Tuesday, May 31, 2011

The Curse on America?

The Curse on America? 

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet


I am going to turn my collar around and climb up into the pulpit for this one.

I was watching when President Obama called for Israel to return to the 1967 borders.  I physically flinched when he said the words.  Mentally, my mind was screaming:  NO!  NO!

If you have read the bible, then you know that God has promised punishment for anyone dividing the land he gave to Israel … severe punishment… even unto death.  He has also promised to curse those who curse Israel. That curse covers nations as well as individuals.

I am a Christian gentile. And even though the man, for whom my protestant denomination is named, hated Jews, I do NOT share in his warped hatred for tribe of Judah. 

In 1543 Martin Luther, The Great Reformer wrote a book entitled:  “On the Jews and Their Lies.”  In it he said:  “Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is:

First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire...

Second, that all their books-- their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible-- be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted...

Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country...

Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it...

In the same tome, Luther said:  “My essay, I hope, will furnish a Christian (who in any case has no desire to become a Jew) with enough material not only to defend himself against the blind, venomous Jews, but also to become the foe of the Jews' malice, lying, and cursing, and to understand not only that their belief is false but that they are surely possessed by all devils. May Christ, our dear Lord, convert them mercifully and preserve us steadfastly and immovably in the knowledge of him, which is eternal life. Amen.

Unlike many of our modern Christian denominations, I believe that God said what he meant and meant what He said.  And HE still does.

I say that -- to say this:  America is in deep trouble.

Our President, a man chosen by the people of America as their leader, as their spokesman, has, I believe, brought the wrath of God down on the people of America.   By having America turn its back on Israel, Obama sent a message to Israel’s enemies that America is on THEIR side.  He did not have to utter the words: “We now stand against Israel.”  That is understood. 

If believers have learned anything over the centuries, it is that God keeps His word. And that is why I flinched when Obama insisted that Israel fall back to the 1967 borders. That is “cursing Israel” and God will now curse America, as a result.

If you doubt me, and I am sure many will, just look at the scars in America’s heartland from massive tornadoes that scoured the land, ripping and tearing property, and lives apart.  Hundreds are dead.  Look at the Mississippi Basin, much of which is flooded.  Again, American lives and property destroyed.  It is devastation of, dare I say it … biblical proportions.

To our environmentalist friends, I would quickly add this:  Nature is NOT God.  God is the creator of nature and only God can command it and control it.

Joseph Farah has a great piece about this very thing entitled;  “Maybe doomsday is near.”  You will find it (HERE.)  We recommend that you read his entire article.

In the article Farah says this:Once again, we've seen the U.S. hit with a series of deadly superstorms following Barack Obama's pledge to return Israel to pre-1967 borders.

Just days after Obama insisted Israel must give up lands it won through military victory with its enemies, some 200 people were killed by a tornado in Joplin, Mo.

There's a pattern here.

We saw it in Katrina, when George Bush forced Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. In fact, as everyone from Israeli rabbis to U.S. senators have noted, it seems to happen every single time the U.S. pressures Israel to divide the land.

The phenomenon was best documented by Bill Koenig, author of "Eye to Eye: Facing the Consequences of Dividing Israel."
Koenig points out that nine of the 10 costliest insurance events in U.S. history followed dramatic calls by U.S. officials for Israel to make land concessions in bids for peace with its neighbors. He points out with startling detail how six of the seven costliest hurricanes in U.S. history followed such events. He points out how three of the four largest tornado outbreaks in U.S. history followed such developments.
Earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, even terrorist attacks have hit America often within 24 hours of calls by U.S. officials for Israel to withdraw from Jewish land.(SOURCE)

I reside in infamous Hurricane Alley.  Here, on or near, the NC coast, we call it the “The Catcher’s Mitt.”  If you look at a map of the NC coastline you will quickly see why. 
Hurricane season officially opens June first.  Given the record of natural devastation in the past few weeks, I expect we will have one of the worst hurricane seasons on record with record-breaking damage to the eastern seaboard of the United States. Of course, I always expect that.  But this year, I am sorely afraid that Obama has given me more than ample reason to believe it will occur, for sure, this year. 

It matters not one whit whether you believe all this, or not.  One’s belief has no effect, one way, or the other, on the occurrence of future events.  On the other hand, one’s actions could mean life or death.

In 2008 America demanded a leader just like all the other nations had/have.  As God did, when The People when to Samuel and demanded a king like the other nations around them, God allowed America to have Obama.  It was a lesson. 

Israel came to curse the day Saul was named King.  America, far more removed from God than ancient Israel, will, it seems, have to suffer far more punishment before we wake up to confront our national error in judgment -- and set it straight.

In the meantime, it is reasonable, I believe, to expect our national catastrophes to grow worse.

J. D. Longstreet 

Monday, May 30, 2011

Memorial Day -- Thank You!

Freedom Is Not Free

- Kelly Strong

I watched the flag pass by one day.
It fluttered in the breeze.
A young Marine saluted it,
and then he stood at ease.

I looked at him in uniform
So young, so tall, so proud,
He'd stand out in any crowd.

I thought how many men like him
Had fallen through the years.
How many died on foreign soil?
How many mothers' tears?

How many pilots' planes shot down?
How many died at sea?
How many foxholes were soldiers' graves?
No, freedom isn't free.

I heard the sound of TAPS one night,
When everything was still
I listened to the bugler play
And felt a sudden chill.

I wondered just how many times
That TAPS had meant "Amen,"
When a flag had draped a coffin
Of a brother or a friend.

I thought of all the children,
Of the mothers and the wives,
Of fathers, sons and husbands
With interrupted lives.

I thought about a graveyard
At the bottom of the sea
Of unmarked graves in Arlington.
No, freedom isn't free.

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Bogus Sex Scares Used to Ban BPA - The BPA File, Part Five ... Alan Caruba

Bogus Sex Scares Used to Ban BPA - The BPA File, Part Five

By Alan Caruba

Over the course of the first four elements of The BPA File, we have documented a massive, global campaign to ban bisphenol-A, BPA, a chemical that has been safely used for more than a half century to protect metal and plastic containers for food and liquid against spoilage and the resulting hazard to health.

Every day, somewhere in the nation and the world, there is a constant repetition of lies regarding BPA They frequently target the fears of mothers of newborn infants, but also allege a wide variety of other health threats including a healthy sex life for men and women.

In the same fashion that the global warming hoax was spread and maintained by a campaign that asserted that everything from frizzy hair to blizzards was the result of a dramatic warming cycle that was either happening or predicted to happen, the effort to ban BPA uses the same technique.

The campaign is pursued by a coalition of environmental and consumer activist groups that depend on such scare campaigns to maintain funding and secure members who can be relied upon to ignore or reject the science that disputes such campaigns.

In May 2011, the Miami Herald published what read like a news release by the Natural Resources Defense Council that asserted “Bisphenal-A associated with obesity, lower sperm counts, and pre-cancerous changes in the body is found in the bodies of 90 percent of Americans. Now a study shows that you can halve your levels of BPA and other chemicals within three days through a change in diet.”

Three distinct “scares” are captured in this news release, all aimed a fears regarding health, but none of them reflect the fact that trace amounts of BPA is routinely excreted and thus poses no threat. It also fails to reveal that the “studies” always involve administering large amounts of BPA to laboratory mice in a fashion that does not reflect actual exposure.

The ultimate target of the anti-BPA campaign is the widespread use of plastic containers of food and liquids, along with its use to line the insides of metal cans for that purpose.

From its earliest origins, environmentalists have sought to ban chemicals in general even though plastic has transformed and enhanced life around the world. In the U.S., the average life expectancy in the last century rose from thirty-seven in 1900 to the current seventy-eight years!

Earlier this year, the German Society of Toxicology released a review of more than five thousand previous studies of BPA exposure that concluded that BPA “exposure represents no noteworthy risk to the health of the human population, including newborns and babies.” Researchers concluded that BPA is neither mutagenic nor likely to be a carcinogen.

This, however, has not deterred the constant repetition of lies asserting that BPA is a health threat, nor a variety of efforts, including proposed State bans on the use of BPA. In April 2011, the Competitive Enterprise Institute released a 14-page report that included three pages of intensely documented notes, that refuted efforts by the Maryland legislature to ban infant formula and baby food packaging that contains more than 0.5 parts per billion (ppb) of BPA.

“In public policy, bad ideas have an unfortunate tendency to spread,” said Dr. Angela Logomasini, PhD. Efforts in Maine, Maryland, and even in Congress to ban BPA portend a host of food-born diseases and even death if such bans continue to be enacted.

The source of these bans is the environmental movement that first came to public notice when they succeeded in getting DDT banned. The result has been a rise in malarial deaths in nations that followed suit and in the swift explosion of the bed bug plague in the U.S.

So vast have been the campaigns against the beneficial chemicals that protect human health that a word was coined to identify the phenomenon—chemophobia. It is an irrational fear of chemicals when, in fact, the human body is a chemical factory, producing chemicals for digestion, hormones, and others, all the while cleaning the body of chemicals it rejects.

Simple common sense suggests that parts-per-billion of any substance cannot possibly pose a risk or threat.

In his book, “The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk Assessment”, published by the Cato Institute, author Indur M. Goklany, wrote “In keeping with its origins of technological skepticism, the precautionary principle has also been increasingly invoked as justification, among other things, for international controls, if not outright bans, on various technologies, which—despite substantial benefits to humanity and, in some cases to certain aspects of the environmental—could worsen other aspects of the environment or public health.”

At the heart of environmentalism is the core belief that humans are endangering the Earth by the use of the remarkable technologies that have been developed in the past century.

That is why, by spreading lies about sperm counts, endocrine disruption, and non-existent threats to infants and adults via plastic and metal containers of food and liquids, the ultimate agenda to reduce the worldwide human population is central to the campaign against the use of BPA.

There are no feasible substitutes for BPA. Banning it will guarantee the people will die.

© Alan Caruba, 2011
 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.

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Rants, lies, subsidies and job-killing policies ... Paul Driessen

Rants, lies, subsidies and job-killing policies
How our government subsidizes job, wealth, revenue and people-killing energy policies
Paul Driessen

President Obama’s speeches sum up his views on oil, natural gas and energy prices in just 44 words.

“We have less than 2% of the world’s oil reserves. We’re running out of places to drill. We’re running out of oil. We need to end our $4 billion in annual taxpayer subsidies to oil companies. We need to invest in clean, renewable energy.”

As Congressman Joe Wilson would say, That’s a lie! Or at least a deliberate distortion of facts.

Oil “reserves” are what can actually be produced at today’s prices, with existing technologies, and under current laws and regulations. America has vast oil, gas and coal resources – centuries of potential hydrocarbon energy. We certainly have the technology to extract it, especially at $100 a barrel. What we don’t have are laws and regulations that allow us to do so.

If the President were honest, he would say: “We’re running out of oil that Democrats, my Administration and our radical environmentalist allies will let this country produce. We’re running out of places we’ll let companies drill. We have 2% of world oil reserves, because we’ve made most of our resources off limits.”

If he were honest, he would also say: “We will demonize, penalize, hyper-regulate, tax and kill hydrocarbons. But we will mandate and subsidize wind, solar and ethanol, ignore their environmental and human costs, and extol the measly, expensive, unreliable energy they produce.

“We oppose subsidies for oil and coal companies (even in the form of tax deductions for actual expenses), because they promote drilling – and their CEOs and workers rarely vote for us. We support huge subsidies for wind, solar and ethanol, because those guys help keep us in power and drive a transition to renewables.

“We know oil, gas and coal generate royalty and tax revenues, and provide 85% of the energy that powers America and supports jobs, commuting, factories, transportation, tourism, hospitals, ambulances, churches and living standards. But we don’t care about that or about revenues, except when they come from higher taxes on corporations – or rich families that make over $250,000 … $150,000 … $65,000 a year. We detest free enterprise, and think government should control more of your energy, economy and lives.

“And we love the way supply and demand laws drive prices up. DC area gasoline is already $4.25 a gallon. That’s about half of what Energy Secretary Chu and I would like it to be: European prices. And we know restricting energy supplies even further will send all prices skyrocketing even higher.”

As crazy as they sound, these ideologies are even more frightening and demented in practice.

Oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is projected to drop 240,000 barrels a day this year. That’s $9 billion more that America will have to pay this year to import replacement oil … $1.3 billion we won't collect in federal royalty payments … thousands of jobs that won't be “created or saved” … and billions in corporate, personal income and sales taxes we won't collect.

The US Geological Survey says upwards of 90 billion barrels remain to be discovered in the Arctic. ANWR alone could hold 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil, producible from areas totaling 1/20th of Washington, DC. But it’s all locked up, off limits to We the People who own it.

Meanwhile, the huge Prudhoe Bay field is slowly running dry. So the Alaska Pipeline is operating at a fraction of its capacity, which increases corrosion and blockages in the pipe, magnifies the risk of ruptures and spills, and threatens the future of all Alaskan oil. Shell Oil spent $3.5 billion acquiring and exploring leases in the Chukchi Sea – but Interior and EPA refuse to issue drilling permits, because diesel emissions from the rig could cause global warming or affect the health of Natives 20-50 miles away! It all adds up to less oil, less royalty revenue, fewer jobs and more imported oil. Just as Obama & Co. intend.

Made in America technology and innovation have unlocked centuries of new natural gas in US shale formations (and similar deposits all over the world). This game-changing development has reduced gas prices … completely unhinged Obama, Democrat and other environmental ideologues … and devastated their “we’re running out” mantra. So they’ve rallied the troops, to produce a bogus “documentary” film (“Gasland”), a sloppy Cornell University “study,” and reams of new EPA regulations, to stymie shale gas. A thorough analysis by science writer Matt Ridley provides much needed facts and perspectives. (The same horizontal drilling and “fracking” technologies are also unlocking eco-nightmarish new oil riches.)

Coal generates half of all US electricity, and 70-98% in twelve states – sustaining jobs by keeping AC, heating and machinery operating costs at about half of what is typical in states that get little or no electricity from coal. But EPA has issued 946 pages of new air quality rules and launched a massive propaganda campaign against mercury emissions – even though those power plants account for barely 0.5% of all mercury in the air Americans breathe. President Obama has said he wants to “bankrupt” the industry.

All told, over a billion acres of onshore and offshore energy prospects are locked up – costing us centuries of fuel, millions of jobs, and hundreds of billions in bonus, royalty and tax revenues. Of course, there are “no quick fixes” for our energy problems, as President Obama loves to remind us. But if we’d begun drilling in some of these places 10-20 years ago, we wouldn’t be in this fix today.

As to subsidies, even the alleged billions for oil companies are a pittance compared to subsidies for wind, solar and ethanol. Subsidies per unit of energy actually produced are even more shocking. According to the Energy Information Administration, gas-fired electricity generation received a mere 25 cents per megawatt-hour in 2007 subsidies; coal got 44 cents. By comparison, wind turbines got 23.4 dollars and photovoltaic solar received 24.3 dollars per mWh.
Moreover, oil and gas is 24/7 – with 95% reliability. The industry supports 9.2 million jobs, directly and in companies that depend on reliable, affordable oil, gas, gasoline, fertilizer, plastics, pharmaceuticals and electricity. It generates federal revenue, paying billions in taxes and royalties. The same holds true for coal.

By contrast, wind and solar produce electricity just two to eight hours a day – with backup generators making up the monumental shortfall. That means we must duplicate every megawatt of wind and solar with a MW of (mostly gas-fired) backup power – which requires even more land and raw materials to support the government-mandated transition to “eco-friendly” renewable energy systems.

More appalling, instead of generating tax or royalty revenues, wind and solar require perpetual subsidies. Solar panel maker Solyndra got a $535 “stimulus” loan in 2009; then, the day after the 2010 elections, it announced it was laying off 190 people. In April 2011 alone, the Department of Energy poured $9 billion in loan guarantees into wind and solar projects that will blanket large swaths of crop and habitat land.

Ethanol receives subsidies of $5.72 per million Btu (190 times what oil and gas companies get), so that we can burn food to make fuels that government won’t let us drill for. In 2010, American farmers turned 36% of their corn crop into ethanol, which provides 30% less energy than gasoline – meaning cars get less mileage per tank for more bucks per gallon. Making one gallon of this substandard fuel also requires some 1,700 gallons of water and large quantities of petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides. Worse, energy economist Indur Goklany calculates, biofuel policies cause up to 200,000 deaths a year in poor countries, by raising food prices, increasing malnutrition and making people more vulnerable to disease.

Overall, since assuming power in Washington, the Obama Administration has channeled over $60 billion into the “green jobs” sector. And the renewable energy subsidy train rolls on, with tanker cars of red ink bankrolled by US taxpayers and consumers – to provide less than 1% of the energy we use.

If Congress still refuses to hold inquiries and end these tax-subsidized scams, perhaps the most we can hope for is that a few courageous and publicly spirited governors and AGs will step into the breach.

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.

Friday, May 27, 2011

Has Romney Been Chosen To Lose To Obama?

Has Romney Been Chosen To Lose To Obama?
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

It is becoming clear (at least to me) that Mitt Romney will be the GOP’s choice to lose to Obama in November of 2012.

OK, before you blast me for speaking ill of another republican (In the spirit of full disclosure – I AM a republican.) if you haven’t already figured it out – I do not care for Mitt Romney, as a candidate for President of the United States.  Its not a big stretch for me… as I also did not care for his father, George Romney, when HE ran for President way back in 1968 … right up til he dropped out of the Primary in late February, or early March. 

“Two weeks before the March 12 primary, an internal poll showed Romney losing to Nixon by a six-to-one margin in New Hampshire. Rockefeller, seeing the poll result as well, publicly maintained his support for Romney but said he would be available for a draft; the statement made national headlines and embittered Romney (who would later claim it was Rockefeller's entry, and not the "brainwashing" remark, that doomed him). Seeing his cause was hopeless, Romney announced his withdrawal as a presidential candidate on February 28, 1968. Romney wrote his son Mitt, still away on missionary work: "Your mother and I are not personally distressed. As a matter of fact, we are relieved. ... I aspired, and though I achieved not, I am satisfied." (SOURCE)

The “brainwashing remark” referenced above in my opinion, underscores the old adage: “Like father; like son.”  Mitt’s father, George, had problems with “flip-flopping” just as his son does today.  It cost him any chance he might have had at winning the GOP nomination for President.  Here’s what happened:

“On August 31, 1967, in a taped interview with talk show host Lou Gordon of WKBD-TV in Detroit, Romney stated: "When I came back from Viet Nam [in November 1965], I'd just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get." He then shifted to opposing the war: "I no longer believe that it was necessary for us to get involved in South Vietnam to stop Communist aggression in Southeast Asia." Decrying the "tragic" conflict, he urged "a sound peace in South Vietnam at an early time." Thus Romney disavowed the war and reversed himself from his earlier stated belief that the war was "morally right and necessary.

Eight other governors who had been on the same 1965 trip as Romney said no such activity had taken place, with one of them, Philip H. Hoff of Vermont, saying Romney's remarks were "outrageous, kind of stinking ... Either he's a most naïve man or he lacks judgment." The connotations of brainwashing, following the experiences of American prisoners of war (highlighted by the 1962 film The Manchurian Candidate), made Romney's comments devastating, especially as it reinforced the negative image of Romney's abilities that had already developed.” (SOURCE) 

(As a side note:  Mitt’s father, George Romney was born in Mexico.  Yet, George Romney was a candidate for President of the United States in the primary in 1968. He was born on July 8, 1907 to American parents in the Mormon colonies in Mexico; events during the Mexican Revolution forced his family to move back to the United States when he was a child.) (SOURCE)

Now, I realize all this dates me… and that’s OK.  If it has any importance, at all, it is that I feel as though I have been down the same road with Mitt Romney’s father, George, and I do not care to travel that same hilly, curvy road again.  Then Governor Jim Rhodes of Ohio said, "Watching George Romney run for the presidency was like watching a duck try to make love to a football."

As difficult as it may seem to believe, for those who did not witness George Romney’s campaign back in the sixties, for those of us who did -- there is reason to believe the campaign of his son Mitt will not be that different.

We need an assertive candidate, a candidate sure of himself, without a record of flip-flopping all over the map. I just do not see that in Mitt Romney.

Here in the South, the mention of Romney’s name tends to bring on “rolling of the eyes.”  He is a northeasterner, and a Mormon.  That is two out of three strikes for him before the first vote is cast.  If he ever gets to the Oval Office he will do so without the support of the majority of the southern states.  THAT is a near impossible. A number of religious denominations in the south will never vote for a Mormon under any circumstances the human brain can devise.  His campaign will be hard pressed to devise a winning strategy without the southern states.

I understand how difficult this is to read for Romney supporters, but there it is.

So, who can win against Obama?  None of the republican candidate announced, so far. But, I think it is interesting, and important, that the Obama campaign has begun digging into the past of Chris Christie, the current governor of New Jersey, and Christie says he is NOT going to run.  But – if Obama is concerned enough that Christie might change his mind and run, anyway, then that tells me the Obama campaign fears Chris Christie and I LIKE THAT!

J. D. Longstreet

Thursday, May 26, 2011

John Wayne's Birthday ... Alan Caruba

John Wayne's Birthday

By Alan Caruba

It’s not a national holiday but, for some, it should be. On May 26, 1907 Marion Robert Morrison came into the world in Winterset, Iowa. When he left on June 11, 1979 he was John Wayne, an American icon.

Men of a certain generation or two, fortunate to grow up going to the many movies he made in a long career owe him a great debt.

By his very presence on the silver screen he taught us all what it mean to be a man. Wayne was masculine without having to prove it. He literally embodied the virtues we want in our heroes. As an actor he shared those attributes with the boys who grew up wishing to be like him and the women who no doubt found him attractive.

Though he played many heroic characters, a Marine in World War Two, a Navy Commander, and later a Green Beret in Vietnam, it was his many roles as a cowboy that made us many of us yearn to ride a horse and learn to shoot a six-gun and a rifle.

In his last film, “The Shootist”, he played a man who made his living with a gun, now old and dying of cancer. In the film, John Bernard Brooks, a legend in his own time, was asked how it was he got into so many gun fights. He replied, “I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a hand on. I don’t do these things to other people and I require the same from them.” It was as classic a recasting of the Golden Rule as one could ask for and words to live by.

Wayne was one of a handful of Hollywood actors who made no secret of his patriotism and conservative political views. When one considers the endless rewriting of history, past and present, by Hollywood, Wayne was a refreshing alternative.

In a wonderful little book, “The Quotable John Wayne”, author Carol Lea Mueller gathered together many of the things Wayne had to say over the years on a range of topics. Here are a few quotes:

On liberal ideology and its affects on America’s youth, “They work against the natural loyalties and ideals of our kids, filling them with fear and doubt and hate and downgrading patriotism and all our heroes of the past.”

“This new thing of genuflecting to the downtrodden, I don’t go along with that. We ought to go back to praising the kids who get good grades, instead of making excuses for the ones who shoot the neighborhood groceryman.”

“I became a confirmed reader when I was growing up in Glendale and could read before going to school. I’ve loved reading all my life.”

“I’ve had three wives, six children, and six grandchildren, and I still don’t understand women.”

Wayne respected the epoch of the American West being opened for farming and ranching. “The West—the very words go straight to that place of the heart where Americans feel the spirit of pride in their Western heritage—the triumph of personal courage over any obstacle, whether nature or man.”

“Courage is being scared to death—and saddling up anyway.”

He was an exceptionally good actor who said, “I’ve played the kinda man I’d like to have been.” Later he said, “Nobody liked my acting but the public.”

In a long life, a long career in films, John Wayne embodied values that are being eroded on all fronts in today’s America. Whenever we need a reminder of those values, we can watch a John Wayne film.

© Alan Caruba, 2011
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. 

American Gun Owners: You Have Been Warned!

American Gun Owners:  You Have Been Warned!
Obama’s Gun Control
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

“I just want you to know that we are working on it," Brady recalled the president telling them. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar." (SOURCE)

At Hotair.com there is more.  Here is a snippet from the Washington Post Lifestyle profile:

“On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.
“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”  (SOURCE)

It should come as no surprise to anyone that President Obama would seek to impose gun control regulations on American citizens using the regulatory agencies at his command and by-passing the Congress, altogether.  Obama rules as a potentate rather than a President of a constitutional republic.

Come on, folks.  Everyone should understand this simple fact:  There is no way the political left can get their agenda imposed on America -- without first disarming America.

In an article at the Huffington Post entitled:  “Obama Looking For Ways Around Congress On Gun Policy the following is reported:

 “Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions of Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say.” (SOURCE)

The HuffPo goes on to say: “For gun control advocates, however, executive action remains a more promising -- albeit more limited -- vehicle for reform than Congress. On Monday, The Huffington Post first reported that the Justice Department was convening meetings with groups from across the ideological spectrum in an effort to chart potential policy changes to Second Amendment law.

The discussions were meant to build a broad coalition around the elements of reform Obama had outlined a day earlier in an op-ed for the Arizona Daily Star, including stronger state-to-state coordination, expedited background checks and greater enforcement of the laws already on the books, especially with regard to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.” (SOURCE)

From an article by John Lott at foxnew.com/opinion comes this: “Indeed, Obama has been a consistent opponent of gun ownership. He enacted a ban on the importation of semiautomatic guns because, “The U.S. insisted that imports of the aging rifles could cause problems such as firearm accidents.” He has proposed much more extensive reporting requirements on sales of long guns. Obama’s nomination of anti-gun Andrew Traver to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives threatens imposing many new regulations. Still further, the Obama administration has actively pushed for the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty and continues to make inaccurate statements about the source of Mexico’s crime guns.” (SOURCE)

As if you needed to be reminded, we have an election coming up in November of 2012.  As one of the Americans described by Obama in his last campaign for President as  “… bitter Americans who cling to their guns and cling to their religion…”.  I am going to remember all this next year, come time to cast my ballot.  I hope you do, too.

J. D. Longstreet

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Republican Russian Roulette ... Alan Caruba

Republican Russian Roulette

By Alan Caruba

I have a friend who thinks the ghost of Bob Dole is stalking the Republican Party and Dole isn’t even dead! What he means, of course, is that, at this point, the present batch of candidates are not that inspiring. The Party needs to articulate a distinct, conservative agenda and have the guts to stick with it.

For the record, Dole ran with President Gerald Ford as his vice presidential choice and together they lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976. Later he ran as the GOP candidate for president in 1996 and lost to Bill Clinton.

The latest example of the GOP’s knack for second string candidates is Newt Gingrich.who is a former Speaker of the House. While he was president Bill Clinton ran circles around Newt.

Newt’s most recognizable characteristic is to seek accommodation with opponents of his political views. Instead of staking out a definitive conservation platform, Newt has always been too eager to "get along" with the opposition—shades of John McCain who also lost a campaign to be president.

A patsy, Newt is the smartest kid in the school who no one wants on their team. In essence, he has abandoned Republican issues in his quest for the presidency and forgotten that he is a Republican who is expected to oppose Obamacare, avoid talking nonsense about the environment, and not adopt the rest of the liberal agenda.

Republican voters are hungry for someone who unabashedly opposes the size of the federal government, the billions it borrows and wastes every day, the funding of Planned Parenthood, and comparable issues. They want to build a great big fence on our Southern border. They want us to drill for our own oil.

The flurry of interest that Donald Trump evoked came simply from his willingness to yell at President Obama loud enough to get him to put out another phony birth certificate. Only the hopelessly naïve thought he would actually run.

Conversely, everyone expected Mitt Romney to run, but instead of shedding the millstone of Romneycare, he defended it! It’s a flip of the coin as to who has flip-flopped more on issues, Romney or Obama. Still, if you were a movie director casting the role of president, wouldn’t you pick Romney?

Masseurs Santorum and Pawlenty suffer the Dole/McCain problem. They give all the right, safe answers, but they are not loudly sounding the alarms about four more years of Obama. Ron Paul is trotting out his mixture of good and bizarre notions. If he’s a “serious” candidate, it is only for the lonely Libertarians longing to legalize marijuana and bring Muslim combatants to justice after reading them their Miranda Rights.

Rumor says Michelle Bachmann will get into the race and, having had Sarah Palin on the ticket in the last election, one might think that Republican enthusiasm for a woman candidate might have waned by now. Bachmann’s smart and articulate. She can’t win the White House.

By contrast, a virtual unknown non-politician, Herman Cain, is making a very good initial showing.

Of course, Jon Huntsman, former governor of Utah and ambassador to China, would be every Democrat’s choice as a Republican President if for no other reason than he joined that former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Western Climate Initiative, chasing the illusive global warming and advocating taxes on carbon dioxide emissions. Fortunately for the other candidates, he’s hired John McCain’s former campaign geniuses to craft his campaign. Can you spell l-o-s-e-r?

What Republicans have not noticed is that President Obama has rather neatly fulfilled nearly the entire agenda bequeathed to him by George W. Bush while, at the same time, blaming him for the Recession and everything else.

This isn’t “triangulation.” It is the wholesale absorbing of the other Party’s platform in an era when it is very difficult to tell the two parties apart. Obama is going to have to kill a whole bunch of al Qaeda big shots to keep his poll numbers from falling any further.

If this keeps up Republican political consultants will be praying the economy will be so bad by November 2012 that only crazed Dem-a-robots will vote for Obama, along with the teacher’s and other unions. To them, add 95% of the black vote and 80% of the Hispanics.

If independents decide to stay home, Obama could win. They won't. The Tea Party folk have not gone away.

My bet is that 2012 is like 2010 when the House changed hands. It could just be a total blowout and all the agonizing over the current crop of GOP candidates will seem silly in retrospect.

© Alan Caruba, 2011
 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.

There is No Palestine ... Alan Caruba

There is No Palestine

By Alan Caruba

Despite a very forthright speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Sunday in which the President stated his “unshakeable” support for Israel and cited evidence of it, the greatest obstacle he must overcome with American Jews in particular and the public in general is a growing distrust of anything he says.

When it comes to the Middle East, Palestine, and the long history of Israel as a nation, past and present, President Obama doesn’t seem to “get it.”

Simply stated, there is no Palestine. In an effort to obliterate the nation of Israel, the Roman emperor Hadrian ordered that its name be changed to Palestine, a Greek word for Philistine, but other than this there never was a Palestine nation, nor is there one now.

To be a nation, it has to have been founded and it has to have specific borders. It has to have a capitol, major cities, an economy and currency of its own, and a stable government. It has to be recognized as a nation by other nations. None of these factors exists for the so-called West Bank and Gaza.

If the so-called Palestinians deserve their own state, why not the Kurds of Iraq and Turkey, and many other groups that could be deemed equally deserving?

What is referred to as Palestine is the wholly-owned creation of the United Nations through its UN Relief Works Agency, a strange invention that has existed solely to maintain the Arabs in the two areas mentioned as permanent refugees for generations. Sustained by millions in “relief” after the areas in question were lost in wars perpetrated against and lost to Israel in 1948 and 1967

There is never any mention of the hundreds of thousands of Jews who, over the course of the wars against Israel, became real refugees, forced to flee to Israel from Arab nations. In 1948, 140,000 fled Algeria, 75,000 fled Egypt, 135,000 fled Iraq, and 265,000 fled Morocco, along with others from Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, and Yemen. They were absorbed by Israel.

The West Bank and Gaza, historically part of Israel, are myths created to regain territory lost in the wars waged against Israel by Jordan and Egypt. In the 1967 war, Jordanians were driven out of Judea/Samaria and out of Jerusalem. The Gaza Strip had been occupied by Egypt. The Golan Heights had originally been ceded to Syria by a British-French agreement and likewise was lost to Syria in war.

The suggestion that Israel “return” to its 1967 borders is ludicrous. Obama might just as well suggest that Texas, the Southwest and California be returned to Mexico. All were prizes of war. All constituted parts of the North American continent settled by British and European immigrants to the New World.

By contrast, Israel became a nation in 1321 BCE, 2,000 years before the rise of Islam. Arabs only began to refer to themselves as Palestinians in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the State of Israel. The only period in which there was Arab control followed the conquest in 635 BCE and it lasted only 22 years. For 3,300 years, Jerusalem had been the Jewish capital. It is mentioned more than 700 times in the Torah, the Jewish Holy Scriptures and not even once in the Koran.

Until recently, the Palestinian Liberation Authority and Hamas were in a state of war with one another, the PLO was the creation of Yassir Arafat and Hamas is the wholly owned creation of Iran, as is Hezbollah. They exist for no other purpose than the annihilation of Israel.

Neither “Palestinian” group has ever accepted any effort to establish a separate state for self-rule, asserting instead that Israel must be destroyed. What has Israel done? It withdrew from its occupation of southern parts of Lebanon, only to be attacked again from there in 2006. It forced Israelis to abandon their homes and businesses in Gaza, ceding the land in an effort to encourage negotiations toward a two-state solution.

There is no Palestine and there never was. The name was imposed by a Roman emperor in retribution for the resistance of Jews against Rome’s control of their land. The name was adopted by Yassir Arafat as the self-proclaimed leader of the Arabs left behind by the wars and living, as is commonly asserted, in “occupied territories.”

Not once has any representative of the so-called Palestinians ever accepted a negotiated path to separate statehood. Instead, the “Palestinians” have sent suicide bombers and rockets into Israel and storm its borders to celebrate the “Nakba”, an Arab word for catastrophe, commemorating the wars waged against and lost to Israel.

The “Palestinians” and Arabs do not want peace. Whatever peace exists between their nations is tenuous at best and the citizens of many of those nations have been in full revolt against the dictators that ran them from Tunisia to Libya to Egypt to Syria to Yemen. The only thing that “unites” them is their irrational hatred of Israel, a hatred shared by many European Union nations and, of course, the United Nations.

In just over 600 days President Obama’s regime will end. He will no doubt link arms with former President Jimmy Carter to become another huge embarrassment to the United States of America.

© Alan Caruba, 2011
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, May 24, 2011

Obama’s Folly: The Illegal War in Libya

Obama’s Folly:  The Illegal War in Libya
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Well, Qaddafi is still alive and kicking -- and fighting the so-called Libyan “rebels” to a stand still. Some refer to it as a stalemate, others as a quagmire.  No matter what you choose to call it, it is a confounded mess! And it is as embarrassing (as all get out) to the Obama Administration, the political left, the leftist media,  and to NATO. 

As we have learned, all to often with Obama, rules and regulation -- and much of the US Constitution -- does not apply seem to him and his cohorts. 

For the life of me, I cannot figure out how we missed that little shortcoming of US law.  But apparently, we did.  And, as a result, Obama just goes ahead and acts as a king would do and issues “commands,” “decrees,” and “edicts.” What’s worse – the Mainstream Media, which lays claim to “watchdog” status for the people, will not call him on it.  They just look the other way, totally disregarding illegal and/or unconstitutional actions of the Obama Administration.

If the actions of the Obama Administration in the Libyan war were ever “questionable”  it no longer matters.  Now they are, under US law – ILLEGAL.

I refer to the War Powers Act of 1973. (You may read the entire act HERE.)

Under the law, Obama had sixty days to report to Congress on his actions involving the US military in Libya.  He refused to do so.  The Congress must now, by the law, take action. 

The most often suggested action is for the Congress to simply cut off funds for US military activities in Libya.  But I am betting that the current Congress hasn’t the collective cajones to carry out the law of the land and discipline the President by turning off the money spigot and forcing him to pull US forces and equipment out of that sand dune circus.

In fact here is a little known stipulation of the War Powers act: 

“SEC. 5. (c)
Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.”

Don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen, though.  There seems to be a strange shortage of testosterone in the halls of Congress today.

However, it seems to me now is exactly the time for the Congress to order President Obama to withdraw all US military assets out of the Libyan theatre of war. That would include the Hellfire missile equipped drones buzzing around over the Libyan sands.  If for no other reason than the US simply cannot afford the cost of such a hair-brained operation.

Look, the painfully plain truth is – we don’t have a clue WHO THE HECK THOSE “REBELS” ARE. 

See, the nagging question is -- are we providing military support for Muslims who will, at some point in the not too distant future, turn out to be terrorists training their weapons on the United States of America.  I would argue there is more than an even chance that YES, that is exactly the threat posed by those we are supporting today in Libya.  Does anyone remember when the US supported the Afghanis against Russia -- only to wind up fighting them today in Afghanistan in a war we have no intention of winning?  Does anyone remember that? 

If this had been President George W. Bush pulling such a stunt, the mainstream media, Obama’s lapdogs, would be all over him with every issue and every broadcast.

But, alas, the leftist propaganda machine, which IS the mainstream media in America, is so biased it would be laughable if it were not doing so much harm to America.

Have you noticed the reduction in the coverage of the war in Libya by the press?  Why, because it has rapidly become an embarrassment to the political left.  They cannot risk this folly of Obama to actually taint him in anyway.  Heavens, no!  The Messiah, the savior of America, must be assisted in obtaining another four-year term in the Oval Office.

Rest easy, you folks in the leftist media.  I don’t think you have much to fear from the GOP in the campaign against Obama over the next eighteen months, or so.  I say that with great sadness. But it is the truth, as I see it. I am fairly certain America must endure six more years of Obama thumbing his nose at US law and the Constitution with no one willing to oppose him.

J. D. Longstreet

Monday, May 23, 2011

Isaac -vs- Ishmael Feud Continues

Isaac -vs- Ishmael Feud Continues

Obama Favors Ishmael


“And so the family feud goes on.  Nothing much has changed since Abraham booted Ishmael out of his camp and anointed Isaac, his son by Sarah, the birthright. The death and destruction we see today, in 2008, can be traced directly back to that incident, thousands of years ago.

It is foolish to even consider brokering a peace between those two half-brothers.  It is the height of arrogance to believe one can bring peace between the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael. 

As a gentle reminder we refer you to the scripture from The Bible: Genesis 17:18,19 “And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shall call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him”. 

From the Koran:
Koran = 19:54 “Also mention in the Book [the story of] Ishmael: He was [strictly] true to what he promised, and he was a messenger [and] a prophet”.
And, again, from The Bible: 
Genesis 16:12 “And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him."

As we watch the continuation of this on-going struggle play out before our very eyes on the TV screens today, we must remember that this is only a continuation the feud between these two peoples who have fought for thousands of years. 

No matter how this discussion(?) ends, the struggle will not end here.  It will go on. No matter what the US does, or what the United Nations does, or what the European Union does, nothing will change.  Only God can end this combat, which is fueled by jealous rage. The Jews and the Muslims have two different philosophies of life and religion.  One leads to freedom and life and the other leads to bondage and death.”  (Read the entire article HERE.)

Last week President Obama broke one of the cardinal rules of life. He stepped between two relatives fighting.  Common sense dictates that one never does that!

As a police officer, back in my misspent youth, I dreaded a domestic violence call worse than any other type of disturbance.  The police officer is required to insert himself into the fray, and get between the two warring parties.  Not only is it dangerous, the officer will be perceived as “taking sides” no matter what the outcome. 

Obama is, today, perceived as “taking sides” especially in Israel, and America is the loser as a result.

To put it frankly, and yes, bluntly, Obama’s “one upsmanship” just plain sucks!”

Rushing to get ahead of Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, before Netanyahu could deliver his speech to a joint assembly of the US Congress was, well, infantile.  It underscores just how incapable our President is when dealing with foreign powers.  Especially, if that foreign power happens to be involved in a tussle with Muslims -- as is Israel.   Obama and his lackeys can dispute it and deny it as much as they like, there is simply no way they will ever be able to whitewash Mr., Obama’s empathy for Muslims.  I mean -- his middle name is that of a MuslimHussein. 

Mr. Netanyahu is no pushover and Obama’s attempt to “roll” him will likely blow-up in Obama’s face.  Rest assured, there will be a price to pay for Obama, and the democrats, at the polls.  If nothing else good comes of this fiasco, then the majority of Americans, whose empathy DOES lie with Israel, will be pleased.

Obama’s emboldening of the so-called Palestinians will only lead to more bloodshed in Israel.  The deaths can only be laid at the doorstep of the Obama Administration. 

To think we will have Obama as President for six more years should cause every freedom loving American to shudder.  Especially now that we learn Pakistan has invited China to build a new naval base along Pakistan’s southwestern seacoast – AND -- we learn that Vladimir Putin has decided to become President of Russia –AGAIN.  Can you imagine how easily Putin can, and will, manipulate Obama?

With the US and China headed for an inevitable war do we really want someone who makes such “dumb” mistakes as Obama made last week with Israel?  Surely, you don’t even have to think about itGod help us all if you do!

J. D. Longstreet    

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Oil “subsidy” and “tax breaks” nonsense ... Paul Driessen

Oil “subsidy” and “tax breaks” nonsense
Think repealing oil industry tax incentives will increase federal revenues? Think again. 
Paul Driessen

President Obama frequently says Americans “need to end our $4 billion in annual taxpayer subsidies to oil companies.” The latest Democrat bill would have repealed some $2 billion of what Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and others call “subsidies” and “special tax breaks” for Big Oil.

That’s baloney – shameless demagoguery that will inflict further damage on our struggling economy.

Subsidies are cash payments from government to the private sector. Money is taken from the 51% of Americans who still pay income taxes – and transferred by legislators and bureaucrats to companies and activities that “deserve” or “require” these wealth transfers, because the recipients perform an important service and/or could not remain in business unless subsidized with other people’s money (OPM).

The petroleum industry does not receive “subsidies” to produce oil and natural gas. It doesn’t even get “special tax breaks” or outright tax credits. What are falsely described in these terms are actually tax deductions for costs incurred by companies in the process of exploring, drilling, producing and refining the oil and natural gas that energize this nation’s economy and living standards.

These tax deductions are equivalent or similar to deductions claimed by every US business, large and small, for things like facilities depreciation, equipment, utilities, payroll, and research and development. They are intended to ensure that businesses, like individuals, recover their costs and get taxed only on their net incomes. For oil companies those deductions include:

* Geological and geophysical costs, for exploration to assess prospects prior to drilling;

* Intangible drilling costs – equipment, labor, fuel and supplies associated with drilling expensive wells;

* Expensing “tertiary injectants,” water and chemicals injected into older wells to keep them producing;

* Domestic manufacturer’s deductions of up to 6% of income earned from extracting oil and gas (farmers, manufacturers and other producers can deduct up to 9% of earned income);

* Percentage depletion allowance, allowing for gradual recovery of up-front investments in a petroleum (or iron, gold, limestone, et cetera) deposit that is gradually extracted and depleted. The allowance is not available to “integrated” companies that produce, refine and market oil.

White House, congressional and eco-activist claims that repealing these deductions will generate “billions in new revenues” reflect an abysmal grasp of basic business, economic and behavioral principles.

Thankfully, more Americans are beginning to understand that repealing any or all of these deductions will increase oil companies’ individual project and overall operating costs. That means future bonus bids will decline, wells won’t be drilled, fewer deposits will be profitable enough to develop, and wells and fields will be abandoned prematurely. Oil and gas will be left in the ground, crews will lose jobs, tax and royalty payments will dwindle, and the USA will send billions more overseas for imported oil.

Informed Americans also recognize that, in 2008, oil and natural gas provided 61% of the energy that powers America. Natural gas generates almost a quarter of our electricity. These fuels provided affordable energy 24/7/365, supported 9.2 million jobs, kept millions off welfare and food stamp rolls, and generated billions in revenue for federal, state and local governments.

Wind and solar combined accounted for barely 0.6% of total US energy, and 1.9% of electricity generation, in 2008 – providing expensive, intermittent, heavily subsidized energy 8/6/312 or less.

In subsidies per unit of energy actually produced, gas-fired electricity generation got 25 cents per megawatt-hour in 2007 subsidies; coal received 44 cents (mostly for clean technology research). By comparison, wind turbines got 23.4 dollars and photovoltaic solar received 24.3 dollars per MWh.

One project alone – the $2-billion Shepherds Flat wind farm in north-central Oregon will transfer $500 million in hard cash subsidies, plus a subsidized loan guarantee of $1.1 billion to White House friend Jeffrey Immelt, General Electric and their partners. These OPM subsidies equal 80% of the $2-billion in tax breaks that Senators Reid and Schumer are so exercised about. The contract was GE’s largest in FY 2009. (Ethanol subsidies totaled nearly $5 billion in 2010, more than double the senators’ target.)

Shepherds Flat will be the world’s largest wind farm: 338 gigantic 2.5 MW turbines, 97 miles of new roads and 167 miles of high voltage transmission lines sprawling across 32,000 to 83,000 acres (up to twice the size of Washington, DC) of the scenic Columbia River Gorge area. At best, the turbines may average one-third of the 2.5 MW stamped on their nameplates. At the whim of the winds, the farm will generate electricity at wild swings between zero and the turbines’ combined rated capacity of 845 MW.

That’s about one-quarter to one-half of what a single modern coal, gas or nuclear power plant generates 90-95% of the time, day after day, all year long … from a tiny fraction of the wind farm’s land area.

As is the case with Pacific Northwest hydroelectric, Four Corners coal and Arizona nuclear power, Shepherds Flat will supply electricity for Southern California, so that state can maintain its lifestyle, meet its lofty renewable energy goals and be “green,” by using energy generated in someone else’s backyard.

Building and installing the turbines will require some 1.5 million pounds of rare earth metals (from Mongolian areas devastated by mining and smelting the metals), plus at least 700,000,000 pounds of concrete, steel, copper and fiberglass … accompanied by the fossil fuel energy, pollution and CO2 associated with mining, smelting and manufacturing these materials. The turbines will impact scenery and wildlife habitats, and kill numerous bats, falcons, hawks, eagles, owls, egrets, herons, ducks and curlews.

However, environmentalists, legislators and regulators treat those impacts – as well as noise, human health, airspace, Defense Department and other concerns – very differently from the way they handle hydrocarbon projects. In their quest for “green” energy at any cost, they simply brush these issues aside.

Our taxpayer subsidies are financing all of this, and generating impressive profits for their recipients. GE, for instance, generated over $5 billion in US profits in 2010 – but paid no US income taxes.

Compare this to Big Oil companies, which likewise made big profits last year… but also paid big taxes. ExxonMobil, for example, earned $30.5 billion in profits in 2010, on revenues of $383 billion, and paid $1.6 billion in US income taxes. Its combined lease bonuses, rents, royalties, taxes and other payments to the US Treasury totaled almost $10 billion last year. The company also paid state and local levies.

Overall, a Tax Foundation analysis of Energy Information Agency data shows, the largest integrated oil companies paid $1.95 trillion in corporate income, severance, property, excise and sales taxes, between 1981 and 2008. During that time, those companies’ total combined profits (net of taxes and expenses, and after adjusting for inflation) were $1.4 trillion – or 40% less than they paid in total taxes.
The “green” agenda – to use mandates, subsidies, regulations and taxes to coerce a shift to “renewable” energy and “fundamentally transform” our energy, economic and social structure – is rationalized largely by fears of “dangerous manmade global warming.” It is deceptive, costly, environmentally harmful, and devoid of genuine scientific evidence to support its alarmist claims.

Europe’s catchy “20-20-20” climate action plan (20% renewable energy, 20% reduction in overall energy consumption, 20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions, by 2020) carries a minimum price tag of OPM $300 billion. It may reduce average global temperatures by 0.1 degree F (0.05 Celsius) by 2100 … assuming climate change is actually driven by carbon dioxide, rather than by multiple, complex natural forces.

Only mad dogs, environmentalists, liberal Democrats and RINOs would buy into such nonsense.
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.