Why Are Oil Prices Rising?

All this stuff about Egypt and Libya causing our oil prices to rise is just another scare du jour. We are being ripped off yet again by greedy stock traders.

Do you see Egypt or Libya on the list below? I don't either.

Below this list you will see an article explaining that our oil reserves are growing rapidly yet oil and gasoline prices continue to rise at an alarming rate.

How long will we just sit here and take it?


Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries

December 2010 Import Highlights: Released February 25, 2011
Monthly data on the origins of crude oil imports in December 2010 has been released and it shows that four countries exported more than 1,000 thousand barrels per day to the United States (see table below). The top five exporting countries accounted for 72 percent of United States crude oil imports in December while the top ten sources accounted for approximately 88 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports. The top five sources of US crude oil imports for December were Canada (2,064 thousand barrels per day), Mexico (1,223 thousand barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1,076 thousand barrels per day), Nigeria (1,024 thousand barrels per day), and Venezuela (825 thousand barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Iraq (336 thousand barrels per day), Angola (307 thousand barrels per day), Brazil (271 thousand barrels per day), Algeria (262 thousand barrels per day), and Colombia (220 thousand barrels per day). Total crude oil imports averaged 8,631 thousand barrels per day in December, which is an increase of 23 thousand barrels per day from November 2010.

Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in December, exporting 2,713 thousand barrels per day to the United States, which is an increase from last month (2,510 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Mexico with 1,365 thousand barrels per day.

Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)

Country Dec-10 Nov-10 YTD 2010 Dec-09 YTD 2009

CANADA 2,064 1,975 1,972 2,104 1,943
MEXICO 1,223 1,229 1,140 1,063 1,092
SAUDI ARABIA 1,076 1,119 1,080 870 980
NIGERIA 1,024 806 986 1,020 776
VENEZUELA 825 884 912 772 951
IRAQ 336 340 414 325 449
ANGOLA 307 263 380 266 448
BRAZIL 271 188 254 181 295
ALGERIA 262 379 325 336 281
COLOMBIA 220 489 338 179 251
ECUADOR 192 188 195 86 181
RUSSIA 158 85 252 168 230
KUWAIT 125 170 195 160 180
UNITED KINGDOM 124 80 120 67 103
ARGENTINA 85 35 29 33 53

Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)

Country Dec-10 Nov-10 YTD 2010 Dec-09 YTD 2009
CANADA 2,713 2,510 2,532 2,710 2,479
MEXICO 1,365 1,363 1,280 1,204 1,210
SAUDI ARABIA 1,087 1,141 1,094 877 1,004
NIGERIA 1,070 860 1,025 1,029 809
VENEZUELA 917 942 987 849 1,063
RUSSIA 514 553 611 385 563
ALGERIA 484 572 507 544 493
IRAQ 336 340 414 325 450
ANGOLA 319 276 390 278 460
BRAZIL 295 198 271 184 309
UNITED KINGDOM 236 187 256 199 245
COLOMBIA 231 492 365 231 276
ECUADOR 192 194 197 86 185
VIRGIN ISLANDS 191 234 255 289 277
KUWAIT 125 170 197 160 182

February 25
M.D. Harmon: U.S. oil, gas reserves surpass average OPEC nation
Yet, our own government won't let us use them and thus drives up the price we pay for everything.

Suppose that you built a new home out in the country, far from municipal services.

But when you tried to hire a contractor to drill a well, a town inspector came by to say wells were illegal in your community, so you had to meet your needs for water by going down to the store to buy it in bottles.

Of course, using bottled water to drink, wash, bathe and do dishes with is very expensive, and you found it was very difficult to keep enough on hand for all your daily needs.

So you called up your selectman to ask if the town would make an exception for you.

"No way!" was the reply. "That would despoil precious natural resources. That water belongs right where it is, underground, and it would be wrong for you to use it for your selfish needs to stay alive -- and clean."

So, you had to go on using bottled water other people produced, paying the bottlers with your hard-earned dollars -- even, let us imagine, after you found out some of them were owned by international criminal syndicates -- and were never allowed to take advantage of the resources that flowed abundantly right under your feet.

Sound ridiculous? Sure it does, but it also is a fair approximation of the current administration's attitude toward tapping our own extensive oil and natural gas resources.

Instead, our government prefers to make us buy them from foreign nations, some of which use the revenue to oppose us.

Of some interest in that context, the European news agency Reuters reported the following news on Feb. 16:

"The U.S. economy will lose $2.4 trillion over the next two decades if the federal government does not allow oil and natural gas drilling in restricted onshore lands and in offshore areas previously closed to energy companies, according to a new study released on Feb. 14."

The report, prepared for the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, said "U.S. imports of crude oil, petroleum products and natural gas would increase by $1.6 trillion over the period without access to the energy resources."

Reuters said that U.S. payments to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) would total $607 billion over that period for an extra 4.1 billion barrels of crude, according to the report.

Separate congressional and presidential bans on drilling in most U.S. waters beyond the western and central Gulf of Mexico ended in 2008, and the Interior Department is now considering whether to expand exploration in only a small part of the formerly closed areas, the news agency said.

"It's clear from this report that the status quo on energy production simply won't suffice," said David Parker, president of the American Gas Association. "We encourage lawmakers to heed the results of this study and take a closer look at the energy-rich areas in our country that are currently off limits."

Reuters said the study also raised the estimated U.S. oil and gas resources that are available in all areas based on advanced drilling technology and easier development of energy supplies trapped in shale rock. It reported that U.S. resources of crude oil were increased by 43 billion barrels to 229 billion and natural gas was raised by 286 trillion cubic feet to 2,034 trillion cubic feet.

By comparison, the United States imported about 143 million barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia in 2010, about 5 percent of our annual consumption, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Domestic oil accounts for only 40 percent of our total usage, meaning that most of the money we spend on oil goes abroad.

In that context, consider that 229 billion barrels of domestic reserves is more oil than the average OPEC nation has.

Yet, like a homeowner who can only buy someone else's bottled water, we can't drill for what we have right under our feet.

So, when you notice the price of gas going up -- and it will, and nobody knows by how much -- remember that the last "OPEC oil crisis" ended when President Ronald Reagan announced that he was loosening restrictions on offshore oil drilling. Suddenly the price fell from more than $100 a barrel (in 1980s prices) to about $30, even before new drilling had commenced. Imagine what actually encouraging more drilling now would accomplish.

Actually, we don't have to imagine it. We just have to realize that the cost of transportation affects the price of almost everything we use.

Any material good we require that is shipped by freighter, truck or plane includes in its cost to us the price of the gasoline or other fuel used to transport it. In addition, many products are either petroleum-based or require petroleum products to produce them.

Because oil prices are set on the world market, a boost in the price of crude due to unrest in the Middle East affects them all -- and no one can escape the impact. However, we can minimize it by using the resources that we have in abundance.

Don't you think it's odd that the same people who say we need to "wean ourselves" from dependence on foreign oil are the same ones who are blocking us from doing so?

Of course, they say wind and solar power will meet our needs, but we don't use oil to generate electricity. We use it to create and move things, and no windmill or solar panel will affect that for decades to come.

The crisis is upon us, and it's far past the time to tell the government to get out of the way.

Unless, that is, you like paying foreigners for something you have in abundance -- but which ideologues won't let you use.

Major Hasan, "Star Officer"

Major Hasan, 'Star Officer'

Every branch of the military issued a final report on the Fort Hood massacre. Not a single one mentioned radical Islam.

By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ


In a month of momentous change, it was easy to overlook the significance of another revolutionary event. Who would have believed that in the space of a few weeks the leaders of the three major European powers would publicly denounce multiculturalism and declare, in so many words, that it was a proven disaster and a threat to society?

One after another they announced their findings—Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel, Great Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron, and France's President Nicolas Sarkozy. Multicultural values had not only led to segregated communities: They had, Mr. Cameron noted, imposed policies of blind toleration that had helped nurture radical Islam's terrorist cells.

There can be no underestimating the in-so-many-words aspect of these renunciations. This was multiculturalism they were talking about—the unofficial established religion of the universities, the faith whose requirements have shaped every aspect of cultural, economic and political life in Western democracies for the last 50 years. Still, they were out there—words coolly specific, their target clear.

They came at a fitting moment, just as Americans had been handed a report providing the fullest disclosures so far about the multiculturalist zeal that had driven Army and medical school superiors to smooth Nidal Malik Hasan's rocky way through training, promote him, and, despite blatant evidence of his unfitness, raise not a single concern. Maj. Hasan, U.S. Army psychiatrist, would be assigned to Fort Hood where, in November 2009, he opened fire, killing 12 fellow soldiers and a civilian employee, and wounding 32 others.

In this report, titled "A Ticking Time Bomb" and put out by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, there is a detail as dazzling in its bleak way as all the glowing misrepresentations of Dr. Hasan's skills and character, which his superiors poured into their evaluations of him. It concerns the Department of Defense's official report on the Fort Hood killings—a study whose recital of fact made no mention of Hasan's well-documented jihadist sympathies. Subsequent DoD memoranda portray the bloodbath—which began with Hasan shouting "Allahu Akbar!"—as a kind of undefined extremism, something on the order, perhaps, of work-place violence.

[Editor’s note: this is precisely what Rep. Allen West said when he was our guest on a recent episode of the ACT! for America television program.]

This avoidance of specifics was apparently contagious—or, more precisely, policy. In November 2010, each branch of the military issued a final report on the Fort Hood shooting. Not one mentioned the perpetrator's ties to radical Islam. Even today, "A Ticking Time Bomb," co-authored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I., Conn.) and Susan Collins (R., Maine), reminds us that DoD still hasn't specifically named the threat represented by the Fort Hood attack—a signal to the entire Defense bureaucracy that the subject is taboo.

For the superiors in charge of Hasan's training at Walter Reed and his two years at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, the taboo was of a more complicated order—one that required elaborately inventive analyses through which Hasan's stated beliefs, ominous pronouncements, and evident unconcern with standards of behavior required of an officer could all be represented as singular virtues, proof of his exceptional value to the Army. It could not have been easy. Still, they managed.

They did so despite Hasan's astounding trail of performances, each more telling than the next. To fulfill Walter Reed's academic requirement for a presentation on a psychiatric theme, Hasan proffered a draft consisting almost entirely of wisdom from the Quran arguing for the painful punishment and liquidation of non-Muslims. Hasan evidently viewed the Qur’anic verses as a sufficient presentation—a view his superior didn't share, given its lack of any mention of a psychiatric theme. When that guide warned him the presentation was "not scholarly" and might prevent his graduation, Hasan revised. The finished product was not much different. Still, Hasan was allowed to graduate.

He went on to his medical fellowship, where he soon delivered another class lecture, this one on the Islamist theme that the West, in particular the U.S. military, had mounted a war on Islam. The presentation brimmed with views sympathetic to Osama bin Laden, the motives of the 9/11 perpetrators, and suicide bombers. It so infuriated his classmates that their outraged eruptions caused the instructor to end the presentation.

There would be more of the same to come. One classmate witness told investigators that Hasan sought every possible opportunity to share his radical Islamist sympathies. His highest obligation, he told classmates, wasn't to the Constitution, which he had sworn to protect and defend, but to his religion.

His Islamist sympathies would attract the interest of the FBI, which soon picked up on this U.S. Army major's contacts with a terrorist suspect, unnamed in the Senate report. The agency would, however, have no continuing great interest in Hasan. Among other reasons, its agents had seen the impressive evaluation reports characterizing Hasan as an authority on Islam—one whose work even had "extraordinary potential to inform national policy and military strategy," as one of his superiors put it in his officer evaluation report.

The same Hasan who set off silent alarms in his supervisors—the Psychiatric Residency Program Director at Walter Reed was one of them—would garner only plaudits in the official written evaluations at the time. He was commended in these as a "star officer," one focused on "illuminating the role of culture and Islamic faith within the Global War on Terrorism.” One supervisor testified, "His unique interests have captured the interest and attention of peers and mentors alike.” No single word of criticism or doubt about Hasan ever made its way into any of his evaluations.

Some of those enthusiastic testaments strongly suggested that the writers were themselves at least partly persuaded of their reasoning. In magical thinking, safety and good come to those who obey taboos, and in the multiculturalist world, there is no taboo more powerful than the one that forbids acknowledgment of realities not in keeping with the progressive vision. In the world of the politically correct—which can apparently include places where psychiatrists are taught—magical thinking reigns.

A resident who didn't represent the diversity value that Hasan did as a Muslim would have faced serious consequences had he behaved half as disturbingly. Here was a world in which Hasan was untouchable, in which all that was grim and disturbing in him was transformed. He was a consistently mediocre performer, ranking in the lowest 25% of his class, but to his evaluators, he was an officer of unique talents.

He was a star not simply because he was a Muslim, but because he was a special kind—the sort who posed, in his flaunting of jihadist sympathies, the most extreme test of liberal toleration. Exactly the kind the progressive heart finds irresistible.

A decision as to whether Maj. Hasan will go to trial—it would be before a military court-martial —should be forthcoming next month. He stands charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder, committed when he turned his laser-equipped semi-automatic on members of the military at the Soldier Readiness Center. The likelihood is that the trial will go forward. If it does, the forces of multiculturalist piety, which played so central a role in advancing this Army major and concealing the menace he posed, will be the invisible presence on trial with him.

Ms. Rabinowitz, a member of the Journal's editorial board, is the author of "No Crueler Tyrannies: Accusations, False Witness And Other Terrors Our Times" (Free Press, 2003).

Sheriff Baca Challenges Pete King

Monday, February 07, 2011

LA Sheriff Baca Challenges Pete King, Defends Muslim Brotherhood Infiltration In America

In an expected move from a longtime dhimmi, Democrat Sheriff Lee Baca is attacking Representative Peter King for his national security hearings. Hardly surprising that Baca loves Hamas-linked CAIR.

Lee Baca challenging Peter King on how well Muslims have cooperated with anti-terror efforts is rich. Lee Baca has previously denounced as "un-American" criticism of him for appearing at two fundraisers for the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case. Baca's support for CAIR shows that he wouldn't know non-cooperation even if it punched him in the face, or blew up the LAPD. CAIR has never seen an anti-terror measure that it liked or supported, and recently CAIR-California distributed posters telling Muslims not to cooperate with the FBI. So CAIR is telling Muslims in California not to aid in law enforcement efforts, and Lee Baca in Los Angeles is claiming that there's no evidence of Muslim non-cooperation? He should look under his nose.

Hey Baca, King ain't the enemy. Redirect your barbs against the real bad guys. Putz.

Los Angeles County sheriff Lee Baca said Monday that there is nothing to support Rep. Peter King's (R-N.Y.) view that American Muslims are being uncooperative with law enforcement.

"If he has evidence of non-cooperation, he should bring it forward," said Baca at a forum held today by Muslim-American groups in advance of King's hearings on radicalization in the Muslim community. "We have as much cooperation as we are capable of acquiring through public trust relationships."

"I sit on the Major City chiefs association as one of three chairs," said Baca. "I also sit on the Major County Sheriff's Association and I'm on the national board of directors of the international association for the sheriffs departments. Here's the thing: I don't know what Mr. King is hearing or who he's hearing it from."

King has said that active law enforcement offiicials are often afraid to complain publicly that Muslim leaders don't cooperate with law enforcement, but that he hears the complaint often privately and from retired law enforcement officials.

"Muslim Americans in the county of Los Angeles have been overwhelmingly astounded by terrorist attacks -- like everyone else -- and overwhelmingly concerned about a non-repeat performance of that kind - and are willing to get involved and help," said Baca.

"I'm inviting Congressman King to Los Angeles," said Baca, saying that he aims to show the relationship he has fostered between Muslim-Americans and law enforcement.

"We have no contact with Sheriff Baca and there is nothing to comment on," said a spokesman for King said.

The Threat Of Nuclear Iran

The Threat Of Nuclear Iran

Iran is the single largest state sponsor of terror in the world. All too many of the world’s major terrorist attacks during the last 30 years can be traced back to Iran. The following clip is one of 8 sections from the new ground breaking documentary film Iranium. This 60 minute film outlines the threat that a nuclear Iran poses not only to the United States and Israel, but to the whole world.

The Threat of a Nuclear Iran
And the Film Iran’s Leaders Don’t Want You to See

by Batsheva Gross

Iran’s nuclear program is not an isolated problem. Rather, it is the most dangerous component of a brutal ideology established by Iran’s leaders during the 1979 revolution.

Since the inception of the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran has displayed an absolute hatred for the West, and sponsored acts of terror around the world. This extremist worldview is ingrained in the State’s constitution and apparatuses, and has been supported by the actions of the regime’s leaders.

Now 30 years after the start of the revolution, Iran is on the cusp of crossing the nuclear threshold. By many estimates, Iran is less than a year away from producing a nuclear weapon — if not sooner. The development of a nuclear program has only added to the already immense danger posed by this regime, and the numerous threat scenarios posed by a nuclear Iran are beyond frightening.

All the while Western powers—and in particular the United States—have dangerously misread the intentions of the Iranian regime. It is for this reason that diplomatic negotiations with Iran have failed since 1979.

The Iranian people, hijacked by a regime that does not represent the national aspirations of its citizenry, are now trying to stimulate a new revolution to force Iran’s leaders from the seats of dictatorship.

A new documentary film, Iranium, powerfully reports on the complex threats the world now faces from Iran. Demonstrating the hatred and violence exhibited by Iran’s brutal leadership, the film chronicle’s the regimes abusive treatment of its own citizens, and its state-sponsorship of terror for over 30 years.

Using rarely-seen footage of Iranian leaders and interviews with 25 leading politicians, Iranian dissidents, and experts on Middle East policy, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation, Iranium outlines the various scenarios the world may face should Iran cross the nuclear threshold. The film also presents the policy options currently being utilized and considered to deal with the situation in Iran.

Iranium will be premiere on February 8, 2011, at select AMC movie theaters and community centers throughout North America. In addition to the scheduled screenings, the film will be made available for free online streaming on February 8 for the first 50,000 registrants. Individuals may register to watch online at www.iraniumthemovie.com.

A pre-release screening of the film scheduled for January 18 at Canada’s National Library and Archives (LAC) in Ottawa was canceled following threats of protest and requests to cancel the event, some of which came directly from the Iranian Embassy.
The cancellation of the LAC event, which was to be the first major screening of Iranium in Canada, angered Canadians, including Ministers in the Canadian government, who are committed to their country’s stated core value of protecting free speech.
James Moore, the Canadian Heritage Minister, said that the Iranian Embassy “will not dictate to the Government of Canada which films will or will not be shown in Canada,” and demanded that the LAC show Iranium despite threats of violence. In turn, LAC announced that Iranium will be screened on February 6.

Iranium, a film which exposes the Iranian regime’s radical ideology, its funding of terror proxies throughout the world, its abuse and maltreatment of the Iranian people, and its illegal development of nuclear weapons, is the film Iran’s leaders do not want you to see. Stand up for your right to freedom of speech, show your support for the Iranian people in their struggle to bring democracy and freedom to their country, and condemn acts of terrorism throughout the world by watching this film on February 8 and sharing it with others.

Israeli Ambassador Hecklers Charged

11 California Students Charged for Heckling Israeli Ambassador

Feb 5, 2011 – 5:05 PM

Hugh Collins

Eleven University of California students were charged on Friday with misdemeanors for disrupting a speech by the Israeli ambassador to the United States last year.

Ambassador Michael Oren visited the UC Irvine campus on February 8, 2010. Students, believed to be members of the Muslim Student Union, repeatedly interrupted his speech, accusing him of such things as propagating murder and being a war criminal.

Orange County's district attorney says that the students planned the protest and he has hit them with charges that could send them to jail for up to six months, according to The Orange County Register. Each student is charged with one misdemeanor count of conspiring to disrupt a meeting and one misdemeanor count of disrupting a meeting.

The case of the so-called "Irvine 11" has tested interpretations of the First Amendment.

"These defendants meant to stop this speech and stop anyone else from hearing his ideas, and they did so by disrupting a lawful meeting," District Attorney Tony Rackauckas said in a statement.

"This is a clear violation of the law and failing to bring charges against this conduct would amount to a failure to uphold the Constitution," Rackauckas said.

The investigation by the district attorney's office has sparked outrage among some who argue that peaceful protesters should not be prosecuted.

Jacqueline Goodman, a criminal defense attorney representing some of the students, said that the charges would hurt the cause of free speech.





"The last thing we want to do is inhibit the free exchange of ideas, and that's the only thing that prosecuting these students can achieve," Goodman said, according to The Los Angeles Times.

Authorities arrested the hecklers at the event. College officials suspended the Muslim Student Union for an academic quarter as punishment, according to Southern California Public Radio. The group has since been reinstated on campus.

Prosecutors accuse Mohamed Mohy-Eldeen Abdelgany, 23, of sending messages to the Muslim Student Union message board with a "game plan" for disrupting the event.

Jesse Rosenblum, president of the Zionist Organization of America's Orange County chapter, says he supports the criminal charges against the students.

"It is only appropriate that violations of our valuable First Amendment protections should be prosecuted," Rosenblum said in a statement, according to The Los Angeles Times.