Cavuto Nails It: How a Superpower Ought to Act

Today on his Common Sense segment at show's end, Neil Cavuto expressed succinctly the problem with Obama's foreign policy, Obama's understanding of the world, and Obama's disdain for American exceptionalism: 

Cavuto: It's time to stop selective outrage

Published March 29, 2012 | Your World Cavuto | Neil Cavuto

"So…China taking over green batteries…bad.
China…battering our oil guys…good.
Look, the president won't connect the dots.
So allow me to.
An American oil giant has just been usurped today
By a Chinese upstart, and
The president’s OK with it.
The Chinese sweet-talking the Canadians for their oil,
After the white house all but shuts down the keystone pipeline, and he's OK with it.
So PetroChina replaces ExxonMobil as the world's biggest publicly traded producer of oil, and that's fine.
China squeezing out every drop of oil from every region in its country it can "find" oil, and that's fine.
And china outspending western companies to acquire still more oil reserves, and that's fine.
But allowing "American" oil companies to do even a fraction of the same on a fraction of the land in "this" country, and that's not fine.
So…to sum up…China making more oil…fine.
China making more batteries…not fine.
China's government muscling in on oil markets the world over…fine.
But china muscling in on the green energy markets the world over…not fine.
No, not fine, at all. Not consistent. Not fair. And, oh yea, not remotely right at all.
It's not right to use the United States government as a prop in a foreign economic war you only want to half-fight, Mr. President.
You're either all in, or you are all out.
And right now, you are just way out.
Out of bounds. Out of ideas. Out of money. And out of anything remotely approaching logic.
Selectively outraged over china taking over technologies that have yet to prove themselves…
But saying not a peep over surrendering the very technologies in the U-S-of-A that "have" proven themselves.
Either find a better argument, Mr. President, or at the least, a better villain.
Because right about now, it's not China whose intentions are looking sinister.
Look in the mirror, Mr. President, it's yours."

Get the full effect by listening to Neil here:  Cavuto-its-time-stop-selective-outrage
ExxonMobil Surpassed - Interview with Shell's Hofmeister:  Petrochina-surpasses-exxonmobil-in-oil-production 

Property Rights: A Win for the Sacketts and All of Us!

Today the Supreme Court spoke out for the individual and affirmed that individuals have property rights that cannot be trampled by roughshod agencies like the EPA.  Hooray!

See the SCOTUS ruling here:  SACKETT+VICTORY

See the PLF posting:  Sackett's Case

The verdict was unanimous, and J. Alito and J. Ginsburg wrote concurrences.  J. Alito's was particularly strong, to wit, "The position taken in this case by the Federal Government - a position that the Court now squarely rejects - would have put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees."

Attorney General's Treason? Holder Has Always Opposed 2nd Amendment

The Daily Caller today has an article exposing Eric Holder's long held prejudice against firearms.  I can forgive Holder having a personal viewpoint on the matter, but he brings his personal views to work.  He used and uses his offices to promote gun control and disarming of Americans.  He advocated from his AG public offices in DC a "brainwashing" of citizens to make gun ownership and self-defense "not cool."  Today, if you watch Holder's multiple testimonies to the House Committee on Government Oversight, it is simple to see the bias and malice he holds toward guns and gun owners, and how he favors more anti-gun laws.  Thus I say, he commits treason by willfully disregarding his Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution, in all its parts. By the way, Mr. Holder, smoking is not a constitutionally protected right, and thus is not a reasonable analogy.

See here: Holder-in-1995-really-brainwash-people-to-be-anti-gun

UN Tyranny: The Food Police

I am not a fan of the United Nations.  Let me explain a little.  When I was a teenager, lying in the grass with my friend Jack on a warm summer evening, a favorite game was to wonder on how we could make the world better, IF we were the benevolent dictators of the world.  From the optimistic naivete of youth we were convinced we would solve all the problems.

Fast forward 40 years.  Now that I have a little experience of the real world, I recognize that even benevolent dictators are dangerous to individual freedom.  Because they don't think the same as I do and I want to make choices they probably would not make.

That is the problem with the UN.  It thinks it is that benevolent dictator.  Trouble is, its ideas of what is best for the world as a whole or for the individual is rarely the same as the choices those individuals would make.  Indeed, their version of "best for the world" is a far, far distance from what most people think is best.

Why is this?  It is because the UN is an association of governments.  Not of individuals.  And the majority of those governments are not any way close to being benevolent or even democratic.  Governments want what is best for them, and rarely what is best for their citizens.

So we come to the Food Police.  This latest UN effort is to develop guidelines for food production, processing and consumption that would be equal worldwide.  Sounds good, right?  Well, what if it means rules that outlaw foods you like?  What if it includes taxes on foods like soda pop, white rice, Twinkies, and salty bacon that are intended to price those items out of reach of most people?  Except the rich, of course.  The UN is discussing such rules this week in New York.  And you can't do much about it because your government is probably one of teh ones that supports this concept. 

Wasn't there once a guy named George Orwell?  Back in 1984, I think.

Presidential Arrogance: What is His Real Job?

In less than a year, President Obama has done 103 re-election fundraisers since he filed his candidacy for a second term with the Federal Election Commission on April 4, 2011.  That is about one every 3 days.  But in 2012 it is more like one a day.  He is ramping up the pace, with most functions being for the so-called 1%.  If you have $10,000 to spare, you might have a small chance of dinner with the President and several hundred other well-placed folks.

So, is Obama now a President or is he a fundraising campaigner?  In other words, is he doing his elected job or not?   See here: obama-fundraisers-hit-century-mark

Presidential Ignorance: How Energy Really Works

President Obama has made a lot of hay lately by claiming that oil and gas production has increased under his watch because of (mostly unspecified) things he has done.  Maybe hay is what he has been burning or smoking?

Much of the truth is that production increases have been in North Dakota and Pennsylvannia and similar states where development on private property has found much new oil and gas.  Conversely, on federal lands in the Gulf of Mexico and the Western States, the President's negative policies on leasing and permiting and environmental controls have reduced production and drilling significantly.

In terms of economics, the President is also way off base when he says we need to continue subsidies to solar, wind and bio-fuels, while cutting so-called "subsidies" to the oil and gas industry.  The latter of course are merely the usual tax write-offs available to all businesses for capital investments and expenses.  Worse, the President doesn't seem to understand the role of energy in our country.  He doesn't recognize how important it is to the day-to-day life of everyone and every business.  He also seems oblivious to the benefits to the government accruing from the oil and gas industry.  Last year, for instance, the industry paid about $40 Billion in taxes, more than it made in profits.

For more on the money side of things, the WSJ today had a good editorial, excerpted here: 

    "President Obama says he wants to end subsidies for what he calls "the fuel of the past," but...His budget-deficit blowout would be so much worse without Big Oil, because the truth is that this industry is subsidizing the government.
    Much, much worse, actually. The federal Energy Information Administration reports that the industry paid some $35.7 billion in corporate income taxes in 2009, the latest year for which data are available...That figure also doesn't count excise taxes, state taxes and rents, royalties, fees and bonus payments. All told, the government rakes in $86 million from oil and gas every day—far more than from any other business.
   Exxon Mobil...says that in the five years prior to 2010 it paid about $59 billion in total U.S. taxes, while it earned . . . $40.5 billion domestically. Another way of putting it is that for every dollar of net U.S. profits between 2006 and 2010, the company incurred $1.45 in taxes. Exxon's 2010 tax bill was three times larger than its domestic profits. The company can stay in business because it operates globally and earned a total net income after tax of $30.5 billion in 2010 on revenues of $370.1 billion.
   Meanwhile, Mr. Obama's 2013 budget—like its 2012, 2011 and 2010 vintages—includes a dozen-odd tax increases that would raise the industry's liability by $44 billion over the next decade, according to the White House, and by $85 billion, according to the trade group the American Petroleum Institute (API). At any rate, the President's economists ought to be weeping for joy for the revenue windfall from an industry that grew 4.5% in 2011, compared to overall GDP growth of 1.7%.

   API estimates that the average effective tax rate for oil and gas companies is 41.1% for 2010...By the same measure, other manufacturers on the S&P Industrial index pay an effective rate of 26.5%.

   Specific oil and gas investments are also taxed at higher rates than other energy plays...oil drilling clocks in at a 15.2% tax rate, refining at 19.1% and building a natural gas pipeline at 27%.  For comparison, nuclear power comes in at minus-99.5%, wind at minus-163.8% and solar thermal at minus-244.7%—and that's before the 2009 Obama-Pelosi stimulus. In other words, the taxpayer loses more the more each of these power sources produces.
   What Mr. Obama really means is that he wants to put the risky and capital-intensive process of finding, extracting and producing oil and gas at a competitive disadvantage against other businesses. He does so because he ultimately wants to make them more expensive than his favorites in the wind, solar and ethanol industries."