BloggeRhythms

Yesterday, in an article @wnd.com, Pat Buchanan summed up current political trends in nations around the globe. Particularly noting the shift away from globalization to a nationalistic focus almost throughout.  

Example cited included, the British who’ve voted to secede from the European Union. The French, who appear to be following suit regarding nationalism, while next Sunday, Italy holds a referendum on constitutional reforms backed by Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. 

Other nations involved in the trend include, Holland, Turkey, and Germany where: “In welcoming Muslim immigrants, Germany’s Angela Merkel no longer speaks for Europe, even as she is about to lose her greatest ally, Barack Obama."

Elsewhere: “Early this year, Brazil’s Senate voted to remove leftist President Dilma Rousseff, while “Venezuela, endowed with more oil than almost any country on earth, is now, thanks to the Castroism of Hugo Chavez and successor Nicolas Maduro, close to collapse and anarchy.”

At the same time: “South Korean President Park Geun-hye, her approval rating in single digits, is facing impeachment and prosecution for corruption.” 

“The point: Not only is the Cold War over, the post-Cold War is over. We are living in a changed and changing world. Regimes are falling. Old parties are dying, new parties rising. Old allegiances are fraying, and old allies drifting away.” 

Pat concludes that: “Not only Europe but the whole world President-elect Trump is about to inherit seems in turmoil, with old regimes and parties losing their hold, and nationalist, populist and rightist forces rising.” 

To all that, reader wootend, responded: “The whole world President-elect Trump is about to inherit seems in turmoil..." 

The globalist elites are in a turmoil. Everyone else is just fine.” 

And judging by reactions of Trump’s successful coalition of very pleased supporters who put him in office, reader wootend is absolutely right.  

The next item provides a simple and clear example of the old phrase "no matter whose ox is gored," which basically means, making a decision without being influenced as to which side might be damaged. 
 
In  today’s case, according to FoxNews.com: “Charlie Hurt of the Washington Times said on “Special Report with Bret Baier” Monday that it would be “terrible” for Hillary Clinton’s future to get too involved with Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s push for a recount of votes in key battleground states. 

“I understand the Clintons are begrudgingly going along with this, but there is some sort of chatter among top staffers about really being fully behind it, said Hurt. “Why would you go along with this at all? I think it's terrible for her.” 

However, it seems that Mr. Hurt is looking at only one side of the equation whereas, millions upon millions of Trump constituents couldn’t be happier that another embarrassment's taking place for Bill’s wife as she most assuredly will now have lost twice in the same election. Once at the polls, and then again in the headlines. 

Then, Mr. Hurt then took the issue further by explaining that ”the latest ballot controversy is a throwback to the 2000 election. 

“Of course now you have voters who in 2000 were told that all the problems were caused by paper ballots and now apparently all the electronic ballots are the problem.” 
 
And thereby, Mr. Hurt has defined the issue clearly for all, by underlining the point that the common denominator causing both losses was, obviously, the candidate herself.  

On another favorite topic, oil prices, there seems to be inner turmoil at OPEC while Iran, Iraq and Russia are free agents adding further price confusion and reductions. 

As reported by By Ahmad Ghaddar and Vladimir Soldatkin @ca.news.yahoo.com via Drudge: “Iran and Iraq are resisting pressure from Saudi Arabia to curtail oil production, making it hard for the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to reach a deal to limit output and boost the price of crude when it meets on Wednesday. 

“OPEC sources told Reuters a meeting of experts in Vienna on Monday failed to bridge differences between OPEC's de facto leader, Saudi Arabia, and the group's second- and third-largest producers over the mechanics of output cuts. 

"We will leave the level of production (where) we decided in Algeria," Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh told reporters upon arrival in Vienna, effectively signaling he was not prepared to reduce output.” 

As a result, "Brent crude was down more than 4 percent, near $46 a barrel, after the Indonesian and Iranian comments, while some analysts including Morgan Stanley and Macquarie have said oil prices will correct sharply if OPEC fails to reach a deal, potentially going as low as $35 per barrel. 

“Goldman Sachs, one of the most active banks in oil trading, said on Tuesday it saw prices averaging $45 a barrel until mid-2017 even without any OPEC deal and added the market was likely to move into a deficit in the second half of 2017. 

“A year ago, Goldman was saying a global glut would push oil prices to around $20. Prices fell to multi-year lows of $27 per barrel in January 2016.” 

The particular subject is one that gets close attention here, because so many other aspects of the economy are affected by oil price performance. As oil becomes more expensive, that tightens consumer budgets, leaving less to spend on other necessities (food, clothing, shelter,) while also eliminating discretionary spending for many all together.    

Although planning to address further issues, such as the fact that price increases also invite additional competition for providers as frackers and other alternatives become more viable, readers again did the job quite handily, as usual. 

Reader Raymond Knight stated: “Doesn't really matter what they agree upon. In a couple of months Trump will be President and he will turn on the oil and gas tap in the US and it will be all over for OPEC.” 

Reader Nobody, added: “Go ahead - cut your outputs to raise the prices. Idiots - the higher you raise prices, the more "viable" you make our frackers. . .and our own oil production. . .jobs that can't be outsourced. So ge'head. .. do it. Better for us. . .better for Americans and American jobs.

John followed with: “Drill baby drill. Let them kill themselves selling oil. We have enough to supply ourselves for centuries. But we can buy theirs cheap.”

And lastly, Matamoros, succinctly noted: “We have our own oil. To hell with the Middle East.”

And while all this goes on specifically concerning oil production, the administration is working feverishly to further strengthen its environmental agenda, as reported by Bob King and Nick Juliano @politico.com, who write that while the Interior Department has failed to release a long-awaited rule to protect streams from coal mining pollution — and indications are it might never issue it, the EPA is another story altogether. 

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy wrote agency employees the day after the Nov. 8 election, stating: “As I've mentioned to you before, we're running — not walking — through the finish line of President Obama's presidency. Thank you for taking that run with me. I'm looking forward to all the progress that still lies ahead." 

“As many as 98 final regulations under review at the White House as of Nov. 15 could be implemented before Trump takes office. Seventeen regulations awaiting final approval are considered “economically significant,” with an estimated economic impact of at least $100 million a year. 

“Immediately after the election, EPA took preliminary steps toward regulating methane releases from oil and natural gas production — even though Trump’s win means that the overall effort to rein in the potent greenhouse gas is most likely doomed. In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service released the final version of updated rules governing almost 1,700 oil and gas wells inside national wildlife refuges, and the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management released a major rule on leases for wind and solar projects on federal land. 

“Interior also released a final rule to limit fracking-related methane pollution on public lands a week after the election, prompting oil industry groups to file a lawsuit within minutes. And by Dec. 1, EPA faces a court-ordered deadline to propose a rule requiring companies that mine for minerals like gold and silver to demonstrate they can afford to clean up any pollution they cause. EPA is also awaiting White House approval for a rule governing emergency preparedness at chemical plants, in response to incidents such as a deadly 2013 fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas. 

“Less likely to emerge by year-end is a long-in-the-works Interior Department effort to update the so-called stream protection rule, a 1983 coal mining regulation designed to prevent water pollution from coal mining. Though the administration appears to be on the cusp of finishing the update, fierce opposition from Trump and GOP leaders means it would be a certain target for a Congressional Review Act repeal.” 

Thus, the primary purpose of these efforts is to pursue, create and present legislation that has little to no chance of passage by the incoming administration or Congress. It also most certainly has costs involved simply to produce it. 

Which makes one wonder why individuals who claim to have the nation’s citizens best interests at heart, do they do everything they can to cost them dearly by continually engaging in excessively costly fool’s errands? 

That’s it for today folks. 

Adios