The Energy Price War of 2015

KAL Cartoon 2014. "Sheiks vs. Shale" Economist Cover

At the end of January just after Saudi King Abdullah died and power transitioned to King Salman, oil prices saw a slight uptick and closed just below $60 a barrel and natural gas closed at about $3 BTU. As noted in my previous article, Saudi Arabia and the United States are using this price war for their own reasons and are somewhat in conflict with each other. Saudi Arabia is trying to take out its competitors, both within OPEC and the U.S. shale industry. The United States is attempting to hurt the Russian economy and Vladimir Putin. Fortunately and unfortunately (depending on your perspective), both nations are achieving their goals in this price war.

Smaller U.S. energy companies did not hedge properly for these low prices and could face the consequences (even bankruptcy) before the summer. Permit requests in the Marcellus Shale are beginning to take a nosedive and North Dakota is not predicting billions in lost potential revenue for years to come. Larger U.S. energy companies will do just fine and either hedged properly or can absorb short term low levels. Newly elected Democrat Governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Wolf, recently signed an executive order banning new fracking operations within the commonwealth. New York has a similar ban. Voters in Denton, Texas also banned fracking in a recent referendum. Lawsuits are guaranteed to occur in at least the Pennsylvania and Texas cases. Many regions within the U.S. fracking industry can barely break even at $60 a barrel of oil, however, the industry would be optimal in the $75-$90 range, which is still fairly below the break even budgets for many OPEC nations and Russia which is over $100 a barrel.

The "biggest losers" in the price war will be African OPEC countries, Venezuela, and Russia, with the potential of massive political instability as a ripple effect. At a World Affairs Council of San Antonio meeting, Ambassador Roger Noriega predicted President Nicolas Maduro will not last beyond this spring as grocery stores are empty and the people are ready to riot in the streets. Ambassador Noriega does not think the police or military will intervene compared to how they acted and arrested/intimidated hundreds, if not thousands of people following the election of Maduro. Venezuela cannot afford these low fuel prices and Maduro's global trip begging for money from countries such as China was a failure.

The Arab Spring countries could also face another wave of protests as these nations need oil to be well beyond $100 a barrel to even somewhat function/recover from the former regime collapses. Another nation that needs higher energy prices is Nigeria as it struggles to combat Boko Haram (the ISIS of Africa) and is due for an election in February for President where the Muslim candidate, Muhammadu Buhari, will most likely defeat the incumbent Christian President Goodluck Jonathan. These price wars will cause regimes to collapse or institute massive policy changes before the fall and most likely cause a political vacuum potentially spanning across at least three continents.

Experts in the energy sector who have consulted with me over the past few months predict prices could go as low as $35 a barrel for oil in the summer months (a time when reserves are at their highest because of multiple factors) and still reach around $90 a barrel by December 2015. The problem is even if the $90 is reached in eleven months, it will be too late for many regimes. Saudi Arabia will eliminate some of its OPEC rivals and the U.S. industry will take a black-eye. The three unknown factors will be just how well the U.S. fairs during this time frame (along with Canada) and whether it can collapse OPEC and Saudi Arabia once and for all. The second factor will be how Russia survives a massive recession (and most likely a depression) because of energy. Putin is still very popular in Russia, yet that could begin to change this year. The last factor and most frightening is what will exactly happen to Venezuela and the African OPEC countries. A second "Arab Spring" may occur this year, giving another chance for radical groups to take even more land.

Lower Energy Prices: How It Changes The World's Situation

Photo purchased by myself for commercial use, 2014.

Earlier this week, the price for a gallon of gasoline fell below $2.00 a gallon in some locations around the San Antonio, TX region. The price of oil closed on Friday below $67 a barrel with Natural Gas NYMEX around $4 with forecasts still predicting a free fall in the price. In a world of chaos where Russia is annexing territory, Iraq and Syria is in shambles without effective governments, the Middle East is still suffering from the Arab Spring, Iran is going to get a nuclear weapon while promising the destruction of Israel, plus the growing energy demand in Asia and across the globe; the market should be freaking out and the price should conceivably be closer to $150 a barrel than $67.

Americans will certainly not complain as this will put extra money into their back pockets and may actually give a mini-stimulus to the economy for the Christmas shopping season. Yet, these latest developments in the energy sector will have massive implications worldwide, especially in the foreign policy arena.

The energy-dependent economies need the price of oil to be much higher. Business Week claims Russia made its 2015 budget on the forecast of oil being around $100 a barrel. With sanctions hurting their economy, the Ruble losing much of its power compared to the U.S. Dollar, along with the price of oil and natural gas well below their forecast, Russia will go into a depression. Putin is the man who is known for rebounding the Russian economy and nationalizing its energy industry in response from the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now he may have to answer for the soon-to-be next depression in Russia. Yet, this also raises another interesting question, why is OPEC refusing to cut production if so many of the countries (as shown in the chart above) need oil to be much higher? Saudi Arabia needs it to be around $100 a barrel because it has been subsidizing its population to prevent the Arab Spring there to preserve the House of Saud, yet they are pushing for the same levels of production. There are two reasons for this, which the second is in response to the first reason.

1) The United States of America is now the number 1 energy superpower

2014 is a historical marker for U.S. energy. It officially surpassed Saudi Arabia as the world's largest producer in oil and earlier surpassed Russia as the world's largest producer of natural gas. Because of laws that are around 40 years old banning exports (with certain and limited exceptions); the U.S. is still way behind in selling the commodities on the international market; much to the chagrin of Europe and parts of Asia. The fracking revolution from North Dakota to Pennsylvania to Texas now has America projected to be energy self-sufficient (with Canada as a partner) by 2020. America not even at its full production potential as federal lands still have bans on drilling (as almost all of this revolution is in the private sector and on private lands) yet has crashed the price in energy. On a recent trip in South Texas with some of the best and brightest minds in the sector to visit multiple fracking sites and all stages of the operation (to the pipelines to the refineries in Houston and Louisiana area), it was clear just how beneficial this is to our economy, in fact it's almost incomprehensible. Hotels and Motels charge by the hour (at rates you'd expect to be for a day), restaurants are packed, vehicles are brand new, repair shops are all over, the only industry hurting is fast-food employees. We met with Halliburton's number one team who are breaking fracking and drilling records right here in the United States. The U.S. can control its own destiny soon in energy.

2) OPEC is freaking out and hopes to crash American energy production industry

The price of oil and natural gas right now leaves very little room for profits because in many shales, America has to drill thousands of feet in order in order to reach the resources. OPEC realizes if America stays in the energy game, it's power and control is doomed. Permit requests have been falling in the U.S. as a response to the now low prices. Saudi Arabia is hoping to take a short term loss for a long term goal of American companies pulling out of the U.S. and going elsewhere (largely back to them) for a long term gain of higher oil prices above $100 a barrel which OPEC and Russia need. It's a gamble, but this is their only move.

What Should We Do?

Believe it or not, this question is more complicated than what it may seem at first. The United States should look after its own needs and become energy sufficient. This is a massive opportunity to secure our needs and also revolutionize our own economy and perhaps be a piece to balancing the budget. The refining (we need much more LNG production, the first LNG train in the U.S. is still in production) and export opportunities to Europe and Asia can make the US a potential power player in the exporting of energy as well. Yet, we will also have to face the global consequences of our action.

1) Russia will align with China and perhaps India

For their own economic needs (particularly energy), Russia will be forced to take its energy resources and instead of mainly sending them to Europe, will make it travel east to China. This will only further the rift between the West and Russia and perhaps could bring about a global conflict along the lines of NATO vs. Russia & China. Putin will also have to escalate conflict around the globe because the only way to potentially raise fuel prices is with conflict. Ukraine now could look minor in comparison to future conflicts perhaps spanning from the Caucasus, Scandinavia, to Moldova.

2) The Middle East could collapse

If the United States no longer needs foreign fuel outside of North America, the economies of OPEC will not be able thrive causing a depression. Authoritarian regimes will collapse. Many may argue this would be a fantastic scenario, and the optimist could say democracies would take over. One should be cautious. Is Libya better off without Gadaffi? Is Iraq better off without Saddam Huessein? Both were brutal dictators that now share a special place in Hell. Yet in both scenarios, radical terrorism has taken over and created a nightmare situation. Imagine what will happen to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Bahrain where the U.S. has massive military interests if their regimes fall due to low energy prices. Radicals will takeover and bring a huge security threat to sovereign nations across the globe. The American homeland will thrive, yet this situation with leaders such as Putin and an expanding nationalism attitude in China could then cause a third global conflict. The powder keg was all ready in place for World War I; the spark was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The situation in the Mid East coupled with low energy prices could be the modern powder keg.

The Mysterious Case of Bowe Bergdahl

Source: AP/U.S. Army

This past week it was announced that the United States agreed to a Prisoner of War swap for America's only POW in either the Iraq or Afghanistan War, Sgt. Bower Bergdahl, in exchange for five senior Taliban leaders that were detained in Guantanamo Bay. It's great news that we were able to secure one of our captured soldiers who is actually coming to San Antonio (presumably Lackland Air Force Base in the southwestern part of the town) to begin recovering from being held captive by the enemies for approximately five years. One of our armed forces motto is "never leave a man behind" and it is clear we have never forgotten Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

With Bergdahl coming home, some serious questions must be answered about this entire case. The first question is what events caused Bergdahl to be captured? The first allegation is that he actually deserted his post to actually search/possibly join the Taliban. One of his last emails home was "I am ashamed to be an American. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools...I am sorry for everything. The horror that is America is disgusting.” After that email, apparently all he took with him as he left his base was a knife, camera, a journal, and a compass. This could very possibly be a terrible case of PTSD, however, unconfirmed reports from other soldiers who served with Bergdahl indicate something much more nefarious.

The timeline of @CodyFNfootball on twitter (who served with Bergdahl) even if only partially true is very disturbing. He is convinced Bergdahl deserted because one of his comments was he was going to go into the mountains to get to the Chinese border and all of his military equipment went missing. Prior to deployment, Cody claims Bergdahl always wanted to train with an AK-47 instead of the US military issued M-16 (or civilian version AR-15). Once they noticed Bergdahl went missing, they immediately began a search and rescue operation and local kids reported "an American crawling in bushes" as they were looking for him. Once they got to the next town, people reported an American "wanted to meet with the Taliban" and later radio traffic indicates terrorists finally picked up Bergdahl. As the rescue mission lasted for weeks, many Americans died trying to find Bergdahl as ambushes and IED attacks skyrocketed.

In one of the videos after Bergdahl's capture, he claims he got lost from his patrol and hence became a POW once the terrorists found him. This story is quite the opposite of Cody's account. Another soldier, Nathan Bradley Bethea gave his account which is very similar to Cody's timeline. An investigation must happen in order to finally determine if Bergdahl did desert his post.

What is even more disturbing is the twitter timeline of Sgt. Bergdahl's father. Bob Bergdahl made this (and later deleted) tweet:



Other tweets are just as disturbing as well such as:

@daqeqa Agree! "Democracy" is a cult in the West. I think most of afgs see law in terms of sharia not secular democracy, man centric laws
— Robert Bergdahl (@bobbergdahl) March 29, 2014

Glancing at @daqeqa's timeline clearly shows he is not a friend of the west. Now, I cannot imagine what the past five years have been for the Bergdahl family, however, these trends are clearly disturbing.

The next few questions pertain to the release of Bergdahl. Why are five senior and notorious Taliban leaders being released from Guantanamo Bay and have all ready been sent to Qatar when it was the Haqqani Network who always held Sgt. Bergdahl? While the Haqqani Network may be similar to the Taliban or Al Qaida, these are different organizations and we have Haqqani members at Guantanamo Bay.

My next questions are why was the law broken in this swap and did President Obama's recent trip to Afghanistan finalize this swap? Congress must be notified at least thirty days in advance before any detainees leave Guantanamo Bay. Congress was never notified about the "Taliban Five" being transferred to Qatar in advance for the trade to receive Bergdahl. Once again, the Obama Administration selectively chooses which laws it will follow. Negotiations should be held in secrecy instead of being open to the public, yet the law is the law and the administration could have told Congress about this deal and waited thirty days before sending these terrorists to Qatar.

My last question is as a nation, should we negotiate with terrorists? One popular misconception is America began fighting the War on Terror in the late 20th or 21st century when this statement is inaccurate. The first abroad conflict the United States was ever involved in was against Islamic terrorists known as the Barbary Wars in the early 1800s. The conflict helped build our navy and is referenced in the Marine hymn "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli." The United States refused to negotiate with terrorists over American merchants and that has been our policy for the past 200+ years. The reason is simple. It gives terrorist more leverage in the future. Now American soldiers and civilians abroad are potentially in more danger as their capture can be used as bargaining chips to release even more terrorists. Bergdahl's swap undermines a once firm policy by western governments.

I am glad Sgt. Bergdahl is coming home. Serious questions remain though and they must be answered. This could be a terrible case of PTSD which caused him to leave his base (and Stockholm Syndrome for his father), but it could also be a case as to where he is sympathetic toward the enemy's side of this battle. Five years is a long time and if they kept him alive, he must  have at least appeared to convince the Haqqani Network that he was sympathetic toward their viewpoints. And if that is true, the television show Homeland on Showtime just became a reality.

Healthcare Scandals: The problems are just the beginning

Healthcare is the "capstone" of President Obama's Administration, although the legacy of his policies will be history's to judge. Without some massive reforms, it may become a doomed legacy. The recent news of the VA scandal is a tragedy, but not surprising. The VA's healthcare system has always lagged behind the private healthcare market, and our veterans should be getting the best healthcare available because they risked their lives to defend this country. Veterans "with serious heart conditions, gangrene, and even brain tumors waited months for care at the Albuquerque VA hospital" (Siegel, 2014). This is unacceptable, yet its government run healthcare within the United States. 
While these issues are in the Department of Veterans Affairs, it does not mean the healthcare industry across this country is immune to the same problems.

Healthcare is an issue that is personal to me and I have taken an active role about it in the political sphere since the summer of 2007. In 1999, I was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer and experienced first hand the benefits and the flaws of the U.S. healthcare system. While there are problems, if not for us having the best healthcare in the world, I probably wouldn't be here writing this article today.

Reforms must occur in the healthcare sector, however, the Affordable Care Act is taking the country mostly down the wrong path. The "mandate" that everyone must have insurance may actually create more uninsured than before once businesses (over 50 employees) must pay the fine as well. It is much cheaper for an individual or business to simply pay the "fine" instead of the much more costly option of making sure everyone has insurance under the new guidelines. Millions of people last year received cancelation notices which violated President Obama's "if you like your plan, you can keep it" promise.

Young people are also not signing up in the numbers needed to make the Affordable Care Act work. Earlier this year, Health and Human Services reported that just 24% of all the people who signed up on a Healthcare.gov exchange (note, this does not mean each one has a policy, they just registered for an account on the website) are in the 18-34 demographic when that number needs to be closer to 40% in order for rates not to rise (Marte, 2014). The cost of premiums has also skyrocketed for young adults across the entire nation (with the exception of four states) as shown in the chart below.
 If anything, it appears the ACA was written in a way to make it nearly impossible for the private health insurance companies to succeed, eventually forcing a single payer system. In fact, this week bureaucrats are starting to create a plan (under Sections 1341-1342 of the law) to bailout the insurance companies should they report a loss (Levey, 2014; NRO, 2014). This is "legal" as long as it's managed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. That is perhaps the scariest part of the Affordable Care Act. So much of it can literally be created "out of thin air" by executive orders or by orders via the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This is why mandates and parts of law have been changing constantly. These actions also bypass the legislative branch.

Throwing more money at the problem is not going to fix it. Last month, Oregon decided to completely shutdown its state's exchange website after being granted over $300 million for a website that never allowed residents to sign up for coverage in one sitting. The Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the largest funded agencies in our government and its costs have tripled since the year 2000. While two wars surely factor (and justify) and rise in the VA's budget, the Health and Human Services budget is now nearly doubled the budget of the Department of Defense (Edwards, 2014).

Virtually all CBO projections about the Affordable Care Act are coming up well short of the needed numbers in order for the law to have a chance of succeeding. The problems this legislation is creating is unfortunately just the beginning. Problems in the VA system have existed for a long time and our veterans are not getting the proper care they need. Unless there are massive changes or a repeal to the Affordable Care Act (with other options used such as opening up insurance options across state lines), the care our Veterans are receiving will be coming to a hospital or specialist near you and me. Hopefully we will not wish for the days and coverage that existed before the Affordable Care Act.   

Sources:
Levey, Noam N. Critics Call Obama Funding Plan for Health Insurer Losses a 'Bailout'. 21 May 2014. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-insurance-bailout-20140521-story.html#page=1. 

Edwards, Chris. "Veterans Affairs in the Federal Budget." CATO Institute. 27 May 2014. Web. 27 May 2014. http://www.cato.org/blog/veterans-affairs-federal-budget. 

NRO. "Insurance-Company Bailouts." National Review Online. 14 Jan. 2014. Web. 27 May 2014. <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368364/insurance-company-bailouts-editors.

Marte, Jonnelle. "Not Enough Young People Bought Obamacare." The Wall Street Journal. 14 Jan. 2014. Web. 27 May 2014. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/not-enough-young-people-are-buying-obamacare-2014-01-14.

Siegel, Jacob. "Exclusive: VA Scandal Hits New Hospital." The Daily Beast. 18 May 2014. Web. 27 May 2014. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/18/exclusive-v-a-scandal-hits-new-hospital.html.

Vietnam: It's Time for the U.S. to Improve Relations

This month, tensions between Vietnam and China are rising due to a territorial dispute in the resource rich South China Sea. Recently, China placed an oil rig within 120 nautical miles off the coast of Vietnam. To make matters worse, China rammed a Vietnamese vessel as it was patrolling near the newly placed rig and fired their water cannons at the vessel as well (see the video below). Protests have since sparked in cities across Vietnam over the incident. Over 15 foreign owned factories were sent ablaze in response to China's oil rig.



China and Vietnam are communist governments with both of their economies recently attempting to become more capitalistic. Yet, they are not allies. It is not always the case where communist governments are allied to each other. During the Cold War, Yugoslavia was not an ally of the Soviet of the Union.

For China, it unfortunately clear as to why it is picking on its weaker neighbor. With China's recent military buildup and expansion of their Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), they are now optimist about carrying a "big stick" and becoming the a regional superpower (and soon to be a world superpower) while attempting to gather resources within their realm. Other nations near the South China Sea such as the Philippines and Taiwan (along with Japan and South Korea further away) all have treaties with the United States with many regarding to defense of the nation's territory. Therefore, China can afford to become aggressive with Vietnam without any significant repercussions, and if it were to somehow go to the United Nation's Security Council, China could veto any action there.

It's been 39 years since the fall of Saigon and while the stigma remains for both countries over the Vietnam War, the United States and Vietnam can mutually benefit with an alliance. As the United States shifts focus toward Asia, Vietnam owns Cam Ranh Bay, a deep-water bay and perhaps the most strategically important port in Southeast Asia. The last major navy to use the port was Russia, which was over a decade ago. It's been nearly 20 years since the United States and Vietnam began normalizing relations since the war and then Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Vietnam in 2010 with Leon Panetta visiting Cam Ranh Bay in the summer of 2012.

Cam Ranh Bay is the optimal place for the United States to have military forces particularly the navy, in the hopes of containing China's aggressive expansion. While Vietnamese-U.S. relations have been slowly improving, it is time to speed up the process. Each country needs to realize they can help the other both economically and militarily. If Vietnam leased Cam Ranh Bay, both sides can finally move on from the Vietnam War and in return, the United States can protect Vietnamese sovereignty.

The Consequences of Pulling Out of Iraq in 2011

Less than one week ago, the last remaining United States troops in Iraq crossed the border into Kuwait. I am neutral in whether it was the right time to pull out our troops mainly because I do not know what else we could have accomplished while remaining there (without seriously changing our role), however, Iraq is not ready to govern itself.

As we left, Iraq has no standing Air Force meaning anyone can cross over their skies such as Iran or even Israel. In fact, one of the top Iraqi military leaders, Lieutenant General Babaker Zebari, said Iraq would not be ready to defend its own borders and air space until 2020. Eight years is more than enough time for Iran to turn Iraq into another Lebanon or Syria, essentially another puppet state for the radical regime. I believe the main reason we entered Iraq was to contain Iran (Iraq to the west, Afghanistan to the east) just like Iran is doing to Israel with Syria, Lebanon, Gaza Strip, and now maybe even in Egypt.

To make matters worse, the day after the United States military presence was non existent, the Iraqi government started making moves to possibly reignite sectarian violence. Shiite Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, issued an arrest warrant for Vice President, Tariq al-Hasemi, who is Sunni. The Vice President is now in hiding from Iraqi officials in the northern semiautonomous Kurdistan region of Iraq and al-Maliki is now ordering Kurdistan officials to turn over the Vice President. Surely the coalition government is bound to collapse over this incident and who knows whats in store for the government. All we can do is hope this does not turn into another dictatorship. 


Lastly, as reported today, deadly bombings are now starting to happen as over 50 people have been killed in the most recent attack. No matter what day, month, or year we pulled out, this was bound to happen. While it is not a coincidence, all we can do is hope the Iraqis can find the strength to pull through these terrorist attacks and not revert to another civil war. If that happens, it will not stop until a dictator is once again in power or the nation is divided up into three regions which I don't see happening.


The United States did remove an extremely evil man from power, Saddam Hussein, and did an amazing job with the "troop surge" ordered in 2007. Pulling out of Iraq in 2011 was premature if we wanted the Iraq experiment to succeed so they could have liberty and be able to defend it. While the 2020 mark was way too long into the future, it was not ideal to pull out now, especially because their defense forces are not ready. If Iraq goes back to its historical ways, history could blame President Obama because of his failure to secure a proper deal for the United States military to remain in Iraq for a couple more years. President Bush was constantly in contact with the Iraqi government to secure deals, but, Obama did not show the same due diligence. All we can do now, is hope Iraq can get the proper resources to secure itself quickly and not have the coalition government based on religious factions, collapse.


-Christian N.


Sources:

• http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/18/world/la-fg-iraq-last-convoy-20111219
• http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iYV48140VGP9NW1ILBsXkgWVsE4g?docId=CNG.df3ecb21e974d96be42ce539d582b290.3c1
• http://www.theblaze.com/stories/iraq-issues-arrest-warrant-for-sunni-vp-on-terrorism-charges/
• http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/12/22/explosions-rock-baghdad-7-killed-3-injured/?test=latestnews

India...The Next Superpower?

In a recent article by the Wall Street Journal, it mentions that India wants to increase its defense spending, especially technology from foreign companies. The article mentions that "on foreign direct investment in the defense sector, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion recommends tripling India’s FDI cap to 74% (from 26%) if India wants to attract state of the art technology in defense." it also mentions that ". India is the 10th largest defense spender in the world, having spent $30 billion in 2008 but imports the majority of its arms because its three major defense equipment manufacturers – Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bharat Electronics Ltd., and Mazagon Dock Ltd. – cannot match the country’s defense demands...and [India's current military states] only 15% of the equipment can be described as ’state-of-the-art’ and nearly 50% is suffering from obsolescence."


I believe India is making the right choice in looking for more foreign investment into its military. This could really help the United States too because India will probably be looking into our technology which will help American jobs. In order to be a superpower, you must be able to have a strong defense (my last article mentions how China is expanding its military).

There are some negatives for India in this as well. It is clear that India is making leaps and bounds, but, it appears their own defense companies cannot keep pace with the rest of improvements India is making in the economy. The United States, China, and even other countries such as Russia, are not dependent on foreign military technology for their own defense. In my opinion, this shows that as India looks for top military technology (instead of their own) they are becoming a powerful nation in the world, but, they are not quite a superpower yet because, they are dependent on other nations for a quality military instead of using their own technology. The United States would prefer a strong India. Although we do have to work with China, America is more comfortable when we work with democracies, so America would be more comfortable with India "spreading its sphere of influence" in Asia over China, and for India to be able to do that, they have to become a superpower.

Sources:


Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010/05/18/will-defense-ministry-increase-the-fdi-limit/

Image: http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-IN476_idefen_D_20100518090707.jpg

Note: Article written for school project.

Where has Common Sense gone in America?

This month, public school's "zero tolerance" policy fails once again. On February 1, 2010, twelve year old Queens student, Alexa Gonzalez, was arrested for...doodling her name on her desk in erasable marker. Alexa wrote, "I love my friends Abby and Faith," and added the phrases "Lex was here. 2/1/10" with a smiley face. 


As the New York Daily News Reports: "Instead of simply cleaning off the doodles after class, Alexa landed in some adult-sized trouble for using her lime-green magic marker. She was led out of school handcuffed behind her back and was escorted to the precinct across the street, where she was detained for several hours."

Alexa, who had a stellar attendance record said, "I just thought I'd get a detention. I thought maybe I would have to clean [the desk]."

Alexa would be sentenced to eight hours of community service, a book report, and an essay on what she learned from the experience. She was suspended from school, but the suspension has been dropped.

School officials would say that her Spanish teacher reported Alexa to an assistant principal, who the assistant principle claims she was required to place a call to cops.

It is no wonder why our public schools are a mess. If they cannot handle a simple incident such as this, how are they supposed to teach? All they would have to do is tell her to clean the desk, and maybe some other janitorial work, not sending her off to jail.

Sources:

1.  http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2010/02/05/2010-02-05_cuffed_for_doodling_on_a_desk.html#ixzz0fOdrTWPd
2. http://www.woodtv.com/dpps/news/strange/12-year-old-arrested-for-marking-desk-_3226204
3. http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2010/02/06/2010-02-06_cuffed_student_wont_draw_suspension.html

What a Difference a Year Makes

What a difference a year makes. On this day last year, Barack Obama was sworn into Office as the 44th President of the United States, with an approval rating above 70%. He took the nation by storm, and most thought he would bring Hope and Change to the country. This time, a year later, his approval ratings are around/below 50% with an index of -11 approval. It appears Obama realizes that campaigning is a ton easier that running a nation. The rest of the article will look at Obama's policies and actions, along with the impact they had to the country. First we will look at the positives.

The most positive impact President Obama had during his first term, which he deserves full credit for, is the handling of the Somali-Pirate situation with Americans. With the depolyment of US Navy Ships and SEALs, the Maersk Alabama's Captain held hostage by the pirates in a lifeboat was saved by snipers who eliminated the pirates. No one was killed/injured besides the pirates, and this is President Obama's finest moment in his first year as President.

His second finest moment, was his speech after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. While there may be some questions on why he got it in his first year as President, because he had to be nominated for the Prize, just days after being President, he handled it very well with his speech. He realized what the award meant to so many people around the World, and even said he wasn't sure if he deserved it. He also donated all the money that came with the prize to charity. The speech can be found here.

Another good moment was when President Obama signed the Reagan Centennial Bill into law.

Now on to the major negatives of his administration during the past year including January 19, 2010. This could get long.

Lets start off to a promise he has broken for every bill he has signed; waiting 5 days before he signed the bill into law so the American people would have time to view the bill, and give their opinion on it. Sadly, he has not kept that promise for any bill, which hurts our nation, and his credibility.

What started under the last few months under the Bush Administration, was quickly expanded by President Obama, Government Takeovers of companies. The Financial Industry, is now largely under control of our Government, 2 out of 3 major car companies are now controlled by the government, and now President Obama is about to nationalize the student lending program for kids to pay their way through college. When the government gets involved, things head for the worst in the company. Not ONE company/organization controlled by the United States, is profitable, including the postal service.

With Government bailouts, came large spending, here is a list of some of the bills that have been passed under Obama:

• TARP: $700 Billion
• Federal Stimulus Package: $1.2 Trillion
• Federal Reserve Bailout: $6.4 Trillion

In his first year alone, President Obama has spent more than every other President of the United States, COMBINED. All these programs have to show for, is increase in taxes, controlling wages, and higher unemployment rates. Over 10% of this nation is unemployed with an additional 8% underemployed, essentially making 18% (or almost 1 out of 5 people) in the workforce looking for a job.

Cash for Clunkers spent over $3 Billion Dollars, and most auto dealers HAVE NOT received the money for the car trade ins, and supplies have run short because salvageable parts that could have been taken from the cars were destroyed.

Our current national debt is above 12 Trillion Dollars.

Clearly when it comes to the economy and the free market, Obama has failed miserably.

During the campaign, Obama was considered a man who was most prepared to improve our foreign relations, and wouldn't be the "Cowboy" President Bush was. Obama's first year with foreign relations includes:

• First Interview as President with a Muslim News Channel
• Appeases to Middle East with a Speech in Cairo
• RETURNS a gift from Great Britain GIVEN TO US AFTER 9/11
• Gives Prime Minister Gordon Brown, DVD's THAT DO NOT WORK in Europe.
• Gives the Queen of England an I-Pod with his favorite songs, and pictures of himself.

If that is not an embarrassment to this nation, and our greatest ally, nothing is. Failure

Another area in the foreign relations department Obama has struggled in is Copenhagen...twice. First was the Olympics for Chicago, where he goes there and gives the "I, I, I, Me, Me, Me, Please Pick Chicago For 2016" Speech, that caused Chicago to be eliminated in the first round of voting. The second time was when he went there for the Global Warming Conference, which all they were able to do, is agree to meet at some point in the future...some crisis they dealt with. Which leads to another part of his agenda, Cap & Trade (or Cap and Tax). Just pending approval from the Senate is a bill that would take massive amounts of money from companies because of the amount of CO2 they release into the environment. Lets hope that fails reaching his desk.

The next area is Homeland Security. President Bush kept us safe since 9/11. Obama failed within his first year. Ft. Hood Shooting was committed by a Muslim Terrorist who happened to be in the US Military. We have been very lucky to not have a larger attack hit us yet, such as the failed attempt to blow up a passenger jet airliner over Detroit on Christmas. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano think it's the job of the department to respond to a terrorist attack essentially as a clean up crew, not to PREVENT terrorist attacks from happening.

The other area Obama has threatened Liberty is his appointment of "czars" that "control" a certain area without the approval of Congress, and take orders directly from Obama. That sounds like tyranny. There are at least 32 Czars in his administration, more than Russia ever had. Full List Here.

Another part of the economy the Obama Administration wants is our healthcare. The health care industry is 1/6 of our economy. A bill over 1,500 pages long, no transparency, back-room deals, and a plan that will destroy our health care system. While health care could improve in this country, Obama wants to destroy it. Lets pray no healthcare bill ever reaches his desk.

The last area we will criticize President Obama is his handling on the War in Afghanistan. It took over 94 days for Obama to come to a decision, when innocent men and women were killed during his decision time. He met with the commanding General of the fight (who Obama appointed) for 20 minutes while in Europe. The decision he makes is political. Send in a a descent number of troops for a surge, but not too many to make your anti-war supporters furious. He did not meet the minimum the General requested. Frankly you fight to win wars, not make political decisions based on them. Either go "all in" or fold is a better decision than this President Obama.

After one year, what do Americans think of these changes? A great "litmus test" is to look at elections. 4 major elections happened during his first year:

• Virginia
• New Jersey Governor
• New York 23rd District
• Massachusetts Senate Seat

On November 3, Republicans won by 20 points for the Governor, and won the Lieutenant-Governor and Attorney General positions. The first time one party took all 3 seats in Virginia's history.

In New Jersey, a heavily democratic state, Republican candidate Chris Christie beat the incumbent Jon Corzine for the governorship.

In the New York 23rd district, independent candidate Doug Hoffman (Tea-Party/Conservative) narrowly lost to the democrat Bill Owens. Hoffman crushed the liberal-republican candidate and almost beat the 2 party system. Look for him to run again in 2010.

In Massachusetts, this election takes the bacon. Massachusetts is the most liberal state in the union, and had a special election to fill the seat of the most liberal Senator Ted Kennedy. The Republican candidate, Scott Brown, defeated the democrat Martha Coakley by 5 percentage points 52-47. If this doesn't scare democrats, nothing will.

It appears Obama's policies are not that favorable to the American people, and Obama has lost a ton of support. If he does not change in 2010, expect landslide victories for the GOP in November, IF the party nominates fiscally responsible candidates who will control spending, taxes, and reduce government control on the free market. If that is the party's message, they will probably take a majority in the House, and be a small minority in the Senate.

CREN

U.S. and Yemen

This is breaking news, and early reports are sketchy but according to Fox News it appears the Obama Administration approved missile launches to attack Al-Qaida camps in the gulf state of Yemen, in a civil war, which more information can be found at War News Updates which is an excellent website.

It appears that Obama is trying to show his tough stance against terrorism, right after her was given his Nobel Peace Prize. I'm not quite sure what to think of this action, if early reports are true because this could raise a ton of controversy in a nation that doesn't have a favorable opinion of The West and where terrorists attacked the USS Cole. I fear this is almost a "Bill Clinton" move, launch a couple of missiles but not really solve the issue at hand, and cause some controversy in the process. If Obama wants to be serious about the War on Terror, give General McChrystal the troops he requested, don't have a timetable of withdrawal publicized, and find the terrorists hiding in caves on the Afghanistan/Pakistan boarder.

Again, this report is just breaking as of 8:15 pm on December 18, 2009, so details on this incident is surely to change in the next few days, and could alter this report.

CREN

The War on our Boarder

Most people probably know The Iraq War, War in Afghanistan, and The War on Terror that America is currently fighting in, however there is one on our boarder that is receiving little attention.

There is a war going on in Mexico of the Drug Cartels against Mexico's Government. Local Government in Mexico is corrupt, they either support the cartels or they are killed. Even areas where the Drug Cartel wasn't fighting like Cancun, the violence is now there as a police officer was killed by the cartels there.

Just to giver you a perspective of the war in Mexico, over 6,000 people were killed in the last 12 months. 4,265 U.S. Soldiers have died in the entire Iraq War. If you want more proof on how the Drug War is effecting us in America, The City of Phoenix was just rated the second most dangerous city IN THE WORLD, behind Mexico City in kidnappings.

Why Kidnappings? The Drug Cartels are kidnapping Americans and Mexicans for ransom, and if it is not payed they are killed.

 The impact if the Mexican Government should collapse would be huge. We could have millions and millions of people fleeing to us. The threat of this happening is very real, their two main sectors of their economy are Tourism and Oil.

Tourism is down 90% and Oil is now relatively cheap, so Mexico's economy is pretty much non-existent.

The only time this war is being mentioned is so some politicians can have their way. "Never let a good crisis go to waist."...Rahm Emmanuel, Chief of Staff for Obama.

Some Democrats in Washington want to abolish the 2nd amendment (The Right to Bear Arms) and some republicans don't want Americans to own semi-automatic rifles. So what they are doing to attack American's rights and "making up numbers" for their political gain. 

Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have all said "90% of the weapons being used by the Cartels are made/sold in America first, then sent to Mexico." This is false. It is about 17% of the weapons come from America. Most are from the Mexican Government illegally being sold to the cartels, or coming from over seas. Even some weapons from OUR OWN government were sold to Mexican Government which were given to the cartels. 

Where they get that "90%" number is when guns are traced they are found to be traced back to the U.S. The reason why the other 83% are not traced by ATF and FBI is because those guns have markings on them that are not american manufactured.

Just more political nonsense to push their agenda and have rights of American's taken away. Over government is just ignoring the huge storm south us, that is quickly spreading, not stopping at our border and if we don't take action against the cartels, this war will not only be in our backyard, but in our front-yard as well.

CREN