Strategic Showdown
Senate Moves to Protect Energy Security from China
5 Top Stories from Around the World
Pexels/Magda Ehlers
Christians Arrested For Outdoor Church Service During COVID-19 Win $300,000 Lawsuit
Tories suffer double by-election defeat but cling on in Boris Johnson's old seat
'I would have preferred a robbery' says woman held hostage in bank
Taking a different path: Hungary's stand for national identity
Algeria blasts Israel's recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara
Know someone who wants actionable tips to bring freedom back to the West? Recommend The Liberty Signal and get them to sign up - for free!
US Senate backs measure barring oil sales to China from SPR
By Timothy Gardner and Patricia Zengerle, REUTERS
July 20, 20234:20 PM EDT
An oil storage tank and crude oil pipeline equipment is seen during a tour by the Department of Energy at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in Freeport, Texas, U.S. June 9, 2016. REUTERS/Richard Carson/File Photo
WASHINGTON, July 20 (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed an amendment to an annual defense bill on Thursday that would ban exports to China of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
The tally was 85 to 14 in favor of the measure, beyond the 60 votes needed in the 100-member Senate to add the amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, legislation that sets policy for the Department of Defense that is expected to be passed later this year.
The desire for a hard line on China is one of the few truly bipartisan sentiments in the divided U.S. Congress, and members of Congress have introduced dozens of bills seeking to address competition with China's communist government.
The amendment was sponsored by Senators Joe Manchin, a Democrat, and Ted Cruz, a Republican, who say the ban would protect national security.
Who Is Involved?
The U.S. Senate, which overwhelmingly passed an amendment banning oil exports to China from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).
Senators Joe Manchin and Ted Cruz, who sponsored the amendment citing national security.
President Joe Biden, who announced the sale of 180 million barrels from the SPR in response to rising gasoline prices due to Russia's war on Ukraine.
Senator Chris Murphy, who opposed the ban, stating it creates an illusion of a problem solution.
Chinese companies UNIPEC America and PetroChina International, who have previously bought oil from the SPR.
Benjamin Salisbury, an analyst at Height Capital Markets, who argues that the ban won't have a systemic impact on the functioning of the SPR.
Summary of News Story
The U.S. Senate has approved an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) prohibiting the sale of oil to China from the SPR.
The decision follows President Biden's sale of 180 million barrels from the SPR last year in response to gasoline prices spikes due to Russia's war on Ukraine.
Critics argue that this sale has reduced U.S. energy security as it left the SPR at its lowest level in 40 years.
This amendment is seen as a move to strengthen national security and it reflects the bipartisan consensus in Congress on taking a firm stance against China.
Opponents to the ban argue it may do more harm than good, suggesting it doesn't solve any significant problems.
Oil exports to China are on an upward trend, with more than 76 million barrels sold through April this year.
The amendment still has to be passed by the House and signed by the President to become law.
Why It Matters – The Liberty Signal Breakdown
This news story matters because it highlights the tension between economic interests and national security considerations in the U.S.'s relationship with China.
The ban on oil exports from the SPR to China can potentially affect the U.S.'s oil export market, with China being a significant buyer.
However, the decision underscores the importance the U.S. places on maintaining its energy security, especially in times of global conflicts that can disrupt oil prices, like the ongoing war in Ukraine.
For individual liberty, this story demonstrates the critical role of governmental decisions in shaping the nation's energy policy and the potential implications on energy prices and energy sector jobs.
Reading Between the Lines
The passage of this amendment signifies a bipartisan desire in the U.S. to confront China more aggressively, reflecting a hardline stance against what is seen as unfair competition from China's communist government.
It suggests a prioritization of national security over economic considerations, specifically in the domain of energy resources.
Key Takeaways from the News Story
The approval of the amendment demonstrates the U.S. Senate's commitment to national security concerns, even when such decisions could potentially impact the U.S.'s economic interests.
The story also underscores the importance of maintaining a robust Strategic Petroleum Reserve, particularly in an era of geopolitical instability and fluctuating oil prices.
Lastly, the bipartisan nature of the amendment indicates the existence of a common ground in U.S. politics concerning China policy, suggesting that a tougher approach towards China may continue in the foreseeable future.
The Liberty Signal Analysis
by Will Blesch
The passage of the amendment to bar exports to China of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is a sound decision in light of the historical and ongoing economic contest between the United States and China.
To fully appreciate this decision, one must examine the threat to American interests posed by Chinese economic policies and strategies, particularly in the realm of oil and energy.
The complex interplay between the United States and China has long been one of tension and competition. China's economic policy, particularly in the realm of energy, presents a considerable threat to American national security and energy independence.
It's critical to view the Senate's decision against this backdrop of geopolitical maneuvering.
China's economic strategy is predicated on securing resources for its burgeoning economy, and its military strategy complements this objective. Its aggressive actions in the South China Sea, for instance, are partially driven by the region's rich oil and natural gas resources.
China's pursuit of technologies, such as fracking and other extraction techniques, threatens to disrupt global energy markets and erode America's competitive edge.
Moreover, we need to remember that economic engagement does not guarantee ideological alignment. Vladimir Lenin, one of the architects of communism, once stated:
"They [capitalists] will furnish credits which will serve us for the support of the Communist Party in their countries and, by supplying us materials and technical equipment which we lack, will restore our military industry necessary for our future attacks against our suppliers. To put it in other words, they will work on the preparation of their own suicide." (1)
The real-world applicability of this statement today mustn't be overlooked. Ignoring the potential for our economic ties to be weaponized against us, as Lenin suggests, is to ignore the lessons of history.
Contrary to Senator Chris Murphy's statement that the amendment "creates the illusion of solving a problem while having very little political impact and likely doing more harm than good," this is not about political impact. It's about strategic prudence.
An unrestricted flow of oil from the SPR to China risks depleting a strategic resource, thereby jeopardizing our energy security and potentially empowering a geopolitical competitor.
Nonetheless, the amendment doesn't go far enough. Three additional measures could further enhance American national security against the Chinese economic and energy threat:
We must promote domestic energy production: Encouraging sustainable energy production will reduce dependence on foreign energy, particularly from adversarial nations. This includes supporting renewable energy initiatives and exploring responsible fossil fuel development.
Invest in technological innovation: Future energy dominance will come from technological leadership. America should prioritize research and development in next-generation energy technologies, such as advanced nuclear, carbon capture, and grid resilience.
Strengthen international energy partnerships: We should enhance energy trade and cooperation with our allies. This includes cooperative research on emerging energy technologies.
As for what the average American can do to contribute to this effort:
Invest in American companies that are leading the charge in energy innovation. This doesn't necessarily mean large financial investments.
Do your due diligence and consider investing in domestic energy companies whose executives have shown an interest in keeping resources in America – and if they sell, selling primarily to allies.
Support domestic energy companies that align with these views.
If you wish for America to be not only energy independent, but dominant – you must support government policy changes that promote that agenda.
The issue of China and our oil sales to it is more than just an economic discussion. It’s about strategic foresight, national security, and protecting American interests. It’s a conversation that is necessary, overdue, and one we must continue to engage in.
A Recession Could Be Coming: Make Money Or Lose Everything
Featured Commentary: “The High Costs of a “Hard” Decoupling From China” - Another View
By Clark Packard - The Cato Institute
“There’s been a lot of very loose talk recently from the press, politicians and think tank wonks about “decoupling”—that is, entirely eliminating trade, investment and migration—the United States and Chinese economies.
Proponents of decoupling the two economies never grapple with the enormity of the task and thus it’s useful to consider what such an idea actually entails as well as the costs to the U.S. and global economies.
In reality, a hard decoupling is not nearly as simple and painless as proponents argue. Washington bureaucrats and politicians one day flipping a switch and cutting off all economic ties between the world’s two largest economies is as unworkable as it would be economically disastrous.
Practically speaking, in order to operationalize a hard economic break with China, the U.S. would need to hire dramatically more customs agents as well as export control and investment monitors to police everyday transactions.”
Delicious, Easy-To-Make Smoothies For Rapid Weight Loss, Increased Energy, & Incredible Health!
ENDING SOON! – GET AN INSTANT $10 OFF!
Divine Insight
Nehemiah 4:13-14 (NASB)
14 When I saw their fear, I stood and said to the nobles, the officials, and the rest of the people: “Do not be afraid of them; remember the Lord who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your houses.”
Drawing upon the words of Nehemiah in Chapter 4, Verse 14, we can find wisdom and encouragement as we consider the challenges our country faces today.
Nehemiah led his people to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem while facing hostility and opposition from neighboring nations. Despite the threats, Nehemiah rallied his people not to fear their adversaries, but to remember the greatness and the might of the Lord.
Just as Nehemiah stood up against the officials and nobles of his time, we as Americans can reflect upon this lesson in courage and determination when dealing with modern issues such as economic and energy tensions with China.
The verse says, "Don’t be afraid of them. Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your families, your sons and your daughters, your wives and your homes."
Nehemiah understood the importance of steadfastness in the face of adversity. We, too, must stand our ground, not out of hostility, but out of a deep sense of responsibility to protect the welfare of our nation, our families, and our future generations.
Fear can be a powerful deterrent, but remembering the biblical guidance to trust in the Lord's strength can help us not to be afraid.
It's crucial to approach these geopolitical issues with wisdom, resolve, and a committed sense of stewardship for our nation's resources and economic stability.
Libertarian Commentary
The Libertarian and Conservative Case for the Abolition of Marriage Laws (Part 3) - by Peter S. Rieth, first published August 3, 2011
Before getting carried away with the notion that the political question before us is one of conservative traditionalism versus the liberal enthusiasm for social engineering and the universality of "social" justice, let us explore for a moment how contemporary civil marriage laws actually operate.
It should be noted from the outset that it is illegal in all states, and in all member states of the European Union (thus in the West) to get married in a Church without concurrently being "married" by the civil authorities. I begin with this observation because this fact should be alarming for all of us, but seems rather to be "quite normal" and non-controversial.
"Why," someone might ask, "would anyone wish to get married without also having their marriage valid in the eyes of the law?"
This viewpoint presumes, of course, that the law is there to protect the marriage that we have consecrated in Church. It is not an uncommon viewpoint, in fact, to regard the law as generally being there to protect any number of given rights we have as individuals or to guarantee the fulfillment of obligations that we have contracted out to others.
This viewpoint of the law as beneficial protector of rights is, in fact, the cornerstone of modern democratic society (whether socialist democrat, liberal democrat or even Christian democrat).
But libertarianism, and particularly public choice theory as well as the general political economy of "unintended consequences" teaches us to be wary of the law as a protector of anything.
This is something that any man or woman who has gone through a divorce will surely attest to. In a divorce, the parties to a civil marriage turn to the law to redress their grievances.
Suddenly, in most cases, they realize that the civil law is not concerned with the just redress of grievances, but rather only with the application of a law that is all too often predicated on the notion that – far from being a binding contract to love and care for spouses, marriage was more like a "lifestyle choice", made for temporary gratification of whims.
Divorce courts rarely end up satisfying both parties. They compound the damage by usually taking a very long time to come to a decision, thus prolonging the anguish of the disillusion of a civil union.
In short – just like a government post office doesn't deliver mail on time and a government train doesn't run on time – so to the lack of a price mechanism and any real pressure from market forces of supply and demand leads government courts to fail in the delivery of their promised goods: justice.
Why, you might ask, did people not think about this before getting married? Why not sign a prenuptial agreement or a separate civil agreement?
The standard answer, if ever this question is asked, is usually that to do so would be unromantic and somehow introduce some element of doubt into what ought to be a firm and serious desire to form a lasting union.
Libertarian political economy leads me, however, to suggest another answer: whenever the government takes it upon itself to craft fiat laws of inter-personal conduct and impose them on humans, humans tend not to think independently about said aspects of interpersonal conduct, and by force of habit cede their responsibilities to the government that has in effect taken them away from the individual. In other words – moral hazard functions in the realm of marriage no less than in the realm of government flood insurance.
Since government promises the redress grievances justly in an eventual divorce case, and since marriage laws promise a plethora of rights to spouses and promise the execution of duties from spouses – potential spouses do not think at all about what marriage entails – they have been conditioned to focus on the proverbial ceremony and not on the nature of the relationship.
Imagine if business were expected to run this way? Imagine if government regulated the terms of employment contracts or set the rules of trade? Isn't it likely that traders and businessmen would become more and more careless – since the issue is out of their hands by fiat anyways?
Isn't this, in fact, what happened on Wall Street or in the Banking Sector, where government control and regulation reached such grotesque heights, that all traders were left with was the option of buying high, and all bankers were left with was the option of selling credit at low interest rates?
Once the government introduces top down command and control – it conditions the market to act within an unnatural, mandated framework. Why would it be any different with government command and control of marriage?
(to be continued…)
Read more at Lewrockwell.com
A Recession Could Be Coming: Make Money Or Lose Everything
SAVE THE COUNTRY SECTION
(Actionable Tips Toward a More Free America)
As always, we're super excited to share some awesome tips with you in every issue of The Liberty Signal. Our goal is to give you quick and actionable steps you can start doing right now to make a real difference in your life.
With that in mind, when considering the long-term health of the American economy, we can no longer afford to ignore the growing influence of China.
A proactive strategy that every American can utilize to counteract Chinese economic encroachment is impact investing - an investment approach that doesn’t just provide financial returns, but also drives social and environmental change.
This strategy, while valuable for us all, isn’t just about national economic strength. It's about fostering a business ecosystem that reflects our core American values.
If we, as a nation, embrace impact investing, we can not only contribute to a stronger American economy but also endorse companies that align with our societal ethos, creating a more resilient and economically protective system.
What's required isn't a degree in economics, but a shift in perspective. Here's how you, as a Patriot, can begin:
1. Start Small: Impact investing isn’t exclusive to Wall Street gurus. Many online platforms allow retail investors to buy shares in ethical companies for as little as $5.
2. Research and Diversify: Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Diversify your investments across different companies and sectors that align with your values.
By integrating impact investing into our personal financial strategies, we can not only safeguard our financial futures but also encourage the growth of companies that prioritize ethical, America First practices.
Our actions as individual investors can collectively influence market trends, steering the American economy towards sustainable growth and away from foreign economic dominance.
In conclusion, impact investing isn't just about making money, it's a patriotic act, a declaration that traditional American values will continue to shape our economy.
Each one of us can contribute to this mission.
It's time to take a stand.
Discover Conservative America’s Number 1 Check: The TRB Black Check
Final Word
Know likeminded people who want to learn, grow, and fight for principles of liberty? Recommend The Liberty Signal to them. They can sign up today — it’s free!
• Have a tip or story idea you want to share? An effective strategy or tactic for spreading the message of Liberty? Email us — I’d love to hear from you! (support@thelibertysignal.com)
• Have thoughts about this issue of The Liberty Signal? Write us and let us know. (support@thelibertysignal.com)
We look forward to seeing you again in the next issue.
Yours in Liberty,
Will Blesch, The Liberty Signal
