Newt responds to Obama's celebration that gas prices are low and warnings they are not healthy because it offends his desire to make us Greener.
Energy demand generally rises around 1 to 1 /12% and thus it is inevitable that demand will press prices higher unless supply is expanded.
I have not looked up the inflation adjusted price for energy over the last 25 years but I suspect the price of oil has either been below an inflation adjustment or closely aligned.
The Saudis have several key objectives in keeping energy prices low: Kill American energy expansion, cripple Iran in the potential furtherance of causing regime change, hurt Russia so its Middle East influence is challenged.
Obama can try and take credit for the price of oil but everything he proposed/did kept prices high so he could pacify The Greens with his cockamamie energy alternatives which cost tax payers billions.
The new EPA Regs are designed to kill the coal industry. The amount of pollution saved relative to the cost is minuscule and one Iceland/Greenland volcanic eruption ends any benefits derived. Obama' energy policies suggest appeasement in furtherance of specious political objectives. (See 1 below.)
===
Steve Sjuggerud sees the decline in oil prices pretty much as I do. The price of oil reflects a world whose collective economies are not robust. Thus, demand is insufficient to sustain price levels and to round out the picture you must add the Saudi's intent to cripple America's budding oil development. (See 1a below.)
===
Stratfor's analysis of the Paris attack. (See 2 below.)
====
Finally!!! (See 3 below.)
===
Most trends begin in a subtle manner and, as they gain adherents, often explode in massive and spreading support. Our nation's various freedoms of speech and assembly both encourage and feed these trends.
Probably the most recent start of a variety of trends, that have impacted our Democracy, were associated with the period of The Viet Nam War.
It was around this time that disrespect for and challenges to authority became open. Police were starting to be called pigs!
At the same time, casual dress became more acceptable followed by a variety of casual attitudes beginning with sex, nudity, a decline in traditional respect for and deference to women, which was also associated and encouraged by the Women's Liberation Movement as women sought to exercise their rights and take advantage of opening and expanding opportunities, Freedom often comes at a price.
Daily activities and social interaction also became more casual. Music became more socially conscious, comedic routines were infused with foul language as the trend moved away from the sweet and mawkish humor of Jack Benny, Groucho Marx, Red Skelton and their ilk. The Carlins of the comedy world moved them off the stage.
Dancing even began to take on the resemblance of vertical sex.
Respect for religion and those embracing religious beliefs began to be increasingly mocked.
One of the greatest influences on our societal values is associated with Hollywood movies. Open sexuality has become commonplace to the point that certain aged children are barred from attendance.
We also cannot disregard the impact technology has played in providing the expansion of these trends.
I could continue but I believe I have made the point that these trends have resulted in radical changes in the way Americans think, act and feel about themselves, their fellow citizens and the very government that protects and impacts us.
I might also add that America accepted armed defeat and this attitudinal impact continues to this day. President Johnson expanded his role and exercised a total check and balance on military decisions.
I am not prudish , I am simply pointing out the myriad of changes that have occurred in the last half century.
We now have a president who seeks more change and has determined, through various acts that are constitutionally questionable, to impose his radical views which are significant departurse from the America I know.
Progress is often painful because it forces adjustments which are often resisted and uncomfortable for many to embrace. Progress can also prove retrogressive. New is not always better. There is something endearing and positive about tradition and what is classical. There is something positive and beneficial for that which is time tested.
Where the new normal takes our nation is beyond my ability to predict. I only know we are facing a disturbing period of radical Muslim acts of terrorism and a growing domestic reaction to the radicalization and attacks upon our institutions and documents that have served us well. Why? In part because Obama has resorted to populism's cynical message, bringing change through pitting citizen against fellow citizen,failing to act decisively against the threat of terrorism and presiding over America's demilitarization while increasing our debt as a political payoff encouraging dependencies.
Obama's election was, in part, a manifestation of our collective desire to prove to ourselves and the world we wanted to put our sordid history of racial conflict aside. However, Obama , in my opinion, became acceptable mostly because of his color and not because of his record of achievements and/or capabilities. We are paying a significant price for his 5 years in office and the next two years could well accelerate the divisive momentum Obama has achieved in bringing our nation down as our fiscal problems rise.
The purpose of my ramblings is to get you to thinking about trends and their consequences!
===
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dick:
With the price of gasoline having declined from nearly $4.00 two years ago to an average of $2.20 nationwide today, most Americans are undoubtedly thrilled not to be paying unnecessarily high prices at the pump.
President Obama wants them to know that they shouldn't get used to it. His reasons are as predictable as they are incorrect.
“I would strongly advise American consumers to continue to think about how you save money at the pump," he said this week, "because it is good for the environment, it’s good for family pocketbooks and if you go back to old habits and suddenly gas is back at $3.50, you are going to not be real happy.”
Two years ago, when I suggested in my presidential campaign that we could achieve $2.50 a gallon gasoline with an aggressive American energy policy, President Obama said it was impossible. He called it one of those "phony, election year promises that never come about." The White House actually said I was "lying". Then the President went on a nationwide tour promoting exotic and far-off alternatives as the solution to $4.00 gasoline.
Two years later, those science experiments (algae power, for instance) are no closer to powering our cars. But thanks to the revolution in American oil and gas production (the vast majority on private lands the federal government doesn't directly control), in many states today Americans are filling up for less than $2.00 a gallon.
The President's response? We'd be better off spending the savings on new fuel efficient cars or appliances than to save it.
He tells Americans that prices will climb back toward the highs of 2012, even though they're estimated to remain low for the foreseeable future. He tells us that prices will surge because "demand for oil by China and India and all these emerging countries is going to stay flat," even though prices are low in part because demand from China and India has been much less than anticipated.
President Obama was wrong about gas prices two years ago, and he's wrong today. But wouldn't it be nice to have a president who was more concerned with figuring out how to keep gasoline affordable than in explaining why what he told us was impossible is still impossible, even though it's already happened?
Newt
1a)
| Why Falling Oil Prices Is a Bad Thing |
| By Dr. Steve Sjuggerud |
"I don't get it," my mother-in-law said over the New Year's break. "Shouldn't lower oil prices be a good thing?"
"Gas prices are cheaper, so that should help people and businesses in their transportation cost. And practically every product out there has some type of petroleum product in it, like plastic.
"So if the cost to get a product on the store shelf just dropped by $5 because of the fall in oil prices, then why isn't the fall in oil prices a good thing? Isn't that an additional $5 profit that goes directly in the company's pocket?
"Also, why is the falling oil price causing stock prices to fall?"
Whew – and I thought I was off the clock on the New Year's break…
First off, falling oil prices by themselves are not causing falling stock prices.
In short, falling oil prices are a big red flag – falling oil prices simply tell us that the world economy is REALLY NOT HEALTHY right now. This red flag causes investors to get concerned, and they sell stocks.
Today, the world's stock markets are struggling because of changing expectations – investors have now realized that the world economy is not as well off as people thought six months ago.
Looking directly at oil… The world oil price is based on supply and demand:
| • | Oil prices soar when global oil demand soars and the oil supply stays roughly the same. And… |
| • | Oil prices soar when the supply shrinks and the demand stays the same. |
Right now, we're in the extreme situation where supply has soared thanks to new technologies (which causes a falling oil price), AND global demand has shrunk due to a weak global economy (which also causes a falling oil price).
It is a unique and extreme situation.
The increase in supply is good… It allows that company to have that additional $5 profit on the item sitting on the shelf. However…
The decrease in global demand is bad… It means that the item on the shelf isn't selling. So there is no profit at all from it. Until it sells, companies make less money.
In summary, the falling oil price by itself is not causing global stock prices to fall… The falling oil price is just a strong red flag that the world economy is weak.
That's a simplified picture of how it works. But it's pretty close to reality right now
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) The Strategic Intent Behind Paris Attack
Paris Attack Underscores a Deeper Malaise
Wednesday's deadly attack against a French satirical publication has the potential to upset relations between European states and their Muslim citizenries. The strategic intent behind such attacks is precisely to sow this kind of crisis, as well as to influence French policy and recruit more jihadists. Even though Islamist extremism is, at its core, an intra-Muslim conflict, such incidents will draw in non-Muslims, exacerbating matters.
Three suspected Islamist militants attacked the Paris office of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo with high-powered assault rifles, killing 12 people. Among the dead are the editor and cartoonist Stephane Charbonnier, who was on a hit list appearing in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's Inspire magazine for "insulting the Prophet Mohammed." Eyewitness said they heard the attackers shouting, "We have avenged the Prophet Mohammed," and chanting, "God is Great" in Arabic. This is the third such attack in a Western country in less than three months. The Paris incident involves perpetrators who displayed sophisticated small arms and small unit training.
Whether or not these attacks are the handiwork of self-motivated grassroots jihadists and cells or of individuals tied to international jihadist entities, such incidents aggravate tense relations between the Western and Muslim worlds. This is all the more significant in Europe, where states are experiencing the rise of right-wing nationalism and Muslim communities have long experienced disaffection. The jihadist objective is to get the states to crack down harder on Muslim communities in order to further their narrative that the West is waging war on Islam and Muslims.
While Western states go to great lengths to demonstrate that no such clash of civilizations is occurring, right-wing forces engage in rhetoric that reinforces these fears among many common Muslims across the world. More important, there is a longstanding conflict of values — particularly freedom of expression, which is cherished in the West but seen by many Muslims as a license for sacrilege. Though the vast majority of Muslims will not engage in violence in response to speech deemed as blasphemous, there are many who will. In Pakistan, the blasphemy law has been a subject of huge controversy. Many Pakistani citizens have been murdered by their fellow countrymen for speech or behavior deemed objectionable. At the root of this problem is the extreme discomfort many Muslims have with free expression, although this attitude is not universal. The person of the Prophet Mohammed is all the more sensitive because the traditional view is that he cannot be depicted pictorially, let alone in a satirical manner..
Ultimately, this is an intra-Muslim struggle for power and control wrapped in a debate over what it means to be a Muslim in today's world and what the boundaries of justifiable action are. Defining those factors is one tool that can be used to gain power; attacks against the West and its interests, meant to force Westerners to pull out of Muslim lands or to attack Muslims and enforce the jihadist narrative, are another. This issue undermines efforts by moderate and progressive Muslims to advance the notion of freedoms based on an Islamic ethos.
The ongoing intra-Muslim debate gives extremists ample ideological and, by extension, geopolitical space to exploit. The jihadist enterprise deliberately targets non-Muslims, in particular the West, in part as a means to gain ground within the Muslim milieu. This strategy also sucks the Western world into what is essentially a Muslim civil war in order to tackle the security threats posed by Islamist militant actors.
In this way, the internal debate within the Muslim world does not lead to the defeat of the extremists or the easing of relations between Muslims and the West. But that is exactly where the jihadists are vulnerable, and where the real battle to defeat jihadism needs to be fought. As long as the ideology survives, it will produce new fighters.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)--- Fewer American Jews now identify as Democrats, poll finds
The number of American Jews who identify as Democrats dropped by 10 percent over the past seven years, according to survey results released by Gallup.
Meanwhile, the number of Jews identifying as Republicans has increased slightly but remains little changed overall.
Sixty-one percent of American Jews identified as either Democrats or Democratic-leaning in 2014, down from 71% in 2008, while 29% counted themselves in the Republican camp, the survey released on Tuesday found.
According to an analysis of the numbers by Gallup’s Frank Newport, the “diminished Democratic skew among American Jews in recent years is slightly more pronounced than the same trend among all Americans,” with identification with the party down by 7% in the same time period among the general population.
Jewish identification with the GOP jumped by seven points during the same period, as opposed to only 3% among all Americans.
While there are slight disparities between the general trends and those found among US Jews, they are reflective of the general direction in which Americans are headed politically, Gallup found.
Among the trends noted, Jewish men and the religious are more likely to be Republicans than women and the secular, while those with advanced degrees tended to be less likely to vote conservative than their less educated counterparts.
“The general Democratic orientation of American Jews is a well-established political fact, although this Democratic slant has decreased marginally in recent years,” Gallup found.
Given the small sample sizes with which pollsters deal in determining voter trends among American Jews when surveying the general population, it can be challenging to ascertain the issues on which Jews in the two major parties disagree, “although most news accounts suggest that US relations with Israel is certainly one of them,” Newport wrote.
Not everyone agrees with that assessment, however.
“Except for a small number of American Jews, Israel does not figure prominently in their electoral decision-making or partisan identification,” said Steven M. Cohen, a sociologist at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.
“On surveys, when asked what determines their vote, several domestic concerns rank higher than Israel.
In addition, Democratic voters, Jewish and otherwise, tend to oppose construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and have a skeptical view of the sincerity of Israeli leaders truly seeking peace with the Palestinians,” Cohen told The Jerusalem Post.
Shifts in the general American electorate are the primary drivers behind the slight narrowing of the Democratic lead over the GOP, he continued.
“Jews are still far more Democratic than the rest of the country.”
Cohen added that differences between the US administration and Israeli leaders have had scant impact on Jews’ party preferences, partly because the vast majority of liberals, Jewish or not, “support the general directions of the Obama administration.”
Jewish support for the president from August to mid-September stood 13 points higher than the average approval rating, according to another Gallup poll. Sixty-nine percent of Jews cast ballots for President Barack Obama in 2012, down from 78% in 2008. Both tallies are in line with the general trends seen among Jewish voters over the past century.
These trends are reversed among American expatriate voters in Israel, however, according to Matt Solomon, the national director of iVoteIsrael, an organization that works to register American immigrants to vote in US elections.
According to Solomon, 85% of US voters here went Republican during the 2012 presidential election, while 63% voted for the GOP when choosing congressional representation.
American voters in Israel are “much less partisan oriented than the typical American Jewish voter,” with three-quarters identifying US-Israel relations, Iran, Jerusalem and Israeli security as their most important issues, Solomon said. This is “not the typical partisan issue and frankly [is] one of the rare areas where you can find a lot of bipartisan collaboration.
“Americans in Israel are not subjected to the same partisan messaging or are [not] even familiar with most of the issues that separate the parties and therefore tend to look at candidates independent of their party affiliation.
However, they do place a higher level of scrutiny on whether the candidate sufficiently supports a strong US-Israel relationship or whether a given candidate may improve/harm the relationship or aid/undermine Israel in some capacity.”
According to the Pew Research Center’s study “Faith on the Hill: The Religious Composition of the 114th Congress,” which was released on Monday, “Jews continue to have greater representation in Congress (5%) than in the population as a whole (2%), but there are five fewer Jewish members in the 114th Congress than there were in the 113th, and 11 fewer than there were in the 112th Congress.”
Of 234 Democrats in the new Congress, 27 are Jewish, while there is only one among the 301 Republicans, according to Pew.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment