 |
   |
|
In this mailing:
A 21st Century "Patriotic Energy Policy" is Required to Grow America's Economy and Reduce its "Light Years" of Debt
by Lawrence
Kadish
March 31, 2014 at 5:00 am
  Be the first of your
friends to like this.
An unchecked national debt will
profoundly damage our country, its future and the fate of our allies.
Just two states, Utah and Colorado,
hold approximately 3 trillion barrels of oil in shale deposits which would
provide us with the means to release domestic energy resources that would add
jobs and re-industrialize our nation.
Oil exporters like Venezuela and the
Arab Emirates are understandably nervous about losing those American
petrodollars. It is not a surprise that they have underwritten Hollywood
films attacking fracking as an environmental threat…and that they will
continue to use their wealth and influence to try to short circuit America's
pursuit of accessing domestic energy resources.
As the White House slashes America's military budget and our influence proves
irrelevant in Ukraine and other hot spots around the globe it is clear our
economic policies have failed to grow our economy to create jobs and generate
much needed revenue. This failure has resulted in budget deficits, increased
debt and a loss of military strength. Our national debt has increased from
approximately $11 trillion to $17.4 trillion over the last 5 years, and it's
getting worse. Congress has just voted to lift the debt limit so that,
together with our ongoing budget deficits, our nation will confront an $18
trillion debt within a few months.This fiscal burden is so massive many observers and commentators have struggled to find words that allow us to understand its enormity. Some have described the national debt as going through the stratosphere, but it's far beyond that. It requires an astronomical calculation to reveal the magnitude of the crisis, computing the debt as a Light Year scientists use to measure the vast distances of outer space. (Light travels at approximately 186,000 miles a second, or nearly 6 trillion miles a year, the definition of a "Light Year." Therefore, our $18 trillion debt would compute to be three Light Years. However, Washington has so severely abdicated its fiscal responsibilities that this crushing sum would be more accurately described as "Dark Years.") Solutions that require political willSolutions do exist but it requires political will and an appreciation that an unchecked national debt will profoundly damage our country, its future and the fate of our allies.Ideologues claim higher taxes will solve our nation's debt burden, but that is a failed strategy. If the IRS were to tax all the richest Americans listed on the Forbes 400 at 100 percent and not just their income but their entire wealth, seizing and liquidating their assets would only account for about 15 months of budget deficits and resultant debt increases. Others lobby to continue monetizing our debt; essentially printing more currency and bonds, as a quick fix to cover budget deficits, a monetary policy that has created chaos within nations on five continents. Fortunately, there are some who are sounding the alarm about this precarious debt threat. Former Florida Governor and potential Republican Presidential candidate Jeb Bush acknowledged during his recent visit to Long Island that we are in a slow motion economic collapse. This author was among those in the Long Island Association audience as Bush cautioned that the debt is unsustainable and implementing a strategy to tackle this destabilizing liability must become Washington's primary responsibility. Bush observed that key to crafting a solution is acknowledging that American energy independence and reducing our debt are inseparable issues. Bush believes, "America needs a patriotic energy policy... that uses technology like hydrofracturing for the purpose of unleashing our domestic energy production." Keeping our $300 billion in AmericaStrategic energy independence could break America's cycle of increasing debt and economic stagnation. Bush observes that although we have almost four times the amount of recoverable oil in oil shale than Saudi Arabia's proven oil reserves, we continue to send $300 billion dollars every year to oil producing countries, most of whom are either hostile to the United States or who support terrorism. He refers to analysis that finds just two states, Utah and Colorado, hold approximately 3 trillion barrels of oil in shale deposits which would provide us with the means to unleash domestic energy resources that would add jobs and re-industrialize our nation. Increasing supply would lower costs of oil, gasoline and natural gas to industry and the general population. Turning those $300 billion annual energy expenses from lost dollars into domestic reinvestment would help grow our economy and restore confidence among America's business community.The obstructionists, fearful of competition, will, of course, not be silent. Oil exporters like Venezuela and the Arab Emirates are understandably nervous about losing those American petrodollars. It is not a surprise that they have underwritten Hollywood films attacking fracking as an environmental threat in hopes of swaying American public opinion and they will continue to use their wealth and influence to try and short circuit America's pursuit of accessing domestic energy resources.
Confronting emerging threats while growing the economyWhile a broad range of renewable energy sources should be encouraged, fracking has become America's true weapon of choice in strengthening our economy and global leadership. Fracking success stories are already being written in North Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado and elsewhere. When other states follow their lead, more than enough oil and natural gas can be safely extracted from the ground that will not only permit the United States to be energy independent, but to become an energy exporter of LNG (liquid natural gas) to Europe at a time when Russia's threatening expansionist policies could see them shut down their natural gas currently piped to our allies. Fracking has the means to change global geopolitics in a profound and permanent way. It would allow America to regain its economic health, grow our economy, confront a debt that is a real and immediate threat to our national security while strengthening our European allies at a time of rising tensions.A dispassionate, nonpartisan examination of government financial policy will reveal that by their actions, or inactions, for political or personal reasons, individuals sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States have been directly responsible for jeopardizing the financial stability of our great country. Failure to acknowledge the speed by which we are now hurtling towards insolvency will see a nation's future quietly extinguished as our debt travels one more final Light Year, unless patriotism triumphs over politics. Washington has a game changing solution in domestic fracking that is already demonstrating its power. Now it's time to put it to work restoring American leadership. Lawrence Kadish, Old Westbury, NY, is a member of the Board of Governors of Gatestone Institute, a New York based public policy think tank. An edited version of this essay was first published in Long Island Business News.
Related Topics: Lawrence
Kadish
Palestinians Condemned for Visiting Nazi Death Camps
by Khaled Abu
Toameh
March 31, 2014 at 4:45 am
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
"We have politicized everything
except for the embezzlement of public funds. Is it okay steal millions of
dollars from the people but not okay to have an academic study mission?"
— Reader, Al Quds.
It now remains to be seen if
Professor Dajani and his students will be punished upon their return to the
West Bank for daring to "sympathize" with the suffering of the
Jews.
A visit by Palestinian students to Nazi death camps has stirred
controversy among Palestinians, with some condemning it as a form of
"normalization" with Israel.Some 30 Palestinian students from Al-Quds University and Bir Zeit University in the West Bank arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau last week to learn about the Holocaust. The visit is being led by Mohammed Dajani, professor of American Studies at Al-Quds University, who also heads the Wasatia movement of moderate Islam. The visit to the Nazi camps has angered some Palestinians, prompting Al-Quds University to distance itself from the tour. The university and its outgoing president, Sari Nusseibeh, had often been criticized for promoting "normalization" with Israel. In a statement, Al-Quds University announced that it had nothing to do with the Auschwitz-Birkenau visit. The university said that this was a private visit by Professor Dajani and the students. "They do not represent the university," the statement said. "Professor Dajani is on leave and was not entrusted by the university [to arrange the visit]."
The Palestinian students travelled to the Nazi death camps as part of a joint program on "Reconciliation and Conflict Resolution" with the Friedrich Schiller University in Jena, Germany, and Ben-Gurion University in the Negev. As soon as "anti-normalization" activists learned about the visit, they launched a scathing attack on the professor and students on social media. "I don't understand how the [Palestinian] students accept normalization [with Israel]," wrote a Palestinian journalist from Ramallah on his Facebook page. "This professor is the king of kings of normalization." The leading Palestinian daily, Al-Quds, which reported about the controversial visit, triggered a debate among readers about the effectiveness of such tours. The paper later had to delete some reader responses that accused the professor of treason and collaboration. One reader commented, "The visit should be seen in the context of attempts to scrap the Palestinians' history and culture. Suspicious Western parties believe that there is a need to change the Palestinians' mentality not through politics, but by brainwashing generations and teaching them big lies and fabrications such as the Holocaust and the suffering of Jews so that they would accept the theft of their land." Another reader remarked, "Our enmity is not with the Jews and no one can accuse us of being anti-Semites. Our enmity is with the Zionists who usurped our land. But can anyone deny that the Zionists exploit what happened to the Jews in Germany and elsewhere to justify what they did in Palestine and seek the world's sympathy?" Finally, some of us have joined the chorus of weepers." But there is also good news. Many readers came to the defense of Professor Dajani and the students who visited the Nazi camps to learn about the Holocaust. Responding to the criticism, one reader wrote, "Frankly, these responses are theatrical. Academics went on a tour and that's all. There's no need to politicize an insignificant visit." Another reader who voiced support for the visit said, "We have politicized everything expect for the embezzlement of public funds. Is it okay to steal millions of dollars from the people and not okay to have an academic study mission?" Palestinian columnist Abdullah Dweikat expressed regret over the visit and called on Palestinian academics to stop the "pilgrimage" to Nazi death camps. "I felt pain over the visit by Palestinian university students to Auschwitz-Birkenau," he wrote. "Yes we are human beings who reject genocide. But our humanity rejects any attempt to bypass the suffering of our people, who are being slaughtered every day at the hands of the occupiers. Wouldn't it have been better had our professors and students visited Yarmouk refugee camp [in Syria] or refugee camps in Lebanon to see the real suffering?" The Palestinian Authority [PA] has neither endorsed nor opposed the visit to the Nazi death camps. The PA leadership is obviously afraid of being part of the controversy that has risen over the visit. Hamas, on the other hand, has expressed strong opposition to teaching about the Holocaust in Gaza Strip schools run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency [UNRWA]. Hamas said that teaching the Holocaust was a "crime against Palestinians." It now remains to be seen if Professor Dajani and his students will be punished upon their return to the West Bank for daring to "sympathize" with the suffering of Jews.
Related Topics: Khaled Abu
Toameh
European Elections a Turning Point for Europe?
by Peter Martino
March 31, 2014 at 4:00 am
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
In Britain as in France, voters have
evidently become disillusioned with a political establishment responsible for
open-borders policies, Islamization and the transfer of national sovereignty
to supranational organizations such as the European Union. Soon these voices
will be heard in national parliaments, too.
The municipal elections in France resulted in a huge victory for the Front
National of Marine Le Pen. For the first time since 1995, France will again
have FN mayors. Marine Le Pen also succeeded in maneuvering her party into
pole position for the European elections on May 25th. France has
74 seats in the European Parliament. FN is expected to win up to 20 or more.Marine Le Pen is one of Europe's greatest political talents. Her strategy to rid the party, which she inherited from her anti-Semitic father, from most of its extreme-right elements is paying off. While Le Pen's international policies are dangerously flawed and her economic proposals border on socialist protectionism, she has succeeded in turning the FN into an acceptable alternative for millions of ordinary Frenchmen from the Left as well as the Right. Le Pen has also cleverly avoided making any political mistakes. She did not give in to provocations of political opponents and she did not fall into the trap of giving her enemies opportunities to reinforce hostile perceptions about her party. The result is that France's political system is no longer a two-party system dominated by the Socialist PS of current president François Hollande and the Conservative UMP of former president Nicolas Sarkozy. With the Front National, a third player of equal status has emerged. Moreover, as the anger of the voters at the two established parties is growing, Le Pen's momentum is far from over. An almost similar situation is occurring in Britain. Nigel Farage's United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) has established itself as a strong contender for power in a country whose political system was long dominated by only two parties, Labour and the Conservatives. In Britain, as in France, voters have evidently become disillusioned with a political establishment responsible for open-borders policies that have led to mass immigration, Islamization and the transfer of national sovereignty to supranational organizations such as the European Union in Brussels. UKIP, too, is expected to do extremely well in May, winning up to 20 or more of the 73 British seats in Brussels. While UKIP and the FN are entirely different parties, with UKIP deeply rooted in an economically libertarian tradition and with Nigel Farage opposing any alliance with Marine Le Pen's party as long as anti-Semites (read: Marine's father, FN founder Jean-Marie Le Pen and his friend Bruno Gollnisch) still have a place in the FN, both parties owe their current electoral success to the growing opposition of a large segment of their countries' indigenous population to immigration, Islamization and the loss of national identity and sovereignty.
The electoral systems in France and Britain make it extremely difficult for new parties to establish themselves in the national legislative bodies. The European Parliament, however, is elected according to proportional representation, which allows relatively easy access to political newcomers. The same is true in Germany, where a newly established party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), did not manage to win any seats in the national parliament during last September's general elections, despite gaining 4.7% of the national vote. Only parties that receive 5% of the votes are eligible for seats in the German Bundestag. For the European elections, however, this 5% hurdle does not exist. It suffices that a party win slightly over 1% of the national vote for it to gain one of the 96 German seats in the European Parliament in Brussels. AfD is currently polling over 7% of the vote and is expected to send at least six members to the European Parliament. Marine Le Pen's political ambitions are clearly national. There is no doubt that she would rather exchange her seat in the European Parliament for one in the French Assemblée Nationale. She was her party's candidate in the French presidential elections in 2012 and apparently wants to run again in 2017. She also hopes to become the group leader of a substantial number of FN parliamentarians in the Assemblée Nationale after the next general elections. The FN currently holds only two of the 577 seats in the French parliament, despite having won 14% of the votes. If the FN were to double its votes, as some polls now predict, a landslide might occur in the National Assembly, with up to 100 FN members entering the French parliament. So, ironically, while Brussels tries to usurp ever more power from the national parliaments, it offers opportunities for politicians standing for the defense of national sovereignty, to force their way into national parliaments where they can oppose the Brussels' power grab. Nigel Farage, too, would like to swap Brussels for the House of Commons in Westminster. He has already announced that he will stand as a candidate in next year's general elections, which, he hopes, would mark the national breakthrough of UKIP. "Just imagine how much difference we could make with MPs in Westminster!" he wrote in a column about the need to control immigration. AfD leader Bernd Lucke will also use the Brussels platform as a launching pad to a Bundestag seat at the next German general elections. It looks as if the Europeans have finally had enough of mass immigration, Islamization and transferring national sovereignty to Brussels. In May, they will make their voices heard. And soon, these voices will be heard in the national parliaments, too.
Related Topics: France, United
Kingdom | Peter Martino
Erdoğan's Twitter Slip on Ukraine - An Affinity for Putin?
by Veli Sirin
March 31, 2014 at 2:00 am
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
The municipal elections held
yesterday will show whether the Turkish people want to punish Erdogan or
continue to believe in him.
Daniel Dombey of the London Financial Times on March 24 recounted
a curious detail of the recent offensive against Twitter, the online
mini-blogging service, by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Dombey
wrote that Erdoğan "accused Twitter of fomenting unrest in
Ukraine." Russian president Vladimir Putin and his supporters in the
seizure of Crimea, both uniformed and in civilian disguise, have not been
known for using social media to coordinate their activities, while Ukrainian
revolutionaries are adept at employment of Twitter and similar media. One
might therefore conclude that Erdoğan feels an affinity with Putin in
opposing the Ukrainian protestors.
In reaction to the controversy, Erdoğan has engaged in embarrassing public tirades. The Daily Telegraph in London reported on March 21 his declaration to supporters in the city of Bursa the day before, that in a shutdown of Twitter, "Everyone will witness the power of the Turkish Republic." In the opinion of Diana Moukalled of the authoritative Saudi-owned, pan-Arab daily Asharq Al-Awsat [The Middle East], whose March 26 column was posted in English by the Dubai-based Saudi broadcaster Al-Arabiya, Erdoğan behaves "like a man possessed... He threatened to 'wipe out' Twitter and declared that he would not pay attention to any domestic or Western reaction. He went ahead and implemented a court order, and blocked Twitter from the Turkish public. He then followed up his war on Twitter by threatening two other websites, Facebook and YouTube, warning of what he called 'Turkish anger.' " Erdoğan's anti-Twitter campaign has failed to elicit unanimous approval among his peers in the ruling Justice and Development Party [AKP]. Turkish president Abdullah Gül tweeted his disagreement with such actions, affirming, according to the same Daily Telegraph article of March 21, "The shutdown of an entire social platform is unacceptable. Besides, as I have said many times before, it is technically impossible to close down communication technologies like Twitter entirely. I hope this measure will not last long." On March 26, the Telegraph announced, "A court in Turkey has ordered the lifting of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's Twitter ban last week. The move comes six days after Ankara's telecommunication authority blocked access to the social network site." But how may we interpret Erdoğan's "slip" about Twitter and Ukraine? Turkish media, especially the state broadcaster TRT, have dedicated considerable attention to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. As TRT pointed out on March 1, Erdoğan's foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu, travelled to Ukraine to express official concern about the condition of the Crimean Tatar minority, the oldest community living in Crimea, which supports the new Ukrainian government against Russia's occupation. Erdoğan has spoken by telephone with Putin, and Russian media, reported by the leading Turkish newspaper Hürriyet Daily News, has alleged that "Both sides expressed certainty that, despite the aggressive actions of radical and extremist forces of the Maidan, there would be success in providing for inter-ethnic and interfaith peace and calm in Crimea." If this is true, Erdoğan would appear to have lined up with Putin in condemning the Ukrainians. It may not be coincidental that, as The Washington Post observed in an editorial on March 25, Erdoğan has indulged in a binge of political abuses "that even Russia's autocrat might find impressive." From his background as a poor street-food vendor to his position as Turkey's new "sultan," Erdoğan, who is now 60, has had an impressive career. He has become, after the founder of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the country's defining personality. Many see in him an authoritarian bias along with his populist ideology, personal self-regard, and charisma. But he appears, with the approach of elections, to be fighting for his political life. That would not be a new motif in his biography. Erdoğan has always had to fight for survival. He sold tasty snacks and lemonade as a boy in the slums of Istanbul. Ambitious to become an Islamic cleric, he was sent for training as an imam by his father, a sailor. He was said to be a talented soccer player scouted by the leading Istanbul team, Fenerbahçe. But his father opposed a sports career, and Erdoğan turned to politics. Today, criticism of the "sultan" is risky. He has no opponents inside the country serious or powerful enough to balance his ambitions. Turkey continues to imprison dozens of journalists. Erdoğan dealt harshly, last year, with protestors against the Gezi Park construction project. With his leadership in crisis, he blames obscure forces abroad for alleged "coup attempts," drawing the ranks of the AKP closer to him. On giant billboards around Turkey his face is omnipresent. In his assault on Twitter, he claimed that the recorded conversations portraying him and his family as corrupt were "immoral montages" produced in a "dirty operation" against him. But contradictorily, he has admitted, as stated by a column in Hürriyet Daily News on March 6, that two of the recordings are authentic. These deal with illegal influence over a court proceeding involving the Doğan Group in media, and interference with a bid for construction of a warship. The conversations reveal him discussing such actions as a proposed removal of the head of the Fenerbahçe soccer club, whose fans have turned against him, his determination to crush the media entrepreneur Aydın Doğan, and, again and again, Erdoğan's interest in money. He shut down the judicial inquiry into accusations of personal malfeasance, as recalled in the previously-mentioned editorial in The Washington Post on March 25. In the recorded exchanges, as published in the March 6 Hürriyet Daily News column, Erdoğan has expressed a need to strike against Mustafa and Ali Koç, owners of Turkey's largest industrial entity, the Koç Group. The alleged sins of the Koç family, in the eyes of Erdoğan, are many. He claims they are servants of Fethullah Gülen, the U.S.-based Islamist cleric, formerly an AKP ally, but with whom Erdoğan now fights for influence. Mustafa Koç denies the charge. A Koç-owned hotel allowed demonstrators shelter during the Gezi Park protests in summer 2013, after police attacked participants with tear gas, water cannon, and rubber bullets. In the March 3 Hürriyet Daily News, Mustafa Koç said, "We need clean politics... We should defend, continuously and consistently, democracy, rule of law, freedom of expression, universal values, individual rights and freedoms." The municipal elections held yesterday will show whether the Turkish people want to punish Erdoğan or continue to believe in him.
Related Topics: Turkey
| Veli
Sirin
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php |
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment