Happy Earth Day! China Dumps Wind...Japan Builds Coal Plants!

Once again, the environmental activists around the world got their Earth Day on April 22.  Speeches were given. Trees were planted. But, this year, something special happened.  175 nations signed the Paris Climate Agreement on that day.... So, ah yes, the earth will be saved.

The only problem with the so called non-binding Paris Climate Agreement is that it is already being "unbound" by both China and Japan in massive ways.

China -- the world's largest polluter with CO2 making up nearly a third of the world's carbon emissions and the world's leader in wind power -- has recently decided to pull the plug on wind power expansion.  The reason?  Too much of the power is wasted and wind variability is causing damage to the electrical grid because of surging.  So, we have to assume that China -- who already brings a new coal fired plant online every 7 to 10 days -- will have to step that rate up in order meet its rapidly growing demand for electricity.

Japan, too, is bringing 43 new coal plants online because, following the Fukushima
accident, it is shutting down its nuclear plants and replacing them with coal.  Apparently, wind and solar were not an option.  Probably for economic reasons.

In my opinion, Japan and China are demonstrating how flawed the push towards renewable sources of energy is.  In the U.S., we have an Ivanpah solar power plant in California which -- at a cost of $2.2 billion -- is a failure.  Unable, to produce the promised amount of power, it may actually be shutdown if more tax breaks and tax money aren't poured into it.

Simply, neither wind nor solar are sustainable, consistent, and reliable sources of energy.  And, the world's dependence on fossil fuels will never go away.  Earth Day or not.

References:

175 countries sign Paris Climate Agreement: http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/175-countries-sign-paris-climate-agreement/article8512480.ece

World's Largest Polluters: https://www.google.com/search?q=world+largest+polluter&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

China is a world leader in wind power generation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_China

China Stops Building Wind Turbines Because Most Of The Energy Is Wasted: http://www.headlines-news.com/2016/03/30/1045288/china-stops-building-wind-turbines-because-most-of-the-energy-is-wasted

As U.S. Shutters Coal Plants, China and Japan are Building Them: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/as-u-s-shutters-coal-plants-china-and-japan-are-building-them/ 

Could California’s massive Ivanpah solar power plant be forced to go dark?: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/could-californias-massive-ivanpah-solar-power-plant-be-forced-to-go-dark-2016-03-16 

Why the Paris Climate Change Agreement Will Fail

In Paris, In mid-December, after two weeks of talks between 195 countries, ended with an agreement on climate change, there were high-fives and pats on the back for all those politicians, from all those countries that attended the summit.  The media called  it "historic".  CNN proclaimed "The End of Fossil Fuels", as if the world will somehow toss all their gasoline-powered cars to the wayside; commercial jets will find some way to fly without fuel; people will find something other than natural gas to heat their homes and cook their food with; and cement and steel will, I suppose, be created without high-carbon coke as fuel.  Also, somehow, we will figure out how to pave our roads without the asphalt that is a by-product of refining oil.  All before 2030, in order to keep the global temperatures from rising another 1/2 degree Celsius.

Of course, those items mentioned above, and many others, are just many of the impossible hurdles facing the Paris agreement.  Then, there's the toothlessness of the agreement itself.

• The agreeing parties will set their own goals and targets to reduce carbon and "do their best" to implement those reduction targets "as soon as possible".  
• Progress towards the stated targets/goals will be on the honor system with each country self-monitoring its own progress and self-reporting such progress.
• Those failing to meet their goals will be "named and shamed" and, supposedly, spat upon by the world community as a polluter; assuming that each country will honestly report their progress. 
• The 55 dirtiest countries will ante-up $100 billion a year to be handed over to the other 140 of the total 195 participating counties, so they too, can fight climate change.

There you have it; and I'm quite sure that last item was a real crowd pleaser among the 140 countries who are now licking their chops in anticipation of billions of dollars coming their way that will surely be used solely for fighting climate change.  More importantly, this agreement is like having no agreement at all.  Especially since most of the "politicians" involved probably won't be around over the next 15 years of initial commitments.  For sure, Obama and his people won't be around past February 2017 to insure that the U.S.'s progress toward our targets and goals will be met.

But, here's the two biggest reasons that the Paris agreement will fail:  (1) Growing populations and (2) Growing affluence in emerging economies.

Take India for example.  By 2028, India is expected to overtake China in total population.  Also, by 2030, a 2012 BP study projects that automobile ownership in India will grow from just 20% in 2011 to 65% by 2030.  That's just one country and a massive growth in affluence.  China will also see huge growth in automobile ownership; nearly 300% on a per capita basis by 2030. All told, there will be 2 billion cars on the world's roads just 5 years later in 2035; according to a Navigant Research study published last year.  That's a 66% increase in automobile ownership and a presumed growth in affluence in just 21 years.  So, with this in mind, every car sold going forward from today has to be more than 66% more fuel efficient just to keep automobile emissions the same as they are today.  If that's not an impossible task, I don't know what is.

However the growth in affluence doesn't just stop with the world buying more cars. Air travel demand is expected to double by 2035.  And, as a result, emissions from commercial aircraft will substantially increase unless fuel economies are at least halved.  Even so, most of today's aircraft will probably still be flying in 2035.  Just as improving automobile fuel inefficiencies is an impossible task, improving jet liner fuel efficiency would be even more difficult; especially when you consider that many of today's planes (and some cars) will still be operational for the next 15 to 20 years.

Simply, growing populations and even faster growth in affluence will be the downfall of the Paris agreement. The growth in affluence won't just be with cars and air travel.  It will be seen in all other forms of human activity.  There will be larger, better heated, and well lit homes with more electrical appliances, and highly unreliable wind and solar will not be able to keep up with the demand without the assistance of energy produced by fossil fuels.  So much for CNN's "End of Fossil Fuels" folly. Also, do we really think that building nuclear power plants is the solution?  The inherent problems and risks make the choice not a good one.  Just look at the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters.

In my opinion, the Paris agreement is historic alright.  A historic failure!


References:

2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference

COP21: Paris climate change deal is end of fossil fuels - CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/12/opinions/sutter-cop21-climate-reaction/ 

India To Overtake China As Largest Populated Nation: https://www.google.com/search?q=2030+population+india&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

India will add more cars than China in 20 years: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/india-will-add-more-cars-than-china-in-20-years/article2939216.ece

Two billion vehicles projected to be on roads by 2035: http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2014/0729/Two-billion-vehicles-projected-to-be-on-roads-by-2035

Air travel demand projected to double in 20 years: http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2015/06/08/demand-to-fly-will-likely-double-but-industry-may-not-be-ready/28680637/

Obama Calls Cliimate Change An Immediate National Security Risk

Recently, President Obama told the graduating class of Coast Guard cadets that climate change and global warming are immediate risks to our national security.  Well, if that is true, and they truly endanger the security of the U.S., why aren't we at war with India and China over their massive increases in carbon output?

The fact is that, no matter how much we do to control our CO2 output, China and India will easily offset our lowered  levels.

And, I only made that "war" comment to show how ridiculous the President's "national security" argument is. Of course, if he truly believes what he is saying, then maybe we should be at war against the polluters.

References:

Obama: Climate Change an 'Immediate Risk' to National Security: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/05/20/obama-climate-change-an-immediate-risk-to-national-security

Global CO2 Emissions: Increases Dwarf Recent U.S. Reductions: http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2013/07/global-co2-emissions-increases-dwarf-recent-u-s-reductions/

U.S. Carbon Dioxide Reductions Outpace Rest of World: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/u-s-carbon-dioxide-reductions-outpace-rest-world/

Our Futile and Silly Attempts At Reducing Coal Consumption

Talk to any global warming alarmist and they will tell you that coal is, by far, the dirtiest power producer of all.  So, it is only logical that -- in their minds -- the world should abandon this planet-killing form of power production.  However, while the U.S. and Europe are busily forcing coal out of business and out of existence through various forms of legislative actions such as carbon taxes and severe limits on emissions, Asian counties like China and South Asia/India are increasingly producing and consuming more coal than the U.S., Europe, and the rest of the world could possibly eliminate; and, at a very fast rate.  Here is the "worth-a-thousand-words" picture that tells that very story:

Click on image to zoom

With global temperatures flat for 18 years and, at the same time, coal usage exploding in Asia, it is really hard to see the connection between coal consumption and global warming. 

References:

Chart Source: International Business Times: Coal Growing Its Share Of Global Energy Mix Despite World's Greening Efforts: http://www.ibtimes.com/coal-growing-its-share-global-energy-mix-despite-worlds-greening-efforts-1607184

August 2014: Global Temperature Update – Still no global warming for 17 years 10 months: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/02/global-temperature-update-still-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/

The Cuba Deal: Another One of Obama's One-Sided Negotiations

In March 2009, shortly after taking office, President Obama told Iran:

"if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fists, they will find an extended hand from us"

Despite the fact that Iran has never unclenched its fist by continuing its nuclear weapons program; and, by continuing the development of long range missiles; and by continuing to undermine infant democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan by arming anti-government rebels; we stupidly, and one-sidedly, extended our hand by removing sanctions against them.  Even though the removal of such sanctions has produced  zero slowdown in their nuclear weapon ambitions. 

Then there was our "reset" with Russia in 2009 and our one-sided gifts to Putin such as agreeing not to put missile defense systems in Europe.  Where did that get us?  Relations with Russia are now almost as cold as they were throughout the Cold War.

Also, Obama announced a climate change deal with China in 2014.  This, too, was another one-sided effort where we specifically set targets, while China, somewhat, agreed to goals.  Goals with holes wide enough to drive a train through.  In fact, the Chinese have declared that their carbon emission reduction programs under this agreement will not be subject to any measurable scrutiny.  In other words, just believe us when we say we are meeting goals.

So, now, we learn about another one-sided deal.  This time with Cuba.

In exchange for one American held in Cuba for 5 years, we gave up 3 highly-valued, convicted Cuban spies.  We agreed to open an Embassy in Cuba.  We will review dropping the U.S. label of Cuba as a  state sponsor of terrorism, and there will be an easing of economic sanctions and a removal of a 54-year embargo on Cuban products such as cigars.

So, what did we get in exchange?

Nothing. No promises of better treatment of the Cuban people. No promise for democracy. No freedom of press or expression. No lifting of travel restrictions on Cubans wanting to visit the U.S. and, no agreement to stop international sponsorship of terrorism. Nothing!

Once again, Present Obama has proven to be a failed negotiator.  He can't negotiate with Congress and certainly can't negotiate with our international enemies.  Instead, he's more like a game show host who won't just give you what's behind door number three, he'll throw in 1 and 2 as well.

What's really interesting about Cuba is that they have maintained a cozy relationship with both Russia and Iran.  The two other countries that Obama showered with gifts and got nothing in return.

One last thing. Obama claims that we need to normalize relations with Cuba because 54 years of isolation hasn't worked.  Really?  What about nearly 70 years of isolation with North Korea?  Are we now expected to normalize relations with them just because the clock ran out? By the way. Cuba is also a close trading partner with North Korea.  It is surprising that a President who uses sanctions against Russia now admits sanctions haven't worked against Cuba.  They obviously haven't worked against North Korea either.  Then, why ever use them?

References:

Obama offers Iran 'new beginning': http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7954211.stm

United States Has Been Secretly Lifting Iranian Sanctions: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/08/very-bad-deal-israeli-pm-netanyahu-lashes-out-over-wests-possible-nuke-deal-with-iran/

Obama Lifts Sanctions, Iranians Win, Regime Loses: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamal-abdi/obama-iran-sanctions_b_3358930.html

Iran nuclear talks extended to 2015 after failure at Vienna: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/24/iran-nuclear-talks-likely-extended-vienna

Obama Administration Caves to Putin on Missile Shield:   http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-missile-shield-russia/2013/03/17/id/495084/

Obama's One-Sided "Reset" With Russia | RealClearPolitics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/14/obamas_one-sided_reset_with_russia_118387.html

Obama's Epic Climate Change Deal With China Falls Apart: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/120814-729590-obama-taken-by-chinas-president-xi-jinping-in-signing-phony-climate-deal.htm

Obama hails 'new chapter' in US-Cuba ties: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30516740

Obama: Isolating Cuba hasn't worked: http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/17/politics/obama-cuba-castro-relations/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Cuba–Iran relations - Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba%E2%80%93Iran_relations

Cuba-Russia relations - Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba%E2%80%93Russia_relations

Cuban relations with North Korea - The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2013/12/cuban-relations-north-korea 

China–Cuba relations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Cuba_relations

Obama's Feckless and One-Sided Emissions Agreement With China

One of the so called "big" accomplishments of  President Obama's China trip is his agreement to cooperate with the Chinese on reducing carbon emissions.  Obama's people and the liberal media call it historic.  But, it is better described as : Historically Stupid!

The first paragraph from a White House press release gives an overview of the China agreement:

Building on strong progress during the first six years of the Administration, today President Obama announced a new target to cut net greenhouse gas emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. At the same time, President Xi Jinping of China announced targets to peak CO₂ emissions around 2030, with the intention to try to peak early, and to increase the non-fossil fuel share of all energy to around 20 percent by 2030. 

So, let me get this straight.

Until 2030, China can continue -- completely unfettered -- its already massive growth in carbon emissions as noted by this chart from the liberal website New Republic:

Then, "around" 2030, China agrees to cap its emissions at that year's levels.  God only knows what "around" means. In addition, China will "try" to stem emission growth early and increase non-fossil fuels to 20% by 2030.

As a reward and in advance of their anticipated good behavior after 2030, Obama agrees that by 2025 (at least 5 years earlier than China's "around" 2030 commitment), we will reduce our carbon emission by 26 to 28 percent from the levels that we were producing 10 years ago.

So, China maybe.  Us definitely.

Of course, there is no penalty to either party for failing to meet the "targets" of this agreement.  All of this rests on a handshake between our President and the President of China with no treaty or   approval from Congress.

Of course this is "all show" An agreement that is intended to portray Obama as a leader and a feeble attempt at rehabilitating his image after the shellacking he received in the recent elections.  Whether China will meet its commitments under this agreement is really questionable. But, one thing is certain, the President will use this to seriously hurt this country's economy by enforcing massive and expensive changes to our energy production.  The increased costs won't hurt the rich.  They will definitely hurt the middle class and, predominately, the poor.  So much for closing the income inequality gap.


References:

US and China reach historic climate change agreement: http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/12/world/us-china-climate-change-agreement/index.html

'Major Milestone': US, China Announce Climate Breakthrough: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/major-milestone-u-s-china-reach-climate-deal-n246636

'Historic' Climate Deal Between US and China - Time.com: http://time.com/3577820/apec-climate-change-barack-obama-xi-jinping-greenhouse-gas/

White House Press Release: FACT SHEET: U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change and Clean Energy Cooperation: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/11/fact-sheet-us-china-joint-announcement-climate-change-and-clean-energy-c

New U.S.-China climate deal is a game changer | Grist: http://grist.org/climate-energy/new-u-s-china-climate-deal-is-a-game-changer/

New Republic: Conservatives Are Missing the Point of Obama's Climate Change Plan: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117920/obamas-epa-regulations-will-send-strong-message-china

Sen. Inhofe: 'A non-binding charade': http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/11/12/greenhouse-gas-emissions-sen-james-inhofe-editorials-debates/18940687/ 

pb

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

GE's CEO, Jeffery Immelt, Thinks State-Run Communism Works

In an interview with Charlie Rose, Jeffery Immelt, a member of the President's Jobs Council and CEO of General Electric (GE),  basically said that the Chinese system of communism as a form of government "works".   But, for whom does it work? Obviously, with masses of cheap labor available, American companies, like GE, think it works.  That's why Immelt has spent his years as the head of GE in outsourcing one manufacturing operation after another to China.

But, this opinion by Mr. Immelt just ignores reality.

First of all, the only reason that China has become the economic powerhouse that it is today is because, beginning in 1979, China introduced economic reforms that allowed "capitalist" concepts of entrepreneurship and private enterprise to exist.  Today, because of those reforms, more than 70% of China's GDP is from free-market, private enterprise. It wasn't communism that allowed China to grew economically, it was creeping capitalism. 

Secondly, it appears that Mr. Immelt is completely ignorant of how poor China really is.  In a country of 1.3 billion people, almost 1/2 billion of those live on less than $2/day.  That's for food, clothing, and housing. And, for nearly two-thirds of the population, electricity is only a dream. This, in a country, that considers people to be in poverty if they make less than $94 (U.S.) per year.  Immelt should think about that whenever he's slugging down a $4 Frappuccino from his local Starbucks (probably one of two or three for the day). 

The problem with Americans like Immelt is that, when they visit China, they only do so as guests of the government.  Then, that government only shows those "guests" what they want them to see.  Instead of seeing underage people working in sweatshop conditions, or horrendous living and working conditions, they only see the best of all conditions in that country.

With someone like Immelt on the President's Jobs Council, it's no wonder that unemployment has remained so high under Obama.

References:

--- Washington Free Beacon: Immelt: State Run Communism in China Works: http://freebeacon.com/immelt-state-run-communism-in-china-works/

--- Banking To Lift Poverty In China: http://laowaiblog.com/banking-for-the-poor-2/

--- Wikipedia: Chinese Economic Reform: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform

--- Wikipedia: China: Suicide in the People's Republic of China: Working Conditions And Suicide:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

Another Obama Hyper-Fantasy: A Doubling Of Exports By 2015

Now, just days before the election, President Obama has produced a 20-page, glossy booklet of "the" things he will do to improve the economy in his next term.  He did this to squelch the complaints that, nowhere, can anyone find Obama's plan for a second term. But, as many have noted, all this booklet does is rehash much of what he promised to do in his first term.   One such "jobs" promise that appears in that booklet is a repeat of his 2010 State Of The Union commitment to double U.S. exports "by" 2015.

While this sounds like a real "jobs" winner, the reality of this actually happening is nearly impossible.  Just as had been the case with almost all of Obama's promises.

First of all, in order to double exports in just five years -- from a total number of exports in 2009 to the total at the end of 2014 -- you need to "compound" export growth by more than 18% per year.  So, this fact begs the question: Are our exports even close to meeting that growth demand?  Of course, the answer to that question is "NO".

From 2009 to 2010, exports only grew by 16.4%; from $6.3 trillion dollars worth of trade to $7.4 trillion.  Of course, this is a clear miss of that 18+% needed to double exports in just 5 years.  In 2011, exports only grew by 13.5% to $18.3 trillion.  Again, well off the required mark.  Then, there's this year.  In the first half, exports only amounted to $4.3 trillion.  This means that we are, at best, set to do about $8.7 trillion; or, a meager increase of slightly more that 4%.  Next year is looking to be even worse because our trade with Europe is deteriorating rapidly as most of those counties are either in or entering a state of recession and high rates of unemployment.  China, too, is projecting a slowdown of their economy.  This is why many of our main exporting companies, like Caterpillar, are projecting serious slowdowns in revenues and earnings in the last quarter of this year and going into 2013.

So, in each of the last 3+ years that Obama has been in office, export growth has been declining.   Just like our economy.  Yet, this President continues to tell the whopper that he will double exports under his watch. 

References:

--- Bloomberg-Business Week: Keeping a Close Eye on Obama's Export-Doubling Pledge: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-24/keeping-a-close-eye-on-obamas-export-doubling-pledge

--- United States Exports: A 10-year Chart and Quarterly Statistics: http://www.forecast-chart.com/chart-us-exports.html

--- NBC News: Stocks finish flat after earnings disappoint (Caterpillar says: "said the global economy is slowing faster than it had expected"): http://marketday.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/22/14615604-stocks-finish-flat-after-earnings-disappoint?lite

Obama Broadly Paints Romney As An Overseas Outsourcer

In a revamp of a previous campaign tactic, Barack Obama has decided to try and turn America against Romney because he outsourced jobs while he was the head of Bain Capital, and as the Governor of Massachusetts.

Politifact has already debunked the Massachusetts claim by calling it a half-truth.  But, I think, given the facts, they're being overly lenient with Obama.  When Romney became its Governor, the State of Massachusetts had already contracted with Citigroup to process debit cards in support of the state's food stamp program.  In setting up customer service support for the program, Citigroup created a call center in India.  This was not unique.  At the time, 43 of our 50 states were involved in outsourcing certain services overseas.  But, let's be clear, neither Romney nor the State of Massachusetts outsourced the jobs to India; the contractor, Citigroup, did. Where the Obama campaign thinks they have Romney on the hook for outsourcing, is in regard to his 2005 veto of a bill that would forbid any state contractors from outsourcing.  Romney did it because the State budget couldn't afford premium, U.S.-only contracts; resulting in millions of extra taxpayer expenses. To anyone's knowledge, no jobs were actually outsourced since the Romney veto. And, the India call center?  It was shutdown in a new contract with jobs outsourced (from Mass.) to Utah.

Now, it is true that some companies that Bain was involved with while Romney was the chief did outsource jobs to both China and India.   But, so did most all of the Fortune 500 companies of this nation.  In fact, Obama's General Motors makes its Chevy Camaro in Canada and the GMC Sierra in Mexico.  And, oh yes,  Obama handed the American Chrysler Corporation over to the Italian company, Fiat. How long do you think it will be before Fiat starts making the most of the Chrysler parts (or, cars) in Italy?

On the Bain/Romney outsourcing, Obama and his surrogates should really back off.  That's because several of Obama's stimulus programs used products and parts that were made in China; and, consequently, created Chinese jobs.  Take, for example, a $2 billion program in the Obama stimulus package to build enough wind farms to support 2.4 million American homes.  The wind turbines, themselves, weren't built here.  Instead, they were built in China; creating 6000 Chinese jobs.  In the U.S., only about a couple of hundred jobs were created in installing all those Chinese-built wind turbines.   So, in essence, Obama, too, is an outsourcer!

The wind turbine story can be found at: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/wind-power-equal-job-power/story?id=9759949#.T-oX8fWDpkg

Obama's Weak-Handedness In Foreign Policy Has Gotten Us Nowhere

When Obama took office he extended his hand to Iran under the assumption that they were only negatively responding to the heavy-handedness of the Bush Administration.  Now, more than 3 years later, Iran is still as much an antagonist as they were during the Bush presidency.  As result, our pussy-cat role towards them has been abandoned and Obama has had to, once again, resort to those same heavy-handed measures of the prior Administration.

Then, there's Russia.  We supposedly "reset" our relationship with that former Cold War foe.  In essence, we said we'd play nice and, in return, Obama expected Russia to be our "BFF".  But, friendship was nowhere to be found.  They haven't played nice on missile defense; even threatening to launch air strikes against any  system we would deploy in Europe.  Then, too, they've attempted to block us on every move against Iran and its nuclear program.  They fought us, too, on our move to support Libyan rebels and dethrone Gaddafi.  And, now, we find out that Russia is providing helicopters to Syria and Assad to trample the rebel, democracy uprising.

When Egypt successfully forced Hosni Mubarak to step down, Obama called it "a beginning" for democracy.  Well, in the year that has passed since then, Egyptians have voted for the anti-Israel Muslim Brotherhood and, then, just recently, the military conducted a coup, of sorts, by dissolving the current parliament and by putting themselves back in charge.  So much for that "beginning".

Israel has suffered greatly under Obama.  That tiny state is now as close to serious war as it has ever been.  If Iran successfully develops a nuke, Israel realizes it could be in serious trouble.  As a result, they may be forced to take a preemptive strike against Iran.  The once-friendly Egypt is looking more like a hostile Islamic neighbor.  The U.N. and President Obama's support of the Palestinians and a Palestinian state, is creating an extremely awkward relationship between the U.S. and Israel.

And, let's not forget North Korea.  Upon taking office, the President had all but declared six-party talks with North Korea a failure.  Instead, he decided to reinstate the previously failed bilateral talks between North Korea and the U.S.  Obama, once again, felt this up-close and personal negotiations would work with his guiding hand. Now, three years later, North Korea is still a nuclear power and, over time, has now developed nuclear delivery systems that could threaten the United States.

Lastly, there's that elephant in the room -- China, and a near trillion dollars in debt that we owe to that country.  The president-elect Obama promised change with China.  Change that would include better trade relations; China's support in negotiating with North Korea; freer human rights for all Chinese people; support of global warming initiatives; and, most importantly, convincing them to allow its currency to "float" in international trading so that U.S. products would be less expensive in China.  Of course, in typical fashion, China balked on these issues.  The once confident Obama seems as helpless as Bush when it comes to that country. 

When I see polling that gives the President high marks for foreign policy, I just have to laugh.  Things are no better today than they were under Bush.  If anything, foreign relations have only suffered. They've suffered because by Obama looks weak; and, no one ever wins in negotiations by looking weak.

The Shock And Blah Of The Chevy Volt

I think General Motors (GM) can be very thankful that the Chevy Volt was such such a flop in the marketplace. After all, having to recall an entire run of a particular line of vehicles could have been quite expensive. But, thanks to the intelligence of the American consumer, a little less than 8,000 of these firetraps have been sold to date -- well short of the 10,000 vehicles that GM had predicted they would sell by this point in time.

Then there was the news that GM may move its production of the Volt to China. If there ever was an admission by a company that it was losing money on making a product, this is it. I don't know if anyone remembers but, GM originally announced that the price of the Volt would be around $47,000. But, after Obama took over the company, the Volt hit the showrooms with a much lower price tag of $41,000; making me think that the real cost to produce this car is somewhat higher than the selling price. You think, maybe, that Obama's Car Czar had something to do with the lousy pricing? It's obvious that GM is losing money on these eco-nut vehicles. Enough of a loss, that it makes sense to replicate the current Volt production facilities in China; train new workers; and, then, ship the vehicles back to the U.S for distribution to the dealers. Of course, China's biggest cost saver is the fact that they don't have a United Auto Workers union.

This is just another example of Obama trying to force feed America with "green" technology. Like Solyndra, the Volt is a loser. And, like Solyndra, the American taxpayer is on the hook for keeping this pig alive with a $7,000 tax rebate for anyone buying one. A tax break that only benefits the wealthy who can afford to buy a $41,000 glorified golf cart. Now, it looks like those tax breaks will, at sometime, subsidize jobs in China. Thank you, Mr. Obama!

Why Arlen Specter Is Clueless

Yesterday, on Fox News Sunday, Arlen Specter made another one of his ridiculous statements. This time about China: "They're very shrewd. They take our jobs, they take our money, and then they lend it back to us."

The stupidity of that statement is that China isn't being shrewd. Instead,
America, as a country, is just being dumb. China didn't create our debt. We did. If it weren't for China's aid, we'd be wallowing in it to our possible financial collapse.

China didn't tax our manufacturing jobs out of existence. We did it ourselves with lawmakers like Arlen who can't control their tax and spend attitudes. In fact, the health care bill that was just passed is only going to make it easier for China to "steal" even more jobs away from us.

Among the world's economies, we're the easy mark because of people like Arlen Specter. People who don't seem to understand what drives the business world and what are the causes of our constant decline in manufacturing jobs. In the 1950's we only imported about 5% of what we consumed. Today, we import more than we export and that imbalance continues to grow with every new tax increase and federal regulation. China is just the latest country to take advantage of our own ignorance. People seem to forget that it was once Japan that stole most of our electronics and auto manufacturing. China is just the latest in a long line of countries who see America as an easy target. They all can't be that shrewd, now, can they, Mr. Specter?

How Now Chairman Mao?

When Chairman Mao instituted his form of communism in China, it became a country of pure socialism. It was literally: One for all and all for the state.

Now with China just having celebrated 60 years of Communist rule, China can hardly be seen as what Mao originally envisioned. It has turned into an economic powerhouse that is quickly becoming the manufacturer to, of, and for the world.

Yes, sir, good old capitalism has infiltrated this once-pure communist/socialist country. Western clothes have replaced the old uniform attire. Sure, the government still has a lot to say about what is done there. However, there are an increasing number of anti-Maoist, renegade capitalists who are being reborn as wealthy Chinese businessmen. I don't think that Mao envisioned that his vision of "everybody being the same" society would have gone so far in creating so many billionaires and millionaires in what was supposed to be his Utopian society. But, it has (Click to See this Story from Two Years Ago: "300,000 Chinese millionaires in China, Rolls Royce trying to get some of them").

China is what the U.S.S.R. was unable to become because, unlike the Soviets, it began embracing capitalism. The China of today would never be found in the words and philosophies expressed in Mao's blueprint for his country in what is now popularly known as his 'Little Red Book'.

It just seems like, with every new page of history, the precepts of socialism are found to be faulty and the benefits of capitalism are being extolled by the improvement of people's everyday lives. Yet, now, we look to be moving towards the futile direction of socialism. How dumb is that?

Obama's Fairy Tale: The United Nations

Wednesday's assemblage of many of the world's leaders at the United Nations was truly a spectacle to behold. On one stage, you had some of the biggest despots of the modern world -- like Ahamdinejad and Khadafy -- and, at the same time, many leaders of the free-world such as Barack Obama. All were competing "equally" for the ears of the General Assembly. What a display of harmony.

I was especially impressed when Obama spoke these words as part of his speech:

"No nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold..."

Certainly, these are noble ambitions. But, in terms of practicality, especially when it comes to the United Nations, those words are naive.

All you have to do is look at the United Nation's Security Council to know that Obama's words were flights of pure fancy and a complete fairy tale.

Among all the nations in the world, there are just a chosen few who have all the power. These are the nations who have been elevated above all others. These are the permanent members of the Security Council. And, contrary to Obama's fantasy world, these 5 countries --- Russia, China, Germany, France, United Kingdom, and United States --- hold veto power above all others.

This is why the United Nations is so benign. When push comes to shove over the need to punish a nation for being exceptionally bad, one of these permanent member countries will always play their veto card and nothing will get done. Iran is always being protected by Russia's veto power. North Korea thwarts punishment by hiding behind China and their veto. Hugo Chavez and Venezuela have Russia as their shield. And, so it goes.

If you are a bad guy in the world of nations, all you have to do is link up economically with one of the permanent members. During the run-up to the Iraq war, it was Germany, France, and Russia who threatened to veto if actions were two harsh or if war was to be contemplated against Iraq. Each had oil, arms, and other trading concerns with Iraq and it came down to protecting their self interests. That's the real reason that America had to go it alone in Iraq.

The U.N. is a hypocritical organization. The exposed fraud regarding Iraq's "Oil for Food Program" just proves how corrupt this organization is and can be. Contrary to Obama's words, at the U.N. it's all about "who you know." Like any other political organization, you have power, corruption, and greed. For Obama to say that "no one nation should dominate another" and "no world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed" is a complete antithesis of what the U.N. is all about. The United Nations is literally a "world order" that places a select few countries above all others.

That is why Obama's words are so hollow and nothing more than a fairy tale. A fairy tale that only a fool or a liberal could believe in.

China Understands and We're Clueless

It wasn't but a week ago that I said, by killing our moon program, the Obama Administration was missing an inexpensive opportunity to prove to the world that we are the true leader in high technology.

As of this morning, this viewpoint was substantiated, in an indirect way, by this news article: "China says will push space programme to catch West".

From that article, I need only point to this quote from China's Vice Minister Of Science and Technology, Li Xueyong, to further my opinion:

"I believe a space programme represents a country's high technology and I believe China has already become a major country in high technology...Our success shows not only the progress of the space programme but also our overall level of science and technology..."

I Was Wrong On Cash For Clunkers

I have to apologize. I thought that the Cash For Clunkers program would fail because I wrongly believed that people wouldn't just run out, in the middle of a recession, and take on new debt and new monthly payments, new higher insurance rates, and new vehicle taxes by trading in their inexpensive and old, yet running, vehicles for a new one that might get them 4 miles-per-gallon over their old clunker's mileage. I guess I was just dead wrong. I guess I was wrong in thinking that people would have learned their "debt" lessons of the past year-and-a-half and kept their money for the important things in life like paying off their mortgages or their credit card bills. But, I guess I was stupid. The Congress was right and they knew that people just couldn't help themselves when the government decides to almost dump money out of helicopters over their heads. Recession? What recession? Lose my job? You've got to be kidding me?

But, the program was so wildly successful that the 250,000 clunkers are now off the road in just 4 days; using up a billion dollars in taxpayer money. Of course, the intelligentsia of our Democratic Congress thought this program would really take up to 4 months to eat up a billion dollars. Boy, were they wrong! I guess, based on experience, they thought this program would be as slow as the Stimulus Package that they had passed, earlier this year.

When you think about, you've really got to wonder what all these clunker-traders are really smoking.

First off, I would hope that the car that they are trading in has a resale value that is "less" than $3,500 or, really, they are getting screwed. Of course, this is if the new car that they are buying is 4 miles per gallon better than the old one that they are clunking. A resale value of $4500 would have to apply if there is a 10 mile-per-gallon differential. The $3500 or $4500 is all they are going to get on their trade-in because, under the conditions of the Cash For Clunkers program, the dealers are legally obligated to destroy all the trade-ins; once the sale is done. They will not be able to resell them and get any profit from the car that is being traded in. Of course, the "clunkier" the car that you are trading in, the better off you are in making the deal. After all, if your piece of s**t is only worth $1000 dollars on a normal trade, you just got a $2500 or $3500 gift from Uncle Sam; depending on the mileage differential. If your car was worth $3500 or more in value as a trade, you literally got screwed by our Congress.

Secondly, I would hope that these "new car" owners are prepared for the future shock of all the new costs that are associated with their new, government-subsidized car. That $3500 or $4500 clunker that they just traded in was probably paid for. My guess is that the new car will put these owners in hock for monthly payments that are in excess of $250 a month for the next 5 years. And, then there's all the taxes and the higher insurance rates. Didn't we get into this recession because people took on too much debt?

As a result of how successful this program has been, our Congress is now in the process of allocating another $2 billion to extend the program. In effect, and assuming they get Senate approval for another $2 billion extension, there will be a total of 750,000 old and perfectly running cars that will be destroyed and taken off the road as a result of this program. The impact of that fact won't be known for awhile. But, our Congress has unwittingly created a reduced inventory shortage of nearly a million used cars in America. Given the law of supply and demand, this newly reduced supply means that the average used car will be more costly in the future. This is inflationary and the people most hurt by this will be the poor who can't hardly afford to buy a new, fuel efficient car. But, thank God, we saved the planet by shearing off 4 miles-per-gallon on almost 1 out of every 240 cars on the road. Never mind the fact that first-time new car sales in both China and India ate up the CO2 savings of this country's Cash for Clunkers program in, probably, just a few hours of one day.

As I said before in this blog, the Cash For Clunkers is bogus program. Much of what is being done will just be a benefit to those who were already going to buy a new car. What's worse, it may have pushed people into irresponsibly buying a new car that they really cannot afford. Further, the amount of CO2 savings is minimal' at best. And, lastly, the poor of America will ultimately pay for this program in higher used car pricing in the future. Only people, like the Democrats in Congress, who don't understand business, would do something so stupid and, then, repeat their own stupidity with another $2 billion program.

Obama: Our Talk,Talk, and Keep Talking Paper Tiger

For all of Obama's boot-licking at the G20; his bowing to the Saudi King (Click To See Video); and, his laying prostrate before the world by accusing America of past arrogance and apologizing for a variety of other ills, it certainly didn't buy him anything.

The G20 didn't buy into his call for his Obama-style, stimulus-to-bankruptcy, plan that he went begging for. Instead we will probably give control of our banking system and securities markets to some yet-to-be-determined world entity. The dollar may stop being the world's reserve currency because Obama may be toying with some asinine world currency concept; a move that could result in a weakening, not strengthening, of our economy and our balance of trade.

Also lacking, as a result of Obama's apology tour, the NATO countries wouldn't cough up any more troops or support for the War in Afghanistan. When he needed support on a tough resolution against North Korea, Russia and China told our newbie Prez to, figuratively, pound sand. Furthermore, Russia hasn't moved an inch in its support of nukes for Iran; even though Obama gave in to Russia for that very reason. Therefore we won't be installing an Eastern European missile defense system. Also, Pakistan has shunned his request for joint operations on the Iraqi border (See Full Story). What a great track record!

Groveling is unbecoming of a U.S. President; but, apparently not for this amateur. I personally view Obama's trip as a weakening of America's dominant position in the world. I think our foes on the world stage only see a guy who is a always ready to "give-in" and carrying a bag full of carrots and nary a stick. This constant apologizing for America's past ills without standing up for the great things that this country has done for the world is just stupid and makes him look weak. This is the JFK scenario all over again (See my past blog entry: Are We Ready For the Mistakes Of J.F.K., Again).

During the campaign, Michelle Obama said: "For the first time in my life, I am proud to be an American." I'm just waiting for Barack Obama to, somehow... somewhere, make that same statement; hopefully, sans the unbelievable "for the first time in my life" commentary. Maybe now it is clear why he had such a close circle of blame-America friends like Reverend Wright and William Ayers (See Ayers posing while standing on our American flag). How can anyone forget Reverend Wright's "God Damn America" screed! (See this very telling video montage)

Will GM Management Be Speaking Chinese Soon?

One of the only remaining hot markets for General Motors products is, surprisingly, China (See Full Story). But, it is floundering elsewhere and absolutely living on the brink of bankruptcy. The stock price has fallen to just a couple bucks per share. I wouldn't put it past the Chinese Government to buy out GM if it goes belly up. I think that China would just love to have a well-known, worldwide auto concern that they could call their own; and the acquisition of GM would definitely do that.

My guess is that China will wait, like a scavenger, for GM to finally fall and die before coming in for the feast. That will happen when the voters and Congress can no longer feed GM anymore money to keep them in business. Then, they'll go into Chapter 11. Bankruptcy would allow GM to shed much of their debt and their labor commitments; both of which are making it very sick and killing it as an ongoing business concern. Bankruptcy would also put GM up on the chopping block for pennies on the dollar.

Right now, China is one of the few countries in this world with the money to buy anything. Increasingly they are buying up America by buying up all our debt. GM would only be another step in that process. With the ownership of General Motors, China would give the appearance of being a real industrialized country because almost all industrialized countries in this world, to some extent, have an auto company they can call their own. It is a measure of success that China might need and want.

Of course, this is all speculation on my part. But, if I didn't think it was plausible, I wouldn't have brought it up. If China doesn't buy GM, Chrysler could also be a target.

Image of Chinese Ad For A Buick Royaum by Hugo90's photostream on Flickr with Creative Commons Licensing. Some rights retained. (Click to View Other Works).

No Soy, Boys!

According to another one of those limited studies, eating as much as a half-serving of soy per day could result in men having a lower sperm count (See Full Story). It's obvious, now, that macho men and men who want to be macho shouldn't be eating veggie burgers and washing it down with a swig of soy milk. That Tofu Turkey that Ray's mom made for Thanksgiving in Everybody Loves Raymond comes to mind. Frank had it right! Real men should eat real turkey for Thanksgiving.

The only problem with this whole soy thing is the country of China. Soy, especially tofu, is really big in China. With nearly 1.4 billion people, you've got to wonder how many people they "would have had" if they "hadn't been eating" all that "soy" over the last few centuries!

Image by voux's photostream on Flickr with Creative Commons Licensing (Click to View Other Works).