Blatant Reality

Take a look at this and tell me this isn’t the US Government helping subsidize Europe’s self imposed high oil prices.

The scam — as Shadegg and others call it — is known as “splash and dash.” It stems from an existing $1 subsidy for every gallon of biodiesel fuel blended with regular diesel in the United States.

 

Here’s how it works:

 

Biodiesel is produced abroad using South American sugar cane or Asian palm oil and shipped to the United States, where it’s blended with just a “splash” of regular diesel.

 

A typical tanker-load of about 9 million gallons of biodiesel requires just 9,000 gallons of American diesel to make it qualify for the subsidy. But every gallon in the shipment garners a buck. The ship then makes a “dash” for Europe, where its fuel is sold below market rates.

 

That means each tanker-load that makes the dash nets importers about $9 million dollars in tax credits from the IRS. Lawmakers have estimated its cost to Americans at tens — or even hundreds — of millions each year.

 

And while Congress and the National Biodiesel Board say they know the loophole is being exploited — as America is exporting much more biofuel than it’s producing — they’ve been unable to identify the guilty companies.

 

“Ultimately when you dig down it gets to the point that you would have to have access to IRS information,” said Manning Feraci, vice president of federal affairs at the National Biodiesel Board. “Taxpayer information is confidential, so we can’t have access to it.”

Luckily, Europe is mad about this too because it is hurting European biofuel producers and they demanding that the US stop this subsidy. Rep. John Shadeg, R-AZ is leading the charge to close this loophole. Hopefully he succeeds because the thought of us subsidizing another countries energy when our prices are outrageously high is completely asinine.

Barack Obama seems to be pissing off everyone in the world that he has pledged to meet with without “preconditions.” This morning, the Palestinians voiced their anger over Barack’s stance on Jerusalem being strictly an Israeli capital and now Iran believes that Obama’s ‘elimination’ threat is ‘unacceptable.’ (My emphasis)

Iran’s foreign ministry on Thursday slammed US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s pledge to work to “eliminate” the threat posed by Tehran as “unacceptable” and biased.

 

“It is undeniable that the nature of the Iranian nuclear programme is peaceful,” foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said, quoted by the official IRNA news agency.

 

“These comments are certainly one-sided and unreal, and are completely contrary to the nature of the Iranian peaceful nuclear programme and thus unacceptable,” he added.

 

Obama vowed on Wednesday that he would work to “eliminate” the threat posed by Iran to world security.

 

“The danger from Iran is grave and real and my goal will be to eliminate this threat,” he told the influential pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC).

Man, I sure hope Barack wasn’t expecting the election to get any easier now that he is the presumptive nominee.

Now the Palestinians are outraged at Barack Obama’s promise that Jerusalem must remain solely in Israeli hands. (My emphasis)

President Mahmoud Abbas rejected the U.S. presidential candidate’s pledge to American Jewish leaders and he repeated his demand for a Palestinian state with Arab East Jerusalem as its capital.

 

“This statement is totally rejected,” Abbas told reporters in the West Bank administrative centre of Ramallah.

 

“The whole world knows that East Jerusalem, holy Jerusalem, was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.”

 

Abbas aide Saeb Erekat said Palestinian negotiators engaged in U.S.-sponsored peace talks would continue to insist on securing East Jerusalem, captured by Israel in 1967, as their capital. He said of Obama: “He has closed all doors to peace.”

Wow, “all doors of peace.” And people think Bush hasn’t done enough to end the violence between Israel and Palestine. At least he didn’t close “all doors to peace” before he was even elected president.

If you aren’t already aware of this, the United State’s Military has outsourced the production of the Air Force’s new generation of tankers to two European companies (some history on this here and here). These two companies, EADS and Northrop, are going to be receiving this contract that is worth billions of dollars. Normally, globalization is a very good thing that ends up saving everyone money. However, with the current state of the economy and the respective national security implications, this contract should have been awarded to a domestic company.

In fact, Boeing had bid on this contract and was only outbid because these foreign companies are receiving such large subsidies from their respected governments. This, in itself, should be grounds for the US government to not grant this contract to either EADS or Northrop.

Luckily, the US Government Accountability Office will be looking into Boeing’s formal complaint against this decision and should have a ruling towards the end of this month. The Center for Individual Freedom has taken up the fight by launching AmericasTanker.com. This site not only provides updates about this issue, it also allows visitors to send emails to their respective Representatives and Senators.

If you would like to voice your complaint against EADS and Northrop receiving this contract, go here to send an email to your legislator.

One question we must ask ourselves is that in this time of war, do we really want some of our important military technologies in the hands of foreign companies(definitely if it is the French who haven’t been that supportive of us)?

Boeing has been there for us since before World War II and I think that they deserve our support.

As Gateway Pundit point out, Amnesty International seems to take some unnecessarily hard punches at the United States while completely avoiding seemingly more pressing issues.

However, that isn’t the only thing they seem to get wrong. Take a look at their profiles for Israel, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority. See anything missing? Yep, it seems that Amnesty International fails to leave out anything having to do with terrorism.

Groups such as Hamas, Fatah, or Hezbullah are just considered “armed groups,” not terrorist groups. And these groups don’t commit murder, they just commit “unlawful killings.” I hate all this PC talk.

Also, in the Israel profile, they list off supposed human rights abuse after abuse without ever discussing why Israel has had to take those security measures. I’m not saying that everything they have done is right but Israel is in a very special situation where it is surrounded by enemies who have almost all vowed to push it into the sea. Combine that with the fact that you have a domestic populace (Palestine) that also wants to see this happen and you have a pretty “dire” situation.

Then again, when you think about it, Amnesty International is a pretty worthless group. All the countries that have the worse human rights violations are not even going to listen to what Amnesty’s report says. Therefore, the only thing Amnesty can do is be critical of countries like the United States or Great Britain whose populaces will listen and make something get done for these mostly minor (in comparison) issues.

I have probably stated this fact before but the French get roughly 75% of their energy from nuclear power. They have been operating on a mainly nuclear power since the 70s and the lack of media attention this has received should be a sign of just how successful they have been in this respect.

A recent news article by CNN makes the argument that the US should follow the France’s example in order to end our dependency on foreign oil.

When Goldman Sachs analysts suggested last week that oil could hit $200 a barrel, I expected someone somewhere to express horror at the possibility. But the reaction was a tiny, resignation-filled sigh. Relentless fuel-price increases have so exhausted consumers that we don’t have the energy to be outraged anymore. So we feel helpless as we watch oil sprint past the $130 mark on its way to price-prohibitive territory and wonder whether it’s too late to bring back the horse and buggy. Our sense of helplessness is an illusion: There are things we can do. We got ourselves into this mess, mostly through multiple administrations of politically comfortable but shortsighted decision-making. And inasmuch as we’re willing to stand a little political discomfort, we can get ourselves out.

 

One uncomfortable way to mitigate the energy crisis has been under our nose since the 1950s: nuclear energy. It’s one of the cleanest and most efficient alternatives to coal- and natural-gas-based electricity production, and it’s responsible for less than 20% of domestic electricity production. The most recent numbers (2006) indicate that coal-based production was the largest contributor, at 48%. Increasingly expensive petroleum and natural gas account for 22%. All three are replaceable.

 

It may not be fashionable to suggest that the French know what they’re doing with regard to anything but wine and cheese, but spend some time in Provence and note the remarkably clean air and cheap electricity, 75% of which is produced by nuclear power plants. Most of the plants were built after the 1970s oil shocks that sent France’s economy into a tailspin because it was almost completely dependent on foreign oil, as we are now. Nuclear energy doesn’t produce the air pollution that burning coal does, and even waste products are recyclable, though it hasn’t been done thanks to an also potentially shortsighted Carter-era decision to ban it over fears of nuclear terrorism.

I don’t normally say this but the French have a good idea here and I think we just might to emulate them this one time.

Obama really needs to keep a pocket dictionary so when he drops words like “preconditions” he knows what they mean. Now, Obama is backpedaling about his whole meeting countries like Iran “without preconditions.” It seems that President Ahmadinejad doesn’t meet the “conditions” to get a meeting.

Democrat Barack Obama underscored his willingness to talk to leaders of countries like Iran that are considered U.S. adversaries but said on Monday that does not necessarily mean an audience with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

 

Obama, the Democratic Party front-runner vying to face Republican Sen. John McCain in the November race for the White House, has said he was willing to meet with leaders of countries such as Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela without preconditions.

 

McCain has criticized that view, saying that sitting down with someone like Ahmadinejad would give the Iranian president a spotlight and send the wrong signal to U.S. allies such as Israel.

 

Iran does not recognize Israel’s existence and Ahmadinejad has called the country a “stinking corpse.”

Oh Obama, you really make it too easy for us.

Words do not describe how shocked and angry I am at Jimmy Carter. Honestly, why in the world would he decide to tell the world that Israel has 150 nuclear devices?

Israel has 150 nuclear weapons in its arsenal, former President Jimmy Carter said yesterday, while arguing that the US should talk directly to Iran to persuade it to drop its nuclear ambitions.

 

His remark, made at the Hay-on-Wye festival which promotes current affairs books and literature, is startling because Israel has never admitted having nuclear weapons, let alone how many, although the world assumes their existence. Nor do US officials deviate in public from that Israeli line. Carter, who has immersed himself since his presidency in Israeli-Palestinian relations, was highly critical of Israeli settlers on the West Bank, and of Israel’s refusal to talk to elected officials of the Islamic party Hamas, although he said that Israel’s security was his prime concern.

If I was Israel right now I would be very angry at Carter. I mean, the world basically knew that they had nukes with every one of those “Nuclear Capable Countries” maps listing Israel but to claim the exact amount they have is crazy.

Also, if that information was gained when he was president, isn’t it illegal for him to share it with anyone? Wouldn’t it be considered treason to share state secrets with the world? Even if it isn’t treason since its not exactly our secret, shouldn’t there be some consequences?

Carter has been living in a world where he thinks that being a former president makes him immune from the consequences. From openly meeting with terrorists to making this announcement, it’s time for something to be done.

What do you folks think?

Hat Tip Gateway Pundit

Today, two men were stopped from entering a nuclear power plant in Sweden after they were discovered to be carrying small amounts the same highly explosive material used by suicide bombers in Israel.

“They told us a welder who was going to perform a job there had been stopped in a random security check. He had been carrying small amounts of the highly explosive material TATP,” Karlsson said.

 

TATP, or triacetone triperoxide, is a high explosive which is extremely unstable, especially when subjected to heat, friction and shock.

 

The compound can be prepared in a home laboratory from easily available household chemicals. It has been employed by suicide bombers in Israel and by Richard Reid, the thwarted British “shoebomber” who attempted to blow up a transatlantic airliner in 2001.

Weird how the article doesn’t mention anything about how these men might be terrorists because it sure sounds like it could be one.

If you didn’t know this already, the French like to protest a lot. These aren’t the same kind of protest we are used to where only a few, sporadic groups might participate; These are nationwide protests that can potentially shut down the country and force a lot a people to upgrade their cars.

What might the French want to protest about this time? Well it seems that President Sarkozy wants to modernize France which has led to whispers of revolt in the streets.

While past Presidents have caved to this “street democracy”, Sarkozy will not follow his predecessors examples.

n the same breath, he has made clear that he will not back away from a five-year program for modernizing France - or a showdown in the streets. “I was not elected to bow down in front of all the special interests and everything and everyone opposing change,” he said last week.

 

With this, Sarkozy can marshal arguments - although with little success in penetrating French public opinion - that purchasing power actually increased last year by 3.3 percent (the best figure in five years), and that growth in France 2008 will be around 2 percent (on target and better than the often-cited models of Britain and Spain).

Finally, a French president with some guts and some past successes already under his belt to back up his position. It’s about time. Too bad the French don’t seem to like him too much because, quite honestly, I would probably like him more than whoever is in the White House come January.