Stable Non-Hostile Nations

SUMMARY: Our aim is to have friends or allies. But barring that, America’s interest is in having stable and non-hostile powers on the world stage.  

 

In the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Venezuela, many liberal friends of mine were adamant this for one reason, oil. No, that’s not the case. Oil is areason we have an interest in that country, as well as narcotics and other issues. I’ll cover those later in this article. 

 

First we need to take a big picture at what is in the interest of America. What does the United States need in the world? We need access to resources and markets, we need to keep our adversaries at bay, and as such we need other nations assistance. That is, we need friends and allies.

 

A friend is another nation who’s aligned geo-politically, economically and culturally to us (e.g., the United Kingdom, Israel). Also we have multiple allies in the world, such as Saudi Arabia. While we may have different types of societies or government but our critical political and economic interests align. The greatest example of this was the Allies allying with the Soviet Union during World War II against the Axis powers.  

 

What if we don’t have friends or allies in a certain region? We need, to coin a phrase, Stable Non-Hostile Nations. Their interest may not fully align with ours, but they are not opposing ours. They also are stable enough they don’t interfere with American interests in the region. 

 

A current example would be Indonesia. While not a formal ally of the West, we have similar interest against Chinese aggression and free trade. Or Cameroon, with a stable enough government to keep disruptions from overflowing to nearby countries. Another recent example is Israel and Egypt. Very different nations, but as a result of the Camp David accords, both were not hostile to each other.

 

A example of a Stable Non-hostile Nation is Libya. In the aftermath of the 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi had an epiphany. It’s better to not be in the cross hairs of the United States. Qaddafi gave up his WMD programs, settled multiple lawsuits over the Pan Am 103 bombing, and stopped supporting terrorist groups in the Middle East and Europe. He also shared intelligence with western nations. 

 

In exchange we agreed to let him live. We would stop our efforts to force regime change as long as he kept his country secure and caused no other trouble. Easy, accomplished multiple goals of the US, and cheap. Of course we can’t leave well enough alone.

 

In one of the greatest disasters of the Obama years, in 2011 the administration attacked Libyan targets, destabilizing the Qaddafi regime. Qaddafi’s convoy was attacked by US forces, and he was killed by rebel forces. 

 

Qaddafi was not an ally of the west, but he had changed from being an advisory to a non-hostile regime. Looking at the totality of the circumstances, that was the best we can hope for. We didn’t need to act against Qaddafi, just keep an eye on him. Trust, but verify.

 

Again, Qaddafi was not a nice person. We’re not interested in “nice,” we’re interested in America’s national concerns.  When we can’t have allied nations, we’ll work with nations that are not working against our interests, and stable so we don’t worry about them affecting other countries in the region. 

 

With that as context, let’s look at South America again. Venezuela is definitely in America’s area of interest, like every other country in the western hemisphere. We do not want nations aligning with our adversaries. In the case of Caracas, the Maduro government was very aligned with four of our greatest competitors: Russia, China, Iran and Cuba. 

 

It’s in our national interest to weaken these nations? Absolutely. The weaker they are, the less likely they will engage or compete with us. How do we do that? Isolation, from allies and resources. 

 

How did the end of the Maduro regime affect these nations. Cuba just lost over 31,000 barrels per day (BPD) of crude oil and its derivatives. In the past Venezuela shipped as much as 51,000 BPD, resources Cuba is addicted to. Even before this cut off, Cubans were struggling with power generation, with planned and unplanned power outages common on the island. 

 

Russia has sold multiple weapons system to the Venezuelan government, including many air defense systems. A steady income for the Putin regime, generating cash for his adventures in places like the Ukraine. The Kremlin just lost a reliable paycheck. 

 

China is expanding and hungry, and Venezuela has resources. Prior to last week, China imported 470,000 BPD from Venezuela, approximately 4.5 percent of its seaborn crude. But oil is not Beijing’s only interest. 

 

Venezuela has over 300,000 metric tons of rare earth minerals (e.g., cassiterite, coltan, cerium and lanthanum). China has a large hold of the world market on these minerals, and each advanced nation wants more of them. Beijing is also, like black market oil shipments, importing rare earth minerals from Venezuela under the table. Both supplies has been blocked for the foreseeable future.  

 

Worst off is Iran. After four years of crippling sanctions and trade cut offs in Trump I, Iran was on its knees. Within days of becoming president, Joe O’Biden relieved Tehran of these sanctions and unfroze billions in Iranian assets. Tehran was selling Venezuela  weapons systems (e.g., drones and short-range missiles systems), generating cash for the mullahs. Since January 2025, Iran has been put under sanctions and has the greatest open rebellion against the mullahs since 1979. 

 

With the disposing of the Maduro regime, what can be expected. To be honest, we cannot expect Caracas to be (at least initially) friendly to us, nor an ally of the United States. However, with a less corrupt government, a functioning oil industry and the supporting industries, Venezuela will be stable. A stable nation where millions do not rush to America’s borders or disrupt near by countries with refugees. A stable government not allowing our greatest adversaries access to critical resources, perhaps allowing western companies to handle their extraction. In other words, a Stable Non-Hostile Nation in  what was arguably the most unstable country in South America.

 

So has Trump’s incursion into Venezuela been in America’s best interest? Unquestionable so. We have just given the Venezuelan government reason to not allow drug shipments through its ports so easily. Four of our greatest advisories have been cut off from cash, oil and other minerals. And with any luck, fewer Venezuelan nationals will be heading north, further exacerbating our issues with illegal immigration. It also reaffirms the Monroe Doctrine, we are the preeminent power in the Western Hemisphere. The US must insure no one questions that. 

 

Let’s look at another land issue from the administration. President Trump has been very open about controlling Greenland, as a territory or by treaty.What does that allow us to do? 

 

              

                      Source: Facebook

 

First, it’s not about the land. Controlling Greenland prevents Russia and China from access to northern water routes and Arctic rare minerals. As one person put it on Facebook, ”Whoever controls Greenland controls the high ground of the next century.” It’s close to the western hemisphere, and multiple allied nations. Securing it would provide the West the closest land platform for exploiting these assets and securing sea routes in the north. Definitely in the interest of the West in general, and the US in particular, if we can secure this as a base.  

 

Cutting off our adversaries from critical resources in the West and not allowing them to use these nearby nations as a base to threaten us. Changing volatile  adversaries to Stable Non-Hostile countries so we can obtain resources we need and focus our power on other threats. Looking at Venezuela and Greenland, may I say, Trump might just have a method to his madness. 

No, wealth is not for the government to take and redistribute

The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century. The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity.

 

In Star Trek: First Contact, Captain Picard explains to a 21st-century visitor why money is not important.

 

After reading this article in The Atlantic, I was remined of something from the late great Rush Limbaugh back in the mid-90s. He spoke of how a GOP member of the congress asked the Congressional Budget Office to estimate, by year, how much revenue would be raised if you taxed all income over $250,000 at one-hundred precent. You would have to make it retroactive (see the Clinton budget of 1993), but as I recall the CBO said (going by a 30-year memory), “The initial year would be 225 billion dollars, the following year would be 243 billion dollars, etc.”

 

The obvious reality would be next year, no one would make a salary of over 250K. What is the point?  Two things about liberals and the money you have. One, it is theirs, not yours. Two, their attitude is, “We take it from you, we know how to spend it wisely, and you will just smile and say, ‘Thank you sir, take some more.’” You won’t, or should not,  do anything to avoid paying any more taxes.

 

But this article is rather interesting. Let’s look at a few points.

 

What Would Society Look Like if Extreme Wealth Were Impossible?

 

Limitarianism questions the idea that individual wealth is ever individual.

 

By Christine Emba April 1, 2024

 

In February, 93-year-old Ruth Gottesman, a former professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the widow of financier David Gottesman, announced a gift of $1 billion to her school. With the funds came instructions: The money is to be used to make tuition free for students at the Bronx institution, in perpetuity.

 

The donation was celebrated—for its size, of course, but also for its humanitarian cast. As the New York Times columnist Ginia Bellafante put it, Gottesman’s giving “broadcasts a message of how a billionaire might live his or her best life—without terra-forming Mars, without Burning Man, without the attempts to stealth-run Harvard…”

 

A generous donation on behalf of Ms. Gottesman, but if her late husband David had not acquired this wealth through his work, and she had not inherited it, the free tuition would have never happened. No Ms. Emba, the Gottesmans did not inherit their wealth, but acquired it over decades of investment, knowing the right people, and being disciplined.

 

…Endowing an underfunded medical school is clearly a better use of money than buying yet another super-yacht.

 

That is your opinion Ms. Emba, not a fact. Many colleges suck up millions and their endowments are greater than the GDP of other nations, e.g., Harvard and Yale. But for some reason they won’t put out their fair share and allow students to attend tuition free.

 

I would also remind you what happened when a former Democratic administration put a luxury tax on yachts. The rich buyers simply went overseas to purchase their new toys. The people who this hurt were not the “super rich,” but the middle class people who produced, sold, and serviced these yachts.

 

“For a long time, I felt there was something wrong with an individual amassing so much money, but I couldn’t properly articulate why,” writes the Dutch philosopher Ingrid Robeyns. “After a decade of analyzing and debating extreme wealth, I became convinced that we must create a world in which no one is super-rich—that there must be a cap on the amount of wealth any one person can have. I call this limitarianism.” In her book of the same name, Robeyns fleshes out the case for such a cap while upending common conceptions of agency, ownership, and what a fortune really signifies.

 

Extreme wealth keeps the poor poor, she argues, and expands inequality. The super-rich undermine democracy through their outsize political influence and wreck the climate with their luxurious lifestyles. Some of their money is acquired through questionable means—from exploitative business practices, or dodging taxes, or outright theft. Robeyns argues that no one deserves such excess, that people would be better off morally and psychologically without it, and that there are better uses for society’s spillover abundance—ending poverty, say, or improving infrastructure. Even well-intentioned philanthropy doesn’t make up for these downsides: It’s no stand-in for a well-functioning, well-funded government—the sort that the wealthy often undermine in the course of making their fortune…

 

Again, who are you to determine when I’ve made enough money? I recall a previous president lecturing a tradesman, “I do believe at some point you’ve made enough money.” Now he has no issue with himself being worth 70 million with speeches and make work positions on boards, etc.

 

I’ve known rich people before, and I’ve yet to meet one who had become rich because of “public service.” Obama (and Clinton) was not rich before the presidency, but somehow became fabulously wealthy after the White House. On the contrary, George W Bush was worth 20 million before achieving the presidency, mainly by oil and professional sports. Donald Trump entered the White House a multi-billionaire and actually lost wealth during his term. Ronald Reagan was worth over 20 million in 1981. And unlike the current Democratic alumni of the Oval Office, they money is rather unambiguous.

 

A don’t disparage anyone achieving wealth, by legal means. I do take serious offense of a rich leftist lecturing me on achieving a degree of prosperity from their personal yachts and Lear Jets.  

 

And it’s that government and its citizens on which any fortune depends. “Take any multimillionaire or billionaire, and put them on a desert island,” Robeyns writes. “They still have all the same talents and personal traits as before. How rich could they become? Not very rich, obviously.”

 

I think we have the issue here. Obviously on an abandoned island, the effort would be for survival, not things above  food, water, and shelter. But people with intelligence (not necessarily education), ideas, and drive will come up with something that people are willing to spend the results of their labors on, i.e., their disposable income, on. A few examples:

 

-      Henry Ford and his automobile.

 

-      Steve Jobs and Apple computer.

 

-    Elon Musk with electric cars, online pay programs and commercial space launch systems.

-  Joe Kennedy Sr and his whiskey.

 

Of the current ten richest men on earth, nine started with relative non-wealth in their early days. I dare say if you try to take their wealth from them, the company will immediately transfer its flag to a less insane nation like Switzerland or Lower Slovia. These men (and women) have worked for their success. They will not just hand it over to a politician because of a law.

 

But if you want to take the ill-gotten wealth of the superrich, I suggest you go after the liberals who want to steal from the American people. Ms. Bill Clinton, John Kerry (you know, the dude who dodged Massachusetts taxes by docking his yacht in New Hampshire). Let’s  not forget Elizabeth “Faukahuntus” Warren, she of lecturing students to not use real estate to make money, but she has no issue with herself making millions in the market. Or take a look at non-profit programs where the uber rich can park billions of dollars, give away a few million a year and dodge a fortune in taxes (See Bill Gates Discovery Foundation).

 

I have to say I’m interested in reading Ms. Robeyns book, but I definitely don’t want to buy it. Might drive her into illegitimate wealth and we don’t want to drive up her individual wealth.  

That's putting it mildly Mr. Biden...

Joe Biden, the current mentally infirm occupant of the White House (we still are not sure who is making the decisions, but it is likely a combo of his chief of staff and Obama), is going to tax the oil companies to give us lower gas prices.

I would think he's not that stupid, but yes, he is. Or he could simply not understand what he's saying. The dementia has really progressed in him and he may just be reading what's on a card some other idiot wrote for him. But let's look at what this genius said:

'They ain't seen nothing yet': President Biden just accused oil companies of 'war profiteering' and threatened them with a new windfall tax. Will it help with gas prices?

In the wake of scorching inflation and Russia’s war in Ukraine, major gas companies like Chevron and Exxon Mobil are raking in profits. And it’s got President Joe Biden hot under the collar.

“Record profits today are not because they’re doing something new or innovative. The profits are a windfall of war,” Biden said in remarks at the White House on Monday, accompanied by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm.

With gas prices still elevated, and an expensive winter ahead, Biden says he’s ready to force these oil companies to act — but while his words for these companies may be strong, he may not have the power to back them up.

Biden doesn’t mince his words

Biden has been waging a battle with oil companies over the last few weeks, but he escalated it Monday when he called on them to “act beyond their narrow self-interest,” to “invest in America by increasing production and refining capacity” on behalf of “their consumers, their community and their country.”

And if they don’t? Biden warns they’re going to face “a higher tax on their excess profits and … higher restrictions.”

The president didn’t elaborate on what those restrictions might be, but promised his administration would work with Congress to evaluate all the available options....

Got it. He will simply tax their windfall profits and spend it on...whatever he wants to.

Now this reporter seems to be missing something. Joe Biden (hell, Democrats in general) have been at war with American energy for years. One day one of is administration, Biden cancelled Keystone XL, banned all new leases for oil, had his energy department stop issuing licenses for oil drilling (you can't drill on a leased area without a license). He is openly talking about putting energy companies out of business, so this is limiting the supply of oil. 

If you make something difficult to produce, it will limit the supply. You limit supply relative to demand (fixed or increasing), that will cause the price to rise. So oil companies are making more money per unit of supply (i.e. barrel of oil), and more profit. And who do the oil companies thank, and American people should blame? Joe Biden. 

Basically what Biden has told Big Oil is, "Drill for five years, keep prices low through the 2024/2026 elections, and after that, I'll put you out of business..." Not exactly encouraging to producers to come on line. But it's not like we haven't seen this movie before. 

In the Carter years, he put a "Windfall Profits Tax" on oil companies. The smart people would use that to fund "alternative energy" to end our consumption of oil, and we would be free of oil (what we would use plastic, rubber, jet fuel is still not determined). And guess what? Oil companies slowed production, and why not? There is no reason to produce more if the profit will be stolen immediately by people who did nothing to produce it. 

In January 1981, the finest president of my lifetime was inaugurated. In one of the first acts of his administration, Ronald Reagan deregulated the oil market, and oil prices did rise for the first six months or so. And by the summer of 1981, prices started to drop as more oil was  brought up on the market. Capitalism, works every time it's used. 

But that doesn't seem to concern this petulant man-child  (Second one of these to hold the presidency. Democrat of course.) Amazes me how unaccomplished he is yet he treats others like children. Remember how he was upset people were not taking the Covid shot:

“We’ve been patient,” Mr. Biden said in a sharp message to those who refuse to be vaccinated. “But our patience is wearing thin. And your refusal has cost all of us.”

Hey, Little Joey, remember, my body, my choice, or something like that? 

It scares me that this demented idiot served as assassination insurance for Barrack Obama, and he now had another idiot serving the same purpose. God help us, hopefully the GOP takes thee congress and starts opening drilling again. 

The PDRK is at it again…

Ages ago, I worked for a grocery store in New Orleans called Schwegmann’s. At some point they opened a store in Slidell, a suburb right next to the Mississippi border. And soon the parking lot was filled with vehicles with Mississippi license plates. Wonder why? Well it has nothing to do with fruits, veggies and meat, but ethyl alcohol.

Mississippi has fairly strict alchol sales law, were liquor can only be sold in “package stores,” and they can’t be open on Sunday. Louisiana, on the other hand, is rather open about alcohol sales. Anywhere in the New Orleans area (Some parishes are different), you can pick up a bottle of Jack Daniels at 330am Sunday. So  if you were living on the Mississippi gulg coast, a few minutes drive is no problem for people wanting alcohic beverages after church. 

It's a lesion that some people refuse to learn. You make things more expensive, people, i.e., the comsumer, will try to get is cheaper. Well, the People’s Democratic Republic of Kalifornia (PDRK) is showing us again, why they a rotting from inside.

California residents facing high gas prices drive to Mexico to fill their tanks.

TIJUANA — Claudia Jessica Villarreal used to fill up her gray Nissan Pathfinder near her home in Chula Vista, Calif. Then Russia invaded Ukraine and gasoline prices went bonkers. The 54-year-old psychologist soon discovered a bargain.

A dozen miles south, just across the U.S.-Mexico border in Tijuana, regular gas sells for an average of $3.96 a gallon — nearly $2 less than in California.

She was in Tijuana on Wednesday to take her children to a doctor’s appointment, so it wasn’t a big deal to swing by the Santa Fe gas station on Salinas Boulevard to fill up. But she’s also been making special trips.

“I swear, I’ve been coming once a week,” she said. “I cross when I can...”

...Now banners at Mexican gas stations in Tijuana flaunt their prices with signs like “Cheaper than in the U.S.A.!”...

Run the numbers. If I fill up every week, I drive a few extra minutes, and I have a twelve gallon tank. If I use the Mexican station, I put ten in, I can save almost $20.00 dollars a week. That’s over $1000.00 a year.

But don’t worry, Gruesome Newsom is riding in to save the day.

...In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday released details of a proposal to pay vehicle owners $400 for each car or truck they have registered in the state. The plan, which would cost $11 billion, also includes grants to offer free or reduced public transit...

Now what would be more effective than giving people $400.00 a year for gas over the year, or giving them a bus pass? How about you increase the supply of gas in your state! Increase drilling off shore and stop requiring gasoline blends for the PDRK only.

...Back in Tijuana, Patricia Saharagui, a spokesperson for the Rendichicas gas station chain, estimated that its locations near the border have seen a 6% increase in sales in the month since the war began. She welcomed Californians.

“It’s an opportunity for them to come and try,” she said. “It also shows them how in Mexico we also have good-quality gasoline.”

The chain has begun a digital campaign to promote its lower prices. “Don’t worry be happy in Tijuana,” one advertisement says in pink block letters.

At one Rendichicas station, about half the cars that pulled in had California license plates. Unlike California stations, where people pump their own gas, Mexican ones are full-service...

...One customer was 48-year-old Mónica López, who drove down from Chula Vista and filled up at pump No. 1.

“I worry a lot” about gas prices, she said. “The drastic rise in the price of gas affects all of us.”

No, it doesn’t affect “all” of us. Ask multi-millionaire Stevie Colbert about being able to pay $15.00 a gallon, "Today, the average gas price in America hit an all-time record high of over $4 per gallon. OK, that stings, but a clean conscience is worth a buck or two. It's important. I'm willing to pay $4 a gallon. Hell, I'll pay $15 a gallon because I drive a Tesla.'  All the pain and suffering for “saving the planet” will be inflicted on you, not them. Remember, Obama and Biden will never drive an electric vehicle (Or drive period) for the rest of their life.

The station also benefits from sales to locals who used to fill their tanks in the United States, including Doyma Torres, a 61-year-old Uber driver.

“Horrible. It’s very bad, very high.... That’s why we’re filling up here,” she said. “If it stays this way, excellent, it’s convenient for us.”

Now that she fills up on the Mexican side of the border, she does far fewer Uber trips in the United States...

Something else to remember. Gas stations make little off the sale of fuel. They make a fortune on the food, drinks, etc. They are higher price there than a grocery store because you are paying for the convenience of getting in and out. Just like when people locked down during Covid, not tanking up was a hit for the gas stations. But not buying your cup of coffee and donut on the way to work was killing them.

Not that Gruesome Newsom, or the other other libtards cares. He knows he’s pis riding in to save the day, and controlling you, because you can’t be trusted to do the right thing. It’s OK, you don’t know what to do, they will control you like the good children you are.

Never forget, that is what they want. Not service, control.