Tag Archives: freedom

Political Disapproval of Private Enterprise Production

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors are touting the withdrawal of Sarah Bloom Raskin from the nomination to the Federal Reserve Board’s Vice Chairman position, laying that defeat off to this:

But Ms Raskin’s most significant opponent was her oft-expressed view that the Fed and other regulators should deny credit to companies that produce or heavily consume fossil fuels.

It’s good that this one failed, but it’s just an early skirmish.

The problem is broader than this. It’s dangerous to our republican democracy that anyone would be nominated to the Fed or to any Executive Branch position who would willingly abuse that position’s authority to discriminate against any government-disapproved American enterprise.

A Two-Edged Sword, and another Thought

Posted on by
Reply

Russia is a, if not the, major exporter of energy to Europe, and that helps hold Germany especially, and Europe generally, back from fully supporting Ukraine against Russia’s invasion of that nation.

The two-edged sword is this.

If Russian gas to Europe stops flowing entirely, “this would do severe damage to Europe’s economy and also undermine global growth,” Mr [EurasiaGroup’s Director, Energy, Climate & Resources, Henning] Gloystein said.

That damage, were it to be inflicted by Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, should prod Europe, and especially Germany, decisively away from Russian gas (and oil) altogether, as it would make clear—or should make clear—just how many weapons, including economic, the men and women of Russia’s government are willing to use in order to club Europe into submission.

The disruption from such an assault on Europe would not be felt until the next fall and winter; Europe has reserves enough to finish the present winter. That should be sufficient time for Europe to find more reliable supplies of energy. It might even convince German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to reverse ex-Chancellor Angela Merkel’s panicky cancelation of the nation’s nuclear plant energy production (although, maybe not—Germany has gotten used to tacit subservience to Russia).

The additional thought flows from this remark by President Joe Biden (D) in the context of that Russian invasion, quoted in the article at the link:

I will do everything in my power to limit the pain the American people are feeling at the gas pump. This is critical to me.

This is virtue-signaling dishonesty. Biden’s “everything” consists of begging OPEC and Russia(!) to pump more oil. Biden utterly refuses to open Keystone XL; to get his Cabinet and himself out of the way of exploring, drilling, and pumping lease permits on Federal land and water; to get his Executive Orders and his Cabinet rules and regulations out of the way of our oil and natural gas production and fracking for same; to get his administration out of the way of liquid natural gas production and port development so we can export LNG; to do anything at all to support and expand our domestic oil and gas production.

Biden-Harris’ determined war on our American hydrocarbon energy production industry represents a strong impediment to Europe’s ability to wean itself off Russian energy, and his war supports the Russian invasion effort by contributing heavily to the rapidly increasing price of oil (which underlies those rising “gas pump” prices), which in turn increases revenue for Putin’s Russian economy.

 

[NB: Germany has agreed a limited SWIFT sanction against “selected” Russian banks, and it has authorized shipment of some anti-tank RPGs, stinger anti-aircraft missiles, and 10 metric tons of fuel to the Ukrainian military.]

An Accurate Read of the Emasculated West

Posted on by
1

This time, it’s not Russian President Vladimir Putin or People’s Republic of China President Xi Jinping. It’s Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in his very early Friday morning (our time) statement.

This morning we are defending our state alone. Like yesterday, the world’s most powerful forces are watching from afar[.]

Indeed. Safe and comfortable in their seats high in the coliseum as they watch the mayhem down on the sand.

And:

Did yesterday’s sanctions convince Russia? We hear in our sky and see on our earth that this was not enough.

And this:

Today, I have asked 27 European leaders whether Ukraine will be in NATO. I have asked directly—everyone is afraid, no one answers.

Finally,

But we are not afraid. We are not afraid of anything. We are not afraid to defend our country, we are not afraid of Russia, we are not afraid to talk to Russia, we are not afraid to talk about anything, about security guarantees for our country, we are not afraid of talking about neutrality, we are not NATO members at the moment. But what guarantees will we get? And most importantly which countries will give us those guarantees?

What will Ukraine get in the way of guarantees? What would be the value of those guarantees, were any to come? The Budapest Memorandum was a guarantee by the US, Great Britain, and Russia of Ukraine’s political, economic, and territorial integrity if they gave up their nuclear weapons. Those three signatories betrayed Ukraine when they welched on the Memorandum. The first Minsk accords? They were another early betrayal of Ukraine and codified the Budapest “guarantee’s” destruction, a betrayal perpetrated by those same three signers. Minsk II? Again, betrayal. These are the countries that will give new “guarantees.” And now Putin invades.

“No one answers.” The “sanctions” levied by Biden-Harris and his timorous fellows in Europe are insulting in their weakness. The ex-comedian who leads a nation under attack has far more courage and deserves—as does his nation—far more aid, concrete aid, than he’s getting. Aid far more constructive than cheers for his nation and tongue-clucks for Russia, safely delivered from those high up seats.

Sadly, disgustingly, I have to share Zelenskyy’s contempt for these Western…persons…but most especially for Biden-Harris; he, and they, are not leaders. Merely cheerleaders in the stands.

Mistaken

Posted on by
Reply

Tulsi Gabbard thinks Putin’s invasion of Ukraine could have been avoided had President Joe Biden (D) and European politicians only recognized Russian President Vladimir Putin’s security concerns vis-à-vis Ukraine membership in NATO.

This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if Biden Admin/NATO had simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine’s becoming a member of NATO, which would mean US/NATO forces right on Russia’s border

Gabbard is badly mistaken in this, for a number of reasons.

  1. The Biden-Harris administration and NATO had already acknowledged Putin’s security concerns here, and rejected them. Ukraine’s membership in NATO is a matter for sovereign Ukraine and the sovereign NATO nations to accept or reject, not for Putin to dictate to them.
  2. Putin’s putative security concerns regarding Ukraine are not his aim, but merely a tool in his drive to reconstitute the 20th century Russian empire—which loss he considered the geopolitical tragedy of the century and which reconstitution he made explicitly his goal in his Monday night speech.
  3. NATO is a defensive alliance with no designs on Russia beyond defending the member nations against a demonstrably aggressively acquisitive Russia.
    1. Georgia, which Putin’s Russia has invaded, partitioned, and occupied those partitions
    2. Ukraine, which Putin’s Russia already has invaded once, partitioned, and occupied those earlier partitions
    3. The Baltic States and Poland, which Russia has already attacked, more than once each, with cyber war break-ins and hacks
    4. Russia’s repeated use of energy extortion against Ukraine, Europe through Ukraine, and lately Germany explicitly
    5. Russia’s shutdown of Colonial Pipeline, in response to which Biden-Harris meekly lifted the sanctions against Russia’s Nordstream 2
  4. Putin’s Russia has no security concerns from the West except in his own fetid imagination. Russia has nothing at all that the West wants that can’t be gotten far more cheaply through freely done and mutually beneficial trade.

Regarding that last point, if there’s a security risk, it comes from People’s Republic of China President Xi Jinping, who’s long had designs on Siberia, which generations of PRC governments, and China governments before them, consider Russia to have stolen from China. That risk already is in progress of realization via the economic deal that Putin and Xi signed just a couple of short years ago that enables Siberia’s rich resources to be jointly exploited by Russia and the PRC—with PRC citizens doing the vast bulk of the labor and moving into (functionally colonizing) Siberia in order to do that work.

No, what led Putin to invade Ukraine this time, with his intent to conquer and occupy the nation, was Western—including our own nation—mild acquiescence in those prior aggressions, invasions, and occupations. If Putin isn’t crushed in Ukraine, he won’t stop there. All of eastern Europe, including what used to be the German Democratic Republic will be at risk. And so will be the Republic of China, Japan, Republic of Korea, Australia, and the United States.

Using the Power Ceded to Them

Posted on by
Reply

OPEC once again has rejected pleas to increase oil production in the face of rising oil prices.

Ministers of Arab oil-producing countries gathered in Saudi Arabia on Sunday, refusing pressure for OPEC+ to increase production again amid coronavirus pandemic recovery efforts and as a potential war looms in Europe.

And

On Sunday, Saudi energy minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman told an industry conference in Riyadh how the pandemic and recovery efforts have “taught us the value of caution,” Reuters reported.

Bin Salman and his OPEC counterparts also have learned another thing: the value of supporting Russia—the major OPEC ally that adds the ‘+’ to OPEC—rather than a timid and irresolute Progressive-Democrat American administration.

Bin Salman and his OPEC counterparts also have been reminded of OPEC’s economic power as the world’s major oil producer, a power the organization also wielded against the US in the ’70s when we really were dependent on Middle East oil for our economy.

The difference today, of course, is that we have no need to be dependent on others—not OPEC, not an enemy nation oil and natural gas exporter—for our economic independence (which means our political independence, also). Our current dependency is solely the work of President Joe Biden (D) via his active war on our energy production industry and his surrender to Russia on Nordstream 2 after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s minions shut down Colonial Pipeline as a demonstration of things to come if Biden didn’t yield.