Showing posts with label Natural Gas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Natural Gas. Show all posts

Monday, June 4, 2012

Obama Economics


What’s New Today

Story #1 shows how Obama’s economic policies have failed.  #2 demonstrates that Romney is not John McCain.  #3 looks at what is at stake in tomorrow’s recall election.  #4 looks at the nanny state as exemplified by Mayor Bloomberg in NYC.  #5 tells another story of a decision Obama wants to put off until after the election.  #6 has a woman who knew Obama at Harvard talking about her impressions of who he is.  #7 looks at the desperation of the environmental lobby.  They were so close with global warming.  How do they cope?

Today’s Thoughts

Some final polling shows the Wisconsin recall tightening, but Walker still leading.  I’m predicting that on Wednesday we will have a plethora of excuses being made as to why the Unions lost and how it has nothing to do with the coming election.  

The crisis in Europe regarding the Euro may afford opportunities for people who want to travel there. Already the Euro is down to $1.25 and if Greece leaves the zone it may spur others as well.  

After Obama’s six fundraisers on Friday I began to wonder if he had put as much work into the economy as he has into raising money, might we finally be out of the recession?  Just a thought. 

If appears black ministers in Massachusetts are calling Elizabeth Warren to the carpet.  They aren’t happy that she portrays herself as a “woman of color.”


1.  Obama’s Economics Failure

As the NRO sage points out, it isn't just his ideology, or philosophy, or even just his policies that have failed; it is Obama's entire view of economic reality that must be called into question:

The Keynesian government-spending model has proven a complete failure. It's the Obama model. And it has produced such an anemic recovery that, frankly, at 2 percent growth, we're back on the front end of a potential recession. If anything goes wrong -- like another blow-up in Europe -- there's no safety margin to stop a new recession.

[...]
Barack Obama doesn't get this, but businesses create jobs. And firms have to be profitable in order to hire. Yet the president is on the campaign trail criticizing Mitt Romney by degrading the importance of profits. Huh?

Without profits, businesses can't expand. And if they don't expand, they can't hire. And if they don't have profitable rates of return, they're not going to attract new capital for investment.

Which brings us to a couple of important reasons for the virtual freeze in hiring.

First, there's the fiscal tax cliff. If all the Bush tax rates go up, incentives will go down and liquidity will leave the system. You can't pick up a newspaper these days and not find a story about how the fiscal cliff is elevating uncertainty and slowing U.S. growth. House Speaker John Boehner asked Obama for help in extending the Bush tax cuts this summer. But Obama said no. Instead, he wants to raise marginal tax rates on successful upper-income earners, capital gains, dividends, estates and many successful corporations.
Where's the corporate tax reform that would lower rates and broaden the base and end the double-taxation of the overseas profits of American companies? A business tax cut would help enormously, but it's nowhere in sight….

Most liberals don’t really understand economics.  They talk about subsidizing firms that take jobs overseas.  The problem is that the USA has the highest tax rates in the world on business.  Money made overseas can’t be brought back to the USA without paying this rate.  But they can keep the money offshore paying the local rate if they keep it overseas.  Hence the incentive to expand there rather than here.  The fix is not to charge taxes on all money no matter where it is made, but to lower the corporate tax rate to eliminate the need to keep the money overseas. 

2.  Obama vs Romney Game On 


At the NATO Summit, President Obama said his opponent's private equity success vs. the administration's failed industrial policy was what this election was all about. Speaking at the bankrupt Solyndra headquarters, his GOP opponent agreed.

It is said a picture is worth a thousand words. The photo of Mitt Romney holding a surprise press conference in front of the headquarters of the bankrupt solar energy firm Solyndra poster may just be worth a good portion of the 270 electoral votes needed for victory in November.
"Two years ago President Obama was here to tout this building and this business as a symbol of the success of his stimulus," said Romney, stepping off a bus and onto the public sidewalk in front of the Solyndra buildings just outside Silicon Valley. "Well you can see that it's a symbol of something very different today."

Indeed, it is a symbol of the failure of the administration's green energy boondoggle, where over a half billion dollars has been spent to reward donors while subsidizing an uncompetitive company with a doomed business model.

Solyndra, where 1,100 employees lost their "green jobs," is only one of many green failures that included companies like Beacon Power, First Solar and Ener1, battery maker for President Obama's fantasy fleet of electric cars.

During a visit to Solyndra Inc.'s Fremont, Calif., facility in spring 2010, President Obama boasted of what the company was going to do with the $535 million in loan guarantees his stimulus package provided.
"We can see the positive impacts right here at Solyndra," he said. "(T)hrough the Recovery Act, this company received a loan to expand its operations. This new factory is the result of those loans." Loans that Romney pointed out, the taxpayers were left on the hook for. The $535 million loan guarantee that was issued despite the warnings of private and federal agencies helped build a plant the size of five football fields outfitted with whistling robots and spa-like showers.

At the NATO Summit, President Obama said he couldn't just think about profits for investors but the good of all the people, at least all the people like George Kaiser, the billionaire behind the Solyndra debacle. Frankly, we prefer the risks and chances for success of firms like Romney's Bain Capital versus the crony socialism involved in President Obama's backing of firms like Solyndra….


It’s pretty simple.  Obama’s crony capitalism vs Romney’s free market. 

3.  Wisconsin:  What’s at Stake

A single election rarely determines a democracy's fate, but some matter more than others. Tuesday's recall election of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is one that matters a great deal because it will test whether taxpayers have any hope of controlling the entitlement state and its dominant special interests.

Specifically, we will learn if a politician can dare to cross government unions and survive. Mr. Walker isn't facing this extraordinary midterm challenge because he and a GOP legislature asked public workers to pay 12.6% of their health insurance premiums and put 5.8% of their paychecks toward their pensions. Those are small sums compared to what private employees typically pay.

His political offense was daring to challenge the monopoly sway that public unions have come to hold over modern state government through collective bargaining. Public unions aren't like private unions that negotiate labor terms with a single company or workplace. Public unions have outsize influence because they can often buy the politicians who are supposed to represent taxpayers. The unions effectively sit on both sides of the bargaining table. 

Thus over time they have been able to extort excessive wages, benefits and pensions, as well as sweetheart contracts like the monopoly provision of health insurance. Their focused special interest trumps the general interest of taxpayers, who are busy making a living and lack the time to focus on politics other than during elections or amid a fiscal crisis….


In addition, many people are saying this election will be a forerunner of the coming Presidential election.  If in a highly unionized and progressive state like Wisconsin, Scott Walker wins, Obama is in big trouble.

4.  Bloomberg’s War on Sugar and the Left Applauds

There’s only one way to say something like this, and it’s loud and proud and without apology: I wholeheartedly support Mike Bloomberg’s war on sugar. It’s unassailable as policy. Refined sugar is without question the worst foodstuff in the world for human health, and high-fructose corn syrup is little better. We are a fat country getting fatter and fatter, and these mountains of refined sugar that people ingest are a big part of the reason. The costs to the health-care system are enormous, so the public interest here is ridiculously obvious. Obesity is a killer. Are we to do nothing, in the name of “liberty” that entitles millions of people to kill themselves however they please, whatever their diabetes treatments costs their insurers? We have this “liberty” business  completely backward in this country, and if Bloomberg can start rebalancing individual freedom and the public good, God bless him, I say…

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/02/michael-tomasky-mayor-bloomberg-is-right-to-declare-a-war-on-sugar.html

Columnist Michael Thomasky shows us where the left is coming from.  They will take over your life and take away your choices “for your own good.”  But this is an old story and we also know the end.  Because eventually they take away things not for your own good, but for someone else own good.  Remember back in the time of Henry VIII they burned people “for the good of their immortal souls” although I think it had more to do with insuring people stayed in the Catholic/Protestant church.  This is the nose of the camel. BTW I remember when it was salt that was the worst foodstuff in the world for human health.

5.  Another Reason Obama needs to Go

Does President Obama care more about jobs for Americans or about his own re-election chances?  A decision last week on natural gas exports provides the answer.

On Monday, the White House announced that it would postpone a decision until after the election on whether to allow natural gas exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries.  While this is just one of a thousand decisions Obama has postponed for political reasons, it is an important one.  It puts hundreds of thousands of good jobs at risk.

For natural gas to be exported to countries in Europe and Asia, it must be liquefied at plants such as Cheniere Energy's plant at Sabine Pass, Texas.  The Sabine Pass liquification project, one of many under development or consideration, would create 50,000 jobs in the natural gas supply chain, in addition to jobs constructing and operating the plant itself.  Overall, a dozen such plants could create as many as 750,000 new jobs, and each of those jobs would spawn others as wages were spent on homes, cars, food, and other purchases.  But the president refuses to approve liquefied natural gas exports to non-FTA nations.  Is there some reason, other than politics, why the exportation of natural gas is acceptable only to nations with which the U.S. has free-trade agreements?

The only reason, it turns out, why the president is blocking LNG exports is his quaking fear of the environmental lobby….

Fossil Fuels are the wave of the future and that wave will help to heal our economy.  Natural gas used to be the most favored of the fossil fuels by the environmental lobby until they found lots of it and it became apparent it was a fuel that limits the need for green energy.  Now it seems to be public enemy number one with environmentalists claiming it’s dirtier than coal. 

6.  Who is Barack Obama

Conservative commentator Carol Platt Liebau,..described her relationship with Obama during her law school years. Despite his liberal slant, she said Obama was respectful of the conservative perspective when he was president of the Harvard Law Review.

“I knew him reasonably well — as well as most people knew him, if not better — because quite in contrast to this image that Barack tries to project, as someone who is warm and all-embracing and all that kind of stuff,” Liebau said.

“I mean, I will tell you I’ve written a piece that has praised Barack for certain things and I stand by that piece: He was color-blind in the way he chose, staffed the law review when he was president. He did give both sides a fair hearing. He always went with the far-left side, but he did give both sides a respectful hearing, which was fairly atypical at Harvard Law School at that time.”

… Her longest one-on-one communication with Obama, she said, came when she was managing editor of the Harvard Law Review.

“So I guess it caused a lot of rumbling that I didn’t know about, and so we were all impressed with a return visit by our retired president, the former president, Barack Obama, who took me out on the back steps of Gannett House, which is where the review was housed and wanted to have a little one-on-one with me,” she said.
Liebau said his advice started off sound, but ultimately came off as disappointing.

“He said, ‘Look, what do you care who does the work?’” Liebau recalled Obama saying in reference to her management of the law review. “’It is the same amount of work for you to hand out the work no matter who it goes to, so why fight it? Do what’s easiest for you. Give the work to the people who will do the work, and just don’t worry about the people who don’t want to pull their weight.’”

Liebau wasn’t impressed.

“I guess I was young and naïve: I was like, ‘Ah but that wouldn’t be fair,’” she said….


But he’s obviously grown since then.  If he were the same person, he would have probably come into office and given the Congress the task of writing the Stimulus Plan and ditto on the healthcare plan. 



7.  Environmentalist Turn Desperate

The National Wildlife Federation’s new publication "The Psychological Effects of Global Warming on the United States” gives wildlife a new meaning.  Citing evidence that many in the climate alarmist community are "frustrated and burned out," it quotes one member as trying to keep on persuading mankind that a climate apocalypse is at hand so "I will not be able to feel the angst or despair" of failure.
For nearly three decades, certain U.S., U.K., and U.N. activists, like NASA's James Hanson, have tried to sell governments on draconian centralized economic policies supposedly to save the planet.  Anyone disagreeing -- regardless of credentials and reasoning -- becomes the target of rhetorical terrorism.  But the skeptical resistance is so strong and growing so rapidly -- not just in the public, but also among scientists -- that the alarmists increasingly show signs of both despair and loss of self-control.
In his recent Forbes article, alarmist Steve Zwick, apparently inspired by Hanson's tirades, wants the scientifically unpersuaded to be hunted down and their homes burned.  Daniel Souweine of the Soros-funded Citizen Engagement Lab demands that TV weathercaster who disagree that man is the prime cause of climate change to be persecuted until they repent.

A rational person would think a call for psychological intervention would be directed against such behavior.  Not so.  The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) now calls upon government to bankroll massive intervention by the mental health community to deal with up to 200 million cases of stress from projected "climate related events and incidents."

Then, in language reminiscent of Mao Tse-tung’s education camps for the non-compliant, the NWF eagerly anticipates how government-funded psychological experts will break down denial and bring "rational thinking into decision making." …

This is what they used to do in the Soviet Union.  Anyone who didn’t love Communism was obviously mentally unbalanced and was put into mental hospitals. 


Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Santorum is out and so is global warming

What’s new Today 

Story #1tells us Santorum is out.  Romney is the Republican standard bearer.  #2 is a fun article that shows the irony of the American left and what it does to the country.  #3 relates the abundance of natural gas.  There is a new age a dawning but we will need to get the democrats out of the way.  #4 tells us that even T. Boone Pickens realizes this.  The jobs aren’t green, but brown.  #5 looks at a revolt of scientist at NASA regarding global warming.  #6 reinforces the people at NASA.  It seems all the warming we’ve had so far has only occurred with data that has been “adjusted.”


Today’s thoughts



1.      Do you notice that we tend to get more economic progress when congress is in “gridlock” than when they are “helping” the economy?
2.      I wonder if the latest polls out of Pennsylvania indicated that Santorum was going to lose his home state?


3.      Obama will lose in November by at least the margin he won by in 2008.


4.      I have no idea of who the VP candidate will be, but I have a number of candidates that I would be happy with.  Paul Ryan is first on my list. 


5.      It’s now been 1075 days since the Senate passed a budget.  Since that time, we’ve deficit spent $4.468 trillion.  Great job, Harry Reid. 


1.  Santorum Out:  Romney’s nomination now assured

Rick Santorum suspended his presidential campaign on Tuesday, bowing to the inevitability of Mitt Romney’s nomination and ending his improbable, come-from-behind quest to become the party’s conservative standard-bearer in the fall.

“We made a decision over the weekend, that while this presidential race for us is over, for me, and we will suspend our campaign today, we are not done fighting,” Mr. Santorum said.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/santorum-to-suspend-presidential-campaign/

Let the healing begin.  It was time for the Republicans to unite behind a standard bearer.  You will now hear about Romney not be a like the rest of us (I thought that was Obama’s claim to fame last election).  You’ll hear about him being out of touch with the common man, but that is a charge the entire Democratic Party suffers from.  Watch the momentum start building and Obama start taking a bath in the polls. 


2.  Only In America
1) Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000 a plate campaign fund raising event.

2) Only in America could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when we have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18%  of the federal workforce is black.

3) Only in America could we have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.

4) Only in America will you find people who burn the American flag and call America an "imperialist nation," but who get offended if you say they're not patriotic...


If you enjoy irony, you’ll like this article.  My favorite is number nine… “Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists."  I’m not sure they are thought of as being extremists.  They are simply called that by the left most of whom are actually extremists. 


3.   Natural Gas and the Future

…The EPA's proposed regulation sets allowed CO2 emission levels at 1,000 pounds/megawatt-hour, which would stop the building of new coal-fired power plants. In Virginia, Dominion Power is already building a 1,300-megawatt gas-fired plant. Of course, it is quite possible that the EPA will try to extend their regulation to include all coal-fired plants -- and then perhaps lower their arbitrary 1,000-lb limit to go after gas-fired plants -- part of an ill-advised campaign against all fossil fuels, based on pathological fears of imagined climate catastrophes.

But it is ironic also that cheap gas will completely remove the need for electricity generated by solar or wind -- much to the chagrin of environmental zealots. And all those folks hoping that energy prices would continue to rise and that electricity costs would "skyrocket" will be sorely disappointed.

But there are also extra bonus points. "Combined-cycle" gas power plants can reach efficiencies of 60% or more, compared to heat efficiencies of nuclear power plants of 35% or coal plants of 40%.

It gets even better than that. Gas-fired electricity generation is essentially non-polluting and user-friendly, and it can be placed in close proximity to wherever power is needed, making distributed generation economically feasible. For example, a large apartment building of 1,000 units could use its own 10-megawatt power plant. But once installed, it becomes possible to consider co-generation, with the waste heat used for space heating, air-conditioning, hot water, laundry, and other process-heat applications -- and even desalination. One can imagine energy efficiencies of as much as 80%, more than double what is achieved today. It would also simplify the problem of waste-heat disposal.

Cheap gas will encourage the petrochemical industry to invest $30 billion in new U.S. plants over the next five years, according to Chevron-Phillips Chemical Co. Plastics producers will get a double-boost -- from cheaper feedstock gas, the raw material for their product, and lower electricity costs. When natural gas becomes really cheap -- say, less than $2 per mcf -- it will become more like nuclear energy, where the main cost is not fuel, but the capital cost of the power plant.

So what needs to be done? The first step is to have a White House that strongly believes in the need for low-cost energy to promote economic growth, increase prosperity, and fight poverty. Electricity costs should "skyrocket" downward, not upward. While new gas-fired combined-cycle plants are being built, existing coal-fired and nuclear plants, representing "sunk costs," should be kept in operation for as long as possible…


This revolution is astounding.  The current administration is trying to do everything it can to derail it.  That is only one of the reasons Obama and the Democrats need to be voted out of office. 



4.  Where the Jobs Are

Oilman T. Boone Pickens made a statement on MSNBC's Morning Joe Wednesday that should make every green jobs advocate including Barack Obama, Al Gore, and Van Jones sit up and take notice.

"I've lost my a--" in wind power. This came moments after he said, "The jobs are in the oil and gas industry in the United States"…

…With this in mind, Barnicle asked about so-called “green jobs” in America. “Are there jobs in this?”

“Sure,” answered Pickens, “if you go out and subsidize some of these things to develop them – yeah, you get jobs out of them, of course. The jobs are in the oil and gas industry in the United States. I mean, that’s where it is. You have an industry that is superb in comparison of oil companies around the world. They are the best.”

Pickens continued, “They found the oil the cheapest, they found the gas the cheapest for you and all, and you have somebody saying, ‘Hey, they’re not paying their fair share, and they make too much money, they need to be taxed more.’ Hey, they’ve gone out and done exactly what you wanted. They got jobs for you, they got the oil and gas cheaper for you. The problem is nobody understands energy in America. If they understood energy, they would know that, hey, something good is happening here.”…

… Pickens continued, “Obama needs to go in, study it, look at it, and decide what an energy plan is, and then go forward with it. He needs to explain to his people, ‘Hey, we can get on everything green. We can get on everything renewable. Then the cost of power will go up ten times.' So be careful when you start fooling with it. Know what you’re working with.”



Pickens is telling the truth.  What Obama and the greenies want to do will cost every American as much as 10 times what they are spending now on energy which will translate into higher prices for everything and a lower standard of living for the poor and the middle class.  The left is not the friend of the working man.



5.  Revolt at NASA

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance…


Hansen stopped being a scientist a long time ago and is now an advocate.  His constant “adjusting” of temperature history is actually an embarrassment to the climate science establishment.  His temperature records change more often than pictures of fallen soviet commissars in the old USSR. 


6.  Where the Warming is coming from

Since NOAA encourages the use the USHCN station network as the official U.S. climate record, I have analyzed the average [(Tmax+Tmin)/2] USHCN version 2 dataset in the same way I analyzed the CRUTem3 and International Surface Hourly (ISH) data.

The main conclusions are:

1) The linear warming trend during 1973-2012 is greatest in USHCN (+0.245 C/decade), followed by CRUTem3 (+0.198 C/decade), then my ISH population density adjusted temperatures (PDAT) as a distant third (+0.013 C/decade)

2) Virtually all of the USHCN warming since 1973 appears to be the result of adjustments NOAA has made to the data, mainly in the 1995-97 timeframe

… Given the amount of work NOAA has put into the USHCN dataset to increase the agreement between neighboring stations, I don’t have an explanation for this result. I have to wonder whether their adjustment procedures added more spurious effects than they removed, at least as far as their impact on temperature trends goes.

And I must admit that those adjustments constituting virtually all of the warming signal in the last 40 years is disconcerting. When “global warming” only shows up after the data are adjusted, one can understand why so many people are suspicious of the adjustments.


This phenomenon is something that really makes you not simply suspicious of the adjustments but of the scientists involved in the global warming movement.  It appears that this may be the biggest scientific scandal of the last 50 years.   


Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Newt is rising in the polls--What does that mean?

What’s new today

Our # 1 and #2 stories lay out why the Democrats are scared of Newt Gingrich.  They and the MSM had pretty much neutered him in the 1990s, but it’s been over 10 years and with all the problems, seeing someone he looks as if he not only knows what he’s talking about but has some new ideas, he represents a huge threat beyond Obama losing the Presidency.  Meanwhile back in Washington (story #3), the Republicans on the Super committee have offered a $300 billion increase in revenues. Not only have the Democrats not accepted it, they walked out on talks according to Senator Rand Paul.   #4 has Evan Bayh calling the EPA a job killer.  #5 is a quiz.  I give you a quote and you see if you can identify who said it.  #6 talks about a new gas project that will export NG abroad.  #7 shows how we can end up with a tyrant if things keep going like they are going now (this is according to Aristotle).  Finally #8 tells us how a frustrated Occupy group claims that Mitt Romney is a coward sneaking in the front door in their city. 



1.  Newt Gingrich:  Why the Democrats Are Scared Of Him Part 1

Newt Gingrich's rise in the polls—from near zero to the third slot in several polls—should come as no surprise to people who have been watching the Republican debates, now drawing television viewers as never before. THE FORMER SPEAKER HAS STOOD OUT AT THESE FORUMS, the debater whose audiences seem to hang on his words and on a flow of thought rich in substance, a world apart from the usual that the political season brings.



"Substance" is too cold a word, perhaps, for the intense feeling that candidate Gingrich delivers so coolly in debates. Too cold too, no doubt, to describe the reactions of his listeners, visible on the faces of the crowds attending these forums—IN THEIR EXPRESSIONS, CAUGHT ON C-SPAN'S CAMERAS, IN THE SPEED WITH WHICH THEIR DESULTORY POLITENESS DISAPPEARS ONCE A GINGRICH TALK BEGINS. THEIR DISENGAGEMENT—THE TENDENCY TO LOOK AROUND THE ROOM, CHAT WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS—VANISHES. THE ROOM IS ON HIGH ALERT…



….He began with the declaration that AMERICANS WERE CONFRONTING THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION CHOICE SINCE 1860. America would have the chance in 2012, Mr. Gingrich said, to REPUDIATE DECISIVELY DECADES OF LEFTWARD DRIFT IN OUR UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES, OUR NEWSROOMS, OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND BUREAUCRACIES.



He would go on to detail the key policies he would put in place if elected, something other Republican candidates have done regularly to little effect. THE GINGRICH LIST WAS INTERRUPTED BY THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE AT EVERY TURN. THE DIFFERENCE WAS, AS ALWAYS, IN THE DETAILS—in the informed, scathing descriptions of the Obama policies to be dispatched and replaced, the convincing tone that suggested such a transformation was likely—even imminent.



Mr. Gingrich predicted, too, that late on Election Night—AFTER IT WAS CLEAR THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD BEEN DEFEATED ALONG WITH THE DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE—THE RECOVERY WOULD BEGIN, AT ONCE. His audience roared with pleasure. NO OTHER REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE COULD HAVE MADE THE PROMISE SO PERSUASIVE….



…When it came time to answer questions from a panel of journalists, he was asked first about energy, one of those vital subjects that don't tend to yield lively commentary. How would Mr. Gingrich's policies differ from those of the current administration?



Mr. Gingrich launched into a lethal thumbnail description of the Obama administration's energy policy. THE PRESIDENT, HE SAID, HAD GONE TO BRAZIL AND TOLD THE BRAZILIANS HE WAS REALLY GLAD THEY WERE DRILLING OFFSHORE AND THAT HE WOULD LIKE AMERICA TO BE THEIR BEST CUSTOMER. "The job of the American president," Mr. Gingrich told the panel, "IS NOT TO BE A PURCHASING AGENT FOR A FOREIGN COUNTRY—IT'S TO BE A SALESMAN FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA." …


I believe Obama is toast no matter who the Republican candidate is, but Newt would destroy any sense that Obama had any idea of what to do about the problems plaguing America.  Other candidates would focus on the results of Obama’s presidency.  Newt would teach us and Obama why Obama’s results are so catastrophically bad.









2.  Newt Gingrich:  Why the Democrats Are Scared Of Him Part 2

GINGRICH: Now see, this is what I find fascinating, okay. I've been involved with politics since 1958, I helped grow the modern Republican Party of Georgia, I helped create a national majority, and YOU'RE EXPLAINING TO ME THE REALITY OF POLITICS. THE REALITY OF POLITICS IS IF YOU HAVE A GOOD ENOUGH LEADER WHO IS POSITIVE ENOUGH, THEY CAN IGNORE THE OTHER CANDIDATES, THEY CAN CREATE A POSITIVE MAJORITY AROUND A POSITIVE SET OF SOLUTIONS, and let the other candidate worry about me.

MORGAN: Yeah, but actually, isn’t it? Look, I don't mean to teach you.

GINGRICH: I’M NOT GOING TO TRY TO DEFEAT MITT ROMNEY.

MORGAN: I’m not going to teach you how to suck eggs. You've been involved in politics as long as I've been alive, Mr. Speaker. I wouldn't be so impertinent. However, however…

GINGRICH: [Laughs] However, you’ll now be impertinent. Go ahead.

MORGAN: No.

GINGRICH: No, that’s alright. You're the host. Go for it.

MORGAN: No, not impertinent, but certainly a little bit more provocative about it. We’re on the same team. Look, you are a smart cookie and you realize that you're in a race here. AND IN A RACE, YES, YOU CAN BE POSITIVE, POSITIVE, POSITIVE, BUT YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO HAVE TO OFFER A DIFFERENTIAL TO OTHER CANDIDATES.

GINGRICH: NO, YOU DON'T.

Wasn't the look on Morgan's face when he realized he was being made a fool of delicious?

And this is exactly why the White House and their media minions are scared to death of Gingrich.

They all know full well that one on one, THE FORMER SPEAKER WOULD TEAR OBAMA TO SHREDS IN A DEBATE ON ANY SUBJECT, and the man they herald as the smartest president ever would be exposed as just another smooth talking community organizer with a law degree.


Gingrich is very smart and very tactical.  He keeps calling for a Lincoln Douglas style debate and has even offered to let Obama bring his teleprompter.   This is the equivalent of a kid “double dog daring” someone.  This is brilliant on Gingrich’s part. 





3.  Republicans offer increased Revenues:  Democrats reject it

Congressional Republicans have for the first time retreated from their hard-line stance against new taxes, OFFERING TO RAISE FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS BY NEARLY $300 BILLION OVER THE NEXT DECADE as part of a plan to tame the national debt.

But Democrats rejected the offer Tuesday — along with the notion that Republicans had made a significant concession that could end the long-standing political impasse — leaving a special debt-reduction committee far from compromise with less than two weeks until its Thanksgiving deadline….

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/republicans-offer-tax-deal-to-break-impasse-over-debt-democratic-aides-call-it-non-starter/2011/11/08/gIQAJ6Xa1M_story.html?hpid=z4

It’s not enough that it brings in more revenue, it must be punitive to be approved by the Democrats. 





4.  Former Democratic Senator Evan Bayh calls EPA regulations Job Killers



….With Indiana's unemployment rate well above its historic average, WE NEED TO AVOID THE REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY THAT HAS SLOWED INVESTMENT AND JOB CREATION OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS. Measures that threaten the balance of supply and demand, and the cost, of our electricity do just that. The administration should take these significant concerns into consideration before going forward with the rule by the end of the year. EPA should ensure that, at minimum, the rule is revised to provide adequate time for cost-effective compliance in ways that do not threaten the reliability of Hoosiers' electricity. Indiana workers, businesses and families will be well served if they do.



http://www.indystar.com/article/20111108/OPINION01/111080310/Evan-Bayh-Another-regulation-means-fewer-jobs-less-reliability?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7COpinion%7Cp

The line I notice the most was bolded.  It highlights the last three years.  Hmmm, not what happened three years ago? 







5.   Who said this?

"If you look at the troubles which happened in European countries, this is purely because of the accumulated troubles of THE WORN OUT WELFARE SOCIETY. I THINK THE LABOUR LAWS ARE OUTDATED. THE LABOUR LAWS INDUCE SLOTH, INDOLENCE, RATHER THAN HARDWORKING. THE INCENTIVE SYSTEM, IS TOTALLY OUT OF WHACK.

"Why should, for instance, within [the] eurozone some member's people have to work to 65, even longer, whereas in some other countries they are happily retiring at 55, languishing on the beach? This is unfair. The welfare system is good for any society to reduce the gap, to help those who happen to have disadvantages, to enjoy a good life, but a welfare society should not induce people not to work hard."

He went on to say that UNLESS EUROPE CHANGES ITS LABOUR LAWS AND ADJUSTS ITS WELFARE SYSTEM, HE DOES NOT CONSIDER IT TO BE A PROFITABLE INVESTMENT.

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2011/11/2011114434664695.html

You might think it was Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich or even Sarah Palin.  It obviously has to be a Conservative Neanderthal who fails to realize that the Eurozone Welfare state is what we need to aim for. 

But you would be wrong.  It was said by Jin Liqun, the supervising chairman of China's sovereign wealth fund.  Even the Communists are better capitalists than Europe and the Obama Administration are. 







6.   Drill, Baby, Drill!  It’s Time to Unleash our Energy Sector


U.S. President Barack Obama may continue to believe that the United States ‘can’t drill its way’ out of its energy crisis, but American energy developers are already proving him wrong.


News that Britain’s
BG GROUP HAS BECOME THE FIRST COMPANY TO EXPORT LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS FROM THE UNITED STATES, INKING A LANDMARK US$8-BILLION DEAL WITH CHENIERE ENERGY, shows how the American North Eastern shale gas revolution could not only allow the U.S. to meet much of its energy needs domestically, but also turn into a strong natural gas exporting powerhouse….


This is the key to bringing the USA out of this recession and bringing opportunity back to Americans.  We have more fossil fuel energy than any country on the planet and we should develop it. The time is now.





7.   OWS: Plato Bets on Tyranny


IT MIGHT BE WORTH EVERYONE'S WHILE IN THESE TROUBLED TIMES TO SET ASIDE AN EVENING IN ORDER TO CAREFULLY READ BOOK VIII OF PLATO'S Republic. The dialogue is nothing less than chilling in its illustration of WHAT HAPPENS IN A POPULAR GOVERNMENT WHEN CORRUPT POLITICIANS INFLAME THE VICES OF UNDISCIPLINED CITIZENS IN ORDER TO DESTROY THE BUSINESS CLASS and establish a tyranny.

Plato's objective is to show how highly self-disciplined regimes gradually devolve into more inferior and immoderate governments. Socrates begins the discussion showing how Aristocracies (rule of the wisest) devolve into Timocracies (rule of the military) which then descend into Oligarchies (rule of the wealthy). Oligarchies descend into Democracies (rule of the people) which in turn become Tyrannies.

PAY ATTENTION TO THE FINAL SECTION: HOW A DEMOCRACY BECOMES A TYRANNY. The process starts back when the rulers are Oligarchs. A kind of Government/Business nexus (think Fannie Mae) figures out that certain undisciplined borrowers will be unable to pay back their loans. The lenders acquire the property and recoup their losses with some kind of bailout. SOCRATES SAYS NONE OF THIS CRAZY LENDING WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF THE LENDERS HAD HAD TO RISK THEIR OWN FUNDS…

….Politicians find it prudent to play the underdog and join with the people in their condemnation of those whose success is a product of frugality and self-discipline. Certain "wicked-wine bearers" promise the voters "the unmixed wine of liberty far beyond due measure" and begin attacking the business class. BUSINESSMEN ARE IN TURN ACCUSED OF PLOTTING AGAINST THE PEOPLE.

A "SPECIAL LEADER" ARISES WHO PROMISES EVEN MORE: cancelling all debts and redistributing the land. The special leader "stirs up faction against the propertied class" but PROTECTS HIMSELF WITH A SPECIAL BODYGUARD. HE STARTS UNNECESSARY WARS TO DIVERT ATTENTION, BECOMES UNPOPULAR, AND THEN ALIGNS HIMSELF MORE CLOSELY WITH FOREIGNERS. TO PROTECT HIMSELF EVEN FURTHER HE TAKES AWAY THE PEOPLE'S WEAPONS. THE SPECIAL LEADER IS NOW A TYRANT.

Plato's Republic is about 2,400 years old but Plato's profound observation of human nature still stands: those who cannot master themselves will cry out for someone to master them. Eric Hoffer offered a similar conclusion much more recently:

"PEOPLE WHO BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS THEM USUALLY LICK THE BOOT THAT KICKS THEM."


http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/ows_plato_bets_on_tyranny.html#ixzz1dDxZaleL

The last line is a classic and is something we seem to be seeing in the Occupy movement. 



8.   Darn that Mitt Romney.  He Snuck in the Front Door


I can’t resist posting this #occupyfail. Occupy Philly protestors show up to chant in Mitt Romney’s face, and he outfoxes them by . . . walking straight in the front door. Great quotes: “HE SNUCK IN THE FRONT, BECAUSE HE’S A COWARD.” AND MY FAVORITE: “BUT IT WAS GREAT! WE CHANTED THE WHOLE TIME!”




What is truly unbelievable is that is exactly what one of the protesters said.  I swear the Colleges that educated these protesters should give them a refund.