their Paris plan was framed as a terrorist plot, would they finally see the error in it — or at least the drawbacks? Or probably not even that would alter their Globul perspective. It’s futile.

RightRing | Bullright

Westinghouse down but not out

Forbes
James Conca , | Contributor

Westinghouse Bankruptcy Shakes The Nuclear World

On Wednesday, Westinghouse Electric Company filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in New York to restructure itself as a result of costly problems at the AP1000 power plants it’s building in Georgia and South Carolina.

Westinghouse has obtained $800 million in debtor-in-possession financing from a third-party lender to help fund and protect its core businesses during this reorganization.

Its Japanese parent company, Toshiba, declared that its nuclear power business has already lost $6 billion, which could go up to $10 billion, and is seeking ways to limit its liability. Toshiba shares have lost over $7 billion in market value this fiscal year.

Westinghouse selected the Shaw Group, led by James Bernhard Jr., to spearhead construction. Bernhard, a wheeler and dealer, ../

In the meantime, Westinghouse turned to a real nuclear construction contractor, Fluor Corporation, to get the nuclear plants back on track, but it is too early to tell how successful they will be. Even with the cost overruns and delays, these reactors should get completed and they should still have lower life-cycle costs than renewables or new coal.

More: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/03/31/westinghouse-bankruptcy-shakes-the-nuclear-world/#10d7370f2688

It’s unclear to this simple laymen why they originally would have gone with the nuke-upstart Shaw Group? A big company like Westinghouse and Toshiba…like shouldn’t they have seen this coming? On the other hand Fluor — a company even I worked under a short time — is an old standard, and dependable.

Why did it take them so long, and make it so costly, to turn to them? Just seems they were out to cut corners(costs) from the beginning and got burned. What else explains it? Plus some inner-industry ego rivalry. Now they’ll pay for their errors.

But then the way media were starting to report the story as if Westinghouse was finished. And likely it will be spun into an anti-nuclear power story, which it is not if you read this report. In fact, nuclear energy should be enjoying a resurgence. Thanks Westinghouse-Toshiba [sarcasm], you didn’t do the sector any favors.

Climate Change cluster-muck

Bernard Goldberg has written a stimulating column on the Papal pronouncements, albeit endorsement, of Global Warming and Climate Change.

He argues against the Pope getting involved in the politics. So has Jeb Bush insinuated he does not march to that tune. Here’s an excerpt of the column hoping others check it out.

Liberals will love that message too. But here comes the uh oh alert. This was also in the encyclical on global warming: “Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?”

I’m guessing liberals weren’t too happy with that part. But abortion is also a moral issue at the core of the church’s teaching. And so is gay marriage and to some extent, Bruce Jenner too.

– See more at: http://bernardgoldberg.com/the-pope-global-warming-and-the-elusive-meaning-of-morality/

No Bernard, right, he is not going to lose sleep that you aren’t buying the snake oil.

A message from CFact

China’s rise

China’s development is astounding.

India, Brazil and other nations hope to copy it.

There are many tragic flaws when international global warming agreements are penned. Among the worst is the willingness of the leaders of the West to turn a blind eye to how useless their economy-wrecking global warming policies are when considered in a global context.China coal use

While President Obama is waging war on coal and oil, China is building coal plants as fast as it possibly can. Chinese coal use is poised to surpass the entire rest of the world’s use of coal combined.

China and the other so-called “BRIC” nations are more than happy to step up as the developed world steps down, and will happily produce the goods that our escalating energy costs and regulatory burden make too expensive to produce at home.

President Obama’s recent global warming deal with China is totally one-sided. The U.S. committed to capping emissions (and damaging the economy) now, while China has until 2030 to maybe, if they feel like it, consider capping emissions then. 2030 is when China projects its emissions will peak in any event.

This deal was naive.

Meanwhile, global warming regulations will drive up prices for Americans, while any miniscule effect on emissions is dwarfed by China’s increase.

cement consumption USGSConsider this astonishing fact that Bill Gates blogged about and the Washington Post picked up:

China used more cement in the last three years, than the U.S. did in the entire 20th century!

That’s how fast China is expanding.
Sure, five percent of human greenhouse gas emissions are attributed to cement (if emissions are your thing), but what that tremendous growth really tells us is that global warming policies that depress the economy may advance the agendas of the developed world’s warming-Left, but will have no real impact on global emissions.

If you think Obama’s deal with China was bad, just wait to see what he’s prepared to sign at the big UN climate conference in Paris this December.

The need to educate the public has never been greater.

For nature and people too,

Craig Rucker
Executive Director

P.S.   China’s rapid, massive industrialization is exactly the kind of crucial fact that global warming pressure groups do not want discussed in the context of climate.  Sign the petition to stop climate censorship.  Share it with as many people as possible.  There is too much at stake to allow the warming-Left to muzzle speech and hide the facts.

How China used more cement
in 3 years than the U.S. did
in the entire 20th Century

Cement

Source: USGS, Cement Statistics USGS, mineral industry of China

Read the facts at the Washington Post

and from Bill Gates

I admit what got my attention was the amount of cement China used. Tell-tale signs of a country under construction. But take a look at that picture, it is astounding.

Let that mental image sink in with the concrete facts. Just incredible, isn’t it?

Strange benefits become problems

Oil, oil everywhere and not a place to put it. That is the state of the coming problem analysts see headed for us. Well, there could be worse problems to have.

According to a writer for Motley Fool, they have a prediction for gas prices this summer you might not dislike.

Why Gas Could Plunge Below $2 a Gallon This Summer

Rising oil inventories in the U.S. could lead to sharply lower prices at the pump this summer.

Travis Hoium Mar 26th 2015 | Daily Finance

The price of gasoline has plunged 30 percent in the past year to $2.45 a gallon nationwide, giving major relief to American consumers. Plunging oil prices have driven the drop and have given a reprieve to consumers who have been paying nearly $4 a gallon for gas for most of the past four years.
But the discount on gasoline may not be over. Just as the summer driving season approaches, drivers may get another reprieve. This time, the oil boom that is driving the U.S. toward energy independence could backfire and provide a massive discount on gas for consumers. Within a few months, we may be below $2 a gallon again.

Read more at Daily Finance>

So we are in for a summer of surprise, that at least has more credibility than Obama’s summer of recovery that never came. But I’m sure Obama will find a way to personalize this to his credit, at the same time warning of Climate Change Armageddon.

Classic hypocrisy and flip-flopping

Anyone who can see knows Ed stood with big unions supporting the pipeline, then he bailed and now is its biggest critic. In fact, he turns it into a litmus test for the left. Hypo-101.

Ed Schultz, Who Flipped on Keystone, Slams Dems for Being ‘Bought’

By Scott Whitlock | January 29, 2015 | News Busters

A furious Ed Schultz on Thursday raged over the fact that only 36 Senate Democrats opposed the Keystone pipeline in a vote. Nine defections contributed to the bill passing the Senate. Schultz sneered, “But what a sad moment for Democrats if they’re concerned about climate change…The Democrats can be bought.”

Senators Bob Casey (Pennsylvania), Thomas Carper (Delaware) and Michael Bennet (Colorado) reversed themselves on past opposition and voted yes. The cable host isn’t really in a position to judge Democrats for changing their position on Keystone due to pressure, considering he did exactly the same thing.

On February 5, 2014, Schultz stood up for Keystone, lecturing viewers, “…The hard cold truth is the United States is an oil and gas dependent country and we’re going to be for the foreseeable future.”

On his February 7, 2014 radio show, Schultz was the receiving end of liberal “shouting”:

SCHULTZ: There’s one thing I’ve learned this week is that liberals can be just as mean as conservatives. I hate to say that, I hate to report that, but it is just I find it absolutely amazing, the all-or-nothing crowd is out and about for my head because of the pipeline story.

More> Newsbusters

This is almost too funny, a year and a complete 180. So someone convinced him of the proper side he must be on. But he’s now the attack dog against any defectors. See how supporting a thing like a pipeline can make you a Democrat defector?

Being “bought” is such an absurd charge. Actually it is Democrats/liberals (progressives) like Schultz that are bought lock, stock and barrel. He just illustrated it. Evidently,  he learned the full lesson about mean liberals. So much for “hard cold truth”.

Related: The Hill — 4/11/14:
Union threatens retribution for House Dems opposing Keystone

Death of a price point

Now with the death of Saudi King Abdullah, the flurries of questions began. What about the oil market, prices in particular, and what effect new leadership will mean for oil?

Well, complex answers don’t stop reporters from asking, except maybe in the case of Obama. The go to man is apparently Prince Alwaleed. He gave a robust defense of supply and demand, then shocked probably even OPEC countries by declaring we will never see triple digit oil again. In fact, he said we will never see hundred-dollar oil prices again.

See CNBC for video and article: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102363511

“I can assure you that Saudi Arabia is not using the oil price right now to impact the fracking industry in the United States,” he said, adding that “there’s an oversupply and demand is not so high.”

He insists there will be little change on current oil policy from a King Salaman government. He does have a grasp of understanding about the subject. It’s obviously true the current prices do hurt the Kingdom. It also hurts other oil-dependent countries. But his point was if they cut production that “gap” would only be filled by some other country. And it would. So it seems their production level alone is not running the market. The dynamics indeed have shifted since the US began producing more.

Now there’s one voice on the record publicly declaring the death of triple digit oil. That in itself should be a big deal. So stick a fork in hundred-dollar oil?

What a bunch of Keystone BS

Here is the link to a State Dep briefing where they were asked about the ongoing Keystone decision. One where the State Dep is to issue its decision, based on 8 federal agencies input.

To all the questions, Jen Psaki keeps reiterating “the process” and that they will not know anything until the input is in. But she said they could not say how long it would take to receive that input because a timeline is not established yet. Getting all that?
Example: (Friday, January 9, 2014 (sic) typo 2015)

MS. PSAKI: Well, there are several components of the review. The agency input is not something that we have at this point to review. /…

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, we’ll obviously move to the next stage of this –…
— which is certainly what we expected, which is receiving the input of the eight agencies. That’s the stage we’ll be at, and we’ll see the process through.

Well, in the meantime, the Congress — which is a branch of the government after all — has said it is going to proceed to put out a bill on Keystone. While King Obama promptly said he would veto such a Keystone bill.

So let’s get this straight. State is saying the process is going as planned, and will continue, in order to make the decision on Keystone. The president has issued a veto notice, while they are still in their deliberation process, awaiting input. Mind you they are federal agencies, acting under an Executive Order Obama issued, that will submit their input on the Keystone decision. Sound like the shell game they play down on the corner?

Since it is far from complete, and they don’t have the input, but Obama has announced he would veto a Keystone XL bill, now what kind of input would you expect from these federal agencies? Is there any surprise here, is the fix in? Could it be a glowing approval?

Really, they can discuss it with a straight face as if the “process” must be allowed to play out to make the decision. “We’ll see the process through.” Obama already said he would veto it. What a nice tip of the hand from the White House to the agencies prior to their input. Still they play this game as if some credible, independent process is making the decision. Want to bet which side the feedback comes down on? Just a hunch…

QUESTION: The fact that the President has said he’s going to veto whatever Congress does, does that affect the review at all?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think the White House has spoken to this. But regardless of the ruling, the House bill and their review still conflicts – and our view, the Administration’s view – with longstanding Executive Branch procedures regarding the authority of the President. That’s why they’ve indicated – or my colleague over at the White House indicated earlier this week what the President’s intentions would be.

We’re continuing this process. We’ll see it through. And that’s where we are at this point in time.

If you really want to see logic and reason tortured you can read the full exchange.

RightRing | Bullright

Oil dip continues – mounting effects

More on the collateral damage of declining oil. The theme continues.

Enterprise Halts Plan for Bakken Oil Pipeline as Prices Collapse

By Robert Tuttle and Lynn Doan | Dec 12, 2014 | Bloomberg

Enterprise Products Partners LP (EPD), the second-largest midstream company in the U.S., canceled plans for a pipeline delivering Bakken oil to Oklahoma amid plunging oil prices and competing pipeline projects.

There wasn’t enough interest from potential shippers to go ahead with the project, Houston-based Enbridge said in a statement today. The line would have carried 340,000 barrels of Bakken a day to the Cushing, Oklahoma, storage hub from North Dakota starting in 2016.

U.S. crude futures have fallen 37 percent in the past three months to a five-year low of $57.81 a barrel today amid a surge of U.S. output. The Independent Petroleum Association of America warned last month that crude producers in the Bakken shale region and other tight-oil plays will probably trim output next year because of the price drop. True Companies, Hiland Partners and Energy Transfer Partners LP (ETP) are among those developing pipeline projects to move more Bakken to market.

Enterprise’s decision is “not really surprising, given the other competing pipeline projects that are under way to delivery oil out of the Bakken,” Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates LLC in Houston, said by telephone today. “In totality, all of these pipelines add about another 1 million barrels a day of takewaway capacity out of the Bakken, which really makes the Enterprise project questionable.”

Bakken crude has traded at an average discount to U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude of $5.38 a barrel over the past year, data compiled by Bloomberg show. The discount reflects the costs of transporting the crude from North Dakota to refineries. The oil was assessed at $52.56 a barrel today, $5.25 below WTI.

North Dakota’s Bakken formation supplies more than 1 million barrels of oil a day. At the end of last year, there was pipeline space for about 583,000 barrels a day of it. That’s forecast to grow to 773,000 by the end of this year and to as much as 1.7 million barrels a day by the end of 2017, according to the state’s Pipeline Authority.

Oil that can’t be shipped by pipeline is sent in rail cars, at a cost of $10 to $15 a barrel. [Bloomberg]

The reporters: Robert Tuttle in Calgary; Lynn Doan in San Francisco

See related video Bloomberg – “Oil’s Slide: Is it a good or bad thing?”
oil settles

Oil illusions and/or delusions – pt 2

(Part 2)
What is interesting is that for years we heard the Mid East production level adjustments, such as OPEC’s or Saudis’, had little to do with the price we were paying for refined goods. When we complained in general about high oil prices, we were told their decisions and production had really no effect on overall prices. We are always reminded that supply and demand are driving those prices. It’s the hidden hand of the economy.

But now we have a situation where Saudis are actively flooding the market with their oil to drive oil prices down, which makes it hard for others to do business. So are they now admitting Saudis’ production control has an effect on prices? Yes, they are. Flashback to all those times we were told it was only consumer demand, no foul. We were imagining things. Remember, they said the free market was setting those prices. Which is it?

Apparently, someone woke them up and told them the power they have over oil prices. Who let that out of the bag? Do you think it took them all these years to realize it? And took our domestic fracking ability and development to show them? Anyway, now they know the dirty little secret and are using it against us to curb our ability to produce.

Here is a newer article examining the issue that Saudis are at war with our domestic production. He compares this reaction to the subprime bubble, and presumably meltdown, as the perfect analogy.

As soon as oil’s price headed in the undesired direction in this highly leveraged market, the dreams evaporated, just as they did in the highly leveraged housing market. The debt of the most indebted producers, now losing money, is worth less than face value. Their creditors will eventually recognize losses. As previously noted, the one wrinkle is that so many producers are governments. They have not, in most cases, explicitly backed their debt with oil revenues, but they had assumed those revenues and based their future spending plans on them. Call it “soft” debt. — Robert Gore; straightlinelogic

Long ago I figured if Saudis’ had real fear about Iran, they could put pressure on the market and oil prices, which Iran is dependent on. This would have the effect of sanctions. Maybe this is what they did, or maybe they are only reacting to us? If we listen to these economists, Saudis are responding namely to us.

I admit having a bias that I prefer to buy gas below 3.00 to paying about 4.00 per/gallon. (or at 2.00) At 4.00 per/gallon, the fracking is more profitable. So am I supposed to be happy knowing they are producing and growing, and just pay 4 dollars and shut up?

I realize how much high prices affect the whole economy. So that works in favor of my bias for lower prices. Am I to say: our economy is sputtering and people can’t afford the high costs… but at least we are producing more oil, thank goodness? I’m not there yet.

On the other hand, should I worry prices will decline so far the market will collapse to where no drilling is profitable? Well, I already heard one person put it this way: ‘you have to produce something before it is consumed.’ IOW, oil must be profitable to be produced, so we can consume it — in all its forms. If it is not, we will not have it available.

But in that case, prices would go up due to lacking supply, per supply and demand.

Here is an interesting article about the scoreboard

Biggest Winners and Losers of International Oil Price Crash

By Isaac Arnsdorf Dec 4, 2014 | Bloomberg

Oil prices around the world have fallen more than 38 percent since the year’s high in June.

Among the winners are airlines, which are saving on fuel and not reducing fares for customers. Bank of America Corp. predicts earnings will gain 73 percent in 2015.

Saudi Arabia flexed its muscle at November’s OPEC meeting by overruling other members, showing that it’s still the dominant producer. The desert kingdom needs oil at $83.60 a barrel to balance its budget, according to the International Monetary Fund, but it’s got $736 billion in reserves.

Apollo Global Management LLC, the New York buyout firm run by billionaire Leon Black, announced the sale of shale driller Athlon Energy Inc. on Sept. 29 — before oil dropped 29 percent.

More on Bloomberg

See the list of winners and losers. Saudis need 83.60 and currently it is below that, though they have substantial revenues.(they should) Iran needs 117. And we know that OPEC members cheat on quotas anyway. They probably want to sell what they can even at a lower price. But I don’t see articles about the negative effects to them.

I know it’s a complex issue. Yes, lower prices are hurting the producers, like fracking and development. It is in Saudis interest that we decrease our production.I understand the price declines are undermining fracking. Hey, there’s an angle for the enviro-gurus. They should favor lower prices. Though judging market effects as either good or bad is tougher. And motives can be almost as hard.

[My past article]

RightRing | Bullright

Oil illusions and/or delusions

(Part 1 of 2)
I posted a piece on the current oil price decline. I could be wrong on my interpretation. Now that I think more about it, I just don’t know.

There are many different angles and factors in the issue. I decided to list some of the variables in an attempt to put the pieces on the table to get a full view, not to prove one view or another. I just thought it would be interesting to see the components.

Basically there is a view catching wide reporting that the decline in prices have hurt the domestic oil industry, and in particular Texas. Some reports describe it as a Saudi war on Texas. The narrative is that Saudis are flooding the market with oil with the intent to hurt our production, namely shale and fracking businesses, which are more cost intensive than cheaper Saudi oil.

A lot of people believe that and follow that line of reasoning. I’m not so sure. I wrote the previous piece off the cuff in reaction to a couple reports I saw getting widely spread. A few days later and I see more reports from economists with the same perspective. It has me wondering am I the lone person who questions that? Did I miss something or am I making a mistake, as sometimes happens? Am I too quick to jump to conclusions or is my bias getting in the way? There can be different opinions.

By nature some reports are kind of hard to understand and complicated anyway. But then I am no economist, and many of these people are degreed academics. I generally have some healthy skepticism and especially when I see piling on a theme. In the end, maybe there is no correct view, and maybe it cannot be seen in just one way.

Supply and demand. This is the talking point that we have heard most in the last 6 or so years. They claim it is market forces driving the high consumer prices we have seen, and actually come to accept as the new normal. This explanation is so institutionalized that we had countless investigations on higher oil prices only to be told it is just supply and demand. Those investigations don’t reveal any gimmickry, so we’re told, and no market manipulation. In fact, reports are no one can manipulate the industry. The very idea would be absurd.

There are investors and traders and hedge funds, oh my. We hear they are the ones to blame for prices. They call them speculators. They bid the prices up to higher levels. There is an awful lot of trading going on.

Cheap oil flooding the market. In the latest analysis the Saudis are leveraging their low cost oil by flooding the market in an attempt to lower costs, making higher cost production less profitable, if at all. This will stop the investment in these processes and stop the industry in its tracks. This is the point of the current reports.

Consumer demand. We will buy something at a marketable price. But in theory the higher the price is the less you will buy, or the less you want to buy it. As prices moderate or come down, you sell more of it. So even in a down economy people will buy just what is necessary, sometimes taking from other expenses. Especially at rising, or higher prices, other goods are affected because they have less money to spend. So people cut back in discretionary spending or luxury areas to offset the higher prices at the pump. Plus they cut use of the product in any ways they can. But other areas of the economy have to be affected because a bigger chunk of the money is going to a particular necessity. For instance less for clothes, food, and less disposable income.

Subsidized economies. Some countries subsidize certain areas of the economy. Many oil rich countries have lower consumer prices due to government subsidies. Some governments own or control the resources and depend on those resources for revenue to fund their government.They make budgets and decisions based on price projections.

Taxes. the money paid to gov’t on refined goods. Higher prices bring higher taxes.

OPEC, a group of oil rich nations allying to make adjustments en masse on production etc.They meet frequently to discuss their issues and concerns. (That I compare them to the Genovese crime family is neither here nor there — they are what they are) They can move or function as a bloc. They have a union concept working for them.

Oil companies, international or domestic, that produce and explore for resources. (Or if you are a card carrying leftist, the bad guys) Private companies in this country making decisions based on a bottom line profit margin, which employ many people. They are involved in production, transportation, refining, storage etc.

Government, involved in regulating, making regulation, protecting resources and assets. Also dispenses permits and approvals, and has oversight capability. It also collects revenues on the business models, as well as on consumer goods, such as refined products.

Retail businesses: Stores that sell finished goods directly to the public consumers.

Fracking and shale oil newer and higher cost drilling operations.

Cost – benefit analysis study of the benefits derived from the cost of materials and production, and projections or decisions based on those factors.

Industry and bulk users corporations and industry that use a particular commodity as basic in their business models. Airlines, freight, energy companies.

Speculators or investors and put hedge funds in this bracket. People or companies investing in oil based on its price fluctuation or performance over a period of time. People buying futures as in any other market, who hope to make a profit. (Such as Hilary’s pork belly futures)

Now, the idea is not to make some grand conclusion by these factors. Just say these are some relevant tangents in the overall picture.

RightRing | Bullright

Oil boom, doom and gloom

I have to take some disagreement with the general views in this piece.
So I’ll take some issue with it.

OPEC Messes With Texas

by Kristin Tate 28 Nov 2014 | Brietbart

It’s official: OPED has declared war on Texas gas and oil. During a meeting in Vienna yesterday, OPEC countries kept crude oil output targets unchanged. The policy is likely to cause trouble for U.S. oil production, much of which is conducted in Texas.

As to not lose market share to the American fracking boom, Saudi Arabia has inundated the U.S. with cheap oil. The intention is to push U.S. producers out of the market space.

Crude oil is currently selling for around $70 per barrel. At this rate, much U.S. drilling could become unprofitable. Leonid Fedun, oil tycoon and vice president of OAO Lukoil, said that some U.S.-based producers are at risk of becoming “victims of their own success,” according to Bloomberg News.

Fedun reportedly said, “In 2016, when OPEC completes this objective of cleaning up the American marginal market, the oil price will start growing again. The shale boom is on a par with the dot-com boom. The strong players will remain, the weak ones will vanish….The major strike is against the American market.”

Fracking helped transform Texas into an energy powerhouse. The process — which involves blasting water, sand, and other chemicals deep into the ground the bring up oil and gas — has allowed for cost-efficient oil extraction. Earlier this year, the Lone Star State was projected to produce 3.4 million barrels of oil by the end of 2014. If this threshold is met, Texas alone would likely outproduce every OPEC nation except for Saudi Arabia, the world’s cheapest oil producer.

To combat the competition posed by U.S. fracking, Saudi Arabia has flooded the market with cheap oil. So far they have been successful, wiping out “hundreds of billions of dollars in equity value from the market capitalization of U.S.-traded securities,” according to the Dallas Morning News. […\]

More: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/11/28/OPEC-Messes-With-Texas

Well, I don’t buy all that. As if lower prices hurt us not help us. The eye always has to be on the longer term. Not to be beholden to OPEC’s and Saudis’ agenda would be a good thing. We’ve been strictly reactionary too long.

Also break that down, the other people hurt by collapsing prices — which were over inflated to begin with — are Iran and Russia. Should we accommodate their wishes for higher prices? The market will drive costs down, with the right policy adjustments.

The expense of building our infrastructure was a big part of getting started. Now that is well under way. The cost curve in most things inevitably bends downward. But meanwhile, price reduction does break the bubble of conventional wisdom on oil — over the last six or so years. So those players are not happy.

I think it is a positive that OPEC has not cut production. Saudis know those high prices were helping Iran. I would hate to fall in line with the agenda of Russia and Iran.

If it is a “war”, let’s examine the other side’s motives for a minute. A war means that they, predominately socialist economies, are inflicting lower prices on us as a weapon. Do you remember price wars? Who benefits by those? So now we are worried about the lower prices of oil, because the prices of heating fuel oils are still high. Have you checked, too, the difference in prices between regular and upper grades of gas? I’ve seen 60 an 70 cents per/gal differences.High test is only where regular was months back. Since when are lowering prices a problem?

I’ve read elsewhere that at 65$ per/barrel fracking etc is still profitable. And Iran needs about 117 per/barrel to fund themselves.(part of which is their terrorism outreach) And the profit margin still appears to be there in the refined products.(crack spread [1]) Maybe its me, but I’d think our government poses a bigger threat to the industry(bottom line) than Saudis flooding us with cheap oil.

But the way it hurts those mostly socialistic economies is worse, in effect, than what we see here. The article mentions the mitigating factor, Texas is invested in much more than oil. Even in the Midwest there is a lot more to the economic story than oil prices. Contrast that with Mid East countries. They depend on oil revenue for everything. It pays their bills.

So who is hurting whom? Are we to believe they are intentionally hurting their own economies to spite themselves, just to make it harder on Texas, and the US, to carry out our policies? If they are, that is a competition(challenge) worth engaging in. We need to win in the end by not being hostage to their demands and desires. In the above thinking, I guess we owe a big thanks to Saudis and OPEC for propping up oil prices to help Texas, and develop our resources. In effect, that would mean we are cutting our throats by developing these resources. Thus, they want OPEC cuts and higher prices?

Note: “A crack spread measures the difference between the purchase price of crude oil and the selling price of finished products, such as gasoline and distillate fuel, that a refinery produces from the crude oil. Crack spreads are an indicator of the short-term profit margin of oil refineries because they compare the cost of the crude oil inputs to the wholesale, or spot, prices of the outputs (although they do not include other variable costs or any fixed costs). The 3:2:1 crack spread approximates the product yield at a typical U.S. refinery: for every three barrels of crude oil the refinery processes, it makes two barrels of gasoline and one barrel of distillate fuel.” –  eia.gov

RightRing | Bullright

2 faces of Landrieu – evolution in action

Is it a bird, or plane, or just Mary Landrieu on Keystone XL? — the pipeline to politics.
(The Hill)

“After she requested the vote Wednesday, both parties were able to agree on holding a vote Tuesday on bipartisan legislation that would force the Obama administration to allow the construction of the pipeline that would transport oil from Canadian tar sands to refineries along the Gulf Coast. The House is expected to pass the bill this week.”

Wednesday:

“If they want to take my name off, put somebody’s else name on it and pass it, so be it,” Landrieu said on the floor Wednesday. “I didn’t come here to see my name in lights.” — [humble, little ol’ Mary]

Thursday:

“When they call press conferences later today and declare victory, remember who actually brought this to the floor,” Landrieu said Thursday. “I’m the senator who came to this floor.”– [Proud Mary]

What’s behind gas relief?

A broad question but Bloomberg diagnoses some reasons, starting with the Fed.

Crude Falls on Federal Reserve Stimulus Halt, U.S. Supply

By Mark Shenk Oct 30, 2014 | Bloomberg

West Texas Intermediate oil fell after the Federal Reserve ended its asset-purchase program and U.S. crude production surged to the highest level since the 1980s. Brent declined in London.

Futures slipped as much as 1.7 percent in New York. The dollar strengthened a second day against the euro after the Fed’s announcement, curbing the appeal of commodities priced in the U.S. currency as a store of value. U.S. crude supplies rose for a fourth week as output increased to 8.97 million barrels a day,

“Yesterday’s Fed announcement is pushing the dollar higher, which is putting selling pressure on commodities,” Gene McGillian, an analyst and broker at Tradition Energy in Stamford, Connecticut, said by phone. “The supply build yesterday may have been smaller than expected but it was still quite large. Ample supply and economic worry are going to continue to weigh on the market.”

WTI for December delivery dropped $1.05, or 1.3 percent, to $81.14 a barrel at 11:59 a.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Crude has collapsed into a bear market amid increasing global supplies as leading members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries resisted calls to cut production. Futures are down about 11 percent in October, set for the largest monthly loss since May 2012.

More Bloomberg

It’s only about time. We cannot have economic growth when oil is sucking up all the oxygen. Prices have been doubled since Obama took office. So the Fed is a reason. I guess we should have been blaming the Fed for the high prices, then.

The interesting thing is that Opec is holding production. Prices are bound to affect oil rich countries, especially Iran. Reuters 2012: “Tehran requires $117 [per barrel] to balance the books, according to the IMF”.

Here’s to hoping Obummer doesn’t do anything to stop the long-awaited correction. Was this supposed to be a pre-midterm surprise? I don’t know. The Opec statement hints at it.

Canada passes pipeline

Canada OKs oil pipeline to the Pacific Coast

TORONTO (AP) — Canada’s government on Tuesday approved a controversial pipeline proposal that would bring oil to the Pacific Coast for shipment to Asia, a major step in the country’s efforts to diversify its oil exports if it can overcome fierce opposition from environmental and aboriginal groups.

Approval for Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project was expected as Canada needs infrastructure in place to export its growing oil sands production. The project’s importance has only grown since the U.S. delayed a decision on TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline that would take oil from Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

The northern Alberta region has the world’s third largest oil reserves, with 170 billion barrels of proven reserves. Enbridge’s pipeline would transport 525,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta’s oil sands to the Pacific to deliver oil to Asia, mainly energy-hungry China. About 220 large oil tankers a year would visit the Pacific coast town of Kitimat and opponents fear pipeline leaks and a potential tanker spill on the pristine Pacific coast.

Continue

While the US passes gas.

Is anybody out there?

Dear diary,

Well, I’m writing to you today to tell you how pissed off I am….. er how depressed and pissed off I am. Now I don’t mean to bring you down — bad enough you don’t have a choice on listening. Sorry I can’t be more upbeat for you. Some friend I am.

But hey, since you are a captive audience I thought I’d let it rip. I know most people probably complain about last night’s dinner, or that last electric bill, or that traffic jam on the way home from work after they stopped off to buy their Chunky Monkey ice cream. I kind of wish I had those problems.

You probably don’t know what its like to talk to someone for 3 minutes until you realize they don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, much less care. Or when you mention some current event only to realize they don’t have a clue about it, so you end up being the bearer of bad news. Then you feel guilty for messing up their otherwise beautiful day. So they blame you, the messenger! No, you wouldn’t know about that, would you?

We have a pretender in the White House but we are surrounded by a circle of truth-challengd activists who actually do his/their bidding. You probably saw my sock puppet criticism. A nation of sock puppets. Those of us with some sanity left are just livid at what they have done to our Republic. It was by no means perfect before but what they have done defies reasoning. Yet we are considered the crazy ones, extremists, the problem, the wackos, the trouble makers, the nut-jobs. Funny how they can pull that off credibly.

So that is the situation here, not very comforting. That’s been the condition for the last six years. The future is no less bleak. Now, with only 2 years left in this regime, they are doing their damnedest to make sure we have no more choice in our situation then than we have at present. Not very encouraging, I know.

Did I forget to mention, they want to destroy any sense of individuality at the voting booth? They have people voting on their skin color, or the ethnicity, or their sexuality, or their income, even reproductive organs. But anyone else who refuses to be pigeon-holed is marginalized as a bigot, extremist, or a hater. And Christians, well, if they don’t fit the mold of the “liberal” orthodoxy and the emerging church, they are discarded as heretics.

On a positive note, if there is one, I’m starting to see more and more people awakened to all the political failures. So far its more of an elephant in the room, but people cannot put their finger on what the nasty smell is yet. They seem to think it must have always been there… just that they haven’t noticed it before.

Surprisingly enough, Islam and Muslims have hijacked our political system and public debate in the country. Meanwhile, more people are being murdered around the world for their Christian faith in the name of Islam. Seems they never learned anything from Jefferson. In fact, they just announced a new caliphate, and even that did not cause much of a reaction in many places, and others rushed to join. I guess they figure its a new social networking tool. ( #hashtag – like us on facebook)

Even as bad, this political caliphate in the US has everyone believing energy is some kind of evil. Anything involving energy has to be run through a P/C decoder in order to approve it. And elsewhere, we’ve even found hospitals that were burning aborted babies for fuel.(at least we think they were aborted) They didn’t appreciate that being exposed. I don’t know if they considered it green or not? Though it could be Sharia compliant, but we’re still waiting for word on that.

The new trend is social justice. It seems that riots in the streets and violence to property is the definition of social justice. There sure is a lot of it being meted out. I haven’t seen so much justice since the 60’s. Well, I don’t want to bring you down, but this sure is not the paradise they claimed it would be. We all waited to see “hope and change” only to hope it changes. It’s not very hop-y if you ask me, but they don’t so I don’t tell them.

I guess I have to close now to leave plenty of time for prayer. These days there is a whole lot to pray about, for, and relief from. Mostly though let’s just pray we can fix the damage being done — with only divine help from above because our attempts aren’t cutting it.

I’ll keep you posted. Maybe I can bring you a little positive news next time. I know you could use some too.

Until then, Love and Blessings… ’cause the world isn’t handing out those.

RightRing | Bullright

The ultimate clueless corporatist and company

It’s a bird, it’s a plane. No, it’s an Obama.

Over at the Daily Caller I read an article about Obama the corporatist, which is a pretty good description. And another makes the case that he is “clueless”. Both show his politics are driven by special interests. Well, no news there is there?

The first article makes the case for Obama the corporatist.

Like many others, I’ve been on the lookout for examples of corporatism — the tendency to replace the formal individuated equality of the market, universal rights and democracy with rule by society’s various big interest groups, exercising special privileges by virtue of their particular social role and cutting deals with each other (usually to protect themselves).

I bet these evangelicals never saw themselves as entwined in that paradigm. But they are. Yet they can spot it in other groups, not themselves.

But it deserves closer examination. Sure Obama has run his politics and campaign on special interest fuel. That is also what gave us this divisive landscape. Does he care about the toxic landscape? Not on your life or anyone else’s. In fact, he doesn’t value life at all, but that is not the point here. There really is no logic or common sense behind it. Those people in special interests are only as good as that next handout, favor, or promise as the case me be — and dependent on it. Now that is the point.

Take young people, for example. Obama and the DNC claim they won them over in droves. Done mainly by talk and promises. One was a step closer to socialized medicine. They didn’t know much about socialized medicine, and many do not remember the Hillarycare ordeal. So he went after this new generation to buy them with all these nice sounding schemes. Instead of lowering the costs of tuition, he promises more money for it driving the costs up even further. What do they care, if he promises more money? Would he cut up the ‘halls of ivy’ institutional gold card? No, that would go against their special interest politics.

The “Clueless” article mentioned a quote from Obama himself.

“Sometimes, people don’t always act rationally, and they don’t always act based on their medium term, long-term interest,” he said about the Arabs and Jews, as if they are Illinois state legislators arguing about how to spend tax revenues.

It’s hard to imagine Obama criticizing anyone for not thinking of “long-term interests”. Pot meet kettle. And his circle of sycophants don’t seem to care about that either.

Now imagine the youth who were all crazy and “fired up” for Obama in a few short years. Right now they are fortunately in a demographic Obama and the DNC care about. So will they still fit in a few years, into one of DNC’s beloved special interests?

In a few years they’ll be out of school and applying for some job in the private sector, to make back those tens of thousands of debt dollars. They’ll be fighting the stale economy, wondering where are the jobs? They’ll be faced with rising taxes, and soaring costs of food and energy. But they will be on their own, literally. because they don’t fit into a group qualifying for special status or subsidies. They might even be in a non-preferred group.

So that personal interest Obama (DNC) took in them will be a distant memory. Just like those miners in Virginia and Pennsylvania, the courtship is over. Sure you may want to continue supporting them in any case, but why? Unless you still fit into one of their preferred status groups, you are as relevant a mosquito to them. So that is their future, but no one is looking that far ahead.

Notice what the union miners have suddenly realized about Obama, that he sold them out. It doesn’t feel so well to be used and abused. Hell, they don’t treat illegal aliens that bad.

UMWA protestors arrested

So what happens when you become one of the non-preferred groups and persona non grata, even after you supported Dems? Protest all you want… there’s nobody at home.

Are you taking notes students? Where will you be in a few short years? Then there is the real irony in the miners’ situation: the only ones who care and listen are the conservatives and Republicans. Is that not strange? But they still don’t get it as they support a handmaid of Tom Steyer, the guru of greenbacks on the Left.

Now just reverse the clock back ten years and you would remember all the outrage over Dick Cheney meeting with oil people. You would have thought the world was coming to an end. Contrast that with the endless number of meetings the Occupier has had himself with union leaders and thugs of all kinds, even weekly. In fact, they want more of it.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s War of Women

This means Warren: Obama backs challenger to Hillary

By Edward Klein July 6, 2014 | NY Post

President Obama has quietly promised Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren complete support if she runs for president — a stinging rebuke to his nemesis Hillary Clinton, sources tell me.

Publicly, Obama has remained noncommittal on the 2016 race, but privately he worries that Clinton would undo and undermine many of his policies. There’s also a personal animosity, especially with Bill Clinton, that dates from their tough race six years ago.

A former Harvard law professor and administration aide, Warren would energize the left wing of the Democrat Party just as Obama did against Clinton in 2008.

Thanks to her outspoken stand against big banks and the top 1 percent, Warren is the darling of progressives. She won her Senate seat thanks to millions of dollars in donations from outside Massachusetts, including from rich environmentalists and Hollywood celebrities. …/

More http://nypost.com/2014/07/06/this-means-warren-obama-backs-challenger-to-hillary/

The war is on it seems. What else can be said? If it means it takes another slap at Bill Clinton while dissing Hillary, that’s just another reason to support her. Is Valerie Jarrett now in charge of the Democrat Party? She seems to be the self-appointed Czar.

I heard MSNBC applaud Warren campaigning for Tennant in West Virginia. They took issue that W Va, who once supported Dukakis, now favors Republicans. Yes, they believe she is the one to rectify that situation. The people that declared war on energy want to win back W. Virginia. Can even Democrats follow these “bob and weave” politics?

Their reasons, according to Wa Po:

1. Tennant needs every Democratic base voter to turn out
2. Tennant needs the money. (only had 1.5 mil on hand)
3. Warren’s economic populist message is a nice fit for the state. Yes, Warren is more liberal than the average West Virginian. And, her views on coal are not in line with most residents in the state. But, on economic inequality — the issue with which she is most closely associated — Warren is likely standing right with most West Virginians. (West Virginia was the third poorest state in 2013.) “Our job is to fight for the families of America,” Warren said at the Tennant event. “Stitch up the tax loopholes so that millionaires and billionaires pay at the same tax rate as the people in this room.” That’s a message that can work in West Virginia.
4. The event was in the Panhandle. West Virginia has moved heavily toward Republicans over the past decade or so. But, the entire state is not solidly Republican. The eastern Panhandle, which includes the town of Shepherdstown where the event was held, probably has more in common with Washington, D.C. than Charleston, West Virginia.

“None of the above means Tennant is going to win. She’s a long shot. And long shots need to take risks. This one makes political sense,” says Chris Cillizza.

 

There you have it, the rosy optimism for why Warren was a great fit for Virginia voters. Just the one to speak to them. Well, that percentage on the extreme Eastern border that leans Liberal anyway. What’s not to like? And she’s their presidential poster-child?

Don’t laugh, they are serious on both. Forget that Dems want to nuke the coal and energy industries and their extreme anti-gun, anti-second amendment, abortion ideology that comes with them. Insulting. One can only hope it’s not “change they believe in”.

RightRing | Bullright

Weird science and broken borders

Obama goes way out on a limb to declare global warming is real because “science is science”. Well, except when it’s not. But Barry can believe in anything that might benefit his political agenda. Weasel Zippers has the story.

“The good news is that the public may get out ahead of some of their politicians,” Obama said, suggesting that as people see the effects of weather disasters like hurricanes and droughts, they might begin to change their minds.

“Those start multiplying, then people start thinking, ‘You know what? We’re going to reward politicians who talk to us honestly and seriously about this problem,’” he said.

News flash for Obama, science and facts are in: the border is being flooded. But I don’t see him concerned about that. O and his pen put out a big “open house” sign and strange how science and math confirms the results. He calls for no emergency actions to combat that.

And unlike Global Warming, that responsibility is in the Constitution. As much as the modern Left sees human beings and population as a huge threat, and cause of every problem we face, it’s amazing how they could not care less about the border.

You’d think anyone would be worried about those numbers and what it portends for our future. Where’s the sustainability plan for that? Where is the strategy to reverse the harmful affects of faulty borders? Meanwhile, Obama also has the largest carbon footprint of any president in history.

Now here’s a real hockey stick

In early 2011, 14 percent of all unauthorized immigrants were from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

In 2011, nearly 3.1 million Central American immigrants resided in the United States, representing close to 8 percent of all immigrants. The Central American born accounted for nearly 8 percent (3.1 million) of the country’s 40.4 million immigrants in 2011. This population has grown more than 60 times its size since 1960, when about 48,900 Central American immigrants resided in the country.

From 1960 to 2011, the number of Central American immigrants and their share of the U.S. immigrant population increased rapidly (see Table 1). At less than 50,000 in 1960, the population more than doubled in the 1960s, tripled in both the 1970s and 1980s, and again nearly doubled in the 1990s, reaching a 2-million mark by 2000 and then a 3-million mark by 2010. The Central-American born share of the U.S. immigrant population also increased – from less than 1 percent in 1960 to nearly 8 percent in 2010. Between 2010 and 2011, the number of immigrants from Central America remained largely unchanged.

As of 2011, approximately 39 percent of the 3.1 million Central American immigrants in the United States had entered since 2000;

The science is settled on how they’ve made the problem worse while talking up amnesty.

Total illegal population
Take Texas, for example: it had 1 million-ninety thousand illegals in 2000, increasing to 1.79 million in 2011. (and add 3 more years to that, plus this most recent uptick over the last months) No doubt Texas’s number has doubled from 2000. Reports are running at a thousand a day.

Yet all they talk about is global warming, ice, polar bears, rising sea levels, hurricanes, and UN reports. But the statistics are loud and clear on their denial about the illegal immigration problem. Sustainability anyone?

While he uses his pen to try to regulate the environment and lower rising sea levels, he uses his pen to increase the levels, and problems, of illegal immigration. The same pen.

You wanted a crisis, Obama? You got one. It’s time people “get out ahead” of Obama and politicians who incubated the problem. I’ll dub him ‘the doctor of weird science’.

I have a “dream”, too. It’s called Constitutional government.

Ref: http://weaselzippers.us/189065-obama-global-warming-is-real-because-science-is-science/
http://migrationpolicy.org/article/central-american-immigrants-united-states
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/06/05/Leaked-Images-Reveal-Children-Warehoused-in-Crowded-US-Cells-Border-Patrol-Overwhelmed

RightRing | Bullright