BloggeRhythms

Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor @thetimes.co.uk, writes: “Global oil prices could fall as low as $20 per barrel next year, as Opec’s decision to abandon a formal production quota exacerbates a bulging supply glut.” 

The short paragraph, spurs considerable thought regarding how much damage could have been done to the free-world’s greatest enemies, had wrong-headed environmentalists not disrupted oil production in the U.S. 

Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia derive much, if not all, of their income from the exportation of oil. In Saudi Arabia’s case specifically, that nation now shows it will do whatever’s needed to maintain market share, including lowering prices until others are forced to abandon the market. Which means that Russia and Iran in particular, will face huge income losses, significantly restricting their ability to fund aggression and/or terrorism. 

The saddest part of it all, is that although the significantly harmful effects of lost revenue are beginning to occur for those hostile nations now, the process could have been working for the past seven years. Had U.S. oil production not been hamstrung by misguided, bought and paid for, politicians. Up to and including the POTUS.    

On another issue, foxnews.com’s Chris Stirewalt  posted an interesting item on Monday, questioning the POTUS’s crusade for gun control measures, as follows:

“Three years ago, Obama promised to do “everything in [his] power” to end mass shootings. He also made clear that he saw regulations on firearms the cornerstone of that effort.

It hasn’t worked. There have been more people killed in mass shootings in the three years since that speech than in the three years before the slaughter that precipitated it. Even many Democrats have ignored the president’s call for new gun laws.”

Then Mr. Stirewalt went to the heart of the matter, writing: “Part of the problem has been that the laws proposed – particularly the demand for background checks on private sales – would not have prevented the Newtown, Conn. school massacre or many, if any, of the subsequent killings.”

Yet, for one as concerned as the POTUS claims he is about the dangers of guns in the hands of the public, why doesn’t he care about how many dangers to society cross the Mexican border unbridled and unchecked each and every day? That certainly poses cause for wonder.  

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

As the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was unfolding, a high-ranking Pentagon official urgently messaged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s top deputies to offer military help, according to an email obtained by Judicial Watch. 

The revelation appears to contradict testimony Defense Secretary Leon Panetta gave lawmakers in 2013, when he said there was no time to get forces to the scene in Libya, where four Americans were killed, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens. 

“I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton],” reads the email, from Panetta’s chief of staff Jeremy Bash. “After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.” 

This latest revelation confirms that, slowly but surely, the Benghazi story’s unfolding, illustrating why the administration stone-walled so hard to prevent fact disclosure.

This newly released material from Judicial Watch, which includes specific State and Defense Department actions contradicting previous testimony, provides critical details. Here’s a link:   http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-benghazi-email-shows-dod-offered-state-department-forces-that-could-move-to-benghazi-immediately-specifics-blacked-out-in-new-document/

The revelations also lead to the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?

That’s it for today folks.

Adios