Total Pageviews

Showing posts with label russia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label russia. Show all posts

Monday, October 29, 2012

More Domestic Oil Than Saudi, Fewer Refineries


BLUF: As oil prices increase, Obama touts the oil exportation capacity of the United States. Quietly, the administration continues to cut off access to our petroleum resources and make licensing more and more difficult, we continue to lose our national financial blood paying OPEC nations for our energy. We MUST save our finances for our nation while we open up and safely access the more than 200 years of oil and natural gas within our own borders. We must cut off hostiles like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia, and the like from our money.

 

We have all watched our finances suffer from the skyrocketing cost of gas. During the last two years we have talked about the Keystone Pipeline and its importance in getting crude to refineries.  The Keystone would bring oil from the north Midwestern regions of America. The estimated oil reserves, according to US Energy Information Administration (EIA), 317.6 billion cubic feet which is more than 25 billion barrels of oil. This estimate only takes into consideration what technology has been able to verify. That is important as there may well be more oil than we have found. This report can be found reported in Canadian newspapers. Why not in American news media? Someone does not want the American public to know this (1).

 

A recent commentary that has links back to Newsmax talks about how Obama is making it harder to access our own natural resources. Additionally, America is ranked within the top 15 oil exporting countries. So, we are exporting oil, our own prices are going up, and access to our reserves is being cut off.  Reports state that we are exporting around 2 million barrels per day. At the same time, we are importing 22 million barrels per day for our own consumption. Shipping costs have gone up, prices for gasoline have hit stratospheric levels, and we are selling oil. With the price of crude, this would make sense, at first blush; however, it would be a wiser investment (rebuilding, updating, maintaining our own oil infrastructure will put hundreds of thousands of people back to work and paying into the national tax system thereby lowering our national deficit) than selling crude as a cheap and unfinished raw product.

 

Think of it this way, finished diamonds are highly sought after while raw, uncut diamnds are not sold in stores. Why? What is the daily consumer going to do with uncut, unpolished, raw diamonds? The value in any product comes from it being made into something more valuable.

 

Alaska’s congressional delegation — Sens. Mark Begich (a Democrat) and Lisa Murkowski, and Rep. Don Young — call the administration’s action “the largest wholesale land withdrawal and blocking of access to an energy resource by the federal government in decades.”

Who are we importing oil from? Each day, the U.S. uses about 21 million barrels of oil-more than any other country in the world. It imports about 58% of it.  One of those countries  is Socialistic Dictator Chavez’s Venezuela where miners and oil rig workers die regularly in facilities that are maintained at safety levels far below those of US standards, and are likely to be far more hazardous to the surrounding environment. Another one is Saudi Arabia, one to which Obama showed his (sadly our nation’s, too) servitude to by bowing in front of.  The more than 30 other nations include a number of countries which have a record of internationally opposing the US.

 

Someone at journalstar.com has written a piece about how the Keystone Pipeline project is about to become as useful as the pyramids. The pipeline that will transfer all that oil to refineries and shipping ports is about to become obsolete? It seems to us that the Alaskan Pipeline is not able to handle the full capacity of the oil reserves in the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve. It hails the US prospect of exporting oil. The piece ignores the facts that drilling into those reserves is becoming more and more restrictive, made so by the current administration (3) (4).

 

The gross ignorance of transporting that oil out coupled with some minor grammatical errors that are college freshman mistakes and that the author completes missed the concept of HOW to actually get the oil shipped out of those northern reserves tell us two immediate things about the author. First, the author supports the restrictions that are in place preventing our access to the oil reserves and the jobs that would result from that access. Second, the author was writing out of reflex rather than rational thought and research.

 

Our take, at MSMII, is that the Keystone Pipeline is vital in that it would provide hundreds of thousands of jobs in drilling, construction, facility maintenance, refineries, and the thousands of other jobs that would develop around that jobs base. Another point that MSMII feels is worth stressing is this nation’s capacity to refine that crude and make it into usable, sellable products of value.

 

Please, do not take our word for it, check the links below. After the bibliographic links we have also included a number of statements and the sites through which we researched them.

 

 

 

 





 

 

Further Reading for your edification



 

United States Now Has More Oil Than Saudi Arabia: Obama Bans U. S. Drilling: Forces Our Money To Islamic Nations For Oil.

The United States has plenty of oil within US borders. We don’t have to rely on foreign oil anymore! It is just a matter of drilling and getting the oil out. The oil is there! Remember the song….”America, America God shed his grace on thee”? It is true! God provided this country with more than enough oil for generations to come.

Did you know…

There is a massive 200 billion barrel oil field located in North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana. And it even gets better! Because of new horizontal drilling technology, it is estimated that this huge field may even produce up to 500 billion barrels of oil! The Saudi’s are estimated to have only 260 billion barrels of oil, clearly putting America in the cat bird seat!

 


But the good news does not stop there! Alaskais just waiting to drill for oil. In fact the governor of Alaska is suing the government for failing to drill for oil. Alaskan oil fields are massive. At Gull Island, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, there is enough oil and natural gas to keep America going for the next 200 years! Yes, for the next 200 years!

 


There is even better news! The US Outer Continental Shelf has 112 billion barrels of oil, not to mention a whopping 656TRILLION cubic feet of natural gas! WHY are people struggling to pay winter heating bills when we have natural resources like this?

 


Oil shale is abundant in the US. In fact, half of all the earth’s oil shale deposits are located within 150 miles of Grand Junction, Colorado! Shell Oil is working on new technology which will make oil shale extraction financially feasible. They plan to open a shale oil plant in 2010. It will provide a piece of the puzzle toward energy independence for the United States.

 


Then of course, just about everyone knows that the United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal. With 275 billon tons of coal! We have more coal than just about any other place in the world. Enough coal for American needs for the next 250 years! Once again, new technology is underway to make coal burning safe for our environment.

 


So there we have it! It is time for the US to get serious about energy independence and drill for oil. The environmentalists should move to China and India where pollution is really is out of control. With the new technology used in the oil fields of today, the impact on the environment is there but it is controlled. With environmental controls oil fields can be environmentally safe.

When it comes to the environment we need to understand that as long as there are billions of people living on this planet, there will to be a negative impact on the environment. That is just the way it is unless billions of people die, and even then environmentalists would complain about rotting corpses creating a problem for the environment. There is simply no way around problems with the environment when you have billons of people to contend with. The human race needs to protect this planet, yet we have to live too. Living without energy is not an option. Until we have plentiful, green energy we will have to rely on the oil based solutions of old. It will take time to convert to green energy and that quest is just as important as drilling for oil is now. We can’t let the ball drop in either arena.

Obviously we should have been exploring our oil supplies 10 years ago. Now it will take at least 2 years before oil and then gas will come back down to a livable price for most Americans. 80% of all Americans claim climbing gas prices are affecting their lives in a very negative way.

And is it no wonder! Food prices go up every time a barrel of oil reaches a new high. Add to all of this are the flood woes of the Midwest which will mean even higher food prices yet to come. This winter will be especially tough for most people as they struggle to heat their homes with the highest projected heating costs of all time, and if that is not enough, they will be hit with unaffordable food prices, making it harder than ever to put food on the table for the family. This is not the America I know, or want to know.

Whoever wants to be the next president can easily get elected if they take the bull by the horns, and start drilling! We need to open the US oil fields in Alaska, Montana, and North and South Dakota as soon as possible. And, once we have that oil flowing all across America, we can tell the Middle East what to do with their oil. For too long we danced to their tune. It was degrading to both President Bush and Americans across the country when he went begging to the Saudi’s, hat in hand, pleading for increased oil production, which the Saudi’s denied. No American president should ever have to go through that again, especially when we have billions of barrels of oil right in our own back yard.

The next few years will be a time of financial hardship, but once American oil becomes available, it will not take long for the economy to turn around. This time of austerity is beneficial in a way, because it forces us to seek new and better ways to do things. And, new and better ways of doing things…..well that is a lot of what this country is all about! In the face of adversity, we will prevail and prosper in the end! We can do it! God Bless America!

Hub Pages

The Obama administration is continuing a ban on offshore drilling in favor of offshore wind farms at a time when gasoline threatens to reach $5/gallon an economic nightmare the American public might see develop in 2011.

OBAMA MOTTO ~ KEEP AMERICA OUT OF WORK

 


The biggest wave of refinery closures on the U.S. East Coast is raising the specter of gasoline shortages during the peak-demand driving season.

The region will have lost almost half of its refining capacity in six months by July, according to data compiled by Bloomberg based on Energy Department statistics. Requests to send gasoline on Colonial Pipeline Co.’s link from the Gulf Coast to the eastern U.S. have exceeded capacity since August, company data show.

Gasoline futures have risen 24 percent this year, the most of any of the 24 commodities in the Standard & Poor’s GSCI index, on speculation that the closures will crimp supply in New York Harbor, the benchmark contract’s delivery point, just as improving U.S. economic growth and job hiring spurs demand. At the same time, shipping rules limit the availability of tankers to supply the region from the Gulf, while European refiners reduce exports in the face of lower profit margins.

"Domestic infrastructure remains extremely constrained and there is not enough time for that to be resolved by summer," Amrita Sen, a London-based analyst at Barclays Plc, said Wednesday in an e-mail. "Gasoline supplies will be highly constricted as a result and prices will have to rise to attract more imports."

Gasoline for April delivery fell 0.5 percent to $3.3396 a gallon yesterday on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Spot prices for reformulated fuel in the U.S. Gulf Coast were 7.13 cents a gallon above Nymex futures, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Regular gasoline at the pump in the East Coast was $3.811 a gallon as of March 19, 7.7 percent higher than a year earlier, Energy Department data show.

The risk of shortages increases the prospect of record costs for motorists during a U.S. presidential campaign. Pump prices may reach an average of $4 a gallon this summer and might climb to near $5 in some areas of the East Coast, Stephen Schork, president of the Schork Group, an energy-consulting firm in Villanova, Pa., said in an interview with Bloomberg Radio March 5.

In its most recent gasoline price survey, AAA reported last Friday that a gallon of unleaded in New Jersey cost $3.63, up from $3.39 a year earlier. As prices inch towards $4, the state’s motorists are paying an average of 20 cents less than drivers nationwide.

Sunoco Inc. and ConocoPhillips have shut two plants in Pennsylvania and plan to idle a third that together could process more than 700,000 barrels a day of oil. Hovensa LLC closed a plant in the U.S. Virgin Islands that was the largest offshore shipper to the region.

Colonial will expand a line supplying fuel to New York Harbor by 125,000 barrels a day by 2014, the company announced at a San Diego conference March 12. Cargoes arriving from abroad may account for 36 percent of Northeast gasoline consumption this year, the Energy Department said Feb. 27.

The closures reduce the capacity to produce summer-grade reformulated gasoline, or RBOB, the fuel on which Nymex futures are based, with the approach of the peak driving season between the Memorial Day weekend in late May and Labor Day in early September.

"It’s more difficult to make than winter grade and you’ve got a lot of major producers out of the market," Edward L. Morse, the global head of commodities research at Citigroup Inc. in New York, said yesterday in telephone interview. "I don’t know where the material is going to come from."

 


Refinery Capacity Report

Data series include fuel, electricity, and steam purchased for consumption at the refinery; refinery receipts of crude oil by method of transportation; and current and projected atmospheric crude oil distillation, downstream charge, and production capacities. Respondents are operators of all operating and idle petroleum refineries (including new refineries under construction) and refineries shut down during the previous year, located in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and other U.S. possessions.

The 2012 Refinery Capacity Report does not contain working and shell storage capacity data. This data is now being collected twice a year as of March 31 and September 30 on the Form EIA-810, "Monthly Refinery Report", and is now released as a separate report Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity.

 


Contrary to popular belief there are many, spread all over. According to the EIA, 149 refineries are operating in the United States. However, they are not all dedicated to refining oil into usable gasoline, and 149 still aren't enough. The real problem, however, is not that there aren't enough refineries (which, once again, there aren't,) but that the refineries we have are not working at maximum capacity. Regularly, their parent companies will shut them down or scale them back, dramatically reducing their output. The oil companies say its due to refinery age, repairs, etc. There is much debate, however, as to whether or not these actions are actually deliberate in order to boost prices at the pump. It could be argued that with problems occurring that increase expenses for oil companies that their increase in profits recently makes those same statements of high expenditures false. What adds further weight to the debate is the fact that dozens of refineries have been closed in the past 15 years, which doesn't add up during a supply shortage or price spike caused by the same, with increase in demand. It is also widely known that in the mid-1990's some refineries were closed as a direct result of refinery overproduction, during times of surplus, which was due to a loss of profits by the relevant companies. This further makes recent industry profit spikes quite coincidental, now that those refineries are closed and production is strickly controlled, shortage or surplus with every barrel with limited refineries, which can be slowed for any reason. Regardless, production of gasoline and related products is affected, and to be fair, 60% of U.S. oil is imported, and so conflicts in Iraq and problems with Iran, Venezuela, long shipping times/distances all can also dramatically affect the price of gasoline as well, and have been known to hamper it in the past.

 


Q:Does the U.S. lack sufficient oil refining capabilities?

A: We have half as many refineries as we did in 1982, and they're not meeting demands. Regulations, practical challenges and economic factors all play a role.

FULL QUESTION

The lack of U.S. oil refinery capacity keeps being blamed for some of the large increases in gas prices. Do we lack refining capacity and, if so, why?

FULL ANSWER

Though oil refinery productivity in the United States has been improving, the number of operating refineries has been dropping steadily. In 1982, the earliest year for which the Energy Information Administration has data, there were 301 operable refineries in the U.S., and they produced about 17.9 million barrels of oil per day. Today there are only 149 refineries, but they're producing 17.4 million barrels – less than in 1982, but more than any year since then. The increase in efficiency is impressive, but it's not enough to meet demand: U.S. oil consumption is 20.7 million barrels per day. Refinery capacity isn't the only factor in the price of gasoline, and according to the EIA it's not the most important one either (that would be the cost of crude oil), but it's certainly a contributor.

Existing refineries have been running at or near full capacity since the mid-1990s, but are failing to meet daily consumption demands. Yet there hasn't been a new refinery built in the U.S. since 1976. Why? Several factors: Building a refinery is expensive, there are a lot of environmental restrictions on where and how they can be built and nobody wants to live near one. One company, Arizona Clean Fuels, has been trying to construct a refinery in the Southwest since 1998. Getting a permit to build took seven years, and the company twice changed the plant's proposed location because of environmental restrictions and land disputes. The refinery is projected to have a $3.7 billion total price tag. The EIA recorded per-barrel profits of $5.29 in 2006; at that rate, the 150,000-barrel-per-day refinery would need to operate for almost 13 years before its profits outweighed the cost of building it.

In short, the reason for not adding more refineries is straightforward: It's hard, and it's expensive. The reason that we have so few in the first place is more complicated. In the 1980s and 1990s, there was a surplus of refining capacity. Then, over the course of two decades, half of the plants shut down. In 2001, Oregon senator Ron Wyden presented to Congress a report arguing that these closings were calculated choices intended to increase oil company profits. Fewer refineries means less product in circulation, which means a lower supply-to-demand ratio and more profit. Wyden's report cites internal memos from the oil industry implying that this reduction was a deliberate attempt to curtail profit losses.

The economic pressures of oversupply could have led to plant closings even without a more calculated decision, of course. In 2005, the head of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association testified at a House hearing that the rate of return on investment in refining averaged just five and a half percent from 1993 to 2003.

Gasoline shortages in California

Shortages in the Southeast

People are talking about exporting oil? Refineries are closing ... We have greater oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, the leading oil selling country today, but our refineries are closing.

 

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Syria's Major Supporters And Why

There has been a lot of press and talk about the Assad regime and the violence that is spreading slowly out of its borders. We have seen Iran as a major supporter of Bashar al-Assad. Today we need to look at the top three political and material supports that Assad has. Those three supporting nations, in ascending order, are China, Russia, and Iran. This analysts will not take into account UN votes, but financial and material support. China has its trade route and an ideolgue supporting some of their territorial views. Russia maintains a stronger military presence in the eastern Mediteranean, profits from arms sales, and has invested billions into Syrian infrastructure. Iran, we can easily state that they are knee deep in the hooplah and they are in it for the full range of what happens.

China has quite a financial interst with Syria. China, as of February this year, was Syria's third largest export country. Recall history, Syria was part of the Silk Road. Even today, china sees Syria as a trading and shipping hub. A rather important hub, at that. Ideologically, Hu Jintao and Assad have given support to each other on some views that have caused strong international angst over. Those views include Syrian support of China's claims and treatment of Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjang, and on China's application of human rights. China continues to support Assad on his claims over the Golan Heights.

China and Syria find mutually beneficial financial and ideological support for each other.

Russian support for the Assad regime includes military and financial interests as well. The depth of these interests goes far deeper than those of China.

Financially Russia is looking to recover financial interests are closely tied to its military interests in the region. The port at Tartus provides a strategic foothold. The Black Sea Fleet uses the port facilities for ship maintenance, supply, and logistics. The facilities at Tartus and the power grud in the surrounding area infrastructure has benefitted from Russia's investing $19.4 billion dollars in 2009. As of 2011 the facilities and piers at Tartus can, and have, supported guided missile cruisers and Kuznetzov class aircraft carriers. Russia continues to act in ways that undermine American interestts.

Russia may also be getting some isolationism ideas like the  methods used during the Cold War. At that time the West made strategic allies in order to surround Russian expansion and stop their geographic spread. Current examples include US support to Bahrain and Uzbekistan. I believe that this gambit is one that will completely fail for the West.

The Russian Liberal Democratic Party leader, Vladimir Zhimorovsky, has made some very strong statements againsty Western support to the rebels. Statements that indicate there is much more going on than is currently visible. Zhimorovsky has said that any US support to the rebels is "absolutely unacceptable" and would, in his eyes be, tantamount to violently toppling a regime.

Russia gains a naval forward support base and earns billions from arms sales. Commercially, Russia has earned $5 billion in weaponss sales to Damascus.

Iranian Support is all geared towards gaining a physical and very strategic position in the region. Iran has been so completely isolated from decent international contact for so long that the leadership is looking for any way to expand out of their isolation. By any means includes the blatant shipments by air and over land as well as the hardcer to see support through Hezbollah and in assisting Assad with the training and manning, as it were, of an army of children suicide bombers and fighters. This last group is known as the Basij, which Ahmedinijad claims to be. Judging by his age and grey hair, I openly declare him a failure in his service as a child soldier/suicide bomber. If Ahmedinijad could have done that right 40 years ago his poor judgement and mistakes wouldn't be an issue now.

Seriously, Iran already has missiles that can strike Israel from inside its borders, but, I am guessing that the guidance systems still leve something to be desired. Iran has successfully launched mutlistage rockets and put sattelites into orbit, but, they have yet to demonstrate the capacity to deliver their paylods at range. Every missilt that Iran has, buys, and makes can carry a nuclear payload. Iran is even working on its own independent re-entry vehicle. This IRV makes enough people at the IAEA to start investigations, not that any inspection will receive compliance from Ahmedinijad or Khameini.

Iran has the largest missile surplus in the Middle East. One of their missile production/storage sites was just bombed in Sudan earlier this week. Reports of this Israerli lead attack state that 300 Shahab III missiles there were destroyed. Iran is trying to put its own strike missile system in place in Syria. Why would they not expect to be allowed to? That is, should Assad not die in place.

Just imagine the changes that would most undoubtedly take place if Russia and Iran had missile silos in Syria while the US missile defense system, which Obama unplugged and dismantled, absent from the region. Could we ever again have allies in Eastern Europe? Could we carry on trade theough that region? No, not at all. The US Naval Fleet coverage and the protections it guarantees would be stripped away from the Mediteranean, through the Gulf of Aden, off the Somali pirate coast, and into the Indian Ocean.

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Syria, Iran, and Russia

During the last year the political landscape in the Middle East has shown some signs of change. Algeria, Libya, and Egypt were able to rid themselves of their despotic rulers. I would argue that the resistance groups waited, like a pack of wild dogs, for the leaders to be old, sick, and weak enough to take down. Conversely, Iran was able to quickly and not so quietly put down its own uprising with some people finding the government violence on social media. This is also being replayed in Syria. For six months now the Assad regime has been slaughtering its own citizens.

Since that started the world has seen the UN repeatedly call the slaughter an abominable and criminal act. The US and the EU have tried to have new sanctions levied against Assad only to be stymied by Russia and China on the UNSC.

Why has Russia stated that it will not support sanctions? Russia has invested billions of dollars in Syria, Russian investments in Syria in 2009 were valued at $19.4 billion, mainly in arms deals, infrastructure development, energy, and tourism. Russian exports to Syria in 2010 totaled $1.1 billion, Russia is also reported to have invested heavily in the strategic naval facility in Tartous; investments and work that could all be jeopardized if the Assad regime is overthrown or the country descends into violent chaos. As it is, Moscow, which has criticized the NATO-led intervention in Libya, is waiting to see if the new authorities in Tripoli will honor some $10 billion worth of business deals reached with the Qaddafi regime.

Let’s also recall the fact that Russia lost the Cold War. Moscow enjoyed wide authority in the region in the Soviet era and has watched with increasing alarm as Western pressure and a public frustration helped push veteran regional leaders from power as reported in Soviet newspapers.

Meanwhile, in trying to encourage the discourse and further talks, as required by Russia, the US diplomatic envoy is attacked, again, by regime loyalists (read as active supporters of terrorism attacking a legal and diplomatic representative of the United States).

The call for regime change is coming. This is the path which I described in earlier writings where the slaughter has to get to a level of visibility which requires the Arab League and/or OIC to say that something must be done. The UN will eventually be allowed to make that call and, when it does, you will all see Obama rushing in with boots on the ground. Such a good little lap dog for that mechanism, if only he would learn when not to bark, this would go much quieter for the OIC and Arab League. Until that call goes out, Obama gets to strategically and tactically avoid Iran, Russia, and the bad press that would inevitably come.



Friday, September 2, 2011

Week In Review September 2; Syrai, Iran, and America

BLUF
The West is worried about prolonged and ongoing violence in the Middle East.

The What and So What is that ur enemies are getting stronger and more numerous under the Obama administration while simultaneously mocking them.



The White House has worried that protracted political turmoil could provide an opening for additional influence by Tehran, as said in an article published at American Thinker. Turmoil, a synonym for chaos, is precisely what Iranian leadership wants! Ahmedinijad has stated that he wants to be the one to bring forth the Mahdi and, as explained to me by a Muslim cohort, for the Mahdi to return extreme chaos MUST exist. We can expect nothing less than that from a person who openly refers to violent martyrdom as the as beautiful and eternal art? "Is there art that is more beautiful, more divine, and more eternal than the art of martyrdom?" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then Iran's President-elect, mused in a television address in 2005. "A nation with martyrdom knows no captivity." Both Obama and Clinton actively believe that they can talk sense to Ahmedinijad.

Assad allows the Iranian backed terror group Hezbollah to enter Syria without the need for visas.

Assad follows the lead of Ahmedinijad by slaughtering his own people, using not just Hezbollah, but also Iranian Guard Corps (IRGC) personnel and equipment.

Lebanon, a neighbor of Syria, has been allowed to exist simply because they appease Assad.

The primary activity is a spread of both chaos and despotism by way of ham fisted and wholesale slaughter of their own citizens, extorting money from neighboring countries to not attack them, and openly supporting terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Big deal, some might say. The big deal is that this chaos is also being supported by Russia and China, who are both permanent members on the UNSC and maintain veto power. More importantly, these two countries that historically and currently see the US as their opponent see an opportunity for them to strengthen an openly volatile enemy of the US and to profit financially while doing so. Where else in the world are Russia and China involved in ongoing conflict for a profit? All across Africa as well as along the India-Pakistan Border, talk about your war profiteers.

Tehran is actively exploring ways to aid some Shiite hardliners in Bahrain and Yemen. Tehran is providing gear to suppress crowds and assistance blocking and monitoring protesters' use of the Internet, cell phones and text-messaging.
Iran is helping Syria to crack down on protestors. Hezb'allah and Iran was helping Syria handle anti-regime protestors. US government has confirmed some of this information,

But the idea that the Iranians are criticizing President Assad at all is remarkable when you consider some of their own Revolutionary Guards are helping the Syrian president in his crackdown


It is time for the West to confront these brutal regimes and openly support the people. But how, how can the West even begin to that since the appeasement policy so broadly pushed by Obama and Clinton, that has so greatly been ridiculed by Assad and Ahmedinijad, do anything in the Middle East and not be seen as impotent, impudent, and annoying? As unrest spreads in Iran and Syria; their leaders will try to draw Israel into an unwanted war. The West MUST stand in solidarity with Israel.

It is a place to begin. The US administration would also do very well to quickly and actively strengthen ties within the Western hemisphere, also. President Chávez of Venezuela, who is assiduously expanding the western hemisphere bridgehead of his Iranian ally, will certainly bring Hezbollah and Hamas into the West.

In short, Obama "provokes little confidence" among our traditional good-neighbor allies in the Middle East and brings much for our adversaries to laugh about and crow over.

Between appeasement and delegating to the UNSC power to defend American interests Obama has said that the West is nothing as we won’t even act to defend our interests. What does the West stand for now in the eyes of the Middle East?
The Assad regime's abuse and murder of its own population, Syrian involvement in bombings in Iraq which have killed US Forces as well as Iraqi citizens, support for Iraqi Baathists, and its permissiveness toward Al-Qaeda in Iraq have not made the Administration reconsider its Syrian opening, and that violence works.

The What and So What
Our enemies are getting stronger and more numerous under the Obama administration.

The Now What
Start by cutting off ALL foreign aid monies going to countries that are part of the OIC, OPEC, and those which are currently standing in opposition to US policy and interests abroad. Stand stridently shoulder to shoulder with nations which support the US. History shows this is a strong start. The road to safety is not going to be pretty, clean, or smooth; however, due to the ruinous policies pursued by Obama and Clinton, it is necessary.

The Now What
Start by cutting off ALL foreign aid monies going to countries that are part of the OIC, OPEC, and those which are currently standing in opposition to US policy and interests abroad.

Friday, August 26, 2011

Week In Review August 26, 2011

A number of issues have been expanded on this week. The most important of which, I think, include Syria and Department of Homeland Security.

Syria
In 1963 the al-Assad family took control of Syrian leadership. Basher, the current president, was born shortly after. He took power when his father died; in 2000 and 2007 Basher was “elected” after running unopposed each time. The al-Assad family has long been involved in chemical weapons (receiving several plane loads from Iraq in 2002), weapons proliferation with Iran, as well as routinely their subjects, err, citizens (he was elected, after all).

So what? Here the world can see that a slightly less megalomaniac than Ahmadinijad is doing precisely what Saddam Hussein and Mommar Khadafy did. Where they were forcibly and violently removed from power, after 32 and 42 years in absolute control, the al-Assad family stands unopposed by anyone outside of Syria. In fact, the UN cannot even bring a full coalition of outrage in a letter about al-Assad as Russia and China (both receiving US development funds as well as other US aid) are siding with al-Assad. I say siding with as they are not opposing nor speaking out, they are blocking further (useless) sanctions and any actual action that would follow the eventual and blatant violation of sanctions. Again, the “So What” here is that al-Assad is slaughtering his own subjects. Russia, China, and Iran are all backing al-Assad. Iran has funded, armed, and made numerous deals and deployments into Syria. Russia, China, and Iran have all stated that they want to, not just see, but be part of the destruction of the United States.

Now what? Not that I advocate total annihilation or genocide; I do, however, believe in the pre-emptive strike in order to defend a nation’s sovereignty and safety. A nation may also conduct a pre-emptive defensive strike to protect allies that are unable or incapable of defending themselves. Self-Defense on a national basis is what I am calling it. Right now, due to the START Treaty that Obama unwisely signed with the Russians, we now have a surplus of nuclear weapons. Does anyone see a problem with Syrian Green Glass? Yes, take a tactical nuke and put it into Basher al-Assad’s palace. No big loss of oil there. One homicidal and deeply twisted dictator and his entire family line are taken out. No ground troops from the US or coalition nations in harm’s way, done.

What about Obama’s Executive Order 13338? That? The executive order that prohibits us from buying oil from a country that produces less oil yearly than the US uses in a month? I think I called that an empty gesture from an empty suit. Representative Granger wants to see something with teeth, like having the $2 BILLION tax dollars budgeted to Egypt removed if they continue to oppose Western interests.



The Department of Homeland Security preparedness grant program awards for fiscal year 2011 puts $2.1 BILLION tax dollars into security initiatives and response organizations. None, or very little, of this $2.1 BILLION tax dollars seems to go into answering the questions presented by Dr. Jim Giermanski, Chairman Powers Global Holdings, Inc.

1.  Does DHS believe and support the use of Container Security Devices (CSDs) as being consistent with law, foreign security programs, non-government organizations, and the private sector bottom-line needs?
2. Does DHS believe that container security technology and CSDs serve as revenue producers for the private sector?
3. Why is the official policy on physical security for containers sealed "doors-only?"
4. Other than the incentives claimed by CBP for the private sector's participation in C-TPAT, what U.S. government incentive is used to encourage the use of CSDs?
5. Why is DHS not participating with the EU and other nations who are working together to develop an international standards and protocols for CSDs?
6. What can Congress do, but has not done to encourage CSD usage? 
7. What has DHS done with respect  to informing and encouraging Congress to ratify the Rotterdam Rules recognizing that these new Rules improve supply chain security?
8. Given increased security concerns about Mexico, what CSD pilots or programs have been used or tested in Mexico/U.S. cross-border commercial practices?
9. In which CSD pilots, if any, has DHS participated?
10. Why is DHS not complying with the mandates of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 with respect to CSD for usage HAZMAT movements?
11. If Trade Facilitation is one goal of CBP, why wouldn't CBP/DHS required the use of CSDs knowing that their usage is a financial benefit to the user as well as to the government?
12. Since DHS admits that transshipments are a legitimate security concern, why hasn't DHS mandated CSD usage for all containers inbound to the United States which transit a transshipment port?
13. Why has the "Green Lane" concept not yet been implemented in seaports to encourage CSD usage?
14. Why continue weak programs such as CSI knowing there is no actual verification of container contents?
15. Why is it that DHS/CBP has not yet addressed the current proven vulnerability of using the required 433.5 to 434.5 MHz spectrum in our ports knowing and admitting in writing along with the Office of the Secretary of Defense that the vulnerability truly exists as indicated in this DHS statement: ... these technologies...can be exploited and potentially used to trigger an explosive device.
16. Has DHS funded or directed an empirical study of the impact of closing all U.S. seaports and land ports-of-entry as a result of one or two dirty bomb blasts in the U.S. ports?

So, this week, while Ron Paul and 77% of the sitting democrats voted against enabling rules of engagement that actually PROTECT our military personnel, Janet Napolitano is spending $2.1 BILLION of our tax dollars on initiatives and response.

So what? DHS has put another $2.1 BILLION tax dollars into feel good initiatives rather than actually identifying and stopping threats.

Now what? I propose we do away with the Department of Homeland Security. But, they are there in case of a National Emergency, you say. What about the National Guard? Aren't they dual hatted to serve in support of the military AND to serve their states in response to national emergencies? Well, yes, they are. What about the highly important and visible role they play at airports? Don't most airports already have police, fire, rescue, and security elemnts working there? Well, yes, they do. Now what, you ask. The government tears down, repeals the institutionalized walls outlawing the sharing of information that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in putting up and allow the standing and proven methods of investigative, law enforcement, intelligence, and common sense to work.

Oh, yes, support Electrolux, they said that putting more sharia compliant rules in play within their organization sucks.

Thank you and have a great weekend.

Friday, August 12, 2011

Growing Unrest in the Middle East

As the violence from the Arab Spring spreads, it comes to mind that it might, just MIGHT, have something to do with the foreknowledge that the US is pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Just a thought, but, onto the BLUF

Bottom Line Up Front
No real action will be taken against Syria until the UN has gotten permission from the Organization of Islamic Countries. When action does come, the US will be at the forefront and reigned back by other regimes.


Background
The Middle East is now, always has been, and always will be, a violent mess. The so called "Arab Spring" brings to mind all sorts of lush, new green, budding growth. Nothing could be farther from the truth. World bodies, comprised of presumably democratic nations, stand and do nothing. The only action that is taken, be it in Iran, Algeria, Egypt, or now Syria, comes after the UN first goes through a regular series of steps to publicly "do something". It ends after the US gets called on by the UNSC to actually do something. When it was Lybia, Obama acted under the War Powers Act by putting us and NATO in the air and on the ground there. Now, with Syria five months into killings protestors, the UN continues to talk about and to consider what actions may (not will, but may) be taken.

On the UNSC are three bodies opposing stronger sanctions, sanctions that require unanimous support to be passed (no talk about enforcing, just passing) as a legal resolution. Those opposing the passage are Russia, China, and Lebanon. There is no shock that Russia and China, both of whom have strong records of making their own citizens disappear and die, are opposed to actions against Syria. So, too, is Lebanon. Lebanon is the proxy presence of Iran on the UNSC.

There are also reports that the United States has evidence of crimes against humanity that the Assad regime is now guilty of. Crimes which UN Secratary General Ban Ki-Moon says are very possibly real. These alleged and hinted at vharges are goig to be used as leverage, by the US, to get Assad to step down. To step down, ouch. That he gets to step down after committing crimes against humanity and slaughtering his own people is a sickening thought. Five months of killing his citizens and he could face the possibility of being asked to step down.

Considering the rally such a statement from the US would result in, this would likely come to the bloody and tortuous end of those who rallied at the words of our President. So, while the civilized world is "appalled" by the daily murder of Syrians citizens by their dictator Assad, the Ditherer In Chief waits for the OIC and the UN to let him off of his leash.Even while the impotent UN meets to talk about taking more action, Surians continue to suffer and die. Assets that the US can freeze have been. State Department personnel seem distressed that Assad cannot hear the call of the international community to stop. He can't seem to hear anything over the sound of the guns being used to kill protestors en masse. Leaders of Arab nations will continue to meet and discuss this uprising in Syria in their cool, clean offices and sprawling dining rooms, entreating their wayward cohort to be more gentle with his people.The nearly 2,000 people who have died during the last 5, almost 6, months will bear silent witness to the lack of concern for anyone.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/08/09/bloomberg1376-LPOO8F1A74E901-1JGKKEAQ2BAM1PTBP3R96QKV9I.DTL&ao=2

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/09/the-u-n-and-double-standards/