Double standard hernia

If they threw county clerk Kim Davis in jail in Kentucky, then why aren’t all the Obama administration officials in jail for not enforcing immigration law?

And where are all the people telling these officials that they cannot just refuse to follow the law? If they can put a county clerk in jail for that, how much more should they do to Federal Officials who will not enforce the law? So why aren’t officials in sanctuary cities, like San Francisco, in jail for failure to enforce immigration law?

But one clerk can be locked up for not issuing a marriage license. Advocates also decry officials in Texas for not issuing birth certificates to anchor babies. If the governments’ objective was to be inconsistent, and have double standards on law, which is also part of the fourteenth amendment, then it succeeded.

Obama arbitrarily and illegally rewrote immigration law, then had the audacity to complain when a judge ceased their actions.

US Citizenship and Immigration Services:

Update: Due to a federal court order, USCIS will not begin accepting requests for the expansion of DACA on February 18 as originally planned and has suspended implementation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents. The court’s temporary injunction, issued February 16, does not affect the existing DACA. Individuals may continue to come forward and request an initial grant of DACA or renewal of DACA under the original guidelines. Please check back for updates. [emphasis mine]

Now they contend that they are being denied, via court order, the ability to enforce the illegal fiat law Obama created. The problems he claimed necessitate the law were caused by failures to enforce the law. Now they have the audacity to claim “the system is broken” and needs new law. Still a clerk gets jailed for a failure to comply with their “law” — which in reality was a Court decision. See where Obama has put this country?

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

Aborted justice

Federal judge halts key part of Texas abortion law

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge Friday threw out new Texas abortion restrictions that would have effectively closed more than a dozen clinics statewide in a victory for opponents of tough new anti-abortion laws sweeping across the U.S.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel sided with clinics that sued over one of the most disputed measures of a sweeping anti-abortion bill signed by Republican Gov. Rick Perry in 2013. The ruling stops new clinic requirements that would have left seven abortion facilities in Texas come Monday, when the law was set to take effect.

The ruling blocks a portion of the that law would have required abortion facilities in Texas to meet hospital-level operating standards, which supporters say will protect women’s health. But Yeakel concluded the intent was only to “close existing licensed abortion clinics.”

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican who is the favorite to become governor next year, vowed to seek an immediate appeal to try to preserve the new clinic rules. Clinics called the measures a backdoor effort to outlaw abortions, which has been a constitutional right since the Roe v. Wade ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973.

http://www.mail.com/news/politics/3069204-federal-judge-halts-key-texas-abortion-law.html#.7518-stage-hero1-2

The death culture will be happy about that. It seems all it takes is an activist judge. I don’t know where in law it says there must be an abortion provider X distance away? They don’t want any regulations or restrictions on abortion.

Also an update link here.

ISIS closer than you think

Imminent Terrorist Attack Warning By Feds on US Border

Baghdadi

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

AUGUST 29, 2014 | Judicial Watch

Islamic terrorist groups are operating in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez and planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle born improvised explosive devices (VBIED). High-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources have confirmed to Judicial Watch that a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border has been issued.  Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies have all been placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat.

Specifically, Judicial Watch sources reveal that the militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) is confirmed to now be operating in Juarez, a famously crime-infested narcotics hotbed situated across from El Paso, Texas. Violent crimes are so rampant in Juarez that the U.S. State Department has issued a number of travel warnings for anyone planning to go there. The last one was issued just a few days ago.

Intelligence officials have picked up radio talk and chatter indicating that the terrorist groups are going to “carry out an attack on the border,” according to one JW source.  “It’s coming very soon,” according to this high-level source, who clearly identified the groups planning the plots as “ISIS and Al Qaeda.” An attack is so imminent that the commanding general at Ft. Bliss, the U.S. Army post in El Paso, is being briefed, another source confirms. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not respond to multiple inquiries from Judicial Watch, both telephonic and in writing, about this information.

The disturbing inside intelligence comes on the heels of news reports revealing that U.S. intelligence has picked up increased chatter among Islamist terror networks approaching the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. While these terrorists reportedly plan their attack just outside the U.S., President Obama admits that “we don’t have a strategy yet” to combat ISIS. “I don’t want to put the cart before the horse,” the commander-in-chief said this week during a White House press briefing. “I think what I’ve seen in some of the news reports suggest that folks are getting a little further ahead of what we’re at than what we currently are.”

The administration has also covered up, or at the very least downplayed, a serious epidemic of crime along the Mexican border even as heavily armed drug cartels have taken over portions of the region. Judicial Watch has reported that the U.S. Border Patrol actually ordered officers to avoid the most crime-infested stretches because they’re “too dangerous” and patrolling them could result in an “international incident” of cross border shooting. In the meantime, who could forget the famous words of Obama’s first Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano; the southern border is “as secure as it has ever been.”

These new revelations are bound to impact the current debate about the border crisis and immigration policy.

Judicial Watch

Where would you go?

This Map Proves You Could Be Paying Less In Income Taxes If You Lived Here Instead

Justin Koski — July 18, 2014 | Western Journalism

Do states with higher or lower taxes do better economically?

While everyone has their own opinions on the question, a new study on state economic prosperity and taxation will have some saying, “I told you so.”

Governors of states with high taxes will relentlessly deny their effects on the state, or simply justify them with fairness, necessity or needed to sustain the revenue.

Governors of states with low taxes, use that as a means to attract business. For example, Governor Rick Perry (R-Texas) ran advertisements throughout California just last year in an attempt to sway companies to move to Texas because of their lower taxes.


So which of the two is actually true?

The Mercatus Center, a research center at George Mason University conducted a study to find out just that. Its key findings are:

1-Higher taxes reduce economic growth. A one percent increase in taxes results in a 1.9 percent decrease in growth.
2-Taxes impact where people live. People move to states with lower rates and leave those with higher ones.
3-Income tax progressivity (higher rates as income increases) affects new firm creation.

The key findings illustrate that if a governor wants to bring in more residents, create more jobs and make life better for everyone in it, then instead of increasing the taxes, they need to be dropping them.

If only there was a way we could get this into the hands of Congress and see if they could apply these new findings to the whole country…

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/new-study-liberals-livid-challenges-everything-know-raising-taxes/?utm_source=MailChimp&utm_medium=email&utm_content=featured-stories&utm_campaign=DailyEmail07.18.14

— H/T to Dave

Sounds like someone is trying to match words

“Now we have an absolute humanitarian catastrophe on our hands as well as a homeland security issue,” Gov. Perry said, calling on the federal government to step in.

Ten days or so later, Obama said:
“We now have an actual humanitarian crisis on the border that only underscores the need to drop the politics …”

RightRing | Bullright