Obama Administration to Britain: Drop Dead
I’ll say this much for the Obama Administration: They’re consistent. From the get go they’ve made it clear that longstanding American allies can expected to be taken for granted, insulted and, if convenient, dumped in favor of appeasement. Consequently this administrations decision to not support Britain, our closest ally, in its latest dispute with Argentina over the Falkland Islands shouldn’t come as surprise to anyone…
From the London Times:
Washington refused to endorse British claims to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands yesterday as the diplomatic row over oil drilling in the South Atlantic intensified in London, Buenos Aires and at the UN.
Despite Britain’s close alliance with the US, the Obama Administration is determined not to be drawn into the issue. It has also declined to back Britain’s claim that oil exploration near the islands is sanctioned by international law, saying that the dispute is strictly a bilateral issue…
~ ~ ~
Senior US officials insisted that Washington’s position on the Falklands was one of longstanding neutrality. This is in stark contrast to the public backing and vital intelligence offered by President Reagan to Margaret Thatcher once she had made the decision to recover the islands by force in 1982.
“We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality,” a State Department spokesman told The Times. “The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.”
This administrations actions are sad and shameful thing particularly when you contrast them with in unconditional support President Ronald Reagan offered to Margaret Thatcher in 1982 or that Prime Minister Tony Blair provided George W. Bush in the War on Terror. As Toby Young notes in the Daily Telegraph:
For this alliance to survive, both countries must recognise their obligations and, from time to time, that involves one of us setting aside more localised concerns for the sake of the cause. Tony Blair would have preferred it if President Bush had been prepared to wait for a second UN resolution before launching the invasion of Iraq, but he decided that Britain should follow America into battle nevertheless. He recognised that the preservation of the Atlantic alliance had to be prioritised above all else, both for our sake and the sake of the world.
In return, we naturally expect America to side with us when it comes to our own territorial disputes — and this element of quid pro quo was recognised by Ronald Reagan when he backed Margaret Thatcher in the Falklands War. It wasn’t in America’s regional interests to side with us, but Reagan knew the terms of the deal: It was your country, right or wrong. You don’t abandon your closest ally in her hour of need.
So it is truly shocking that Barack Obama has decided to disregard our shared history and insist that we have to fight this battle on our own. Does Britain’s friendship really mean so little to him? Do the sacrifices Britain has made in defence of the Atlantic alliance count for nought? Who does he think will replace us as America’s steadfast ally when she finds herself embroiled in a territorial dispute of her own — possibly with the very same motley crew of Latin American rabble rousers? Spain? Italy? France? Good luck with that, Mr President.
Shame on you , Mr. President, shame. This Administration, in the name of neutrality, has chosen to side with the aggressive, corrupt Argentine government of Christina Fernandez de Kirchner… A government that is being supported and encouraged by Hugo Chavez and that is threatening to blockade British territory.
We can not let this outrage stand. Call the White House, call your Senators, call your Representatives and tell them that We The People will not allow this administration to throw away the United State’s longstanding special relationship with our closest ally.
Related
- Trouble Brewing in South Atlantic Over Control of Falklands – Ray Walser, The Heritage Foundation
- Obama votes present on whether the Falklands belong to Britain – AllahPundit, Hot Air
Sierra Hotel! The Gang of 20 Folds!
The Hill is reporting that Lindsey Graham and his gang of wimps have folded… For now anyway.
A bipartisan group of senators who sought a compromise in the rancorous energy debate won’t introduce their bill before lawmakers adjourn for the elections, several Senate aides said Thursday.
Instead, the so-called Gang of 20 will offer a statement of principals outlining their agreement on a host of divisive issues, including expanded offshore drilling. They plan to offer legislation once the political season has ended, according to an aide to a Democrat involved in the discussions. The aide said that the election-year environment has poisoned the atmosphere and hampered the chances of passing a bill on such a controversial campaign topic.
I guess we can breathe a sigh of relief that their sham energy bill won’t be coming up for a vote before the November elections. The bill would have imposed higher taxes on oil companies and limited new drilling to select areas while cementing the current temporary drill ban into statute for the rest of the country.
I’ve said this before and it bears repeating: Like it or not oil is the life blood of our economy and its high time we faced that reality and started to exploit our domestic oil and natural gas reserves.
Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin
Back to the 70’s
Everything old is new again or here we go again… Back to the 70’s. Every time I listen to democrats in talk about energy policy I feel I’ve been transported back to the 1970’s.
Admittedly some of of their suggestions like making sure your tires are properly inflated or getting regular tuneups are basic commonsense things that most of us do anyway. That’s not what worries me it’s thing like Barack Obama’s “windfall profits” tax on oil company’s and their complete refusal to talk about domestic oil drilling that worry me.
It’s time to face reality:
- Conservation alone is not going to solve our energy problems.
- Alternatives like Biofuels have their own pitfalls. Principle among them is that they’re helping drive up global food prices.
Like it or not oil is the life blood of our ecconomy and it’s high time we faced reality and started to expliot domestic reserves.
Ho-hum…
I’ve been digging around looking for something interesting to blog about over the past few days and so far I’ve come up dry. I could write about Barack Obama’s world tour but that’s been done to death and frankly I can’t think of anything hasn’t already been said. So I thought rather than leaving you with “dead air” for another day or two I’d share a few must reads with you.
The first two are from today’s Wall Street Journal:
The Greatest Scandal, Wall Street Journal, July 28, 2008
The profound failure of inner-city public schools to teach children may be the nation’s greatest scandal. The differences between the two Presidential candidates on this could hardly be more stark. John McCain is calling for alternatives to the system; Barack Obama wants the kids to stay within that system. We think the facts support Senator McCain. Read the rest…
Docking Paychecks for Politics, Wall Street Journal, July 28, 2008
The mighty Service Employees International Union (SEIU) plans to spend some $150 million in this year’s election, most of it to get Barack Obama and other Democrats elected. Where’d they get that much money? Read the rest…
The Second two are from today’s New York Sun:
The Tipping Point, By Michael Barone, Creators Syndicate Inc. July 28, 2008
Sometimes public opinion doesn’t flow smoothly; it shifts sharply when a tipping point is reached. Case in point: gas prices. $3 a gallon gas didn’t change anybody’s mind about energy issues. $4 a gallon gas did. Evidently, the experience of paying more than $50 for a tankful gets people thinking we should stop worrying so much about global warming and the environmental dangers of oil wells on the outer continental shelf and in Alaska. Drill now! Nuke the caribou! Read the rest…
Thinking About the Dollar, By Martain Feldstein, Project Syndicate, July 28, 2008
How much further will the dollar fall? Or has it already fallen so far that it will now start to move back to a higher level? Read the rest…
And finally from the American Thinker:
The Operative Term is ‘Hubris’, By J.R. Dunn
He has a seat on his campaign aircraft marked “president”. He has taken a shot at creating his own presidential seal, complete with Latin motto. He has laid claim to personal control over the world’s oceans and seas. He has repeatedly attempted to dictate how and on what level he, his ideas, and his activities may be discussed. He has encouraged a portrayal of himself as a messianic figure, including a portrait of himself as Christ, complete with halo. He is even now completing a triumphant grand tour of the old world, during which he attempted to shanghai an ancient monument for personal use without consulting the host government. Read the rest…
It’s About Time…
Finally!
We’re finally starting to see some signs of life from the Bush administration and republicans in congress. Unfortunately, what we’re seeing is another half measure… I’m all for increasing domestic oil production and building new refineries, but those measures won’t have a significant short term impact on the price we pay at the pump.
It’s the dollar stupid!
Since 2001 the value of the dollar versus foreign currencies has declined to the point where we ought to start calling it the American Pesso, seriously, it’s the weak dollar more than anything else that is driving up the price of oil and other commodities.
If the president and congress were really interested in bringing down the prices we at the pump, or in the supermarket for that matter, in the short term they’d be talking about strengthening the dollar not arguing about whether we should drill domestically or not.
Just my two cents.
Congress To Blame For High Oil Prices?
That’s what Mackubin Thomas Owens says in an OpEd piece in today’s Wall Street Journal.
Gasoline prices are through the roof and Americans are angry. Someone must be to blame and the obvious villain is “Big Oil” with its alleged ability to gouge consumers and achieve unconscionable, “windfall” profits. Congress is in a vile mood, and has dragged oil industry executives before its committees for show trials, issuing predictable threats of punishment, e.g. a “windfall profits tax.”
But if there is a villain in all of this, it is Congress itself. That venerable body has made it impossible for U.S. producers of crude oil to tap significant domestic reserves of oil and gas, and it has foreclosed economically viable alternative sources of energy in favor of unfeasible alternatives such as wind and solar. In addition, Congress has slapped substantial taxes on gasoline. Indeed, as oil industry executives reiterated in their appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 21, 15% of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits.
Read the rest… It’s well worth your Time.
Gas Prices and Politics
The only thing worse than a trip to the gas pump these days is listening to John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama talk about energy policy. John McCain and Hillary Clinton both say they’ll bring us relief at the pump with a temporary moratorium on the 18.4 cent per gallon federal gas tax. To his credit Barack Obama opposes the moratorium idea as a political stunt but supports a 1970s style windfall profits tax on oil companies (as does Clinton).
Never mind that the federal government already takes 35% right off the top with the corporate income tax, Barack Obama wants to slap and additional tax on what he calls “excess profits”. What exactly are excess profits? As far as I know a business is supposed to turn a profit and theres no limit on how large that profit can be. But that’s neither here nor there, the real issue is this…
If our elected leaders really wanted bring down the price of gas and stimulate the economy they’d be talking about tapping domestic energy supplies both off shore and in Alaska, reducing the corporate tax rate and strengthening the dollar. They wouldn’t be talking about cheap political stunts or reviving failed policies from the 1970s.
Lets not forget windfall profit taxes have been tried before and they ended up reducing domestic oil production and increasing imports*… Exactly what we don’t want.
*The Wall Street Journal, “Windfall Profits for Dummies” May 3, 2008, Page A10: “The Congressional Research Service found in a 1990 analysis that the tax reduced domestic oil production by 3% to 6% and increased oil imports from OPEC by 8% to 16%”.
Loading ...