Sunday, October 31, 2010

Good Intentions, Horrible Consequences ... Pastor David Rosales


Good intentions, horrible consequences
Destroying jobs and hurting families, in the name of preventing climate change
Pastor David Rosales

God does not judge us by our intentions, but by what we actually do. The consequences of our actions matter, both intended and unintended.

We need to keep that in mind, as our nation ponders whether to enact new rules that some say are needed to “break our addiction to oil,” prevent “dangerous global warming,” and replace hydrocarbon energy with “renewable” power.” These rules include climate and energy bills that some Senators want to enact after the November elections, and new regulations that the Environmental Protection Agency is already imposing on America’s transportation, construction and manufacturing industries.

The extent and importance of natural and human influences on the climate are hardly settled. Whether alternate energy sources, like wind and solar power, can actually provide sufficient energy for our dynamic, energy-dependent economy is equally subject to debate.
Meanwhile, other, more pressing questions are not being sufficiently addressed.
Few are more important than the impacts these rules are likely to have on poor and minority families. Proponents of climate change and renewable energy policies insist that the effects will be positive. However, Europe’s experience strongly suggests that the exact opposite would occur.
As Greece, Hungary and other countries teeter on the brink of bankruptcy, a new report notes that families in Eastern Europe are increasingly being forced to heat with wood and lignite coal, because they cannot afford electricity. This is leading to deforestation around cities, high levels of indoor air pollution and chronic lung diseases, in addition to rising carbon dioxide and soot emissions.
In England, high energy taxes, the closure of coal-fired power plants, and a legally mandated transition to “green” energy have sent prices soaring and put 5.5 million households in “fuel poverty” – meaning they can no longer afford to heat their homes properly. Soaring energy prices have forced companies to lay off workers, especially in energy-intensive industries.
Average annual energy bills climbed from $1,620 in 2005 to $2,250 by the end of 2009, the National Housing Federation says. Analysts for an energy switching company project that household bills could skyrocket to $8,000 by 2020. People have been shocked and angered, and pensioners are burning books to stay warm, because they are cheaper than “carbon-priced” coal otherwise used in small home heaters.
According to the NHF, some 25,000 more people died during the winter than during the summer – mostly poor pensioners with circulatory, respiratory and other health problems. That underlines the reality that cold weather is always more deadly than heat waves or a couple degrees increase in average global temperatures. It also underscores the importance of affordable energy.

American politicians claim none of this will happen here, because some of the hundreds of billions in new energy taxes raised under a cap-and-trade regime would be rebated to poor families.
But how will a $500 or so rebate to the poorest families help them and middle class households pay for $2,000-4,000 in higher annual energy, food, transportation, clothing, healthcare and other living expenses, caused by climate and renewable energy legislation? What about families whose breadwinners are laid off, because their employers had to reduce their work forces to pay soaring energy bills?

Energy cost rebates to poor families do nothing to help businesses and factories pay for electricity, heating, cooling, transportation and raw materials expenses that will likely add thousands or even millions to annual operating costs. They don’t help offices, shops, schools, hospitals, churches and other organizations pay energy costs that are rocketing upward.
School districts, for example, will have to pay far more to operate buses and heat buildings. That will mean increased debt, higher local taxes, teacher salary cuts and workforce reductions, or reduced music, athletic and special education programs.

Climate policies that are supposed to help reduce carbon emissions will, ironically, drive jobs overseas to countries that have less restrictive environmental protections than we do – and global carbon dioxide levels will continue to increase.

To impose costs like these – based on computer models, politicized science and bald assertions that fossil fuel use is causing a climate disaster – is morally wrong. It violates the trust we have placed (or misplaced) in our elected officials and our regulators.

Before taking any final action on climate and energy laws, politicians and regulators must demonstrate clearly and convincingly that we face an imminent manmade crisis, that their proposals will in fact prevent the crisis, and that they will safeguard families, businesses and workers from these devastating economic impacts. Thus far, they have failed to make that case.
It may be expedient politics to insist that “We have to do something,” for the sake of demonstrating concern or activity. But that is not leadership – and it isn’t moral to make workers and poor families pay for this folly.

David Rosales
____________
David Rosales is the Senior Pastor of Calvary Chapel Chino Valley, a Southern California church with more than 9,000 attendees, the national radio host of A Sure Foundation, and an Advisor for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Politics 2010 in Black and White ... Alan Caruba


Politics 2010 in Black and White
By Alan Caruba

In 2008, Barack Obama would not have been elected to the presidency if white voters had not reached a point since the days of the 1960s Civil Rights movement to think a black man could and should have a shot at the job. If race played a role in the election, it was usually Obama that made reference to it, lightly touching on the subject to acknowledge and diminish it.

The only Americans permitted to discuss black/white relations these days are its media-designated spokespersons like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. When the NAACP spoke up recently, it was to condemn Tea Party members as racists. Rather than advance the condition of blacks in America, Obama has done almost nothing. Indeed, one of his administration’s first acts was to defund charter schools in Washington, D.C. where, like most major urban centers, the schools that young blacks attend are universally dismal.

It is, of course, impossible to look at the handsome, young black President without seeing a handsome, young black President. Understandably, he has the support of the vast majority of America’s black population; approximately 9.9 million according to the last census. They are a minority among minorities. There are now more Hispanics than blacks.

It is, however, Obama’s policies, not his skin color, that have created resistance. In a recent statement, Earl G. Graves Sr., chairman and publisher of Black Enterprise, said, “The distress is real and legitimate. First, people of all races and economic backgrounds are continuing to suffer as the result of an economy that continues to struggle.” Graves, however, gave Obama a pass with the now familiar assertion that Obama “inherited this mess”, but the fact is that Obama sought the presidency and all presidents inherit whatever issues preceded their term in office or occur on their watch. It is the manner in which they address those issues by which we judge their competency. Graves lamented that, despite Obama’s election as the nation’s first black president, “there are still people who just cannot get past the issue of race. They still can’t bring themselves to respect a black man, even if he is the President of the United States, regardless of his policies and actions.”

To which I say “hogwash.” The forthcoming midterm elections are all about the Obama administration policies; the profligate borrowing and spending, the bailouts, the takeover of the nation’s healthcare sector, the shutdown of offshore oil drilling, the insults to foreign allies, and the timidity toward foreign enemies.

Having lived in the south at a time when segregation was the norm, I can attest to how far white America has come in rejecting those restrictions, but I would argue that their hopes for America’s black community have fallen well short of expectations.

White Americans are hugely disappointed. Much had to be ignored when some of them voted for Obama. At one point in the campaign he had to disavow Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the twenty years he attended a church devoted to black liberation theology; a church where Rev. Wright could stand in the pulpit and say, “God damn America.”

Much within America’s black community remains dysfunctional. A recent Wall Street Journal commentary about the NAACP, noted that “Blacks are 13% of the population but comprise 38% of prison or jail inmates in the U.S., and black-on-black violent crime is the norm. Blacks commit 52% of all murders and make up 49% of all murder victims—90% of them are killed by other blacks.”

In cities, many of which that have had black mayors, the schools are among the worst. More than 70% of black children are born to single women and, as The Wall Street Journal commentary noted “are more likely to live in poverty, perform poorly in school, to commit crimes and abuse drugs.” This is a failure of the progress many white Americans had wished for. Obama is no flag-waving black American. He has noticeably been unwilling to salute during the playing of the national anthem. He is demonstrably a socialist in a capitalist nation.

When he selected Van Jones, a black member of the Communist Party, to be his “green jobs czar”, Jones resigned when his communist affiliation was revealed. When Obama lived with his grandparents in Hawaii, a teenage mentor was Frank Marshall Davis, a black newspaper journalist and poet who was widely known in the 1950s to be a communist. His memoirs speak of his affinity with Marxist students and faculty members.

He was elected despite this. It has taken less than two years in office for the backlash to occur.

It may be unfair, but whites hold black politicians to a higher standard of behavior simply because they have risen to positions of power, often as the result of heavily black constituencies.

Charles Rangel (D-NY) is facing ethics charges along with Maxine Waters (D-CA). It was revealed that Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) steered college scholarships to members of her own family. In 2006 Rep. William Jefferson was found to have $90,000 in bribe money in his home freezer and subsequently went to jail. In 1994, Rep. Mel Reynolds was found guilty of having had sex with an underage 16-year-old campaign worker.

When it comes to the Department of Justice, issues of voting rights are front and center. The double standards of DOJ under the leadership of a black Attorney General, Eric Holder, are a cause for concern in the white community. While on a recent campaign stop in Rhode Island Obama repeated his mantra that the nation’s economic problems are all due to Republicans despite the obvious fact that Democrats have been in control of Congress since 2006. Prior to the 1994 midterm elections, Democrats had controlled Congress for forty years.

At one point Obama said, “We can’t have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.” The ill-conceived and unfortunate back-of-the-bus remark comes from the early days of the Civil Rights struggle for equality when, throughout the South, blacks were required to sit in the back of the bus. Applying it to Republicans was especially offensive. In a recent radio interview he told Hispanic listeners that they must “punish our enemies.”

Like an old time Southern Democrat politician Obama has played the race and ethnicity card reflecting his party’s dependency, not just on blacks, but a hoped-for Hispanic support as well. The rest of his base has shrunk to unions and the nation’s youth. The midterm elections are expected to make a dramatic change in Congress and, when the dust settles, it will not be because America is led by a black president, but because America is led by an incompetent president, a socialist whose policies will have been soundly rejected.

© Alan Caruba, 2010
*********************
Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" his popular blog and thereafter on dozens of other websites and blogs. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. To visit his Facebook page, click here For information on his professional skills, Caruba.com is the place to visit.

Friday, October 29, 2010

Abolition of the Ninth Circuit Court?


Abolition of the Ninth Circuit Court?
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Excerpt from the US Constitution:

Article III

Section 1: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."
Section 2: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.”

In the event you were not aware – “the Constitution grants Congress power to create and abolish federal courts, although the United States Supreme Court is the only court that cannot be abolished. Congress also has the authority to determine the number of judges in the federal judiciary system.” (SOURCE)

Earlier this year, Newt Gingrich called for the complete abolition of the Ninth Circuit Court. Gingrich was speaking to the annual gathering of the Conservative Political Action Conference at the time. Referring to an action by President Thomas Jefferson, Gingrich said the “judicial reform act of 1802 abolished 18 out of 35 federal judges, over half…I am more cautious than Jefferson. I would only abolish the Ninth Circuit Court.” (SOURCE)

You may disagree with Mr. Gingrich but, frankly, he may be onto something here.
The Ninth Circuit Court is the biggest of all the federal courts. It is based in San Francisco and it is heavily liberal. This particular court is a pain in the posterior to all things conservative.

Back in November of 2009, Gingrich is reported to have said: “It is constitutionally permissible, for the legislature and the president to say to a court, you are intolerable, and you no longer exist. And we need that debate because I am tired of secular fanatics trying to redesign America in their image.” (SOURCE)

I could not agree more!

Just this week (Tuesday, October 27th, 2010) the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that Arizona couldn’t require proof of citizenship in the United States when registering to vote.

“A three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday struck down a portion of an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. The court held that the law, Proposition 200, was inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), which was passed with the intent of increasing voter registration and removing barriers to registration imposed by the states. The NVRA requires voters to attest to the validity of the information on their registration form, including their citizenship, but does not require them to provide additional proof of citizenship. Proposition 200 went beyond the federal statute, requiring applicants to show proof of citizenship before registering to vote.” (SOURCE)

Now, maybe I’m a little slow on the uptake here, but doesn’t that effectively mean that non-citizens will be allowed to register to vote, oh, say, in the 2012 Presidential Election – not just in Arizona -- but also in all fifty states?

I realize that I am “Old Fashioned” but I was taught, and I still believe, that voting is a privilege granted to citizens of this country. In my opinion, a non-citizen should never be allowed to vote, in any country’s elections, under any circumstances.

On the other hand, if you happen to be the Democratic Party and you need all the votes you can get to gain and/or hold onto to power in a “Socialist Republic of America,” then you do everything within your power to allow all the illegal aliens you can squeeze across our southern border into the US and then grant them the privilege to vote in order to keep you in power. See? Makes all the sense in the world!

And the dems wonder why we are mad as hell? Like it, or not, THIS is the way this latest action by the federal court is being viewed and understood by Americans.

I visited my barbershop the morning of this writing, for a haircut, and even before I arrived the conversation had begun. The disgust and anger at the Democratic Party, the disgust and anger at the Obama Regime was flowing like a river of acid! Men and women were openly venting their anger at the loss of their freedom, the loss of their country and they did not mince words.

Everyone agreed that the United States of America is now a socialist country heading, as straight as a Martin to a gourd, towards communism. There was no discussion, pro and con. It was a declarative statement. There is RAGE out here -- and it is no longer simmering.

Everyone agreed, men and women alike, there will be open rioting in the streets of the US before the next election in 2012.

In my naiveté, I had thought this election, on Tuesday, would let some steam off and the anger level in America would subside, at least a bit. But, now, I am not so sure. This white-hot anger runs deep, at least here in the southern states. I am convinced you will see that on Tuesday evening.

By the way, it is rarely noted, but Arizona is a southern state. She stood with the Confederacy during the “late unpleasantness” of 1861 through 1865. Recently, the remainder of her former Confederate sisters see her as being “put upon” by the federal government and, frankly, we do not like it – at all.

Actions, such as the ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court referenced above, which will allow people who aren’t even supposed to be in the country, and, indeed, are already criminals, to vote, is viewed as nothing more than the heavy hand of an oppressive socialist government intent upon establishing a totalitarian regime and crush any resistance to their efforts.

Southerners have been in the vanguard of every rebellion against totalitarianism and oppressive government on the shores of this country -- even before it’s founding.

Southerners are kind, gentle, soft-spoken, hospitable, God-fearing people – right up til you get us mad.

As a Southerner, myself, I can attest that we are not mad, we aren’t even angry. We are LIVID!

Thanks to the Ninth Circuit Court even more southerners will be going to the polls to vote against the Obama Regime and the Democratic Party on Tuesday. We can do no less for our sister state of Arizona nor for our sister states above the Mason-Dixon line.

May God save America – and do so quickly!
J. D. Longstreet

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Caution! Bipartisanship Ahead?

Caution! Bipartisanship Ahead?
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet


The GOP tsunami referenced by the media recently to describe the coming “deluge of the democrats” could easily smash itself to bits on the shoals of (what else?) bipartisanship.

Already, if you listen carefully, you can hear whispers of bipartisanship in the ranks of the Mainstream Media. Sensing the coming devastation of their leftist party, the MsM is desperately trying to salvage anything they can of the Obama regime’s agenda. They hope to do that by encouraging the incoming GOP congressional members to be bipartisan in their approach to governing.

It is a recipe for disaster.

Look. I have said this time and again: If you are a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent, or a member of any of the Sundry other political parties in America… “Bipartisanship” in the US Congress is the last thing you should want! Bipartisanship is akin to one party rule.

There are profound differences between conservatives and liberal-socialist democrats -- really PROFOUND. The absolute last thing I want, as a conservative, is for the congressperson I send to Washington to compromise with the liberal-socialists. It would defeat the purpose of the election, in the first place.

What we conservatives want, no, what we demand, is for the conservatives we send to Washington to roll back the agenda of Obama and the liberal-socialists. THAT is the bottom line. If the GOP cannot do it, or will not do it, then all indications are that a third political party, one driven by grassroots Americans, not blue bloods, nor the country club set, but true "down home Americans" will explode on America’s political scene and sweep the Republican Party into the dustbin of history. This is neither a warning nor a threat from conservative America – it is a promise.

If there is a bipartisan congress after November 2nd, nothing will change. The scriptures teach us a valuable lessen about compromise. “A little leaven, leavens the whole loaf.” The same holds true for liberalism. A little liberalism will affect the entire conservative agenda. That must be avoided at all costs.

Back in February of 2008, I wrote the following: “… I take a position on things, anything, because I believe I am right. So do you. So do Republicans and Democrats and all the others. To compromise your core beliefs simply means they were not core beliefs to begin with… or… you are a weak individual and your willingness to compromise is a character flaw. The same holds true for a political party.

Where I come from, compromise, by anyone, is seen as a weakness of will. A lack of will power. It is not seen as a good thing. One who refuses to compromise, and sticks to his guns, is looked-up to as a strong individual, as someone to be admired. You may not like his position, but damnit; you know where he stands… at all times!

Now… what of consensus? Well, consensus, plain and simple, is lack of leadership. It means there is no single individual in the group strong enough to lead and/or guide all, or a part of the group, to his way of thinking. Consensus is that paved road to Perdition!” I have not changed my mind.

America has had four years of a liberal-socialist democrat congress and two years of a socialist President. All one needs to know about what socialism can do to a country, any country -- including America, is right before your eyes. In four years America has plummeted from the pinnacle to the pit. That’s what socialism does to a country, to a people. It will leach the life out of a national economy. Socialism is a terminal condition.

America cannot be saved through bipartisanship. America cannot be saved by compromising with the liberal-socialist democrats in the Congress and in the White House. There is no compromise with socialism. Like cancer, socialism must be cut out and destroyed or it will, inevitably, kill its host.

America is in deep peril at this moment in history. With federal courts setting the stage to allow non-citizens to vote in the 2012 election, it is imperative that we have a conservative Congress to curb the power-grabs of the democrats. The new Congress must act quickly, deliberately, and with single-mindedness to wrench control away from those who would transform this country into another third world socialist dung heap. Make no mistake about it. That is exactly where the democrats are taking this once great, this once proud, exceptional country.

There is so much to be done, including the repeal of Obamacare, the abolition of the Ninth Circuit Court, stopping Cap and Trade, defunding the EPA, stopping the profligate spending and reducing the size of the federal government… and all this is just scratching the surface.

America, we have much to do to save our country. We begin Tuesday by voting for conservatives. I can hardly wait for 6:30 AM next Tuesday. I intend to be the first, or among the first, to cast a ballot in my precinct. I have talked the talk. Now, it is time for me to walk the walk and exercise the power of the vote. I intend to do just that.

J. D. Longstreet

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Obama’s Failure Agenda ... Alan Caruba


Obama’s Failure Agenda
By Alan Caruba


Normally, we assume that anyone who runs for and assumes the office of president has an agenda intended to succeed and thereby ensure that history will look favorably on his accomplishments. The men who served in that office craved success and loathed failure.

Barack Obama didn’t merely promise hope and change. On June 3, 2008 in his nomination victory speech, he said that “this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…”

Lovely rhetoric, soaring oratory, but the sick were being cared for in hospitals all over America, even if they could not afford it because the law required such care then and now. No one was being turned away at the emergency room. As for jobs, in 2008 the unemployment rate rose to 6.1%, the highest level since September 2003. Today, it officially stands at 9.6% and is widely understood to be far closer in reality to 20%.

As for the Earth beginning to heal, I have no idea what he meant by that and I doubt anybody else did. Last time I checked, the Earth was doing just fine. The seas, meantime, have been rising a few millimeters each century and give no indication of stopping.

What will end, however, is the control of Congress by the Democrats in November; definitely the House and even possibly the Senate. What has already ended is Barack Obama’s credibility. Few people who have been paying attention believe anything the man says.

It took less than half his term to achieve this, but it began with his oath of office that required a “do-over”. Legislatively, letting Nancy Pelosi write and ram through a $787 billion stimulus bill was an indicator that Obama was clueless regarding ways to jump-start the economy. Obama signed it into law in February 2009.

Meanwhile he busied himself taking over ownership of General Motors and Chrysler, signing off on a failed “Cash for Clunkers” program.

The stimulus program, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, spent $63 million on a tunnel to nowhere in Pittsburgh, an $89,000 sidewalk that led to a ditch in Boynton, Oklahoma, and the president’s belated discovery that there were no “shovel ready” projects.

Among the projects were $1.9 million for international ant research, $554,763 for the National Forest Service to replace windows in a closed Mount St. Helens visitor center, and $308 million for a joint clean energy venture with BP, the oil company best known these days for the Gulf of Mexico spill.

While Americans were losing jobs and seeing their homes foreclosed upon, the Obama administration was spending $700,000 to study why monkeys respond negatively to inequality, $529,000 to study the effects of the environment on local populations—in the Himalayas, and $456,000 to study the circulation of Neptune’s atmosphere.

Nearly $9 million was spent on signs promoting the administration’s sponsorship of various stimulus projects.

His idea of partisanship was to tell Republicans in Congress “We won.”

His press conferences were such disasters there was a stretch of more than 300 days between the last two.

His foreign policy decisions included abandoning Poland, Tibet, and Israel. His efforts to entice Iran were rebuffed and the leaders of European nations and Russia made no secret that they regarded him as a dunce.

Obama took credit for the official end of the Iraq War even though that had been set in motion by the Bush administration well before his election. Instead of just closing down U.S. participation in the Afghanistan quagmire, Obama prolonged it.

At the heart of the mortgage loan financial collapse were two government entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but when the Obama administration signed off on new regulations for Wall Street, neither were even mentioned in the reform legislation.

Big Government kept getting bigger as agencies such as the Security Exchange Commission increases its budget by twenty percent to $1.2 billion, more than triple its size in 2000. It is expected to increase by more than one thousand people to about 4,700 regulators, a 36% increase from 2007.

Left unsaid that this is the same SEC that failed to spot Bernie Madoff’s $50 billion Ponzi scheme or did anything regarding what were later deemed “toxic assets” requiring a TARP program to bail out the banks, investment firms, and AIG, an insurance company.

Absolutely nothing good can be said for Obamacare. Most Americans opposed its passage and most say they want it repealed.

It’s a long list of failures and bad judgment. It’s worth keeping in mind that, on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated, the National Debt stood at $10.626 trillion. A recent calculation put it at an all time high of $13.665 trillion, an increase of $4.9 trillion in under two years.

The National Debt, by the time Obama leaves office in 2012, is projected to soar to nearly $16.5 trillion and that is more than one hundred percent of the value of the nation’s economy.

Here’s what I think. I think this is exactly what Barack Hussein Obama had in mind when he ran for the presidency and what has been a deliberate agenda while he has been in office.

Don’t forget to vote on November 2nd. The next Congress, particularly the House where all spending bills must be initiated and passed, must slam on the breaks if America is to survive Obama’s failure agenda.

Caruba blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy/. An author, business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

*************
Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" his popular blog and thereafter on dozens of other websites and blogs. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. To visit his Facebook page, click here For information on his professional skills, Caruba.com is the place to visit.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Police Officers Fired For TEA PARTY Membership?


Police Officers Fired For TEA PARTY Membership?
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet


We are receiving reports today that two police officers in a small east Texas town have been fired reportedly for their membership in a local Tea Party.

Read this report from the Lake Tawakoni Area News. You will find it here: (SOURCE)

Plus, there is this:
“The media, and most of Conservative America got their knickers in a twist over Juan Williams being fired by NPR, a case that was, in MY opinion, a libber reaping what he had sown, but if Conservative America can get involved and outraged over that, what will their reaction to this be?” … Texas Fred of the “Texas Fred Blog.” Read Fred’s entire article (HERE).

I worked as a conservative commentator for many years for an ownership and a board of directors who were, everyone, Democrats. For twenty years it was evident to everyone that my political philosophy was deeply anchored in conservatism. I made no secret of it on the air or off the air. In all that time I was never so much as queried about my comments by my bosses. Never. If my job was ever in jeopardy, I never knew it. THAT is the way it is supposed to be here in America.

Last time I looked, east Texas is still in America. I have family in Texas, and they sure as heck haven’t mentioned Texas’ secession from The Union recently.

This story is blazing around the blogosphere as we write. It is making its way to the Mainstream Media where it is likely to be ignored … as long as they possibly can, but eventually, they will be forced to acknowledge it.

Look, you cannot fire someone on account of his or her political affiliation. You must have another reason… a good reason … for termination.

Membership in, or affiliation with, the Tea Party Movement, or any political party, is the RIGHT of ALL AMERICANS. It is exercising one’s constitutional right of free speech guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Obviously, I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I have to ask if this could be viewed as a violation of the officer’s civil rights?

I am deeply afraid the scenario we are watching play out in this small east Texas town is what is in store for America if we do not clean house next Tuesday.

From “small town America” politics to national politics RAW POWER is the name of the game for the liberal-socialist democrats. THIS is what we have warned about over and over and over again.

Freedom is a precious thing. It is also a fragile thing. Once lost it is near impossible to regain.

As a country, we are at the precipice -- and we have had two reminders, in less than two weeks, of what this country will be like if we do not retake the reins of power from the power elite now in charge of our country from City Hall to the White House.

It is time for Americans who love freedom to plant their flags and state: “This far – and no farther!”

Remember this when you go to the polls on Tuesday.

J. D. Longstreet

Street Theater “Education” ... Paul Driessen



Street theater “education”
The climate and renewable energy con is losing its luster – prompting anguish and desperation
Paul Driessen

*********************


It’s been a rough few weeks for the “eco-progressive” fringe.


Static jet streams induced near-record high temperatures in parts of the United States and Russia, but extreme cold pummeled Seattle, England and much of the Southern Hemisphere. Perhaps Al Gore, Michael Mann and Rajendra Pachauri can turn this hodgepodge into “catastrophic climate change,” but most folks understand it as Mother Nature and weather.


Polls and news accounts find more Americans, Europeans and other people becoming weary and skeptical of “manmade global warming disaster” claims, convinced that natural forces are the primary cause of recurrent climate change, and unwilling to accept soaring energy prices and reduced living standards in the name of stabilizing Earth’s unpredictable climate.


Few Americans place any value on EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s meaningless statement – that “climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it” – to justify the draconian regimes the agency is trying to impose. The issue is whether our emissions of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic climate change, and there is no credible evidence of that.


The House-passed energy and climate bill remains moribund in the Senate. EPA is trying to regulate carbon dioxide in the absence of congressional action – based on its assertion that automotive, power plant and factory CO2 emissions “endanger human health and welfare.” However, Texas refuses to knuckle under, other states may likewise balk, and the next Congress could overturn the “endangerment” finding and bar EPA from rewriting the Clean Air Act and implementing its job-killing rules.


“Avatar” director James Cameron double-dared global warming disaster skeptics to debate him – then morphed into a chicken and cackled off when they accepted his increasingly ludicrous debate terms, calling his critics “swine” as he headed for the hills.


Having read too many Gore, Pachauri, Quinn and other Deep Ecology treatises, LunaBomber James Lee held Discovery Channel employees hostage and denounced the TV station for its support of “parasitic human infants,” before being shot by police. His website and actions underscore how demented some Earth Liberation and global warming fanatics have become.


As their economies have deteriorated, Germany, Italy, Spain and other countries have pulled the plug on unsustainable wind and solar subsidies, eliminating thousands of “green” jobs and putting hundreds of “clean energy” companies on the verge of bankruptcy.


Glen Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally on the National Mall drew 300,000 people. Meanwhile, “CarnivOil” events in Wisconsin drew more yawns than people, as desperate Big Environment groups struggled to regain their momentum, by ranting about global warming, the Gulf oil spill, and “evil” oil companies.


Americans increasingly understand that even sending US carbon dioxide emissions back to 1870 levels, as congressional climate bills would do, will not reduce global atmospheric CO2 levels, because emissions from China, India and other nations will rapidly offset our painful reductions. Those countries have made it clear that they will not sacrifice improved living standards for assertions that we can stabilize global temperatures by keeping atmospheric CO2 levels below 0.035-0.045% (350-450 ppm).


As China’s former representative for climate negotiations recently said: “Developing nations … are not willing to combat climate change if the price is continued poverty.” The Chinese government has made “no concessions on the country’s right to develop.” Many problems can be solved only through development. “There are 600 million people in India without electricity. The country has to develop and meet that need. And if that increases emissions, I say, So what? The people have a right to a better life.”


Harvard University investigated and sanctioned Professor Marc Hauser for grossly exaggerating his primate research results. Yet, his actions pale by comparison to what Phil Jones, Michael Mann and other Climategate researchers engaged in. Hauser’s grants were a drop in the bucket compared to the climate cabal’s. And he was not advocating massive, expensive, punitive changes in our lives, liberties, and energy and economic systems. Will other institutions match Harvard’s demand for integrity?


The independent InterAcademy Council investigated the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and issued a tough report that may help bring some integrity, transparency, accountability and sanity to what thus far has been mostly politics and activism masquerading as science. The IPCC, says the IAC, needs to replace data manipulation, suppression and bias with honest science; end conflicts of interest; incorporate contrary data and opinions; and back up headline-grabbing disaster claims with actual evidence (not just computer models or World Wildlife Fund press releases).


In other words, it must stop trying to prove manmade carbon dioxide is the sole or primary factor in climate change – and seek evidence-based answers to what drives climate change, what we might expect in the future, and how humans can better adapt to warmer, colder, wetter or drier futures.


The IAC and Hauser precedents should serve as a warning to climate colluders and manipulators. They are also increasing pressure on IPCC Chairman Pachauri to abdicate his throne, and be replaced by a respected climate expert who can bring a degree of integrity to this politicized organization.


HOWEVER, a belligerent Pachauri has told the Times of India he has “shed any inhibitions or feelings of cowardice. I believe this is now my opportunity to go out and do what I think is right. In the second term I may be a little more uncomfortable for people than I was in the first.”


Senator Harry Reid says he may still try to pass even a minimalist renewable energy bill in the Senate, and then use it to ram through an economy-disrupting climate bill during a lame duck session, if even by a single vote. That would make the United States the only country to enact draconian climate and energy rules in the midst of a recession – sending millions of jobs overseas, where energy prices and regulatory regimes are more hospitable and governments believe people have a right to better lives.


Aided by George Soros, leftist foundations and our own tax dollars (via EPA and other government agencies), radical greens are spending millions to lobby Congress. The Washington Post is giving free media to what it calls “some of the country’s most respected environmental groups” – helping them spin absurd street theater like CarnivOil into “educational” programs about saving Planet Earth (with vile oil executives bribing boxing referees and knocking out crab-costumed activists).


Teamster, teacher, auto and service employee unions are paying their own employees minimal wages and benefits, and sacking them for trying to unionize, columnist Deroy Murdock chronicles – while preparing to pump $50 million and legions of campaigners into ruling class Democrat reelection campaigns.


Meanwhile, Congress and EPA are pouring tens of millions of taxpayer dollars into Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiatives, to help RGGI director Jonathan Schrag persuade states to implement increasingly restrictive fossil fuel, emission and renewable energy mandates, regardless of what Congress does – and pay for his new $2.2-million loft in Manhattan.


The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Today, on energy security issues, we unfortunately have less to worry about from external enemies, than from our own elitist politicians, bureaucrats and pressure groups.


In this critical election season, let us hope enough voters step up to defend our liberties, jobs, civil rights and children’s future.

_________


Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.

Monday, October 25, 2010

Defund Public Broadcasting


Defund Public Broadcasting
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

The French philosopher, François Marie Arouet (1694–1778), better known as “Voltaire,” is reported to have said: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." When in High School, I learned it as this: “I do not agree with a word you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.”

No matter the exact wording, it is a profound statement and one that has stuck with me, as you might expect, throughout my life.

Last week when NPR “canned” Juan Williams, it sprang forward into the consciousness area of my brain with the force of a mental electrical storm.

Allow me to declare, first of all, that I do not often, if ever, agree with Mr. Williams on his politics or his “social” positions. But the firing of Mr. Williams, for expressing his honest opinion, was, well, beyond the pale. It was simply incredible, meaning, – unbelievable.

If NPR has proved anything it is this -- if you work for them you had better toe the leftist line or you will be shown the door.

As a 30 year veteran of the private broadcasting industry, now thankfully retired, I must tell you that what the public just learned, last week, about public broadcasting has been whispered about for many decades by those in the private broadcasting sector. Liberals control it. That is not the way it is supposed to be. But alas, as we all learned last week, that is the way it is.

Public funding of a broadcasting organization today is unacceptable – period. In our opinion, all federal monies should be immediately cut off to NPR and even to CPB. If they cannot make it on donations from like-minded individuals then allow them to sink and disappear from the broadcasting scene.

As a taxpayer it galls me, no end, that my tax dollars are applied to assist in financing an organization that has the capacity to act as a cheerleader for politicians, for the government, or for any political agenda. It is just wrong on so many levels.

The Washington Examiner recently published an article entitled: “Kenneth Tomlinson: Why Congress must defund public broadcasting.” Mr. Tomlinson served a term-limited two years as chairman of the CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting). Tomlinson is the former editor-in-chief of Reader’s Digest. In the article Mr. Tomlinson said the following: “I literally had public broadcasting liberals explain to me that the taxpayer was obligated to fund NPR to provide the public balance to Rush Limbaugh. Of course liberals were about all I encountered in public broadcasting.

In my time of traveling the country for CPB, I encountered only two state programs that were genuinely politically balanced and I can count the number of conservative public broadcasting employees on one hand.” We urge you to read the entire article at the Washington Examiner. You will find it here (SOURCE).

Senator Jim DeMint (R), of my home state of South Carolina, wants to cut off all federal funding for NPR. According to news reports a spokesman for the senator’s office has confirmed the South Carolina Republican plans to introduce legislation to end federal funding for NPR.
Back in June, of this year, Colorado Republican U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn introduced legislation in the House to cut funding for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting after fiscal year 2012. That bill is in committee as we write.

It is time for all government funded broadcasting to cease. There simply is no need for it. There are a multltude of channels on TV these days which fill the need for which government funded public broadcasting was intended. The need no longer exists – if it ever did.

Juan Williams, himself, called for defunding of NPR, last week, after being fired for expressing an opinion on Fox News Channel. Williams said: “If they want to compete in the marketplace, they should compete in the marketplace,” Williams made this statement in an interview on Fox News Channel’s “Fox and Friends”. Williams went on to say: “They don’t need public funds. I think that they should go out there. They think their product is so great, go out and sell the product.” Williams also said: “And too often, they make it out like, ‘you know what, we are a public jewel and we need the protection of the federal government, we need federal funds that come through the member stations and they pay for this product.’ Nonsense,” he said. (SOURCE) (This is one of the rare occassions we agree with Mr. Williams.)

Nonsense, indeed! A new GOP government should take immediate steps to defund NPR and CPB.
J. D. Longstreet

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Tilting At Windmills ... Benjamin B. Phillips

Editor's Note: The coming "Lame Duck" session of Congress, soon after the November 2nd Mid-Term Election, is shaping up to be a "knock down, drag 'em out" brawl! If the GOP reclaims the House of Representatives, Dems are expected to make multiple efforts to ram through much of their liberal-socialist agenda in a last chance "Banzai Charge."

The dems are so deeply invested in keeping the hoax of Global Warming/Climate Change alive they are expected to push a requirement that electric power companies must include renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal) as part of their electricity generation efforts. Oh, and a part of the mandate is expected to be taxes that, of course, will be passed along to the consumer.

Benjamin B. Phillips, an assistant professor of systematic theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's Houston Campus and a research fellow of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, a national network of clergy, scientists, economists, and other experts has some interesting things to say about what we can expect. We thoght you might be interested in what Mr. Phillips has to say as sort of a "heads-up."

J. D. Longstreet
**************


Tilting at windmills
In its quixotic quest for renewable energy, the government is picking more losers than winners.
By: Benjamin B. Phillips

The Senate continues to consider a range of energy policy proposals, and may take one or more up during the “lame duck” session after the November elections. It is not yet clear which ones will emerge. However, some of the options include renewable electricity standards, requiring power companies to include renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal) as part of their electricity generation mix, and do so in escalating percentages by specific dates – regardless of whether affordable, reliable technologies actually exist by those dates.

Alternatively, some other scaled-down energy bill could potentially be reconciled with the comprehensive cap-tax-and-trade scheme that the House passed last year.

A central element in each of these proposals will be ways in which the Federal government will try to “incentivize” business to reach federally mandated goals for energy savings and reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. Of course, taxation will be part of the mix, as will direct regulation. But another facet of any bill which passes the Senate is likely to be tax breaks and federal (taxpayer and consumer) subsidies for favored approaches to creating and saving energy.

In a period of economic recession and potentially catastrophic budget deficits, the cost-effectiveness of these proposals will be not only an economic and fiscal issue, but also a moral question. Proverbs teaches us that “in the house of the wise are stores of choice food and oil, but a foolish man devours all he has” (21:20). Our government has not been very wise about spending our tax money for quite a while, as our $13 trillion national debt shows.

Proverbs, and our recent history, prompts us to ask whether Senators can play the role of “the wise” when it comes to picking which technologies to subsidize, and which to ignore. Can Congress really legislate the most efficient and effective use of our money, when it comes to our choices about energy production and consumption? Does it have the expertise and wisdom – or the ability and willingness to do so outside the realm of politics and political favors?

Take as a test case the governmental push for wind turbines as a source of energy, in comparison to the “recycling” approach begun in Indiana a few years ago.

Wind power is at the cutting edge of environmental-chic. Images of wind farms, with their tall towers and rotating blades, simply scream “eco-friendly” (though no one wants them in their neighborhoods, and birds and bats don’t like them either). Politicians have rushed to spend taxpayer money on these projects – to the tune of $93 million in last year’s “Recovery Act” alone.
Yet wind-based electricity is notoriously unreliable (working only 7-hours a day on average) and expensive to construct (requiring 10 times more steel and concrete than other sources to produce the same amount of electricity less dependably). Wind is also expensive (and carbon-intensive) to back up, because it requires natural gas or coal-fired generators that kick in when the wind dies down or blows too hard; that’s about as energy-efficient as flooring your gas pedal every time the light turns green, only to slam on the breaks at each stoplight.

Even the claim that wind-projects create jobs is suspect. Spain’s wind program cost $754k for every job created, and one of President Obama’s recent “green jobs” proposals would spend over $1,000,000 per job created! All this for a technology that cannot compete with existing power sources without such subsidies.

“Recycled” power, on the other hand, does not receive such lavish support. Recycled power technologies are systems that use energy wasted from one process to fuel a second process. One prominent, recent example is the Arcelor Mittal steel mill in East Chicago, IN. This company installed boilers mounted over their blast furnaces to heat water into steam, which in turn powers turbines, which produce electricity for the plant. Arcelor Mittal is now saving over $100 million a year in electricity costs, all without direct government funding.

The point is not that recycled energy projects should be federally subsidized (though that would certainly be a better use of taxpayer dollars than wind farms). Instead, the point is that the government has picked wind as a “winner” over recycling energy projects like the one in East Chicago. It has bet our money on the wrong horse.

There is a better system for allocating the financial resources of the nation with regard to energy production and consumption. It is the free decisions of responsible persons in a free marketplace of goods, services and ideas, under reasonable and necessary regulations.

People, and thus companies, clearly want more environmental responsibility. They also want cost-effective solutions, instead of decisions made on the basis of how effective lobbyists are or how many campaign dollars come into political campaigns. Americans know how to find the greatest “bang for the buck.”

Federal energy policy should focus on liberating American ingenuity. It should not be in the business of picking winners and losers, tilting like Don Quixote at windmills that our legislators imagine are evil fossil-fuel-breathing dragons – or mandating and subsidizing gargantuan windmills that generate expensive electricity only 30% of the time.

When people are allowed to make free choices, “We the People” will show ourselves to be like the wise woman of Proverbs 31:18, who “sees that her trading is profitable, and her lamp does not go out at night.”
_______________

Benjamin B. Phillips is an assistant professor of systematic theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's Houston Campus and a research fellow of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, a national network of clergy, scientists, economists, and other experts committed to helping the poor and caring for the environment.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Wind Power Mirages ... Pastor Jay Dennis


Wind Power Mirages
Would generating more electricity from wind really help poor families or the environment?
Pastor Jay Dennis


We Americans are often told we must end our “addiction” to oil and coal, because they harm the environment and Earth’s climate. “Ecologically friendly” wind energy, some say, will generate 20% of America’s energy in another decade, greatly reducing carbon dioxide emissions and land use impacts from mining and drilling.

These claims are a driving force behind the cap-tax-and-trade and renewable energy bills that Congress may try to ram through during a “lame duck” session – as well as the Environmental Protection Agency’s economy-threatening regulations under its ruling that carbon dioxide “endangers human health and welfare.”

It is true that we are commanded to be good stewards of the Earth and resources God gave us. We should conserve energy, use it wisely, and minimize harmful impacts on lands and wildlife. But we also need to safeguard our health and that of our neighbors, preserve jobs, and help poor families build wealth and improve their standard of living. I want all children, not just mine, to have a better future.

Heaven knows I’m not an engineer. But Robert Bryce’s readable book, “Power Hungry,” has opened my eyes and helped me appreciate what it really means to be good stewards – and why we depend on hydrocarbons for 85% of the energy that keeps our homes, businesses and communities running smoothly.

Bryce points out that we are no more “addicted” to fossil fuels than we are to food, housing and clothing. It’s simply that fossil fuels give us more abundant, reliable and affordable energy, from less land, than any alternatives we have today. They enable us to have jobs, hospitals, cars, schools, factories, offices, stores – and living standards better than royalty enjoyed a mere century ago. As fossil fuel consumption increases, so does agriculture, commerce, mobility, comfort, convenience, health and prosperity.

Oil, natural gas, coal and gasoline also give us huge amounts of energy from small tracts of land. One oil well producing just ten barrels a day provides the energy equivalent of electricity from wind turbines on half of Delaware, according to Bryce.

Wind-based electricity is unreliable. It’s available only when the wind is blowing enough but not too hard. It can add to our electrical grid, but can’t be depended on to power a business or operating room. And no factory or city can get by just on wind power – not in my lifetime, anyway. Wind as a primary or dominant energy source is simply a mirage.

Wind turbines actually generate electricity only seven hours a day on average – and 2 hours a day on sweltering Texas summer days and frigid Minnesota winter nights. That means every watt of wind power must be backed up by gas-fired generators that kick in every time the turbine blades stop turning.

And that’s just the beginning.

Wind turbine farms need ten times more steel and concrete than a nuclear, coal or gas power plant for the same amount of electricity. You also need thousands of tons of raw materials for the backup generators and the thousands of miles of new transmission lines to get the electricity to cities hundreds of miles from the wind farms. All these materials have to be dug out of the ground someplace.

All that mining and manufacturing is powered by fossil fuels, which requires more mining and drilling. The backup power plants have to be running constantly – and then roar to full strength every time the wind dies down. That’s like having to stop your car repeatedly for red lights along miles of highway: idling and then gunning it to 55 mph over and over. That uses huge amounts of fuel and emits enormous amounts of carbon dioxide and pollutants. In the end, we barely reduce America’s CO2 emissions – and may actually increase them.

Finally, even with billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, wind-based electricity is far more expensive than power generated by coal, natural gas or nuclear plants. That hurts families, sends business costs skyrocketing, and means people lose their jobs.

I’m not opposed to wind or solar or biofuels. I just don’t like it when our politicians, news media, environmental groups and government officials aren’t honest with us about these tradeoffs. Companies get fined for deceptive advertising. Politicians, journalists, eco-activists and bureaucrats should be held to the same standards.

Telling the truth is a basic moral principle. So is being a good steward of the Earth and its resources, by considering all the facts, the environmental impacts, and the harm to jobs and families from needlessly unreliable and expensive energy.

America can’t afford to shut down the fossil fuels that make our jobs and living standards possible – or slap huge new climate change taxes on them – before we have a real alternative to replace them, not just mirages.
___________
Jay Dennis is senior pastor of the 10,000-member Church at the Mall in Lakeland, Fla., and a senior advisor for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

Friday, October 22, 2010

GOP Says No Compromise with Dems!


GOP says compromise not on the agenda if they retake the House


"Look, there will be no compromise on stopping runaway spending, deficits and debt. There will be no compromise on repealing Obamacare. There will be no compromise on stopping Democrats from growing government and raising taxes," Pence(Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.) told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt Thursday evening. "And if I haven’t been clear enough yet, let me say again: No compromise." (SOURCE)

Mainstream Media “Puffing” Obama/Democrats Ahead of the Election


Mainstream Media “Puffing” Obama/Democrats Ahead of the Election
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

For the past few days I have seen a number of articles in the papers praising the Democratic Congress as one of the, if not THE, most productive Congress ever. The MsM has also lauded the Obama Regime for the host of “accomplishments” from the Office of the President.

It is pure political pabulum. Down on the farm, we have a different expression that more accurately describes what the Congress and the Obama Regime have actually done to America and Americans. It has to do with bovine droppings. It is, in my estimation, more correct than the pathetic, sycophantic, mewling of the left wing press.

As the doe-eyed, salivating, press corp, falls all over itself trying to hoist their failing socialist President and their liberal-socialist Congress up in the eyes of the public (whose intelligence they have so grossly underestimated) they create a comical picture, yet, one laced through and through with pathos. They are a pitiful sight.

Back here on earth, Americans actually see through the propaganda spewed by the Mainstream Media. (And the MsM does not understand why we have stopped buying their newspapers and turned our TV dials away from the broadcast networks to a news network that actually tries to present news in a “fair and balanced” manner)

Look, the plain truth is this: Sure Obama and his henchman on The Hill DID pass a lot of legislation. Unfortunately for them -- it was the WRONG legislation! It was NOT what the American people wanted and the American people are about to toss them out on their backsides to make just that point.

A drowning man needs a life jacket tossed to him – not an anvil. The Obama Regime and the liberal-socialist Congress have been tossing anvils at an alarming pace. The American electorate, about to be crushed by the weight of those anvils, protested loudly, but was ignored. They/we resent the heck out of that.

It also tee’d the American electorate off, dearly, when the GOP tried to slow down the Democrat’s anvil production and were constantly referred to by left wing writers in the MsM as the Party of “NO!” When a drowning man is sinking the last thing he needs is more weight. The GOP should have been the party of “Hell, NO!”

To be so smart, the left wing is among the dumbest critters on earth. They STILL do not understand the American people do not want the socialism they are hell bent on ramming down the collective (pardon the pun) American throat. Like children who refuse to accept THEY have made a boo-boo, they blame the ire of the public on the Republicans, on the Tea Party, on anybody and everything – but themselves. See, they are SO MUCH SMARTER that the great-unwashed American public, THEY feel we (the great-unwashed) should be thankful to have caretakers, such as themselves, watching over us. They simply cannot fathom why we do not want a Nanny State government like our cousins in Europe. They have either forgotten, or have chosen to ignore, the fact that Americans are not like their cousins in Europe. Had our ancestors not been different -- there would be no America and American Exceptionalism would not exist.

Oh, forgive me. I forgot. The left wing does not believe in American Exceptionalism! My bad!

If you have been following the news from Europe lately, you know what a socialist government can do. Look at the riots in Greece and most recently in France. THAT is what the liberal-socialists in the Democratic Party want for America. That is what they intend to transform America into. And THAT is why they have to be stopped -- and the sooner the better for America.

While Obama and the Mainstream Media work feverishly to motivate the youngest, most politically uneducated, voters in the country to flock to the polls on November second to save their tenuous hold on power, conservatives are leaning forward, eagerly awaiting the hour the polls open to cast their ballots for a FREE America. Personally, I intend to be the first, or among the first, to cast my ballot on the morning of November 2nd. I can hardly wait!
J. D. Longstreet

Thursday, October 21, 2010

NPR Fires Juan Williams for Telling the Truth ... Alan Caruba


NPR Fires Juan Williams for Telling the Truth
By Alan Caruba


The headline on the National Public Radio website said, “NPR Ends Williams’ Contract After Muslim Remarks”, but it should have said, “NPR Fires Williams for Telling the Truth.”

I am familiar with Juan Williams as Fox News Channel’s designated liberal. I have often wondered how Williams found time for NPR because he is on Fox morning, noon and night. The other night he was on with the incredibly popular Bill O’Reilly discussing the way the ladies of “The View” had thrown a hissy-fit over Bill’s comment that “Muslims killed Americans” on 9/11.

Well, yes, Muslims had planned it, funded it, and were the perpetrators. Not all Muslims, but all those involved in the terrorist act that involved hijacking four commercial airliners. Muslims have been killing people in London, Madrid, Moscow, Bali, Mumbai, and other places for a very long time when not killing other Muslims in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. In the aftermath of 9/11 some Muslims were dancing in the streets to celebrate the attack on the Great Satan.

So, when Juan Williams said “Look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous”, NPR thought that was “inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”

You do not have to be a NPR news analyst to worry about sharing a plane with self-identified Muslims. In December 2009, nothing but luck saved a plane from being blown to pieces by the Nigerian “underwear bomber” over Detroit. Nothing but luck saved an untold number of lives when another Muslim made a car bomb and parked it in Times Square. The Muslim Fort Hood shooter is still awaiting trial.

Telling the truth while exercising his First Amendment right of free speech was why NPR fired Juan Williams.

It happens that on October 19, Rasmussen Reports published the results of a telephone poll that asked respondents their opinion about political correctness. The conclusion was that “Some people think that government officials too often override the facts and common sense in the name of political correctness, and 74% regard political correctness as a problem in America today.”

The poll found that “57% of adults believe America today has become too politically correct” while 23% said it was not a problem. The Caruba Rule of Political Percentages says there is a hardcore of about 25% of Americans who are too stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time.

It is to Fox’s credit that Juan Williams was their “go-to guy” whenever they needed a liberal opinion on the events and issues of the day. I rarely agreed with anything he said, but I understood his contribution to the discussions because one could always gain an insight to the warped liberal point of view on matters great and small.

Recently in New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie let it be known he saw little reason for the state to be funding its own television news channel and it has always struck me as strange that the federal or state governments should be doing this.

Founded in 1970, NPR has always been a propaganda arm of the government and has always been liberal in its news reportage and analysis no matter what party was in power. About 10% of its funding comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a federally funded organization. The rest comes from local and state governments, government-funded universities, along with member station’s fees, foundation grants, and corporate underwriting.

In 2008, NPR programming reached a record 27.5 million people weekly, according to Arbitron ratings figures. NPR stations reach 32.7 million listeners overall according to Wikipedia.

While it is true that the mainstream media has for decades rendered itself unable to provide reasonably unbiased news coverage, outlets such as C-SPAN, The Wall Street Journal, and Fox News Channel have filled the gap along with a plethora of Internet news and opinion websites for anyone seeking information and analysis.

No doubt Williams will find a permanent home at Fox News Channel, but his firing is a warning to everyone that anything they hear on NPR is filtered through its liberal “editorial standards and practices.”

© Alan Caruba, 2010
Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" his popular blog and thereafter on dozens of other websites and blogs. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. To visit his Facebook page, click here For information on his professional skills, Caruba.com is the place to visit.

Obama Prepares to Surrender in Afghanistan



Obama Prepares to Surrender in Afghanistan
Obama and the White Flag of Surrender
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet


In an article entitled “Iran joins high-level Afghan talks” by AP writer ALESSANDRA RIZZO, Rizzo says the following: “Iran took part in a high-level meeting on Afghanistan on Monday after the United States said it has no problem with its participation.

The international "contact group" met in Rome amid a renewed push to end the nine-year-old war in Afghanistan, including bringing Taliban into peace talks. The group gathers the Afghan government, NATO, the EU, U.N. and other key players — including Iran this time — to assess progress in Afghanistan.

Representatives attending the talks said Iran was invited as part of efforts to have a comprehensive approach and include regional players in the discussions over the future of Afghanistan.

Richard Holbrooke, U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said Washington was asked about possible Iranian involvement and responded it had no problem with it. He and other representatives stressed the talks are limited to Afghanistan and do not touch on the contentious issue of Tehran's nuclear dossier.

"This is a meeting on Afghanistan and it is restricted to Afghanistan," Holbrooke told reporters. "What we are discussing here is not affected by, nor will it affect, the bilateral issues that are discussed elsewhere regarding Iran." (SOURCE)

What all this tells THIS scribe is – that Obama is looking for a way, anyway, to pull US Forces out of Afghanistan, at the earliest possible moment, and any progress that has been made in Afghanistan, at the cost of all those American’s lives, will have been in vain!

It looks, for all the world, as if Obama has LOST HIS WAR!

Look, Iran is the enemy of the United States … period! Iran wishes the United States nothing but harm. Why, a complete political novice and a totally naïve Commander-in-Chief would know better than to do want Obama is doing in Afghanistan -- and now he adds insult to injury by openly allowing Iran to join in the talks concerning the future of Afghanistan.

The dishonor done the US military by Obama is immeasurable. He has now shown his utter disrespect for the American warrior. No wonder the democrats do not want the military votes counted!

Obama is far more concerned with how other countries view HIM than he is about the successful completion of the US military’s mission in Afghanistan. He does not care that this will be seen as a victory for America’s enemies. He does not care that it will be another blemish on the reputation of the US military equal to that of Vietnam.

Rizzo goes on to say: “Commanding Gen. David Petraeus, who was attending the talks in Rome, said last week that coalition forces have allowed Taliban representatives to travel to Kabul for peace discussions with the Afghan government, although a Taliban spokesman has dismissed the talk as propaganda. In Kabul, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said he has high hopes for a new peace council to negotiate with Taliban leaders he's been meeting, according to a statement released Saturday by his office.” (SOURCE)

I have lost the respect I once had for General Petraeus. Why he does not resign is a question I cannot answer. Surely he can see the massive error in all this. If he cannot, then he is the wrong man to hold the position he currently fills.

Rizzo quotes Richard Holbrooke as saying: “That's not admitting defeat. We are not going to win this war by purely military means." Of course not … until it is tried!

We have said time and again you don’t win wars by attempting to win the hearts and minds of the enemy. To win wars you get the enemy by the testicles and THEN you can take him anywhere you want – including the surrender table!

To win a war you take the restraints off the military and allow them to fight it with everything in the arsenal -- including tactical nukes. If you can’t get the Taliban out of the mountains then nuke the mountains and flatten them on top of the Taliban.

There is simply no excuse for not allowing the US military to win in Afghanistan. Obama is exhibiting some of the most pathetic leadership as a Commander–in-Chief since, well, Jimmy Carter. As an American, and as a veteran, I am deeply, deeply, ashamed.

I feel for the American Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen who are placing their lives on the line for a cause when they KNOW their Commander-in-Chief will run the white flag of surrender up at the earliest possible moment.

Obama’s behavior toward the war in Afghanistan is not the behavior of a leader of men. It is not the behavior of a brave man. It is the behavior of a man who is looking for a place to hide, a way out, a place to run for safety. His conduct is an embarrassment to every red-blooded American male alive today.

Even a fool knows that defeat on a battlefield is NEVER assured until you decide to leave the battlefield. We now can rest assured that Obama has decided to give victory to America’s enemies in Afghanistan AND in Iran.

America does not need, nor want, this kind of man in the Oval Office of the President of the United States of America.
J. D. Longstreet

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

That Nagging Feeling

That Nagging Feeling
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet


It is a sad commentary on politics in America when an American cannot trust his or her own political party. Unfortunately, that is exactly where we are as the end of democrat dominance in Washington looms.

Anxious voters are asking themselves, and each other, if the GOP will have the intestinal fortitude to take the fight to the democrats -- and ALL The Way To The Wall, if necessary. THAT is the question nagging conservative voters especially those who are involved with the Tea Party movement in America and those republican voters who support the Tea Party movement. It is that “nagging feeling” I referred to in the title to this piece.

I must tell you, in my opinion, this is the GOP’s last shot at governing as a serious political party in America. Conservatives have found their power and their voice and over the past few months they have been eagerly learning how to use their voice and their power.

If the conservatives in America hand over power to the republicans in November and the republicans do not respond by standing up for conservative issues and pressing forward the conservative agenda, then MS Palin is correct, the Republican Party is through. Oh, there will be two political parties at the top in Washington, but it will be the Tea Party and the democrats with the GOP as a third party.

That nagging feeling I have includes the worry that the GOP still does not understand just how serious we conservatives really are. I don’t think they understand, I mean REALLY understand that conservatives in America are ready and willing to go to the mat to restore America to the constitutional, representative, republic the founders of this nation intended. We will defend her from the liberal-socialists who intend to transform America into a socialist state.

It has been said that freedom in America stands on four boxes: the soapbox, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. It is a truism that has been forgotten over the years but it is a truism, nevertheless.

The sovereignty movement within the states has involved half, or more, of the states reasserting their sovereignty from the reins of the federal government. The people of those states are serious. They are not “playing around.” No matter which political party is in power, they had better understand that the people of America have had it with an all powerful federal government inserting itself into every aspect of a citizen’s life. We are, as they say: “ … Mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore!”

The GOP will have one shot, one shot, mind you, to get it right. They had better not screw this up! They have to repeal ObamaCare, lower taxes, and get America back to work – and that is just for starters. They had better understand that Obama will fight them every step of the way and they had better be ready to fight, even if that eventually means shutting down the government. Yes, I DID say shutting down the government. A GOP Congress can use the power of the purse to bring pressure to bear where it is needed and they must not be afraid to do so.

Conservatives understand that we are in a fight for the very existence of America as a free country. We intend to live free.

I don’t think the GOP understands, yet, how fervently conservatives are invested in the idea of a free America. But they are about to.

WE have seen how quickly a country can go from the top to the bottom under the leadership of a liberal-socialist government.

The democrats seeded the cancer in America that is socialism. It continues to eat away at the very life of our country by killing liberty after liberty, freedom after freedom, and smothering the life out of American’s desire to achieve, overcome, and excel.

Since the democratic takeover of our Congress in 2006 we have become a mediocre country. The socialists in our government have denied, and continue to deny, American exceptionalism. They have been diligent in their efforts to turn America away from God and toward the state for everything. A free America cannot survive as a godless country.

Religious conservatives, especially the evangelical Christians, will happily tell you they will be going to the polls to vote their religious faith this November. They will be voting against the Obama Agenda and the Liberal-Socialist Agenda of the Democratic Party. They have come to understand that all the things the scriptures warn them about is embodied in the Obama Regime and the agenda of the Democratic Party. Many will tell you their religious faith compels they vote against the democrats and their “agenda from Hell.”

As I write these words, it is two weeks to the Mid-Term Election on November 2nd. I have heard the speeches. I have heard the promises. I have heard the pledges from the GOP. Yet, that nagging feeling persists.

Oh, well. Maybe it is just my natural paranoia, or, maybe, it is just good, old, common sense niggling at the edges of my politically induced indifference. You know … the urge to throw up one’s hands and turn one’s back and just walk away. But this time, THIS time, the stakes are way too high.

No.

This time we stand and fight. If the Republican Party is incapable of representing the conservative agenda in Congress then it is time to replace the GOP with a new political party that will.

J. D. Longstreet