Euro News: 'EU Unveils New Energy Strategy to End Gas Cuts'

Source:Euro News- Gunther Oettinger: EU Commissioner For Energy.

"Euronews is a pan-European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"The EU has unveiled a new energy strategy it says will help it avoid possible shortages arising from gas disputes between Russia and Ukraine.  Europe imports more than 60 percent its gas, most of it from Russia.  

Brussels has long recognised the need to diversify sources after some EU countries suffered supply cuts during price rows between Moscow and Kiev. The Commission's energy chief Günther Oettinger said the new strategy would make the bloc's gas stocks less vulnerable to interruptions beyond its control. Euro News" 

From Euro News

I'm glad that the European Union has come out with their own energy policy which will be a big help for them and their economy as far as them being able to produce their only energy sources and creating jobs in Europe and putting Europeans to work. Which will also benefit their foreign policy and environmental policy as well, as fiscal policy, because it would get them off of foreign oil and gas or at least non- European oil and gas. 

The European Union is not technically a country, yet and it would also help their environmental policy, because it would allow them to use renewable energy sources creating an alternative energy industry in Europe. 

This would also help Europe's fiscal policy and allow them to pay down their debts and deficits, because this would be a boost to their economy with all of the jobs that they would create. This all sounds great right, but how is this great for America? 

I'm talking here about a European energy policy, not an American energy policy. The same benefits that could come to Europe because of this, could come to America as well. How long as a country have we've been talking about the need for a national energy policy: forty years. Ut goes back to the Nixon Administration with the 1973 Middle Eastern Oil Embargo. 

President Ford took up energy to a certain extent. President Carter had some success at getting some reforms in on conservation. And things like solar and wind. And President W. Bush managed to get an energy policy through Congress in 2005. That was mostly about oil and gas, at least it was American oil and gas, but mostly subsidy's to these company's that are already doing very well. 

But six years later we are still in this debate about having a national energy policy because we still don't have one. What we need is a comprehensive energy policy that moves America towards energy independence. We have the most natural resources in the world or we only trail Russia, but yet we aren't energy independent. Because we don't have a national energy policy, which is why we import oil and natural gas from other countries. Even though we have plenty of both to help move us towards energy independence. Not by themselves but part of a broader energy package. 

We have a whole menu of energy sources that we don't use that could also help move us towards energy independence. To go along with oil and gas but natural gas, clean coal, solar wind, nuclear, electricity, water. But we haven't developed these resources, which is why we are still dependent on foreign nations, because we don't have a national energy policy. 

And we also need to conserve more, use less of wasteful and dirty energy by taxing, perhaps taxing low mileage autos like SUV's. And perhaps subsidizing at least in the short-term clean energy that America has a market for and can help move us towards energy independence. 

An energy policy that moves you towards energy independence is just as beneficial in Europe as it's in America, as long as both have their own energy policy's. And develop their own energy sources. And if Europe can do this, then so can America which has a lot more natural resources.

American News Project: 'HUD's Affordable Housing Project'

Source:American News Project- public housing in America.

"As the Obama Administration plans to implement their recently signed $787 billion rescue plan, one of the areas they will immediately be forced to confront is the ongoing housing crisis.  The stimulus gives the Department of Housing and Urban Development $13.6 billion to address the needs of low-income families across the country. Experts say it's a good start, but new HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan is facing an enormous task, as he attempts to overhaul an agency that is facing years of neglect and mounting debt." 

From the American News Project

To me people living in public housing is just one step away from what I would call at least being level 4 Poverty. Level 4 poverty to me would be homeless people, people who can't afford a place to live and live on the streets or sometimes stay in a homeless shelter. Level 4 to me would be the worst level in poverty, the best being low-income workers. 

Some low-income workers live in public housing, others live in low-rent apartments in rough neighborhoods. A woman in this video said that she basically has lived most of her life in public housing. To me that just evidence of how much the War on Poverty has failed in America. That we would allow as a country for this to happen and not do anything or anything that would actually move these people out of poverty and into private affordable housing. 

To actually reduce poverty in America, that gets to things like  education and job placement so these people can get the skills that they need in order to get a good job and become self-sufficient. What we could've been doing the last forty plus years in public housing is helping these people get the skills that they need in order to get a good job, whether they are already working or not. Because a lot of these people are low-skilled. They either only have high school diploma's, but not college or vocational or didn't even finish high school. And we should've been sending these people back to school, including community college so they can get the skills that they need in order to get a good job and be self- sufficient. 

But thats just one failure in public housing which was part of the so-called Great Society legislation of the mid and late 1960s. The main failure gets to how it was designed and is very fundamental. The Federal Government figured that they could take essentially a community of low-income, low-skilled people and basically force them to live together in these run down public housing projects in rough neighborhoods. And left them there in these bad neighborhoods to raise their kids and send them to bad schools. Where they remained low-income and low-skilled. 

What we should've been doing all along and what we should be doing today is reforming public housing not only in a way that would empower the residents of public housing to finish school and further their education. So they can get a job that can support themselves and their families and become self- sufficient. And be able to pay for their own home or pay for the rent of their home on their own. 

But instead of creating more ghettos through government of all things, what we should be doing is integrate public housing residents into middle class communities. So these people can live in better communities and send their kids to better schools and find better jobs, etc, s well as living in safer communities. 

And then we need to get the Federal Government as well as state and local governments out of the business of public housing. And let them be there to regulate, but give the power to the people and let them run public housing. Turn it into a semi-private, non-profit community housing service. With each state and local government having their own chapters, but where private sector to an extent would run them. 

And these public housing projects could be paid for by the residents up to a point and then by their employers for the people who work. And Unemployment or Welfare or Disability Insurance for the people who don't work. 

Public Housing has succeeded in the sense that its prevented millions of people from having to be homeless. And perhaps all that it was designed for and to that extent it's been a success. But if the goal is to actually move people out of poverty and not just sustain them, then we need some serious reforms in public housing and are other public assistance programs. 

J Branstetter: President Ronald Reagan- Taxes and Budget Deficit: October, 1987

Source:J Branstetter- President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) deficits don't matter? (1987) 

"Listen to the camera shutters when he moves his hands, they go crazy. President Ronald Reagan talks about the effects of different types of taxes on the budget deficit and why some taxes have a adverse effect on the economy. This takes place at the White House at a news conference in October 1987." 

From J Branstetter

I just want to point out that I actually have a lot of respect for President Reagan, even though I’m a Jack Kennedy Liberal Democrat, but I also have serious differences with him and his fiscal policy which at the time would be called supply side economics. 

Supply side economics: you cut taxes deeply without paying for them and increase government spending substantially in defense, but in other areas as well. The theory being that the economic growth as a result of the tax cuts, would pay for the new spending. President Reagan inherited roughly a 40B$ Budget Deficit which even at the time in the late 70s and early 80s was considered small.

And President Carter had an awful economy and President Reagan inherited and awful economy, but left office with a strong economy. With strong economic and job growth, but left office in 1989 with a large Federal debt and deficit and one of the largest debts as a percentage of GDP. As well as deficits of GDP as well, of around 200B$. 

President Reagan’s debt and deficit was so big that he raised taxes in back to back years after the 1981 tax cuts and this is with a Republican Senate as well. President Reagan’s own Vice President called the Reagan tax cuts when he was running for President: “Voodoo Economics”.

Howard Baker, a Republican and the Senate Leader from 1981-85, called the Reagan tax cuts: “A riverboat gamble”. 

David Stockman, President Reagan’s own Director of Budget and Management called the Reagan tax cuts, a big mistake. 

Dick Darman, President Reagan’s other Director of Budget, said that if President Reagan had to choose between balancing the budget by 1984, or ending the Cold War and getting the economy going again, he would pass on a balanced budget. He didn’t want the debt and deficit, but believed that was a price worth paying in oder to accomplish his other goals. You know none of these people are Democrats, they are all Conservative Republicans saying these things. Just not Neoconservatives.

President Reagan never submitted a balanced budget to Congress, or a plan to balanced the budget to Congress. It was never a priority on his part. The economy, the Cold War, reforming Social Security, tax reform and immigration reform were his priorities. All things that he got through Congress as President. 

President Reagan had a very good batting average in Congress as President. Including his ten plus tax hikes he had as President, including middle class tax hikes with the 1983 Social Security reform law. President Reagan increased taxes and spending and because of that he could be labeled a tax and spender.

Tax and spender is generally a label that’s reserved for Social Democrats or Socialists (who are called Progressives or Liberals today) not Conservative Republicans like Ron Reagan. Ron Reagan talked and campaigned like a Conservative, but governed like a pragmatist: “This is what I want to do and if I have to give these things up to accomplish that, then that’s a price I’m willing to pay.”

President Reagan was right to cut taxes, perhaps even as deeply as he did. 70% tax rates in a liberal democracy is too high. But where he failed was by not cutting government spending to make up any difference that economic growth doesn’t pay for. He was also correct to beef up our national defense, but failed to pay for it as well. And that’s why he left office with the debt and deficit he had. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

The Film Archives: BookNotes With Brian Lamb- Robin Wright: 'A History of Iran: From the 1979 Islamic Revolution to Ayatollah Khomeini's Death (1989)'

Source:The Film Archives- The Iranian People, perhaps in 1979.

"The Iranian Revolution is also known as the Islamic Revolution of Iran or the 1979 Revolution; Persian: انقلاب اسلامی, Enghelābe Eslāmi or انقلاب بیست و دو بهمن. About the book:Amazon."

From The Film Archives 

“The author chronicles the first ten years of the Iranian Revolution, employing an unprecedented access to Iran’s major figures to outline the nation’s importance to the rest of the world.”

Source:Amazon- Robin Wright's book.

From Amazon 

“TEHRAN, Iran — Here are key events that have marked Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution that overthrew the monarchy.

Islamic Republic proclaimed

On January 16, 1979, the US-backed shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, leaves for exile after months of protests.

On February 1, revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini makes a triumphant return from exile.

The shah falls 10 days later, with public radio declaring “the end of 2,500 years of despotism.”

An Islamic republic is proclaimed on April 1." 

Source:Times of Israel- talking about the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

From the Times of Israel

Part of the fault for the 1979 Islāmic Revolution in Iran that brought an Islāmic Republic to Iran after they were a monarchy with the Shah as its head of state (dictator, really), has to be given to the Shah of Iran. Because he was a dictator at the time ruling a very large country, but with only 20-25M people, that is deep in natural resources. 

The Shah wasn’t all bad, he did managed to build up their economy to a certain extent and build an education system and other things. (Sort of like Fidel Castro in Cuba) But he was a dictator who was accountable to basically no one, except for the United States and United Kingdom, to a certain extent. That both put the Shah in power and could’ve removed him at any point and this was also a political problem for the Shah with his people.

To America and Britain, the Shah was a puppet for them, instead of his own man only accountable to the Iranian people. Who also held down his own people and they got tired of being held down without much freedom or recourse. And they saw these Islāmic leaders in Iran and turned to them to take down the Shah and his regime. Not knowing the consequences of this, because in taking down the Monarchy they replaced one authoritarian dictatorship with another one with an Islāmic Theocracy that over thirty-two years later is still in power in Iran. With its strict restrictions on political freedom and women’s rights and so-forth. 

Iran which has the natural resources, physical size and population to be a first world country and the most dominant power in the Middle East has regressed backwards under their Islamic Theocracy. And making it look like a country from the 15th Century with how it treats its women. With dress codes and limiting people to the things in the media that they can see and so-forth.

What Shah Reza of Iran, should’ve been doing as he was building up his large country, was to educate his people as well. And give them the freedom to live their own lives, not overnight, but overtime. And moving Iran from a monarchy towards a republic, where the Shah would be more of a ceremonial power, or perhaps have more governmental powers. But where most of the power would be with the executive, a President or Prime Minister, with a Cabinet and so-forth. That would govern the country with a multi-party elected Parliament at some point. With provincial and local government’s, as well that would also be elected. And then the Shah could’ve run for president and probably would’ve been elected, perhaps several times.

Shah Reza was in power in Iran for about forty-years and had plenty of time to establish a system like this and as he could’ve brought these progressive changes to Iran. With a national constitution and everything else. To go along with the economic and educational development.

The Shah could’ve released the grip that the United States and United Kingdom had on him and his government. Which would’ve only of helped him politically, because he would’ve no longer be seen as a puppet of the U.S. and U.K. Iran today as the Islāmic Republic of Iran, instead of the Federal Republic or United Republic of Iran, or something, most of that blame has to fall on the Islāmic Revolution. Because maybe Iran is a developed nation today instead of a third world nation. But some of this blame also has to fall on Shah Reza for keeping his people down before they rose up and went with the Islāmic Revolution.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Euro News: 'Libya's Oil Industry To Start Restart Pumping Mid-September'

 

Source:Euro News- a man who was interviewed for this piece.

"Euronews is a pan-European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"Libya's new oil minister says he expects production of crude to restart in about ten days. Ali Tarhouni said the pumps will begin again in the Misla and Sarir oilfields around the middle of the month. The industry is central to Libya's recovery. Before the war to unseat Muammar Gaddafi it was churning out 1.6 million barrels a day. It's expected to take another 15 months before it recovers to that level. Euro News." 

From Euro News

The average Libyan makes around 11K$ a year which is pretty good for Arabia, where most Arabians make around 2-5K$ a year. But these are still third world wages in a country with first world natural resources thats also a large country, but lightly populated. (A little over 6M people) So it's not like they have to worry about overcrowding and being able to feed enough people. 

Because Libya is deep in resources and land, but with a light population, they can do these things and literally start from scratch and build up its rotten health care and education systems, so their people can be healthy and can get the skills that they need to get good jobs in Libya. And with Libya's oil industry, they'll not only be able to use their oil for their own energy needs. But they'll be able to export their oil to Europe, North America, and Asia. 

Hopefully America will get to the point that we'll no longer have to import Arabian oil or any other oil but we are certainly not there yet. But Libya will be able to use their oil revenue to help build up the rest of the country and even diversify the rest of the economy. Perhaps even having its own auto industry where they are making their own cars and even having their own auto companies and they wouldn't have to import so many cars from Europe and Asia. And have a broader transportation industry in general and use their own oil to power their own autos. 

Libya has a long way to go to rebuild and build up the rest of their large country and they are going to need a lot of money to do that. Which is why rebuilding their oil industry is critical as well as foreign trade with new trade agreements with Europe, North America, South America, and Asia. And of course lifting of economic sanctions on Libya and returning frozen assets back to Libya. And will probably need foreign aide as well, at least until they can get their economy going again. 

Libya now has an excellent opportunity here to make this all happen and not just build up part of the country. Which is what the Gaddhafi Regime did but build up the rest of the country as well so all of Libya can take advantage of its natural resources. And people can see and live in the whole country not just parts of it because the rest of the country gets developed as well.

Euro News: 'EU increases Pressure On Bashar Al-Assad'

Source:Euro News- European Union Foreign Policy Catherine Ashton.

"Euronews is a pan-European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"The EU is gradually ratcheting up the pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad with a raft of new sanctions. Foreign ministers of the 27 member states have agreed to ban imports of Syrian oil in response to the ongoing violent crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrations in Syria. They have also extended sanctions against seven Syrian individuals and organisations. It is the first time measures have targeted the key oil sector. Euro News." 

From Euro News

It's clear that Assad Regime in Syria has lost all credibility as far as governing Syria except for some loyalists that remain in Syria to the Assad Regime. Thats what happens when your murder people as the Assad Security Forces have for holding protests and demonstrations in Syria. Fighting for their freedom and for the most part these demonstrators have been peaceful. 

It's also clear at least up till now that President Bashar Assad of Syria is not going to step down peacefully or go down quietly. That he'll probably have to be removed from power, whether it's looks like what happened to President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, When his Security Forces refused to take down the protestors there and he stepped down from power as a consequence. Or it looks like what happened Moammar Gaddhafi of Libya where he was forcefully removed from office. 

And the question is how does this come about. I believe the Arab League shouldn't step aside and let their fellow arabs be murdered. I also don't believe that the European Union an organization thats pro- democracy and fights for it, as well as the United States the same thing should sit aside and watch people get murdered and do nothing about it. 

So the question to me is how do we bring this about, how to we force President Assad out-of-power. There are several steps that can take place a four step plan, where hopefully all four steps don't have to come about. 

Hopefully President Assad would recognize that it's time for him to step down from power and turn his country over to the opposition. Or at least to an interim government that would run the country until Syria holds general elections which is what is happening in Egypt right now. Which is different from what's happening in Libya right now, where the Gaddafi Opposition is now running the country instead of Moammar Gaddafi. 

So in this four step process that I see it, first what I believe the United States, European Union, Arab League and United Nations should do jointly. 

One, call for President Assad to step down from power and hand the government over to the Syrian Opposition or an interim government. 

Two, put in economic sanctions on Syria, don't let money enter or leave Syria and only let in resources in or out of the country. That would be managed by Syrian Opposition: things like food, water, medical supplies, human resources, etc. As well as freeze all foreign assets that the Assad Regime has outside of Syria. 

Three, if necessary arm the Syrian rebels with money, resources and even weapons if they need them to defend themselves against the Assad Military Forces. Including things like bringing in any Assad defectors into the Syrian Opposition. 

Four, and hopefully it doesn't get to this, establish a no fly zone over Syria and this is where NATO would be needed. Turkey and Egypt could play a big role here, to protect the Syrian rebels and the Syrian people from their own government, essentially. As well as ground forces if necessary from Turkey, Egypt and the Arab League to protect the Syrian rebels and the Syrian people. 

This is not something that the United States can run or managed but we can help by sending in supplies and with sanctions. Because we are already overcommitted around the world. But where the Arab League, European Union, NATO can play a big role and lead the way. Back the Syrian rebels and knock another Middle Eastern authoritarian regime out-of-power. 

Glenn Beck : Michael Reagan Interview- 'The New Reagan Revolution'

Source:Glenn Beck- and Ronald Reagan's son and author Michael Reagan.

"Read the entire article at Glenn Beck. On February 4th Glenn Beck interviewed Michael Reagan, the son of former President Ronald Reagan, about his new book called The New Reagan Revolution: How Ronald Reagan's Principles Can Restore America's Greatness.

With all the erroneous talk lately about how similar President Obama is to President Reagan, Michael Reagan once again shares the genius of his father and how the same principles and lessons he taught the world back in the 80′s when he was letting America shine and be strong.... 

From Glenn Beck

The Ronald Reagan that I most respected, was the Ron Reagan before he became President. Even though he did some good things as President as well, like ending the Cold War with the Soviet Union and getting the economy going again after inheriting an awful economy from the Carter Administration. He of course didn’t do that alone, no President or government can of course. 

But the Ron Reagan that I respect most, was anti-Washington, anti-big government, pro-individual freedom. Believed in things like keeping government out of our wallets and bedrooms, he was even pro-gay rights.

Reagan pro-gay was rights after he became President in 1981. Pro-strong military, but only use when it was in our National Interest. He wasn’t a Neoconservative which is something else I respect about Ron Reagan. 

But as much as Reagan spoke out against big government, he expanded the Federal Government almost as much as President. And not just in the Defense Department, but he expanded the War on Drugs, more Americans than ever were in prison during his administration. A big reason for that to do with his expansion of the War on Drugs. And of course the record debt and deficit he piled up as President, because of his defense spending and his unpaid for tax cuts were a big part of that as well.

Ron Reagan was a classical Conservative, (just not fiscally conservative) perhaps even a small l libertarian even when he was running for President. But as President even though he kept some of those principles, he was more of a pragmatist than anything else. “What do I have to do to get the job done, what do we have to negotiate." 

Ronald Reagan had a Democratic House the whole eight years as President. Democrats had a large minority in the Senate for six years and controlled the Senate the last two years. I give President Reagan credit for ending the Cold War and turning the economy around. But we paid a heavy price for it in debt, deficit, high interest rates and inflation in the early 1990s.

If you look at President Reagan’s accomplishments as President, the economy, the Cold War, getting three Conservatives on the Supreme Court. Sandra O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy. As well as appointing a Conservative to Chief Justice in William Renquist, all this alone makes Ronald Reagan one of the most successful conservative president’s we’ve ever had politically. As well as winning the presidency in a landslide, being reelected in a landslide, his Vice President George HW Bush succeeding him. 

Actually, I don’t know of a more successful Conservative President than Ronald Reagan politically. Dwight Eisenhower would be then only other one I would consider. As far as being able to get his policy’s put in place and having a positive record to show for them.

George W. Bush wasn’t a Classical Conservative, but a Neoconservative as President. With his borrow and spend fiscal policy and neoconservative foreign policy. To call Ronald Reagan perfect as President, you have to be either the president of his fan club and vowed to never say anything negative about him, or not have been alive during his presidency and never read, or seen anything about his presidency. 

Ronald Reagan was the most successful Republican President of the 20th Century, with only President Eisenhower would be someone I would consider. And that’s all the credit I’ll give him. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)