Insurgents Seize Key Towns Around Nogales

Insurgents Seize Key Towns Around Nogales

July 6th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.

nogales05

Related: Insurgency Now In US: Mexican Mafia Orders Hit On Arizona Sheriff – With Video

The sooner Petraeus wraps up Afghanistan, the sooner he can lead the invasion of Mexico. As Obama won’t finish his first term, it’ll be soon.

It’s going to become impossible for the US to do anything but seize control of a buffer area in Northern Mexico.

Mexicans are not going to be too happy when they realize the Reconquista has in fact become a New Conquista of Mexican land.

ALTAR, Sonora (AP) – Very few residents dare to drive on one of the roads out of this watering hole for migrants, fearing they will be stopped at gunpoint. They worry they will be told to turn around after their gas tanks are drained or, worse, be kidnapped or killed.

A shootout that left 21 people dead and six wounded on the road last week is the most gruesome sign that a relatively tranquil pocket of northern Mexico quickly is turning into a hotbed of drug-fueled violence on Arizona’s doorstep. The violence in recent months is grist for supporters of the state’s tough new law against illegal immigration. They are eager to portray the border as a lawless battlefield of smugglers both of drugs and humans.

Nogales, the main city in the region, which shares a border with the Arizona city of the same name, has had 131 murders so far this year, nearly surpassing 135 for all of 2009, according to a tally by the newspaper Diario de Sonora. That includes two heads found Thursday stuffed side-by-side between the bars of a cemetery fence.

The carnage still pales compared with other Mexican border cities, most notably Juarez, which lies across from El Paso, which had 2,600 murders last year. But the increase shows that some small cattle-grazing towns near Nogales are in the grip of drug traffickers who terrorize residents.

The violence is concentrated in a few villages in the mountainous desert area of Rio Altar, which, until recently, drew tourists for its handsome churches, its river, a tilapia-filled lake and cooler temperatures. The roads wind through mountains of mesquite trees and saguaro cactus.

That’s where Thursday’s pre-dawn shootout occurred, just 12 miles south of the border, on a deserted stretch between the villages of Tubutama and Saric. Eight vehicles and numerous weapons were found in what authorities described as a confrontation between rival gangs competing for drug and immigration routes into the U.S.

The windows and panels of some vehicles were painted with X’s in white shoe polish, said Fernando Pompa, a police officer in Altar who visited the scene. Bullet casings littered the pavement.

The territory is disputed between Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, who heads the Sinaloa cartel, and the Beltran Leyva cartel, whose leader, Arturo Beltran Leyva, was killed in a shootout last December with Mexican marines in Cuernavaca.

Locals trace the wave of violence to the arrest in February of Jose Vazquez Villagrana, nicknamed “El Jaibil,” or “The Wild Boar.” Vazquez, reported to be an ally of Guzman, was captured in nearby Santa Ana.

Many people have fled in the past few months, said one resident whose family has roots in a village near the shootings. He asked that only his first name, Luis, be published because he fears for his safety. His relatives abandoned their homes this spring to join him in a larger city where he lives.

“This began like a cancer in the finger and now it is spreading to other parts of the body,” he said, adding that it seems as if the government has no power to stop it.

Luis said schools closed early this year without explanation. Soft-drink vendors and electricity meter readers refuse to come.

Tubutama, a village of about 1,500 people with no hotel, restaurant or gas station, canceled its annual town fair last month for the first time in memory. The move came after the town’s comptroller and director of public works were murdered.

“If no one puts a stop to this, these will become ghost towns,” said Jose Martin Mayoral, editor of Diario del Desierto, the newspaper in Caborca.

Despite its size, motorists used to pass through Tubutama because it is a hub for local roads. Now they drive longer distances on a toll road.

Altar, a town of about 10,000 people with a yellow-domed Roman Catholic church in its central square, has been spared the violence but is only about 15 miles from Tubutama. The town’s economy was booming a few years ago with taxi drivers, restaurants and lodging houses that catered to migrants preparing to cross the U.S. border illegally in the Arizona desert.

Now, a scarcity of jobs because of the U.S. economic downturn is keeping illegal immigrants away, causing Altar to fall on hard times as well.

Ana Maria Velasquez, a church volunteer, said there used to be 50 candles on an altar to the Virgin of Guadalupe, each left by a migrant as a good-luck ritual before crossing the border. On Sunday, there was only one.

More than 23,000 people have been killed in Mexico’s drug violence since President Felipe Calderon launched an offensive on cartels in 2006.

Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada said last week’s shootout unnerved some people in his jurisdiction, which includes Nogales, Ariz.

Estrada believes the violence will continue until one cartel assumes control or the warring factions broker a truce.

“These groups are battling for this area and you know it’s going to continue,” he said. “There’s going to be retaliation for this.”

Not Natural Born — TRUTH MATTERS

Not Natural Born — TRUTH MATTERS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhKuunp8D8&feature=player_embedded

The video starts out with some content from obamasnippets.com, which, of course is contrived. And yet, there seems to be a synthetic truth about what the president says. Is he “natural born” according to the Constitution? No. The requirement is that BOTH parents need to be U. S. Citizens. Two U. S. Citizen parents produce a “natural born” citizen. It’s likely that Mr. Obama was REGISTERED in Hawaii, therefore he has a COLB from Hawaii. The truth may well be he was born in Kenya; that is where we believe his “long-form” birth certificate was issued. Nevertheless, “natural born” indicates, and speaks to the fact that BOTH parents have to be U. S. Citizens. His father WAS NEVER a U. S. Citizen, therefore, Barack Hussein Obama is NOT a “natural born” Citizen of the United States, thus he is in violation of Amendment 14, and Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the United States Constitution.

Obama Meets Ahmadinejad A New Book By Amil Imani Read the reviews

Obama Meets Ahmadineja

Sunday, 27 June 2010
<!–


United We Stand

 

–>Obama meets Ahmadinejad

   
Sunday, 27 June 2010
Rave reviews greet Imani. In this work of fiction, Amil probes the minds of Obama and Ahmadinejad with the skills of a brain surgeon, and shares their exchanges with the humor of a stand-up comedian. An amazing and astonishing engagement follows, in which the two presidential prizefighters hit each other with their best shots, in a meaty and oft-comical altercation that involves tossing out virtually every real or rumored misdeed of both men, with a number of stunning propositions and shocking developments along the way. This international sparring match runs the gamut of flashy moves and shady deals. Who will win this wild and brutal battle of wits between these two political heavyweights? The destiny of the world may depend on it. “Amil Imani reveals a wickedly cutting satirist’s eye as he sketches out an acidly funny meeting between Barack Obama — imagined as a sharp-tongued but supine secret Sunni Muslim — and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is determined to remove the Great Satan as an obstacle in the way of the advance of Shi’ite Muslim world domination. As they spar verbally. Ahmadinejad runs circles around the hapless Obama, and in the course of the conversations reveals a great deal about Islamic supremacism, Iran, the Sunni/Shi’ite divide, and more. It’s a dystopian fantasy, but with Obama appearing determined to appease the Islamic world at all costs, it’s strikingly illuminating of the present-day predicament of America and the West.”

–Robert Spencer, author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad

“In Obama Meets Ahmadinejad, ‘democracy is so flawed that it can be imploded from within.” The president of Iran wants to make sure that the march of Islam won’t be stopped. He browbeats and bullies the naive and arrogant U.S. president in a series of secret meetings that Amil Imani vividly imagines — or transcribes — in this funny, insightful and illuminating book. Satire or accurate reportage? In today’s moral inverted world, what’s the difference?”

Pamela Geller, editor and publisher of AtlasShrugs.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War On America (Simon & Schuster)

“Charlie Chaplin was aware of the great power of ridicule. A strong opponent of racism, in 1937 Chaplin decided to make a film on the dangers of fascism. The politically correct folk in the media and the Hollywood tried to stop the film being made and Chaplin was threatened with censorship. ‘But I was determined to go ahead, for Hitler must be laughed at,’ wrote Chaplin in his Autobiography.

“In this parody, Amil Imani ridicules two dangerous zanies of our time, who also must be laughed at, who both, have deceitfully usurped their presidency, and together are bringing the world to the brink of Armageddon. “Imani is a powerful writer. Have your dictionary handy and enjoy this exquisite literature.”

 Dr. Ali Sina is the author of Understanding Muhammad and the founder of faithfreedom.org

“Although a great work of fiction which at times resembles reality, it is a fantastic, powerful and hilarious creative writing by Amil Imani. I’ll be recommending it to all my colleagues.”

– Wafa Sultan, author of the A GOD WHO HATES: The Courageous Woman who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evil of Islam.

Saudi Textbooks Continue to Radicalize Youth

Saudi Textbooks Continue to Radicalize Youth    

 

from IPT News   
Sunday, 04 July 2010 22:25
 
It isn’t yet known whether President Obama raised the issue of educational reform when he sat down with Saudi Arabian King Abdullah this week. [NOTE: Let us not forget that Obama bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia and praised him for his wisdom!!!] Those who monitor Saudi textbooks say the President should have used the opportunity to press Abdullah to work faster in fulfilling a promise to rid schools of books teaching Saudi schoolchildren to hate the West and to engage in violence towards Christians and Jews.

(Americans must realize that what is Saudi Arabia is also within our institutions, read this for more info)

Such textbooks are used in every school within Saudi Arabia four years after the Saudi government assured the U.S. that it would initiate a policy of educational reform. Those reforms were meant to erase the passages promoting violence and hatred from the curriculum.

That was supposed to take two years. In 2008, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom noted that only minor reforms had been made to the textbooks for the previous school year. Even today, the situation remains largely unchanged. It appears that while the Saudi government has removed many overt references to violence and jihad, the texts still remain largely intolerant.

In a letter to the President, Commission Chair Leonard Leo praised a recent Saudi fatwa against terror financing. For that to take hold, though, the Saudis need to do more to prevent radicalization. It noted the government’s pledge on textbook reform “remains unfulfilled.” Leo wrote:

“The Saudi government’s ideology of extreme religious intolerance, including violence, is propounded in Saudi textbooks and other educational materials … the most recent State Department reports on human rights and religious freedom confirm that inflammatory content remains in the textbooks.” [NOTE: The Saudis are only following standard Islamic doctrine. This is not just some arbitrary whim of the “Saudi government”!]

The National Review Online reported that the State Department’s 2010 report on human rights “concluded, with diplomatic understatement, that Saudi Ministry of Education textbooks continued to contain ‘some overtly intolerant statements’ against various religious groups, that they ‘provided justification for violence against non-Muslims,’ and that reforms remained ‘incomplete.'”

The Institute for Gulf Affairs translated and analyzed the 2009-2010 editions of the textbooks. It found an array of intolerant and violent lessons. The 12th grade textbook teaches, “It is part of God’s wisdom that he made the clash between truth and falsehood continues until the Day of Resurrection. As long as this clash endures, jihad continues.” [NOTE: This is straight from the Koran.]  The 9th grade textbook teaches, “The hour [of judgment] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them… There is a Jew behind me come and kill him.” It also says, “God will help Muslims… The Jews and Christians are enemies of the believers.” Similar messages appear in books used by first graders. [NOTE: This is a saying of Muhammad which is considered sacred by all religious Moslems. It is also part of the Hamas Charter. ]

These textbooks are used throughout the Muslim world, reaching as far as the Saudi Islamic Academy in Fairfax County, VA. As of 2008, the Saudi government directly ran 19 international schools. These schools receive funding and Wahhabi extremist education, identical to the education that students in Saudi Arabia receive.

Elementary and high school education in Saudi Arabia remains intolerant, and inspires violence and extremism. It shouldn’t take four years to fix the problem.

BIG SIS BLOCKS WEBSITES WITH ‘CONTROVERSIAL OPINIONS’

TSA to Block “Controversial Opinion” on the Web

Posted by Pia Malbran

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is blocking certain websites from the federal agency’s computers, including halting access by staffers to any Internet pages that contain a “controversial opinion,” according to an internal email obtained by CBS News

The email was sent to all TSA employees from the Office of Information Technology on Friday afternoon.

It states that as of July 1, TSA employees will no longer be allowed to access five categories of websites that have been deemed “inappropriate for government access.”

The categories include:

• Chat/Messaging

• Controversial opinion

• Criminal activity

• Extreme violence (including cartoon violence) and gruesome content

• Gaming

The email does not specify how the TSA will determine if a website expresses a “controversial opinion.”

There is also no explanation as to why controversial opinions are being blocked, although the email stated that some of the restricted websites violate the Employee Responsibilities and Conduct policy.

The TSA did not return calls seeking comment by publication time

Barack Obama: The great jobs killer

Barack Obama: The great jobs killer

July 5th, 2010

By Wayne Allyn Root, Las Vegas Review-Journal

As former President Ronald Reagan might have said, “Obama, there you go again.”

The current occupant of the White House claims to know how to create jobs. He claims jobs have been created. But so far the score is Great Obama Depression 2.2 million lost jobs, Obama 0 — a blowout.

Obama is as hopeless, helpless, clueless and bankrupt of good ideas as the manager of the Chicago Cubs in late September. This “community organizer” knows as much about private-sector jobs as Pamela Anderson knows about nuclear physics.

It’s time to call Obama what he is: The Great Jobs Killer. With his massive spending and tax hikes — rewarding big government and big unions, while punishing taxpayers and business owners — Obama has killed jobs, he has killed motivation to create new jobs, he has killed the motivation to invest in new businesses, or expand old ones. With all this killing, Obama should be given the top spot on the FBI’s Most Wanted List.

Read More

NASA Goes Global: Astronauts Out, Indonesia In

NASA Goes Global: Astronauts Out, Indonesia In

2010 July 6

Do you remember that dream you had about growing up to be an astronaut one day? Well, you might want to rethink that. I don’t see that happening anytime soon, because NASA has better things to do.

Back in February, it was reported that Obama had cut the space program, which may result in the loss of 23,000 jobs. Obama apparently felt our money would be much better spent sending some of that NASA know-how over to Indonesia. We can teach them more about climate change, too! After all, it is the largest Muslim nation in the world, not to mention a place where Obama enjoyed some special boyhood memories. It’s a natural choice. 

Here is what NASA’s administrator, Charlie Bolden, said at the time:

Specifically, he talked about connecting with countries that do not have an established space program and helping them conduct science missions. He mentioned new opportunities with Indonesia, including an educational program that examines global climate change.

We really like Indonesia because the State Department, the Department of Education [and] other agencies in the U.S. are reaching out to Indonesia as the largest Muslim nation in the world. We would love to establish partners there,” Bolden said.

In this new report from Fox News, he further describes where your NASA dollars are going now:

“When I became the NASA administrator — or before I became the NASA administrator — he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering,” Bolden said in the interview.

It appears that NASA’s main purpose, then, is to offer career counseling to children, create global friendships and most importantly, pump up the self esteem of Muslim nations. It’s beginning to sound more like a Tony Robbins seminar than an aeronautics agency.

To all the aspiring astronauts and space developers out there; the ones who dream about the agency that put a man on the moon, developed scratch resistant lenses, memory foam, satellite communications and so much more…instead, you might want to look into a career as a translator or maybe even something with the UN.  NASA’s got more important things to do.

Obama’s Immigration Hypocrisy

Obama’s Immigration Hypocrisy

Posted By Dick Morris On July 6, 2010 @ 12:03 am In FrontPage | 9 Comments

When Obama could have passed comprehensive immigration reform — when he still had 60 Senate Democrats — he didn’t lift a finger to push it. Now that he can’t pass it — it is too late in the year, he doesn’t have 60 votes and many Democrats will defect — he aggressively pushes it in a national speech.

The opportunism and hypocrisy of his attempt to manipulate America’s Latinos into forgetting his previous inaction is transparent and obvious. Polls show him losing Hispanics due to high and continuing unemployment and losing congressional seats in the bargain, so Obama has dug up the immigration proposals of former President George W. Bush, dusted them off and made them his own.

He knows it won’t pass. But he hopes that it will reignite Latino enthusiasm for his failing presidency and anger at Republicans for frustrating immigration reform.

In the process, Obama is neglecting the real answer to immigration. It is ridiculous to speak of sealing the border. A border of more than 1,500 miles can’t be sealed. It can’t even be controlled. As long as people want to cross, they will be able to get over. Some won’t make it. They will just keep trying until they do.

To sell his amnesty program for those already here, Obama raised the red herring of deportation, saying that we could never round up and send away 11 million people.

But he brushed over the real answer: to dry up the jobs. If employers would not hire illegal immigrants, they would stop coming here — and those already here would pack up and go home of their own accord. Obama’s promise, in his speech, to invigorate the enforcement of sanctions on employers who hire illegals rang hollow.

If he hasn’t done it over the past year and a half, what confidence do we have that he will see the light now?

Employer sanctions, a guest-worker program at good wages with health care and a national biometric identification card must be the pillars of a real solution to illegal immigration. The promise of amnesty would be totally unnecessary if there were no jobs here to lure them and hold them. Amnesty presents a false choice. It assumes that we cannot dry up the jobs. But we can!

Were companies to face heavy corporate fines and jail time for those who hired the illegal workers, they would stop hiring. If a guest-worker program brought in a sufficient labor force to meet their needs — and returned them back home again — it would not be necessary to hire illegal immigrants.

But as long as employers can get away with hiring illegals and paying them starvation wages, they will do so. It is only when they face the prospect of prison that they will see the light and start paying good wages as part of a national guest-worker program.

The cynicism of Obama in kindling hopes for amnesty only to see them certainly dashed is breathtaking. And his pushing the false choice of amnesty — when eliminating the jobs that fuel illegal immigration is a readily available solution — is revolting.

He doesn’t want a law. He wants a fight, and he wants the votes that a fight may bring him. It is Chicago polarizing politics at its very worst.

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann are authors of the new book “2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan.”

DOJ vs. Arizona: The battle over preemption

Michelle Malkin 

Lead Story

DOJ vs. Arizona: The battle over preemption

By Michelle Malkin  •  July 6, 2010 10:49 AM

Here it comes. After months of advance hype and threats, Team Obama is reportedly set to file suit against the state of Arizona over its immigration enforcement law. The Washington Post says the filing could come today.

The word of the day: “Preemption.”

The lawsuit, which three sources said could be filed as early as Tuesday, will invoke for its main argument the legal doctrine of “preemption,” which is based on the Constitution’s supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. Justice Department officials believe that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, the sources said…The preemption doctrine has been established in Supreme Court decisions, and some legal experts have said such a federal argument likely would persuade a judge to declare the law unconstitutional.

But lawyers who helped draft the Arizona legislation have expressed doubt that a preemption argument would prevail.

Rosemary Jenks at Numbers USA has some helpful legal context:

The Supreme Court has stated clearly and often that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress “plenary power” over immigration policy, meaning that Congress has virtually unlimited authority to regulate immigration into the United States. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says that federal law supersedes conflicting state law. In immigration matters, the courts have consistently held that this means that states may enact immigration-related laws that go as far as, but no further than, duly enacted federal laws, except in areas where Congress has specifically preempted state action. (The primary example of Congress preempting state action is 8 U.S.C. 1324b(h)(2), which prohibits states and localities from “imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens,” which is why states and localities must tie E-Verify mandates to the issuance of business licenses.) Congress has not preempted state or local action regarding any of the federal laws that the new Arizona law seeks to enforce, so long as the state law goes no further than existing federal law. The Arizona law was drafted meticulously to ensure that it complies fully with the U.S. Constitution and with federal immigration laws.

Hans Bader noted last year that left-wing attorneys are selective supporters of preemption doctrine:

Other Obama appointees, like attorney general Eric Holder, are also big supporters of gun control. (Holder has argued that the Second Amendment does not protect any individual right).

Many (but not all) state constitutions protect the right to possess a firearm. But liberal administrations often seek to use federal workplace laws to try to override rights protected by state constitutions or laws. For example, the Clinton Administration argued that a federal law called Title VII overrode California’s broad equal-protection guarantees, which forbade racial quotas and preferences in government contracting, college admissions, and public employment. This “preemption” argument was rejected by a federal appeals court in Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson (1997). (Ironically, liberal lawyers often oppose preemption when it expands individual freedom, like federal curbs on baseless state-court lawsuits. The Obama Administration opposes preemption when it would prevent trial lawyers from bringing lawsuits).

SB1070 author Kris Kobach responded to the preemption issue back in April:

NLJ: How did you ensure that S.B. 1070 conforms with federal pre-emption doctrine, which is likely to be the major basis for challenging the law?

KK: The provision of the law that many have focused on is the one makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry registration documents on his person. They fail to mention that an individual is only guilty if he is in violation of 8 USC sec 1304(a) or 8 USC 1306(e). Those provisions have been around since 1940, making it a crime to fail to register or carry certain documents. The state statue literally refers to those federal statutes. A person can only be guilty under the state statute if he is guilty under the federal statute.

The principle that protects the Arizona law is the legal principle of concurrent enforcement. This has been recognized by several courts, including the 9th Circuit. It holds that a law is not conflict-preempted if the state law prohibits the same behavior that is already prohibited by federal law. Similarly, if a state officer acts in a way to assist the federal government in that action, he concurrently enforces what is already prohibited under federal law.

That principle guides any interpretation of S.B. 1070.

The controlling Supreme Court precedent is 1976′s De Canas v. Bica. In that case, the Supreme Court recognized states may enact legislation to discourage illegal immigration within their jurisdictions. The mere fact that a state law concerns illegal immigration or affects immigration in some way does not render it pre-empted.

The Arizona law is scheduled to take effect July 29 — and the open-borders mob is gearing up. Remember Saul Arellano? The now-10-year-old son of illegal alien deportation fugitive Elvira Arellano has been hauled back from Mexico to join pro-illegal alien activists on another amnesty march to the Washington.

Good thing such kiddie human shield antics don’t cut it in a rational court of law.

***

Related: Arizona Democrats running as fast as they can away from Obama.

Somewhere over the wind farm

Somewhere over the wind farm

By David Rosenthal

Somewhere over the wind farm, way up high, there’s a land full of oil, so why did the industry die?
The oil patch has always had its ups and downs, but it has always provided well paying jobs to a wide array of employees.  From divers to doodelbuggers, technicians to toolpushers, geoscientists to general counsel, cooks to ….   You get the picture.  While the oil patch has always been a scapegoat for greed, high gas prices, overall inflation, it is now under threat of extinction.  Environmental fascists, and an ideological government, with help from an uninformed public, using overblown threats of planetary disaster, are the predatory warriors. 
Increased government regulation, removal of tax breaks, especially those enjoyed by other industries, restrictions on offshore and onshore drillable acreage, and windfall profits taxes, will make it impossible for many private sector exploration companies to function.  Many would argue that the push for cleaner energy will, as Obama put it, “necessarily cause energy prices to spike,” resulting in favorable commodity prices.  However, the war on fossil fuels will negate the benefit of these higher prices.  
Many private sector firms typically analyze the profit to investment ratios (P/I) prior to drilling exploration prospects.  This is calculated by dividing the mean expected value (minus taxes and operating expenses) by the real and estimated investment costs (land and leasing, geological and geophysical, drilling, and completion expenses).  Mean expected value is the probability of success (POS), or risk, multiplied by the mean reserves at a certain commodity price.  Both POS and mean reserves are estimated by geologists, geophysicists, and engineers and are derived by interpreting many attributes and elements of an exploration prospect.  A POS can range from 10% for a deep wildcat to 90% for a simple development or infill well.  Often these estimates of POS and reserves can be subjective and based on experience.  The mean expected value is therefore a risked estimate. 
Anything that increases the investment (I) expenses, like increased drilling or completion regulations, higher lease costs, etc, reduces the P/I.  Increased operating regulations, taxes, and post BP spill, the potential for exorbitant liability expenses, directly reduces profits, further decreasing P/I.  What this means is that companies will explore and test only prospects with huge mean reserves.  These are the prospects in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, and despite the POS of only 20-25%, are still economic.  Unfortunately, only the large multinational firms like Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and other foreign owned companies will be able to absorb the increased liabilities and risk, necessary to drill these prospects.  These elephants will thus be off limits for small and medium sized companies, even though several have been successful. 
Another result of higher costs and regulations will be that the smaller, conventional targets, onshore and on the Gulf of Mexico shelf, become uneconomic, and therefore stay in the ground.  This is when many small to medium size companies either merge or go out of business.  Each of these options creates more unemployment and less energy output.  As energy prices continue to soar and Americans finally realize that the conveniences enjoyed over the past several generations are rapidly diminishing, the clamoring demand for more energy will force the government to act.  And continuing down the socialistic path they will act, resulting in the creation of Big Government Oil Co (BGOC). 
For petroleum geophysicists like me, BGOC will be a blessing.  No longer will we have to worry about the economics of exploration targets.  One word never mentioned on a government agency mission statement; profit.  If it glows (anomalous event) drill it!  Too small, drill it!  Too risky, drill it!  Decisions are easy when someone else is paying the tab.  Especially when it’s the American taxpayer! 
One must wonder if this scenario hasn’t already been planned, especially considering the awkward comments of Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who in 2008 told energy executives that “the government will take over your companies?”  Who would be in charge of BGOC?   Perhaps it will be Nancy the Wicked Witch of the West, Harry the Wizard of Nothing, or Barack the Scarecrow.  Whoever it is, this dream will certainly not win an academy award.