Robert Amsterdam on Vladimir Putin: "A man who has stolen this much does not have the luxury of very many retirement hiding places"

This man "who has ruled for this long and stolen this much does not have the luxury of very many retirement hiding places".

Vladimir Putin is tightening his authoritarian grip on power. The Putin regime's mask is beginning to slip off  and Putin is beginning to place less and less importance on appearance and tokens of legitimacy. 

Robert Amsterdam's analysis is well worth reading. 
Here is an excerpt: 

"As for the reputation hit outside of Russia, Putin seems to care less and less.  Although he recently bought a £15 million mansion in Spain, it seems unlikely he will ever be able to spend any time there.  A man who has ruled for this long and stolen this much does not have the luxury of very many retirement hiding places". 

The U.S. should not waste money on ineffective wind energy - There is more than enough of shale gas

The question Americans should now ask themselves: Why waste money and resources on inefficient, expensive, bird and bat killing, landscape destroying wind energy - when there is more than enough of cheap and clean shale gas available? (And solar power is in many ways comparable to wind energy).

There's been plenty of debate over the Marcellus Shale natural gas field, but new research adds a twist that could impact political and environmental battles. Two independent financial firms say the Marcellus isn't just the biggest natural gas field in the country — it's the cheapest place for energy companies to drill.

One of the reports adds that the Marcellus reserves that lie below parts of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and New York are far larger than recent government estimates, while another said the powerful combination of resource, cost and location is altering natural gas prices and market trends across the nation.

The Marcellus could contain "almost half of the current proven natural gas reserves in the U.S," a report from Standard & Poor's issued this week said.

Another recent report from ITG Investment Research, a worldwide financial firm based in New York, found that a detailed analysis of Marcellus well production data suggested that federal government estimates of its reserves "are grossly understated," according

The new information increases the likelihood that natural gas will be used for more and more energy needs, such as city buses, industrial use, and electric power generation, according to Manuj Nikhanj, the head of Energy Research at ITG. And though low wholesale prices have squeezed drilling companies' revenue, the S&P report says the Marcellus has the lowest production cost of any natural gas field in the nation, adding to the likelihood of a continued boom.

"The amount of resource that's available at relatively low cost is fairly enormous," Nikhanj said.

The Marcellus is a gas-rich formation thousands of feet below much of the four states, but current production is centered in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

Earlier this year, the federal Energy Information Administration sharply lowered its estimates of Marcellus reserves, from 410 trillion cubic feet down to 141 trillion cubic feet. That adjustment was widely reported, including by The Associated Press.

But that lowered estimate doesn't correspond with actual well production, said Nikhanj. He said their analysis shows that the Marcellus contains about 330 trillion cubic feet of gas, more than double the size of the next largest field in the nation, the Eagle Ford in south Texas.

Some financial firms and critics of gas drilling had suggested that the EIA estimates supported theories that Marcellus production might decline more rapidly than expected, and thus be far less profitable for energy companies. But Nikhanj said a review of actual Marcellus well data shows that on average they're producing more gas than expected, not less.

Read the entire article here

Karl Lagerfeld tells the truth about Francoise Hollande

A proud idiot?

This week's prize for the best European political statement goes to Paris/based German fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld, who was not afraid to speak out in an interview with the Spanish edition of Marie-Claire. 

This is what Lagerfeld had to say about president Francois Hollande, who has decided to punish those with an income exceeding one million euros with a 75% tax:

"This idiot will be as disastrous as Zapatero," Lagerfeld said, referring to Spanish former prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero whose term witnessed the country's economic bust.

"Hollande hates the rich. That is disastrous. He wants to punish them and obviously they will flee and no one will invest."

Lagerfeld, the quirky creative director of French fashion house Chanel, also took a swipe at French products, saying they were not marketable.

"Apart from fashion, jewellery, perfumes and wine France is not competitive," he said.

"The other products do not sell. Who buys French cars? Not me," he added.

Lagerfeld's characterisation of the socialist Hollande immediately was condemned by the president's former companion - and former unsuccesful socialist presidential candidate - Segolene Royal, who demanded that the designer must apologize immediately (which he of course will not do).

Meanwhile, French high-earners have began voting with their feet. In the UK, Prime Minister David Cameron and London mayor Boris are rolling out the red carpet for the departing French:

Francois Hollande, the French president, faced significant criticism last week for his plans to hike taxes further on the so-called "super-rich." In protest, a number of high-profile French high-earners have announced that they will move abroad to avoid the new punitive rates.

As the French deficit ballooned in recent years, the question of how to balance the budget has taken center stage in French politics. Hollande's proposed 2013 budget includes a 75 percent tax rate for anyone earning over 1 million Euros ($1.6 million) a year. In addition, Hollande is also planning to raise the annual wealth tax and the capital-gains rate, as well.

How attractive will these eye-watering tax hikes make the French economy? Are they more a reflection of a deeper hostility towards personal initiative and wealth creation than a viable solution for the deficit?

As the budget winds its way through the French parliament, high-earners have already begun voting with their feet. Successful business people, musicians, comedians and athletes have given up life in the City of Lights in favor of the fiscal stability of neighboring countries such as Switzerland. Even Britain has gotten into the game, with Prime Minister David Cameron offering to roll out a red carpet for those departing French looking for a new home, and London's idiosyncratic mayor, Boris Johnson, announcing that he was keen to welcome any talented French people who wanted to settle in his city. In office only five months, Hollande is facing challenges on all sides. After campaigning on the platform of returning a "normal" presidency to France after the manic years of his predecessor, Nicolas Sarkozy, Hollande quickly began experimenting with far-left policies soon after his arrival in the Elysee Palace.

The SchuBarRom trio will pick up the Nobel Peace Prize

The SchuBarRom trio with two soloists and a silent singer

The European Union has again showed its extraordinary ability to arrive at a common position on important issues: 

The EU has choreographed an elaborate solution to the conundrum of who should pick up its Nobel peace prize.

Under the plan, agreed in the margins of an EU summit in Brussels on Thursday (18 October), European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso and EU Council head Herman Van Rompuy will accept the gong and make speeches at the gala in Oslo in December.

European Parliament chief Martin Schulz will go with them but will not speak.

For Van Rompuy it must have been a major concession to allow Barroso to accompany him in Oslo - and vice versa. And for both of the unelected "presidents" it must haven been an ultimate concession to allow Martin Schulz to accompany them. However, they were at least able to keep the only democratically elected representative quiet - very much in keeping with best EU traditions. 

PS

And isn't it nice that Haiku Herman has tweeted about how welcome the EU Heads of State and Governments are as applauding audience!

Herman Van Rompuy ‏@euHvR

To mark this joyful occasion I hope all EU Heads of State or Government will be able to join celebrations in Oslo in December#euco #EUnobel

Donna Laframboise: " IPCC is filled with environmental activists"

Alarmist mainstream media continue to portrait the IPCC as a body made up of the world's top scientists and experts. Donna Lafromboise, the Toronto based investigative journalist, has found out that the reality looks somewhat different:


So what did Laframbois find? Yes, “a number of talented and experienced scientists have indeed helped to write IPCC reports over the years. The problem is that many other IPCC authors don’t come close to being leading scientists at the top of their profession,” said Laframbois to the crowd made up of many geologists, geophysicists and astrophysicists.
On the screen, Laframbois flashed the photos of three “20-somethings,” who were lead authors and even co-ordinating lead authors of entire chapters of the IPCC Climate Bible that directs the governments of 185 countries into actions like raising gasoline prices, imposing carbon taxes and the like.
Richard Klein, for instance, was 23 in 1992 when he completed his master’s degree in geography and worked as a Greenpeace campaigner. Two years later, he was a lead author for the IPCC. Since 1994, he has been a lead author for six IPCC reports, and beginning in 1997, he was promoted to co-ordinating lead author — the IPCC’s most senior author role — at the age of 28. “That’s six years prior to him completing his PhD. Neither his youth nor his thin academic credentials prevented the IPCC from regarding him as one of the world’s top experts,” she said.
Laurens Bouwer was a lead author for the IPCC in 1999-2000, BEFORE earning his master’s degree in 2001.
The most egregious example is Sari Kovats. In 1994, Kovats was one of 21 people “in the entire world selected to work on the first IPCC chapter” looking into the affects of climate change on human health.
But she wasn’t anywhere near being one of the world’s top scientists or experts in her field. Indeed, she didn’t publish her first academic paper until three years after she acted as an “expert” and she didn’t earn her PhD until 2010 — a whopping 16 years after being tagged as one of the top 21 experts in the world.
And it gets worse. The IPCC is filled with environmental activists, not objective scientists measuring data and coming to conclusions.
Among a list of people she cites, Laframbois notes that Jennifer Morgan spent several years as the World Wildlife Fund’s chief spokesperson on climate change and then in 2010 the IPCC appointed her “to work on a report it describes as objective, rigorous and balanced.”
Indeed, two-thirds of the chapters of the IPCC’s Assessment Report 4 included at least one WWF affiliated scientist. Two-thirds! Laframbois calls that a “full-scale invasion.”


Read the entire article here

Obama's "reset" policy with dictator Putin's Russia is a huge failure

In a long line of Obama presidency failures, the "reset" policy with dictator Putin's empire is beginning to stand out. "A pale of repression" is settling over Russia and "although the crackdown is wrapped in legislative garb", "the iron grip of authoritarianism is unmistakable" according to Ariel Cohen, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation:

Vladimir Putin’s tightening of the screws is a part of a broader pattern, which includes a return to confrontation with the United States and NATO. The United States must specifically recognize that its “reset” policy of see no evil, hear no evil has contributed to the trampling of human rights in Russia.

Moscow is cozying up to China, supporting the Assad regime in Syria and ignoring the Iranian nuclear race. The Kremlin is hard at work to create a sphere of influence along its periphery and a “pole” in the multipolar world that would stand up to Washington.

Recent developments have an unmistakably flavor of the 1920s and 1930s, when the Soviets sent people the Gulag simply for who they were, not for what they did. For example, the Cheka — the grandfather of Russia’s security service, the F.S.B — preventively arrested those of noble descent or with relatives abroad.

-
The recent legislative developments have severe geopolitical implications. Putin is implementing a “Fortress Russia” policy, which is based on repression at home and confrontation abroad. It is used to justify a $700 billion military buildup.

The Obama administration “reset” needs a serious reassessment, and so does the overall relationship with Russia. America should pursue its national interests in relations with Moscow, instead of chasing a feel-good mirage.

Washington should work to advance individual rights, democracy and free media through public diplomacy and pinpointed support of worthy causes. Washington should cooperate with those along the Russian periphery and in Europe who are concerned about the growth of Russia’s sphere of influence. Finally, the United States and its allies should engage international organizations, expert communities, mass and social media to counter the crackdown in Russia.

It is preferable to engage now, before the specter of a more authoritarian Russia once again haunts Europe — and the world.

Read the entire New York Times article here

PS

Cohen is of course right about Putin's Russia. However, it is not likely that Barack Obama has the courage to change his failed "reset" policy. The only chance to reset the "reset" is to refuse him a second term. 

How the Obama team got some help from moderator Crowley

Barack Obama clearly got some help from moderator Candy Crowley during last night's debate:

In response to a question about the assault, Obama said he had called it an "act of terror" during remarks the next day in the Rose Garden, and Crowley vouched for him.

Romney was visibly surprised by the president's answer and appeared to believe he'd caught the president in a lie.

“You said in the Rose Garden, the day after the attack it was an act of terror? It was not a spontaneous demonstration? Is that what you're saying?” Romney said. “I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”

"Get the transcript," Obama replied.

Crowley then broke in, saying: “He did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror …”

“Can you say that a little louder, Candy?” Obama shouted.

“He — he did call it an act of terror," Crowley said as some in the audience applauded. "It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that,” Crowley said.

The transcript of the president's speech from the day after the attack in Libya shows that Obama used the phrase "act of terror" during his remarks, albeit indirectly. 

At least to this viewer, Crowley's instant confirmation of what Obama said was somewhat surprising. 

Here is probably why she responded so quickly, without any hesitation and why the president also immediately spoke about the transcript and urged Crowley to "say it a little louder":

The Obama team knew that Romney would raise the Libya question during the debate, which is why they most likely sent a copy of the Rose Garden transcript to Crowley before the debate.