Radio host Rush Limbaugh is warning listeners: during Barack Obama’s upcoming, final year in office, the president will move ahead with whatever he desires because “he knows nobody’s gonna stop him.”
“We’re fast approaching Obama’s last year in office,” Limbaugh said. “I want to warn you again, in all likelihood, there are going to be things this president does in the next 12 months that you can’t even think of or conceive of now.”
Limbaugh continued that Obama recognizes no limits to his power and he will do what he wants – “it doesn’t matter what the courts say, it doesn’t matter if Obama policies have a stay on them or temporary halt.”
“It’s his last chance to have personal stamps or fingerprints on the transformation of this country,” Limbaugh added. “He knows the Republicans have taken impeachment — it’s late for that anyway. There’s not gonna be any effort to stop him.”
Obama and the Democrats have already made clear they intend to further diminish the Second Amendment by using executive action to expand background checks to cover private gun sales, as Breitbart News reported Tuesday.
According to Limbaugh, Americans can’t rely on Republicans to block Obama’s efforts to further shred the Constitution.
“The Republicans are looking beyond Obama and focusing on trying to win the White House themselves and they’ve just chalked it up, whatever happens this next year happens, and Obama knows all that,” he said, but added, “The American people are gonna be angry as they can be and demanding that some action be taken to stop some of these things.”
“I can’t begin to predict the outrageous things that are going to happen specifically, but I’m pretty safe in telling you that there are going to be such things because there continue to be such things today,” Limbaugh said.
He also observed that Obama’s apparent contempt for the limits of his office as provided for in the Constitution has set a precedent for future presidents.
“Obama has blown through the Constitution like a tornado and has, in the process, set precedents, and there have been people seeking office who have said that they are going to fix the things Obama has broken themselves using the singular powers that Obama has appropriated for himself,” he noted. “In other words, Obama’s wanton overstepping the Constitution has created precedent where future presidents, if they’re inclined, might feel that they could or should do so as well.”
I was 10 years old playing cops and robbers with my friends. My side kept losing. I was tired of losing. So, when an opponent pointed his toy pistol at me and yelled “bang, bang you’re dead” I decided there and then not be dead. We won because I discovered I was wearing a bullet proof vest.
Feminists, environmentalists, the liberal media, Barack, Hillary, the thought and speech police and even RINO’s have all taken shots at Trump and yelled ”bang, bang you’re dead.” What they wanted was a corpse—what they got was rising poll numbers.
-One famous columnist wrote an article entitled Don Voyage after Trump criticized John McCain.
-Pundits were falling all over themselves to declare the Donald’s death after his tweet about Megyn Kelly. One commentator said “Hurricane Trump blows away speech police.”
I cannot think of another time in American history where such a massive, collective bluff has been called. By refusing to die, Trump is ending a reign of terror against free speech. Statements that once ended careers can no longer do so.
Because of Trump, you can call illegal aliens, well, illegal. Because of Trump, you can say that Mexico is treating us rotten. Because of Trump, you can declare China and Russia enemies. Because of Trump, you can say that the Iran deal is the stupidest agreement in history.
Because of Trump you can call the entire political class “a bunch of losers.” You can even say openly that Hillary “is a liar and a criminal.”
Because of Trump, an entire frustrated and disenfranchised group of Americans now speak out and “ain’t nothing you can do about it.”
Bullies–the usual suspects–used to control the narrative. Obama, Biden, Holder, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Sharpton and NBC spun that proverbial web of deceit called POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.
P.C. provided cover for unbridled stupidity. Common sense was held at bay by threats of being called racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, hater, and a host of other labels.
It seems like forever that we have been ordered to look the other way as America was being ravaged, bled and left for dead.
In retrospect, doesn’t it seem insane that we were told to shut up when illegals murdered innocent Americans?
Because of Trump, Blacks are breaking ranks with Democrats. The party ordered them to side with illegals.
Monday night, a black woman stood before a city council meeting in Huntington Park, California and blasted its members after someone made a comparison between illegal immigrants and black slaves.
The woman, identified as Chanell Temple, said she had not intended to speak at the meeting, but the comparison was too much. And because the council had just appointed two illegals to city commission positions, Temple let them have it:
“Please do not tarnish the name of black slaves by comparing them to your plight. There’s no comparison. None. Black slaves did not break into this country, okay. They were brought here against their will. Also, black slaves are not immigrants. Immigrants are people with a choice, they come here by choice. Black slaves didn’t have choice.
The woman continued saying that America has “been good to illegal immigrants” and can’t recall a single one that has ever been “hung from a tree.” She added, “My people commit a crime, they go to jail. You people commit a crime, they get amnesty.” She later said, ” I am backing Donald Trump all the way!”
Do not construe this blog as an endorsement of Trump for president. On the other hand, make no mistake; Donald Trump can be elected president. He is gaining support among independents, Blacks and Latinos. Just a couple of months ago he was down 27 points in the polls to Hillary Clinton. Now he is within 6 points.
Now for a personal note: I can finally confess something to you. As a Christian Evangelist, I have faced every kind of accusation you can imagine from both inside and outside the Church because I spoke out against Barrack Obama. I faced threats you cannot imagine. I was told that my ministry was over. Even close pastor friends closed their churches to me. One pastor in Indianapolis said that the anointing had left me.
The greatest lie was when they said that young people would no longer turn to Christ in my meetings.
Because I knew that I was speaking the truth, I refused to back down or apologize.
The result is that every threat proved to be a lie…especially the one about young people, because they are coming to Christ in droves. Through it all, I knew that Christ was with me, and His power intensified within me.
When I began these blogs all you could hear in the American pulpit about Barack Obama was crickets. Now many are bold to speak out. Now it is almost fashionable for pastors to take open positions on many issues that were considered off-limits.
What I have just said I have never said publicly. I have never defended myself against critics or cowards nor will I start doing it now.
Trump is by no means a role model for preachers but I identify with him. He called their bluff and beat them. Because of Trump I finally felt free to tell you.
During the debate, Trump looked at the other nine candidates and said, “if it weren’t for me, we wouldn’t be talking about this now.” I gave a knowing grin to the T.V. and said, “exactly.”
Communist Party USA Chairman Vows Cooperation With Democratic Party
The chairman of the National Committee of the Communist Party USA has penned a 2,023-word manifesto making the critical point that American Communists are eager to work with the Democratic Party to advance the modern communist agenda and achieve communist goals.
“[L]abor and other key social forces are not about to leave the Democratic Party anytime soon,” Bachtell promised. “They still see Democrats as the most realistic electoral vehicle” to fight against perceived class enemies.
Bachtell, 58, is playing the long political game and he has a strategy, he said.
“First, we are part of building the broadest anti-ultra right alliance possible, uniting the widest array of class (including a section of monopoly), social and democratic forces. This necessarily means working with the Democratic Party,” the communist leader explained.
“Second, our objective is not to build the Democratic Party. At this stage we are about building the broad people’s movement led by labor that utilizes the vehicle of the Democratic Party to advance its agenda,” Bachtell further expounded. “We are about building the movements around the issues roiling wide sections of people that can help shape election contours and debates.”
“[W]e are for building movements in the electoral arena and see engagement in the electoral arena and democratic governance as a vital means to further build movements,” Bachtell also said.
To that end, he claimed, “thousands of trade unionists have been elected” at municipal and local levels of American government. Bachtell did not note a party affiliation of these elected leaders.
The rest of Bachtell’s declaration is mostly a somewhat modernized version of the same, garden-variety communist drivel communists have been spouting since roughly 1840.
Communists and other leftists have experienced “disillusionment with the Democratic Party” because of its “deep connections to Wall Street.” He is still mad at President Bill Clinton for NAFTA and welfare reform.
He’s mad at everyone about an increased number of private schools.
Republicans are an embodiment of caricatured evil for Bachtell.
“While the Republican Party is led by the most reactionary sections of Wall Street capital including the energy extractive sector and military industrial complex, it also consists of extreme right-wing elements including the Tea Party, white supremacists, social conservatives, right-wing evangelicals, climate deniers, anti-reproductive rights groups, etc.,” the communist leader writes.
Bachtell possesses a bachelor’s degree from Antioch College, an obscure, private hothouse of leftism that went defunct in 2008 and was resurrected in 2011 as an unaccredited, private work college.
The reason oil could drop as low as $20 per barrel
By Anatole Kaletsky
December 19, 2014
How low can it go — and how long will it last? The 50 percent slump in oil prices raises both those questions and while nobody can confidently answer the first question (I will try to in a moment), the second is pretty easy.
Low oil prices will last long enough for one of two events to happen. The first possibility, the one most traders and analysts seem to expect, is that Saudi Arabia will re-establish OPEC’s monopoly power once it achieves the true geopolitical or economic objectives that spurred it to trigger the slump. The second possibility, one I wrote about two weeks ago, is that the global oil market will move toward normal competitive conditions in which prices are set by the marginal production costs, rather than Saudi or OPEC monopoly power. This may seem like a far-fetched scenario, but it is more or less how the oil market worked for two decades from 1986 to 2004.
Whichever outcome finally puts a floor under prices, we can be confident that the process will take a long time to unfold. It is inconceivable that just a few months of falling prices will be enough time for the Saudis to either break the Iranian-Russian axis or reverse the growth of shale oil production in the United States. It is equally inconceivable that the oil market could quickly transition from OPEC domination to a normal competitive one. The many bullish oil investors who still expect prices to rebound quickly to their pre-slump trading range are likely to be disappointed. The best that oil bulls can hope for is that a new, and substantially lower, trading range may be established as the multi-year battles over Middle East dominance and oil-market share play out.
The key question is whether the present price of around $55 will prove closer to the floor or the ceiling of this new range. The history of inflation-adjusted oil prices, deflated by the U.S. Consumer Price Index, offers some intriguing hints. The 40 years since OPEC first flexed its muscles in 1974 can be divided into three distinct periods. From 1974 to 1985, West Texas Intermediate, the U.S. benchmark, fluctuated between $48 and $120 in today’s money. From 1986 to 2004, the price ranged from $21 to $48 (apart from two brief aberrations during the 1998 Russian crisis and the 1991 war in Iraq). And from 2005 until this year, oil has again traded in its 1974 to 1985 range of roughly $50 to $120, apart from two very brief spikes in the 2008-09 financial crisis.
What makes these three periods significant is that the trading range of the past 10 years was very similar to the 1974-85 first decade of OPEC domination, but the 19 years from 1986 to 2004 represented a totally different regime. It seems plausible that the difference between these two regimes can be explained by the breakdown of OPEC power in 1985 and the shift from monopolistic to competitive pricing for the next 20 years, followed by the restoration of monopoly pricing in 2005 as OPEC took advantage of surging Chinese demand.
In view of this history, the demarcation line between the monopolistic and competitive regimes at a little below $50 a barrel seems a reasonable estimate of where one boundary of the new long-term trading range might end up. But will $50 be a floor or a ceiling for the oil price in the years ahead?
There are several reasons to expect a new trading range as low as $20 to $50, as in the period from 1986 to 2004. Technological and environmental pressures are reducing long-term oil demand and threatening to turn much of the high-cost oil outside the Middle East into a “stranded asset” similar to the earth’s vast unwanted coal reserves. Additional pressures for low oil prices in the long term include the possible lifting of sanctions on Iran and Russia and the ending of civil wars in Iraq and Libya, which between them would release additional oil reserves bigger than Saudi Arabia’s on to the world markets.
The U.S. shale revolution is perhaps the strongest argument for a return to competitive pricing instead of the OPEC-dominated monopoly regimes of 1974-85 and 2005-14. Although shale oil is relatively costly, production can be turned on and off much more easily – and cheaply – than from conventional oilfields. This means that shale prospectors should now be the “swing producers” in global oil markets instead of the Saudis. In a truly competitive market, the Saudis and other low-cost producers would always be pumping at maximum output, while shale shuts off when demand is weak and ramps up when demand is strong. This competitive logic suggests that marginal costs of U.S. shale oil, generally estimated at $40 to $50, should in the future be a ceiling for global oil prices, not a floor.
On the other hand, there are also good arguments for OPEC-monopoly pricing of $50 to $120 to be re-established once markets test the bottom of this range. OPEC members have a strong interest in preventing a return to competitive pricing and could learn to function again as an effective cartel. Although price-fixing becomes more difficult as U.S. producers increase market share, OPEC could try to impose pricing “discipline” if it can knock out many U.S. shale producers next year. The macro-economic impact of low oil prices on global growth could help this effort by boosting economic activity and energy demand.
So which of these arguments will prove right: The bearish case for a $20 to $50 trading-range based on competitive market pricing? Or the bullish one for $50 to $120 based on resumed OPEC dominance?
Ask me again once the price of oil has fallen to $50 – and stayed there for a year or so.
The Opec oil cartel no longer exists in any meaningful sense and crude prices will slump to $50 a barrel over the coming months as market forces shake out the weakest producers, Bank of America has warned.
Revolutionary changes sweeping the world’s energy industry will drive down the price of liquefied natural gas (LNG), creating a “multi-year” glut and a much cheaper source of gas for Europe.
Francisco Blanch, the bank’s commodity chief, said Opec is “effectively dissolved” after it failed to stabilize prices at its last meeting. “The consequences are profound and long-lasting,“ he said.
The free market will now set the global cost of oil, leading to a new era of wild price swings and disorderly trading that benefits only the Mid-East petro-states with deepest pockets such as Saudi Arabia. If so, the weaker peripheral members such as Venezuela and Nigeria are being thrown to the wolves.
The bank said in its year-end report that at least 15pc of US shale producers are losing money at current prices, and more than half will be under water if US crude falls below $55. The high-cost producers in the Permian basin will be the first to “feel the pain” and may soon have to cut back on production.
The claims pit Bank of America against its arch-rival Citigroup, which insists that the US shale industry is far more resilent than widely supposed, with marginal costs for existing rigs nearer $40, and much of its output hedged on the futures markets.
Bank of America said the current slump will choke off shale projects in Argentina and Mexico, and will force retrenchment in Canadian oil sands and some of Russia’s remote fields. The major oil companies will have to cut back on projects with a break-even cost below $80 for Brent crude.
It will take six months or so to whittle away the 1m barrels a day of excess oil on the market – with US crude falling to $50 – given that supply and demand are both “inelastic” in the short-run. That will create the beginnings of the next shortage. “We expect a pretty sharp rebound to the high $80s or even $90 in the second half of next year,” said Sabine Schels, the bank’s energy expert.
Mrs Schels said the global market for (LNG) will “change drastically” in 2015, going into a “bear market” lasting years as a surge of supply from Australia compounds the global effects of the US gas saga.
If the forecast is correct, the LNG flood could have powerful political effects, giving Europe a source of mass supply that can undercut pipeline gas from Russia. The EU already has enough LNG terminals to cover most of its gas needs. It has not been able to use this asset as a geostrategic bargaining chip with the Kremlin because LGN itself has been in scarce supply, mostly diverted to Japan and Korea. Much of Europe may not need Russian gas at all within a couple of years.
Bank of America said the oil price crash is worth $1 trillion of stimulus for the global economy, equal to a $730bn “tax cut” in 2015. Yet the effects are complex, with winners and losers. The benefits diminish the further it falls. Academic studies suggest that oil crashes can ultimately turn negative if they trigger systemic financial crises in commodity states.
Barnaby Martin, the bank’s European credit chief, said world asset markets may face a stress test as the US Federal Reserve starts to tighten afters year of largesse. “Our biggest worry is the end of the liquidity cycle. The Fed is done and it is preparing to raise rates. The reach for yield that we have seen since 2009 is going into reverse”, he said.
Mr Martin flagged warnings by William Dudley, the head of the New York Fed, that the US authorities had tightened too gently in 2004 and might do better to adopt the strategy of 1994 when they raised rates fast and hard, sending tremors through global bond markets.
Bank of America said quantitative easing in Europe and Japan will cover just 35pc of the global stimulus lost as the Fed pulls back, creating a treacherous hiatus for markets. It warned that the full effect of Fed tapering had yet to be felt. From now on the markets cannot expect to be rescued every time there is a squall. “The threshold for the Fed to return to QE will be high. This is why we believe we are entering a phase in which bad news will be bad news and volatility will likely rise,” it said.
What is clear is that the world has become addicted to central bank stimulus. Bank of America said 56pc of global GDP is currently supported by zero interest rates, and so are 83pc of the free-floating equities on global bourses. Half of all government bonds in the world yield less that 1pc. Roughly 1.4bn people are experiencing negative rates in one form or another.
These are astonishing figures, evidence of a 1930s-style depression, albeit one that is still contained. Nobody knows what will happen as the Fed tries to break out of the stimulus trap, including Fed officials themselves.
President Obama readies a sweeping list of executive actions.
Tied to court-ordered deadlines, legal mandates and international climate talks, the efforts scheduled for the next two months show that President Barack Obama is prepared to spend the remainder of his term unleashing sweeping executive actions to combat global warming. And incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will have few options for stopping the onslaught, though Republicans may be able to slow pieces of it.
The coming rollout includes a Dec. 1 proposal by EPA to tighten limits on smog-causing ozone, which business groups say could be the costliest federal regulation of all time; a final rule Dec. 19 for clamping down on disposal of power plants’ toxic coal ash; the Jan. 1 start date for a long-debated rule prohibiting states from polluting the air of their downwind neighbors; and a Jan. 8 deadline for issuing a final rule restricting greenhouse gas emissions from future power plants. That last rule is a centerpiece of Obama’s most ambitious environmental effort, the big plan for combating climate change that he announced at Georgetown University in June 2013.
On top of all that, the administration is expected in the coming weeks to pledge millions of dollars — and possibly billions — to help poor countries deal with the effects of climate change.
The administration was committed to all these deadlines many months ago, in some cases under court order, after postponing many of the actions until after the 2012 or 2014 elections. Now that Obama is almost out of time, they’re coming all at once.
On deck are even more climate actions that will stretch well into 2015. In June, EPA is due to put out a final version of its rule for cutting greenhouse gases from the nation’s existing power plants — the linchpin of Obama’s entire climate effort.
“In a world that was turned upside down on Election Day, two things are certain,” said Heather Zichal, who served as Obama’s top climate change adviser until 2013. “One: Corporate polluters and their allies in Congress will continue to fight against progress on the broader climate agenda. Two: The president is and will remain 100 percent committed to his climate action plan and he’ll fight to protect it.”
The kicker for Republicans eager to stomp all over the president’s agenda: Congress has little immediate recourse, despite McConnell’s pledges to use “the spending process” to rein in EPA. With so much action rolling through the pipeline, Republicans will have to choose their battles carefully if they want to make headway while proving they can govern.
In an interview after Election Day, McConnell acknowledged that stopping Obama will be difficult, given the president’s veto power. McConnell has also promised a return to regular order, and Republicans probably won’t want to repeat last year’s government shutdown in hopes of forcing the president’s hand.
“I think that actually preventing EPA from moving forward on the climate change regs will be a challenge,” said industry attorney Jeff Holmstead, who headed the agency’s air office during the George W. Bush administration.
If Congress tries to defang “high profile” regulations like those on carbon emissions, “we would expect the president to veto,” said Cal Dooley, a former Democratic member of Congress who heads the chemical industry’s trade association. “And I don’t expect that you’ll have a two-thirds vote in the Senate to override.”
Greens are counting on Obama to hold the line, especially on climate change.
“We are very confident that he will continue to take the common sense steps necessary to make this strong plan a reality,” League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski said in an email. “That may not please the climate change deniers, but it is the right thing to do for our health, our economy, and our security.”
On the other hand, a GOP-led Congress could pass agency-specific spending bills with riders that undercut rules that seem less important to Obama. Some Republicans think he might swallow an attack on the ozone rule, for example.
Christine Todd Whitman, who served as George W. Bush’s first EPA administrator, said the Republicans’ new Senate leaders will at least try to hobble the agency.
“It’s going to get harder for EPA,” she said. “With Jim Inhofe as chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I think what they’re going to do is starve the agency.”
EPA is not the only agency pushing new rules, however. The Interior Department is also expected to release a long-delayed draft regulation in the spring that tightens limits on mountaintop-removal coal mining.
And Obama’s negotiators are working on plans for an international global warming agreement, set to be signed in Paris at the end of 2015, that would require the U.S. and other nations to slash greenhouse gas emissions for decades to come.
The U.S. is also expected to announce in the coming weeks how much money it will contribute to an international fund for helping poor countries deal with the effects of global warming. Developed countries have pledged to raise $100 billion a year from government and private sources for that cause by 2020, with some of the money going to the fund. But the prospect of handing billions of dollars in climate aid to the developing world is not going to win much applause from Republicans, who could block the money through the appropriations process.
The U.S. will probably announce its pledge before or during a Nov. 20 meeting in Berlin.
“I think this will be one of the more challenging outcomes of the elections in terms of implementing the administration’s climate plan,” said Heather Coleman, climate change policy manager at Oxfam America.
The administration had previously postponed many of the upcoming regulatory actions, most notoriously with the surprise September 2011 decision to squelch EPA’s proposal to lower its smog limits. That decision blindsided both EPA leaders and environmentalists, and was widely regarded as an effort to defuse a major regulatory controversy before Obama had to run for reelection.
Similarly, EPA issued a proposed rule on coal ash in 2010, but sat on it for nearly four years until a federal court imposed a deadline for this December.
All the glare focusing on Obama’s big climate rules means that other items on his environmental agenda are getting less public attention than they once did. That could aid Republicans’ push to weaken some of regulations through negotiations with the White House and EPA, perhaps with deals to delay rules rather than repeal them outright. But that would depend on McConnell keeping the House from insisting on hardcore anti-EPA bills that would be surefire veto bait.
The word from the Hill “is that McConnell really is interested in trying to show that Republicans can get things done, so I think they’re going to try to come up with some narrow bills where the President could sign,” Holmstead said.
Among other possibilities, Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) hopes to bring up legislation that would shift authority away from EPA on regulating coal ash ponds. Given the agency’s previous reluctance to deal with coal ash at all, the White House might not fight him too hard.
Efforts to tighten ozone regulations are clearly not a top White House priority either, given Obama’s efforts to punt the rule in 2011. But defying the court deadline to finish the rule — “that’s where it’s going to take congressional action,” Dooley said. The manufacturing industry broadly opposes tightening the ozone standards, which it says could make permits more difficult and expensive to obtain.
Former Sen. Tim Wirth, a Democrat who served as the Clinton administration’s top international climate negotiator, thinks Obama will push through his main agenda regardless of what Republicans come up with.
“He’ll just do what he’s going to do anyway,” Wirth said.