10/13/16
NRA

SEAL Dom Raso: ISIS Working With Cartels to Get Nuke Across Weak Border

Hat Tip: Patrick Kobler

On the same day The DOJ announced it would charge Sheriff Joe Arpaio over immigration patrols, veteran US Navy SEAL and NRATV Commentator Dom Raso released video commentary on how the weak policies of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other enabler politicians have left our southern border unprotected, creating an opportunity for ISIS to work with the Mexican cartels to smuggle a nuclear device into America. “If we refuse to even utter the words ‘radical Islamic terror,’ then, through our own inaction, we are enabling the slaughter of innocent people,” Raso says. “Nowhere is this issue more apparent than at our southern border.” To highlight his point, Raso references an article in Dabiq, ISIS’ magazine, that details a scenario where ISIS uses its billions of dollars to acquire a nuke through corrupt Pakistani officials and pays the cartels to sneak it in through the southern border into America. Speaking about politicians, Raso pulls no punches when talking about how they have comprised the safety of the American people: “all these politicians care about is what their friends in the international community think of them, the same international community that has been utterly devastated by ISIS.”

10/12/16
OilPrice.com

For How Long Can OPEC Talk Up Oil Prices?

Not a day passes without OPEC making oil and gas headlines, and today is surely no exception. Seemingly in lockstep with OPEC, the market is once again pacified on the promise that changes to the global oil supply glut are a’ comin’.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal quoted anonymous sources close to the matter who had it on good authority that the Saudi’s were willing to cut “up to” 400,000 barrels per day (and that they had planned to do so all along, with or without an OPEC agreement). We can assume this figure is off August or September levels, which are near-record highs for the oil-rich country.

Of course, there are 400,000 different possible production cut figures included in this “up to 400,000” range—including a big fat zero—so fundamentally speaking, like so much of the OPEC speak, this could mean nothing.

But this isn’t the first time OPEC chatter or supposition or guesswork has moved markets, and it won’t be the last. Because, as Oilprice contributor Rakesh Upadhyay pointed out back in August, just a month before the freeze was announced, fundamentals aren’t what’s driving the oil market—speculation is. And nothing feeds speculators like OPEC.

As Upadhyay wrote, “Though most analysts agreed that a production freeze was not going to alter the fundamentals, prices rose sharply, with the hedge funds adding record long positions,” as evidenced by the chart below, which shows what happened in February when OPEC cuts were on the table for Doha. Fundamentals didn’t change—the glut wasn’t easing—yet hedge funds and speculation on OPEC rumors drove up prices.

IMG URL: http://oilprice.com/images/tinymce/saap1.png

The hope quickly faded when the Doha meeting fell short of expectations, but prices continued to climb. Then, the market found new hope in the Vienna meeting. We then wondered—this time quite wistfully—if a freeze could… maybe, possibly… happen in that meeting over the summer, much in the same way one might hold onto hope that we might someday win the lotto. Our hopes were dashed yet again—but not before the market reflexively inched up again.

Soon after, Saudi comments, which indicated that a new spirit of cooperation among OPEC members might be taking shape, sending prices upward yet again. An unofficial meeting was announced. Algiers, they said. “Stabilize the market” they said (which can apparently be done with talk, rather than production cuts). Russia chimed in, vacillating between joining the “market stabilization” efforts and not. We asked ourselves, this time ever more cautiously, dare we hope again? Most thought not, but speculators threw caution to the wind, moving markets this way and that on almost a daily basis in response to every utterance regarding the freeze.

Then the announcement came that OPEC had reached a deal. The earth shook, moving markets again— this time by a large percentage—and this time backed up by a more tangible hope.

Meanwhile, the industry scrambled to make sense of what it all meant. How big would the cut be? Which members would do the cutting? How did Saudi Arabia and Iran reach any kind of consensus when they were worlds apart—on multiple fronts? And then there was the ultimate question that had every analyst from here to Venezuela furiously figuring and calculating and refiguring and recalculating: just how high could prices go?

Speculators continued to largely disregard the ins and outs of the deal, which were absent at the time, and we saw markets tick up happily in response.

When the size of the production cut—between 240,000 and 740,000 barrels per day—was announced, one could feel the weight of the disappointment within the industry overall. The analysts wanted more; wanted deeper. Most OPEC members had been scrambling to reach record high oil production leading up to the meeting, some successful. Given current production levels, the small cut was seen by most analysts as a mere token gesture that would do very little to address what most would agree is the reason behind the price “problem”—the global supply glut.

And further skepticism surfaced over the fact that no specific member had agreed to any specific cut—they just agreed that as a group, “they” would do some cutting—some months down the road—and that the “they” in that equation wouldn’t be Iran. And it wouldn’t be Nigeria. And it wouldn’t be Libya.

And still, amid all this ambiguity and mystery, and with some distant promise to shave a mere 240,000 barrels of oil per day off OPEC’s record production figures, oil climbed above $50 a barrel. Today, Brent is trading at $52.64, which is a 12-month high-a monumental swing on mere talk.

And sure, some minor fundamentals have changed, such as five weeks of crude oil inventory draws in the U.S., but those inventory numbers are still way too high. In reality, OPEC hasn’t actually done anything to ease the glut. They’ve just talked… about talking… two months from now. In fact, the only actions that OPEC has taken is to pump oil at record paces, adding to the glut, and hoping that speculators will lap up what they’re dishing out in rhetoric. That’s what OPEC is doing today.

So happy are the markets on this wispy nothingness, in fact, that some are suggesting the oil markets are poised for a major meltdown, as speculators buy up contracts that are equal to a year’s worth of U.S. consumption—amounts that can’t possibly be delivered and will be pushed off to next month’s contracts or cancelled. To put this in perspective, there are 480 million barrels of oil on order for delivery in November to Cushing, Oklahoma—a facility that is capable of handling only 50 million per month.

What will also be pushed aside are some other cold, hard facts, such as Libya’s production increases, or Iraq’s, or Iran’s, and how fundamentally, this means the remaining OPEC members would have to make deeper cuts to offset these increases and still meet the organization’s promised cut. Deeper cuts that could hurt whichever member is tasked with taking on this burden.

But to keep the market’s eye on the OPEC ball despite market saturation, the Algerian Energy Minister, desperate to save his country from an economic collapse, made yet another announcement on behalf of OPEC that the bloc would be willing to cut yet another 1% “if we need to” on top of the cuts proposed out of the meeting in Algiers, adding that there would be even more meetings forthcoming—the first of which will be in Istanbul on Oct 9-13, again, on the sidelines of another energy meeting, the World Energy Congress. But this time, the informal talks about the freeze will include non-OPEC Russia and non-OPEC Azerbaijan.

As Reuters reports, the meeting signals that OPEC “is more serious now about managing the global supply glut.” Russia apparently doesn’t share this perceived seriousness, with Russia’s Energy Minister Alexander Novak saying on Friday that he doesn’t expect to sign a deal with OPEC during this meeting. Just more talk.

And yet another meeting is scheduled in Vienna for October 28 and 29, according to OPEC sources, followed by a “long-term strategy” meeting on November 1-4, and a technical meeting again in Vienna on November 23 and 24, and possibly a follow-up meeting of the High Level Committee a day later on November 25. Finally, recommendations will be presented at the previously disclosed and much anticipated meeting on November 30.

That’s plenty of evenly spaced talk that is sure to keep OPEC in media headlines, and give the oil speculators something to play with until that time. After that, it’s anyone’s guess as to how long prices will hold, but it’s likely that regardless of the outcome of the 30 November recommendation meeting, OPEC will continue to feed the beast with talk—and the market will readily accept the handout, even if it’s in lieu of the fundamentals.

By Julianne Geiger for Oilprice.com

Link to original article: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/For-How-Long-Can-OPEC-Talk-Up-Oil-Prices.html

10/11/16
paris

Coming soon? ‘At least 15 youths’ attempt to burn police officers alive in Paris ‘no-go zone’

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

Viry-Chatillon (Essonne) on Saturday. Around 15 hours, two police cars that were on duty in front of the sensitive city of Great Borne, were assaulted by fifteen hooded individuals. DR Nicolas Goinard

“Viry-Chatillon (Essonne) on Saturday. Around 15 hours, two police cars that were on duty in front of the sensitive city of Great Borne, were assaulted by fifteen hooded individuals.” Nicolas Goinard

“After throwing in the cockpits of incendiary devices, attackers tried to block the doors to prevent passengers vehicles that caught fire out.” – Victim of “targeted attack,” Police officer Sébastien, who likely saved the life of his colleague who is now in an “artificial coma.

A gang of “youths” in La Grande Borne, “located in both the communes of Grigny and Viry-Châtillon,” considered to be a “no-go zone” in the southern suburbs of Paris, France, attacked four police officers with Molotov cocktails.

“No, this scene does not take place in Syria,” began the French news outlet Le Figaro (translated), who reported that the attack on police officers was “targeted violence.”

Read more here…

10/9/16
theenemieswithin

Trevor Loudon’s “Enemies Within” showings in Arizona

By: Trevor Loudon | New Zeal

14183894_638561582987121_691395144625082227_n

Come see Trevor Loudon and The Enemies Within, in Arizona this coming week.

  • Flagstaff, Monday October 10, Doubletree Inn, 1175 West Route 66, 6-9 pm.
  • Sedona, Tuesday October 11, Church of the Nazarene, 55 Rojo Drive, Village Oak Creek, 6.30-9 pm.
  • Glendale,  Wedneday October 12, American Legion, 9847 West Desert Cove Avenue, Peoria,  6-9 pm.

I hope to see you there!

10/8/16
juan

Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos awarded Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating with Marxist rebel group FARC

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

President Juan Manuel Santos

President Juan Manuel Santos

Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos won the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating for a “peace agreement” with Marxist terrorists FARC. The agreement would have given the murderous communist organization a pass for their many crimes and sickeningly, a seat in the Colombian government.

FARC “has killed more than 250,000 people and displaced thousands since 1964,” as reported at The Atlantic.

Thankfully, Colombians rejected the so-called “peace deal” by an alarmingly small margin earlier this month. Conservative former president Alvaro Uribe “led the ‘No’ campaign against the peace deal” as reported at the Chicago Tribune.

“My soul is not prepared to debate with criminals,” Álvaro Uribe was quoted as saying.

It is a shame that Alvaro Uribe did not win the Nobel Peace Prize. 

As reported at the Chicago Tribune,

“Colombians widely credit Uribe for forcing the rebels to the negotiating table by leading a U.S.-backed military offensive that pushed them to the edge of the jungle during his 2002-2010 presidency.”

Álvaro Uribe poses with supporters after the result of the referendum Photograph: STR/AFP/Getty Images

Álvaro Uribe poses with supporters after the result of the referendum Photograph: STR/AFP/Getty Images

The current president has quite a different approach than Alvaro Uribe. The NYT reported that Juan Manuel Santos “resisted calls for tough prison sentences for the FARC, saying that would push them away from the table and back to the war.”

Read more here…

10/8/16
american

Congratulations! Trevor is now a fellow at the Inter-American Institute

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

inter-american-institute

Inter-American Institute Logo

The board at the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought has elected Trevor Loudon as a “Fellow.” The Institute is headed by Olavo de Carvalho, a Brazilian philosopher and writer who “has been honored by critics as one of the most original and daring Brazilian thinkers.”

Olavo is featured in Trevor Loudon’s new film, the Enemies Within.

According to their website:

Founded in 2009, The Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought (IAI) is a non-profit research and educational organization whose purpose is:

• to conduct research into conceptual and historical questions that underlie public policy formulation and the discussion of political and scientific issues in academia,

• to promote the revitalization of the teaching and understanding of philosophy and social sciences based on the classical tradition of Western philosophy,

• and to foster the mutual collaboration and scholarly interchange between intellectuals, serious writers, political and social leaders of all nations of the Western hemisphere, but not excluding the rest of the world.

A larger goal is not only to build an international network of collegial relationships and alliances, but also stimulate strategic synergies by bringing such people and their resources together.

Please review their website, and support their efforts. These are the good guys.

10/7/16
cavuto

AIM Editor on Cavuto about Election Coverage Standards

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

cavuto

Accuracy in Media Editor Roger Aronoff was a guest on “Cavuto Coast to Coast” on September 30 on the Fox Business Network. The topic was the mainstream media’s double standard toward presidential candidates, and their willful pursuit of negative stories about Donald Trump while giving Hillary Clinton’s many scandals a pass.

Aronoff remarked on the show that he thought NBC anchor and recent debate moderator Lester Holt “got the message” from the mainstream media to go after Trump during the presidential debate. “If you watched the debate, he started out seemingly fairly innocuous and just trying to be down the middle,” said Aronoff. “But it turned into something where he went after Trump on several issues, and completely ignored Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton emails—all those things never got any kind of airing by Lester Holt.”

Aronoff called Hillary Clinton’s decision as secretary of state to send and receive classified information on an unsecured personal server a “national security scandal” and a disqualifier.

The media’s decision to treat Trump unfairly has been a consistent theme in recent months. “We had this article last month from Jim Rutenberg at The New York Times saying Trump poses such a unique potential danger as president that it’s okay to throw out journalistic standards,” said Aronoff. “Not that [these standards] really existed in recent elections, but that’s the argument.”

“But again, the standards have been thrown out for this one, and Trump is seen as so dangerous in their minds, that they don’t feel the standards are necessary, to try to be even appearing to be objective,” said Aronoff.

You can watch Aronoff’s recent appearance on “Cavuto Coast to Coast” here.

10/7/16
Trevor Loudon

#LoudonClear: Tonight’s Special Guest ‘James Simpson’ (Audio)

By: Trevor Loudon | New Zeal

TrevorConstitution2

On #LoudonClear Thursday night, Trevor Loudon hosted special guest “James Simpson,” who is well known for exposing the “Cloward-Pivon” strategy. James Simpson is the author of  “Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America” and is a fellow at the Center for Security Policy.

Trevor and Jim discuss the refugee resettlement program in America.

Listen:

10/6/16
vote

Planning Vote Fraud to “Elect” Hillary

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

vote

The liberal media insist that requiring a photo ID to vote is a racist plot by Republicans. Yet students have to go through a rigorous procedure to take the college admission test known as the SAT. Is that racist, too?

My son took the SAT recently and had to print out and take two pages of identification and requirements for test-taking. One page had a photo head shot and listings for birth date, sex, high school, registration number and location for the test center. When checking in, he had to produce another photo ID and the person checking him in had to compare the photo ID to the print-out and what he actually looked like checking in. The purpose is to make sure there is no cheating.

The “progressives” do not think it is necessary to check ID in this manner when free, fair and honest elections are at stake.

In a “Myth versus Fact” hand-out, the AFL-CIO, one of the “progressive” groups backing Hillary Clinton for president, says it is a “myth” that since “Photo IDs already are required for everything from boarding a plane to getting a library card,” that “It makes sense to require a picture ID for voting.” The giant labor federation counters: “FACT: Unlike boarding a plane or obtaining a library card, voting is a fundamental right, not a privilege. Over the course of history, groups on the margins of society have fought and sometimes died to protect the right to vote. Voting is crucial to our democracy.”

Think about the bizarre logic of this claim. Although voting is more important than getting a library card (or taking the SAT test), the AFL-CIO is saying that it is not as important to make sure the process is honest and fair. Hence, people should not have to prove who they are when voting. This odd view taken by the AFL-CIO doesn’t make any sense. Since people died to give us the right to vote, we should do everything possible to make sure the right is reserved for American citizens.

The AFL-CIO position can only be construed as an effort to weaken requirements for voting so that fraud can take place.

But why would the liberal-left have an incentive to commit fraud?

On the night of the vice-presidential debate, Robert Reich, who was secretary of labor under then-President Bill Clinton, sent a “Dear fellow MoveOn member” message to the left-wing group citing “some jaw-dropping statistics that you and I have to turn around.” He said, “Only 65% of Democrats say they’re sure they’ll vote this year—which is lower than it’s been in decades. And it’s eleven points lower than the 76% of Republicans who say they’re certain to vote.” He added, “With Hillary Clinton ahead by an average of just 3.7 points in the most recent polls, this gap in who plans to vote is more than large enough to cost Clinton the election.”

Since Hillary is not an inspiring candidate, the Democrats are clearly worried. Reich said “the hard reality is that this race could go either way depending on voter turnout. That’s why MoveOn’s massive voter turnout operation is so vital.”

The obvious way to commit fraud is to get non-citizens and others supporting the Clinton-Kaine ticket to vote in states which don’t require a photo ID.

The National Conference of State Legislatures says that only 34 states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls, and that 32 of these voter identification laws are in force in 2016.

Of the states requiring some form of identification, only seven require a photo I.D.

Conservative writer Cherylyn Harley LeBon notes that the SAT process went to the use of photo IDs and other requirements after an SAT cheating scandal in 2011 left students in Great Neck, New York facing criminal prosecution. Test-takers accepted money to impersonate other students. The imposters used fake IDs to gain entrance on exam day.

The ID Checklist for the SAT is now very specific. It says ID documents must meet all of these requirements:

  • Be a valid (unexpired) photo ID that is government-issued or issued by the school that you currently attend. School IDs from the prior school year are valid through December of the current calendar year. (For example, school IDs from 2015-16 can be used through December 31, 2016.)
  • Be an original document (not photocopied)
  • Bear your full, legal name exactly as it appears on your Admission Ticket, including the order of the names.
  • Bear a recent recognizable photograph that clearly matches both your appearance on test day and the photo on your Admission Ticket.
  • Be in good condition, with clearly legible English language text and a clearly visible photograph.

Comparing taking the SAT to voting, LeBon notes that the College Board, which administers the SAT, “quickly set up strong ID verification standards when their credibility was challenged. One would expect governments to be more willing to protect the integrity of every vote cast.”

Republicans have tried to meet this challenge. But the progressives and their allies have fought verification, integrity, honesty and fairness every step of the way. This is a story that should be told. Unfortunately, it is twisted by the media to make it seem like requiring an ID is racist. This phony charge is evidence that the progressives intend to manipulate the system and commit vote fraud. There is no other explanation.


Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected] View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.