What Congress Should Do About the Mylan Epipen Price Gouge

Recently, it became known that a pair of life-saving Epipens from Mylan Labs now cost more than $600. Pricing them well out of reach for most of the 50 million families who depend on this drug to counter anaphylaxis (allergic reaction) and potential death; primarily in children.  While Mylan tried to squirm around this price gouge, the public outcry was totally justified, especially when its revealed   that each pen only uses a dollar's worth of epinephrine, and the delivery pen
 itself, only costs a few more dollars to make.  But, since Mylan is the only provider of the Epipen in the U.S., Mylan can charge whatever they want.  Even though the pens, themselves, have been off-patent for years, potential competitors have a costly and difficult time getting them approved through our Food and Drug Administrations.

Interestingly, Canadians have multiple choices; and they are only paying $225.42 in U.S. dollars for a 0.3 mg adult Epipen that they import from the United Kingdom.  So, why can't Congress mandate the importation of Epipens from the United Kingdom at the same price the Canadians are paying for them?  I realize that importing foreign-made drugs is a violation of our laws. It is also required that the Food and Drug Administration be able to inspect manufacturing facilities to insure efficacy and purity.  But, sometimes, it may be necessary to send a message to the drug manufacturers that price gouging won't be tolerated.  I hardly think that an Epipen device, sold both in the United Kingdom and Canada, would be too unsafe a product to sell in the U.S..

References:

EpiPens cost just several dollars to make. Customers pay more than $600 for them: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/25/epipens-cost-just-several-dollars-to-make-customers-pay-more-than-600-dollars-for-them.html

Canada Drugs: 0.3 Epipens: https://www.canadadrugs.com/products/epipen/0-3mg

Not Approving Keystone Actually Puts The Environment At Greater Risk

OK, I get it.  Obama wants to play into the hands of the environmentalist lobby by rejecting the Keystone XL Pipeline; arguing that there is no strategic or economic advantage to allowing the project to go forward.  Apparently, the environmentalists seem to think that if the pipeline isn't approved, Canada will just stop producing its tar sands oil that would have to be carried by that pipeline, and the world will be saved from global warming.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Canada isn't going to walk away from billions of dollars in revenue per year and all the jobs that would provide.  The reality is that they will just keep extracting the oil and will continue to do what they have already been doing over the last 7 years while Keystone was in limbo.  That means that their oil will increasingly transverse our country by rail.  A fact that resulted in record train oil spills in 2014; causing millions to be spent for cleanup; assuming it can actually be cleaned up.

Additionally, Canada already has plans to sell its oil internationally, since the U.S. has been dragging its feet on Keystone.  Despite what environmentalists seem to think, that oil will be used to provide fuel for an ever-increasing number of the world's gasoline-powered automobiles. 

So, essentially our own environment may suffer from increased rail oil spills,  and the  atmosphere will probably suffer from less effective refining in other countries. 

Lastly, the argument that Canada's tar sands oil is extremely dirty is another lie that was used to kill Keystone.  The U.S. actually extracts and refines even dirtier oils in places such as California and Alaska.

Between oil spills and less effective refining, the U.S. and world environments are actually at greater risk than they would be with the Keystone pipeline. 

References:

Obama’s Keystone Rejection Strengthens His Hand at Climate Talks: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/oil-train-spills-hit-record-level-2014-n293186

Oil Train Spills Hit Record Level in 2014: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/oil-train-spills-hit-record-level-2014-n293186

Canadian tar sands crude heads to Bay Area refineries: http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_23366257/canadian-tar-sands-crude-heads-bay-area-refineries

Exclusive Map: The Tar Sands Pipeline Boom: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120430/exclusive-map-tar-sands-pipeline-boom

How clean is our ‘dirty’ oil? You’d be surprised: http://ipolitics.ca/2014/07/18/how-clean-is-our-dirty-oil-youd-be-surprised/

Why Ted Cruz Might Not Be Eligible To Be President

After Ted Cruz announced his run for the presidency, many in the media made note of the fact that he talked about his non-citizen father who was living in Texas while he and his U.S. born mother were living in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.  Well, it took just a couple of seconds for the media to also disclose that Cruz was actually born in Canada.  Thus, many questioned his eligibility to be president because it is assumed that, as stated in the Constitution, he isn't a natural born citizen.

However, those defending Cruz's eligibility misquoted federal law by stating that you are a citizen at birth -- no matter where you are born -- if at least one of your parents is a U.S. citizen. Cruz supported that belief by previously providing the media with his mother's U.S. birth certificate.

But, there's still a problem.

U.S. law states that if you are born outside of the U.S. to one or both parents who are U.S. citizens, the citizen parent or parents must go to a U.S. consulate or embassy in the country where the child was born and apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA).  This form insures that the birth certificate isn't a fake in an attempt of circumvent our immigration laws. And, this application must be done before the child is 18 years of age.  Once the consulate/embassy verifies that birth right to citizenship, an FS-240 form will be issued as proof of citizenship.

That's the form that Cruz should have produced.  Not his mother's birth certificate. Obviously, he doesn't have that form or he would have provided it. That document is something that he should have  with him for life since it supersedes and replaces his actual birth certificate.  Yet,  Cruz, instead, produced his Canadian birth certificate in 2013:

Click on Image to enlarge

Simply, without having obtained a FS-240 before he was 18 years of age, Cruz is not a citizen by birth; and, thus, not eligible to be President of the United States.  After age 18, he can become a citizen through the naturalization process; but, still, can't be President.  Thus, proof of a FS-240 must be provided before he can even participate in the primaries.

I was unable to find out if there was a federal database to determine if a FS-240 existed for Cruz.  The only database available was from Ancestry.com and its records only span from the years 1910 to 1949.  Cruz was born in 1970.  But, what the Ancestry database proves is that the consular birth requirements existed long before he was born; just in case someone thinks the law was somehow recent and not applicable in this case.

References:

Ted Cruz - Wikipedia: https://www.google.com/search?q=calgary+alberta+canada&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Is Ted Cruz, born in Canada, eligible to run for president: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/aug/20/ted-cruz-born-canada-eligible-run-president/

Ted Cruz releases his birth certificate: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20130818-born-in-canada-ted-cruz-became-a-citizen-of-that-country-as-well-as-u.s..ece

State Department: A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met:  http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html

U.S., Consular Reports of Births, 1910-1949 - Search: http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=1664

Obama Is Lying About The Keystone Pipeline

Shortly after the House of Representative passed a bill that approved the completion of the Keystone Pipeline, President Obama was asked to comment and he said this:

Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else. It doesn't have an impact on U.S. gas prices.

Therefore, according to Obama, Canada merely wants to use us as a conduit to send their oil to every place other than the United States.  Additionally, it will not have an impact on our gasoline prices.   Both of these comments are bald-faced lies.

If the only intent was for Canada to sell its oil overseas, then why build a pipeline extending a total of 2,100+ miles from their western province of Alberta to eastern Texas and western Louisiana?  After all, a 2100 mile pipeline is both expensive to build and even more expensive to maintain; greatly adding to the per-gallon cost of the oil moving through it. They had a cheaper alternative. Were they to build a pipeline that was only 850 miles long from their oil terminal in Hardisty, Alberta to their largest western seaport: Port Metro Vancouver.  Then, they could ship to some of the largest importers of oil in the world like China, Vietnam, South Korea, and Japan.

But, as the President knows, Canada views us as a friendly and reliable trading partner.  This is why they are already our largest importer of foreign oil; accounting for 37% of our imported oil and  helping us to reduce our dependence on potentially unfriendly sources like the Middle East and Venezuela. 

Then, there is the issue as to whether or not Keystone will lower gasoline prices.  Simple economics and the Law of Supply and Demand says yes.  If you haven't noticed, gasoline prices in the U.S. are now at 4-year lows; from prices at the pump that were, in some cases, over $4 a gallon, to today's average price of below $3 and still falling.  The reason for this is the fact that there is an oil glut; primarily due to increased oil production in this country resulting from fracking.  The additional oil from the Keystone will only add to that glut and, as such, further reduce the price of gasoline.

Reduced gasoline prices is the real reason behind Obama's blocking of this project.

He knows that lower prices will undermine his push on climate change measures.  Lower gasoline prices means that people will be tempted to drive more and, at the same time, be less tempted to buy a newer, more fuel efficient car; including electric cars.  Thus, carbon emissions will only go up, not down.

Throughout his Administration, President Obama has done everything possible to keep gasoline prices  as high as possible by limiting oil production in this country.  He's used his Department of the Interior to limit oil leases on federal lands and our coastlines.  He has attempted to stop drilling on private lands bt using the EPA to expand endangered species to include those on prominent oil drilling territories and to file lawsuits over fracking.   Believe me, his intended expansion of the Clean Waters Act to include non-navigable waters will also ultimately be used to restrict drilling and fracking. That's because water is essential to all oil drilling.  In conventional drilling it keeps the drill bits cool.  In the case of fracking, high pressure water and chemicals are used to fracture shale and release the imbedded oil (and/or gas).


References:

Keystone pipeline: Obama bashes project while in Myanmar: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/14/keystone-pipeline-obama-bashes-project-while-in-my/

Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

Distance From Hardesty To Port Metro: https://www.google.com/search?q=distance+from+hardisty+to+port+metro&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

Global Oil Glut Sends Prices Plunging - WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/articles/global-oil-glut-sends-prices-plunging-1413334648

Time to Process Oil Leases On Federal Lands: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Time-required-to-drill-1-sm.png

Oil Leases: Bush versus Obama: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/u-s-oil-production-up-but-on-whose-lands-2/

 EPA Backpedals on Fracking Contamination Lawsuits: http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303404704577313741463447670

Does Obama Think Warren Buffett Is Unpatriotic?

Pictured above, liberal billionaire Warren Buffett is apparently a well respected person to whom the President is clearly intent on listening to.  In fact, in 2011, Barack Obama couldn't speak of Warren Buffet enough while promoting increased taxes on millionaires because, in the past, Buffett has actively criticized our tax system for letting the rich pay a smaller share of their income than those in the middle class.  By what he calls the Buffett Rule, the President's 2011 tax plan would increase the top income tax rate to 30%.  Unfortunately, for Obama, the Buffett Rule was never passed into law because there were never enough Senate votes to enact it.

But, that was then and, now, Buffett, may just be on the President's sh*t list.

That's because, Burger King -- a company that Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway conglomerate has a $3 billion stake in, and for which he would receive a handsome annual 9% interest payment  -- is now using Buffet's money to move its headquarters to Canada to avoid paying high taxes in the U.S.. This is done by using a process called corporate inversion or tax inversion.  Just this year, Obama has called such actions "unpatriotic".

So, with that, is Warren Buffett -- who is vehemently defending the Burger King's tax inversion deal because, of course, he is a rich guy who will only get richer because Burger King can duck U.S. taxes -- now "unpatriotic" by Obama's very public definition?

Of course, one thing is sure.  Buffett's backing of tax inversion has put the President in a box where he can never again refer to the Buffett Rule when trying to push higher taxes on the rich.  Nor, can Obama ever criticize corporate tax inversions. Because to do so would force him to criticized Buffett;  a major and very influential donor to liberal causes and liberal politics.

References:

Picture Source: 2011: Obama Meets With Warren Buffett: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/picture-of-the-day-obama-meets-with-warren-buffett/242161/

Buffet Rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule

Obama: Offshore 'Tax Inversions' Are Unpatriotic: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/26/obama-tax-inversions_n_5623222.html 

Warren Buffett stands by Burger King deal: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/warren-buffett-burger-king-111092.html

Why Burger King Is Paying 9% for Warren Buffett’s Blessing: http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/09/03/why-burger-king-is-paying-9-for-warren-buffetts-blessing/

Canada Tires of Waiting For Obama. Approves A New Pipeline to Supply Asia (China).

The President has delayed the Keystone Pipeline Project for almost as long as he's been in office.  That pipeline would have brought oil from Canada for refinement throughout the central and southern United States; and it now seems to be in jeopardy.  The Canadian government has just approved a trans-Canada pipeline that would move the oil that was originally destined for the Keystone Pipeline to their Pacific ports for shipments to Asia; primarily China.

So, instead of counting on our friendly neighbor to the north to supply us with oil, that neighbor has been forced to help China instead.  And, that oil, that would have been more cleanly refined in the U.S., will probably be processed in a country whose CO2 emission laws hardly exist.  As a result, Obama is actually responsible for creating more CO2 pollution than if it had been processed here in the US.  Is this what going it alone on Climate Change is all about?

Reference:

Canada OKs oil pipeline to the Pacific Coast: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/canada-oks-oil-pipeline-pacific-coast