Pajamas Media correspondent, Aaron Hanscom, reports dreary prospects for Spain and Europe in general. Though his affirmation that America holds the moral high ground in a war against Islamic terrorists is a nice breeze of fresh air.

Europe in Denial: Lessons Learned in Spain

Although Écija was the first great city of the Iberian Peninsula to be occupied by medieval Muslim invaders, its physical layout strikes the casual observer as a rebuke to present-day Islamists intent on reclaiming all of historic Al-Ándalus. Requests from Spanish Muslims to pray in the Cordoba Cathedral seem laughable after observing the towers of Écija’s Baroque churches looming triumphantly over the Andalusian whitewashed houses.

Alas, my prolonged stays in Spain have taught me that the continent’s impressive outward appearances—massive cathedrals, a strong euro, great cheese—obscure a hollowness at its core. The truth is that Europe’s churches are largely empty; its welfare economies are unsustainable; and—most troublingly— its restive Muslim minorities seem unappeasable.

[...]

But Miguel wasn’t prepared to call certain Western values superior to radical Islamic values. When I asked him if we could agree to condemn honor killings (a practice spreading across Europe), he said no. Even when I pointed to his three beautiful daughters and reminded him that forced female genital mutilation was regularly practiced in many Muslim countries, he shrugged as if to say “that’s just the way they do things over there.”

From the Baltimore Sun: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.russia14jan14,0,5753647.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

Russia tightens grip on energy reserves

Kremlin pushes out foreign developers as it seeks control over oil, natural gas

By Alex Rodriguez

Originally published January 14, 2007

MOSCOW // Russian authorities have never been known for their eco-friendliness, but late last year inspectors swooped down on the vast Kovykta natural gas field in east Siberia and came away with a long list of alleged misdeeds, including excavation violations and illegal logging.

Few in Russia, however, believe that the government has suddenly gone green.

Kovykta is Russia's largest natural gas field, storing enough natural gas to keep the world's largest energy consumer, the U.S., supplied for two years.

And while its 1.9 trillion cubic meters of gas are being developed by joint venture involving British Petroleum, Kovykta is seen as the Kremlin's next move in a methodical campaign to elbow foreign oil majors aside and commandeer the country's energy sector.

A consortium led by Royal Dutch Shell once oversaw the world's largest oil and natural gas development project, an energy venture called Sakhalin 2 in the Russian Far East. But after relentless pressure from Russian authorities that included a series of environmental inspections and a permit revocation, the consortium buckled and sold a majority stake to Russia's state-owned natural gas monopoly, Gazprom, for $7.45 billion.

The Dec. 21 sale was viewed as a milestone in the Kremlin's quest for energy sector dominance and a sobering message to foreign oil companies that their role in developing Russia's vast energy wealth will be second-tier.

Analysts say Kovykta, being developed by BP and its Russian partner, TNK, is next in line. Russian environmental inspectors have asked prosecutors to begin acting on their findings, and a Russian agency that governs subsoil natural resources licensing will decide this year whether to revoke TNK-BP's license on the grounds that it isn't producing the levels of natural gas it initially promised.

"TNK-BP is in a situation where they just don't have much of a choice," says Nadezhda Kazakova an analyst with MDM Bank in Moscow. "With energy sector revenue now linked to the state, it's hard to see how the state will let [Kovykta] go."

Russia once desperately sought the involvement of foreign oil majors in its energy sector. After the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia's shaky economic outlook forced the Kremlin to bring in international oil giants like Shell to develop difficult-to-reach oil and natural gas deposits.

As an enticement, the Kremlin under Boris N. Yeltsin signed so-called production sharing agreements that set restrictions on how much of the profit would be set aside for the state.

Under President Vladimir V. Putin, the Kremlin has adopted a radically different energy strategy that calls for state dominance over oil and natural gas, collectively the engine behind the Russian economy. Putin's approach allows foreign oil majors to bring their capital and technical know-how to Russia, but their holdings in Russian energy ventures should be limited to minority stakes.

With Sakhalin 2 firmly in the Kremlin's grip, observers say, authorities are turning their attention toward Kovykta.

Rosprirodnadzor, Russia's environmental watchdog agency, has accused TNK-BP of illegally piling mounds of fill onto the banks of the Lena River and unauthorized logging. The agency has asked Russian prosecutors to take up the case.

TNK-BP faces an even bigger problem from Rosnedra, Russia's subsoil licensing agency. TNK-BP's license requires the company to produce 9 billion cubic meters of natural gas from Kovykta by this year. That mark is attainable, TNK-BP officials say, but should be amended since the local market for gas, the Irkutsk region, requires only 2 billion cubic meters.

To comply with the 9 billion cubic meter requirement, TNK-BP would have to burn off what the local market doesn't consume.

Kovykta's full potential could be realized if TNK-BP were allowed to export natural gas to energy-hungry China to the south. However, Gazprom, which under Russian law is the only entity permitted to export natural gas, has balked at the idea, saying gas exports from Kovykta shouldn't begin until 2015.

"We are talking right now with both Gazprom and with Russian officials," said TNK-BP spokeswoman Maria Drachova. "We never give up hope."

Industry observers warn that Russia's strategy could backfire. Russia's energy sector still needs participation from Western majors to realize its potential. State-owned giants like Gazprom continue to be hamstrung by stifling inefficiency, and lack of infrastructure investment that impedes growth of Russia's energy sector.

Reducing foreign developers to the role of minor players, said William Ramsey, deputy executive director of the International Energy Agency, is only going to further discourage those companies from doing business in Russia. [emphasis added]

From the Gulf Times in Qatar: http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=127488&version=1&template_id=43&parent_id=19

Venezuela and Iran boost anti-US alliance

Published: Monday, 15 January, 2007, 11:52 AM Doha Time

CARACAS: Iran and Venezuela expanded their anti-US strategic alliance on Saturday with the two controversial leaders signing 11 new bilateral agreements and pledging to boost the price of oil.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived on Saturday in Caracas for his second such visit in four months to meet Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
After the two men met at the government palace, Chavez noted the deep relationships between the two countries and said one can speak of a “single fatherland” when speaking of Iran and Venezuela.
The Iranian people will “stand side to side with Venezuela” for now and evermore, Ahmadinejad vowed.
“We are spreading revolutionary thought throughout the world,” the Iranian leader said.
Yesterday, Ahmadinejad travelled to Nicaragua, where the Sandinista and former US foe Daniel Ortega was inaugurated as president earlier this week, and to today’s inauguration in Ecuador of leftist populist Rafael Correa, a Chavez admirer in the oil-rich but otherwise impoverished country.
The new Iran-Venezuela agreements call for more intense cooperation on energy, industry, trade and building construction. Last year, Ahmadinejad offered to help Venezuela develop its nuclear power industry at a time that Iran is under intense international pressure to stop enriching uranium, a process that can produce weapons-grade fuel.
During the September visit in Venezuela, the two men signed 28 co-operation agreements, with heavy focus on energy and economy. The two countries plan to start co-operative oil companies, and factories to produce cement, airplanes, bikes, automobiles and gunpowder.
The presidents on Saturday agreed to speed up establishment of a $2bn bilateral fund to invest in countries that join their anti-US alliance and free themselves from the “yoke of imperialism,” Chavez said.
The two leaders also pledged mutual support in foreign affairs, including efforts to keep oil prices high by lowering production from the oil group, the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec). Iran and Venezuela are the world’s fourth and fifth most important oil exporting nations.
Ahmadinejad charged that “all problems of the world are caused by the false policies of the most powerful countries” that have caused poverty, conflict, discrimination and injustice. The rich are only interested in economic profits and have nothing left over for the dignity of humanity, he said.
“Instead of love, hate and enmity rule the day,” the Iranian leader said.
Chavez compared his Bolivarian revolution, under which he has been building a Latin American base to confront the US, with the Islamic revolution that governs Iran.
During last year’s visit, Chavez declared his “unlimited support” for Iran’s controversial nuclear programme. Iran is developing a nuclear programme for peaceful purposes, he insisted. – DPA [emphasis added]

From the International Herald Tribune: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/14/business/chavez.php

Chávez vows to nationalize all energy

Reuters

Published: January 14, 2007

CARACAS: President Hugo Chávez plans to nationalize Venezuela's entire energy sector, reinforcing his socialist revolution and possibly giving himself more targets for state takeover.

But he said Saturday that he would permit foreign firms to hold minority stakes in energy deals.

Chávez, in power since 1999, announced last week that he would nationalize power utilities and the country's biggest telecommunications firm, confirming his status as the catalyst of Latin America's swing to the left.

"We have decided to nationalize the whole Venezuelan energy and electricity sector, all of it, absolutely all," Chávez said in his annual state of the nation address to Parliament, potentially opening up more projects for state acquisition in the fourth-ranking exporter of crude oil to the United States.

Chávez's growing control of Venezuela's economy is accompanied by his political influence. After the opposition boycotted last month's elections, he has full support in Parliament and dominates the judiciary.

Chávez was inaugurated last week for a term that runs through 2013, and has said that only his supporters can work in the army and the oil industry. He uses his presidency to spar with Washington, which he had accused of imperialism.

Chávez is an ally of Cuba and Iran, whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, visited Venezuela on Saturday. Chávez said Venezuela and Iran had agreed to push for a cut in world oil supplies to counter plunging prices.

Chávez has already pursued oil and gas projects and power utilities, but he left no leeway Saturday for a private company to hold a majority in operations anywhere in the energy sector.

It was not immediately clear whether his pronouncement on nationalizing the whole sector was a precursor to moves against specific projects or companies.

Huge oil service companies such as Halliburton and Schlumberger operate in Venezuela, but Chávez gave no indication whether deals involving such businesses were in his sights.

In his address to Parliament, Chávez also said Venezuela was almost ready to take over the foreign-run oil projects of the Orinoco Belt, which produce about 600,000 barrels per day. Those projects are run by such big foreign companies as Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Exxon Mobil, Statoil and BP. [emphasis added]

Flying in the face  of my previous post, I responded to this exchange of cliches on the latest development of a smoking ban in West Lafayette.

Post subject: I really do enjoy beating my head against a wall
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:58 am

tfl, these are not 'public places', they aren't owned collectively. They are owned, maintained, and operated by specific people, namely Mark Cook and Greg Ehresman. Neither you nor any other person in West Lafayette, singly or in collective, have any right to their establishments simply because they invite you inside. It's a rather simple arrangement, they offer a service and if you want you can pay them in return for that service. I fail to see where in this relationship you find the right to dictate their business policy. Could you elaborate how you think these qualify as _public_ places?

Ah, but what about the poor employees, you say? People should not have to make difficult life decisions, like what risks they're willing to take for what rewards they want. So, what you propose is that we violate the rights of the property owners so we can ensure the 'right' of employees not to have to actually make those tough decisions, to have a safe work environment supplied to them effortlessly. Forget pursuing a more rewarding job, we can simply create new rights and do away with those out-dated ones from the 17th and 18th century!

When I say this legislation violates the rights of owners, I'm not talking about their business success. I'm talking about the right to choose how one dispenses with one's property [intellectual, bodily, and material], in other words, liberty. Whether or not you 'truly believe' that your dictations are in another's best interest is entirely irrelevant compared to what they decide they want to do. If Mary Cook wanted to make her bar non-smoking, if she thought it was in her best interest, or if she had wanted the opinions of anyone else she could done it or asked your opinion of her business policies. Don't kid yourself into thinking that you aren't wronging her, even as she pleads for you to stop.

But you know, prohibition worked so fantastically all the other times we've tried it, no wonder you think that this one is a good thing.

P.S. Way back when I was arguing at the council meetings against the passage of this legislation, there was only one council member who I thought might have voted against it on principle rather than because the language was vague and in need of refining. His name is Matt Plomin. Just before he voted in favour of the legislation he made  a little speech that makes a brass-assed monkey seem modest. He quoted De Tocqueville's warning against the oppressive rule of the majority and in the same breath stated that he would be putting aside his personal convictions in order to comply with the wishes of the majority of his constituency. The only reason I relate this scene is because I don't ever want to forget it.

Wow! When you're feeling intellectually isolated in the world, it's so refreshing to see a total stranger say something that rings so true. [I don't quite know how to phrase this but...] It gives you real evidence that you can work and live with the people around you ['trading for the best that others have to offer'] rather than beating your head into a wall trying to gode them along and do everything yourself. This is actually why I stay out of politics, it feels too much like repeatedly running and throwing myself into the brick wall of other people's stubborn idiocy. Anywho, I found this article by Lynn Woolley to be refreshing, if it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

Imagine No Possessions

by Lynn Woolley
Posted Jan 10, 2007

“We’re heading toward socialism and nothing and no one can prevent it.”  

No, that’s not a quote from someone in the U.S. Congress -- at least not yet.  That’s from President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, making good on his election promises to nationalize vast segments of his nation.  

Now compare that with this quote:  “My solution is that everyone in California must have health insurance. If you can’t afford it, the state will help you buy it.”  That comes from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who is proposing coverage for 6.5 million uninsured residents of the Golden State.  He promises to spread the cost among businesses, individuals, hospitals, insurers and the government.  

What, exactly, is the difference between the socialist president of Venezuela and the socialist governor of California?  

Hugo Chavez is planning a government takeover of Venezuela’s electrical and telecommunications companies. Chavez may retain some foreign investment in the energy sector, but he maintains that lucrative oil projects should be under state ownership.  But at least, he was honest about it.  In the recent election that he won by a landslide, he promised a radical turn toward socialism.

Have you ever noticed, though, that nothing much of value ever comes out of a socialist state?  Chavez likes to glorify the Cuban model of Fidel Castro where the people all have a certain “security” under Castro’s thumb.  But where are the scientific advances?  Where are the engineering and medical breakthroughs?  And why do so many people risk their lives on leaky rafts to escape from this island paradise?

In Ayn Rand’s seminal novel “Atlas Shrugged,” first published in 1957, she tells the story of a nation that is becoming a festering hotbed of socialism.  Our heroine, Dagny Taggart, fights to keep her railroad open in the face of government meddling.  Hank Reardon invents a new metal, but the government takes it away.  Behind the scenes, a man named John Galt organizes a strike of all the great minds of the world.  Guess what happens once all independent thought and innovation gives way to government management of the entire country?

Which brings us back to the Congress of the United States, now run by the esteemed Democratic Party.  Their first major goal is to meddle in private business by setting a false floor for wages, rather than letting the marketplace decide.  

Representative Barney Frank, who, as part of the Congress, has the ability to set his own pay scale, wants to meddle with CEO compensation.  It seems that Rep. Frank is not happy that the ousted former head of Home Depot negotiated a fairly nice golden parachute.  You have to wonder if Mr. Frank is equally distressed that Randy Johnson is being paid millions by the Arizona Diamondbacks to toss a few baseballs each year.  Should Congress limit the outrageous salaries that movie stars and sports stars earn?  Where, exactly, should Congressional meddling stop?

Perhaps where presidential meddling begins.  The Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, has attempted a takeover of the nation’s health care system once before.  If elected, she’ll try again.  So will former Senator John Edwards.  If the government takes over medicine, what’s next?  Oil?  Electric power?  Media?  Imagine no possessions. It’s easy if you try.

Don’t scoff; it’s happening right now in Venezuela.  And as a little bonus for Hugo Chavez, he’s getting quite a bit of extra power in the deal.  Under the new socialism, he will become an outright dictator, able to legislate by presidential decree.

At the end of “Atlas Shrugged,” the government was running everything, and the lights began to flicker out in New York City.  The lights aren’t out yet in America, but they could be starting to dim.  If you wish for the government to provide all that you need, be very careful.

You may get your wish.

Mr. Woolley is a talk show host on the SSI Radio Network. Contact him via www.BeLogical.com.

On Tuesday July 4th in Memphis, Tennessee the World Overcomers Outreach Ministries Church erected a statue in the image of Liberty with a bizarre Christian metamorphoses.

Instead of the book she cradles the two tablets of the ten commandments in her left arm. In her right she raises aloft a cross rather than the torch of liberty. Reportedly, 'Jehovah' is written across her crown and there is a single tear rolling down her cheek. Lady Liberties wretched twin is named The Statue of Liberation Through Christ.

From The New York Times:

The statue, inspired by a Memphis church that has three giant crosses, strikes him [pastor Apostle Alton R. Williams] as "a creative means of just really letting people know that God is the foundation of our nation," he said.

Mr. Williams has written several books and pamphlets analyzing a variety of matters, among them patriotism and the original intent of the founding fathers.

In "The Meaning of the Statue of Liberation Through Christ: Reconnecting Patriotism With Christianity," he explains that the teardrop on his Lady is God's response to what he calls the nation's ills, including legalized abortion, a lack of prayer in schools and the country's "promotion of expressions of New Age, Wicca, secularism and humanism." In another book, he said Hurricane Katrina was retribution for New Orleans's embrace of sin.

Mr. Williams said his statue's essential point was that Christianity should be the guiding ethos of the nation [...]