Thursday, March 31, 2011

Libyan Rebels Advancing -- to the REAR!

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

I watched a couple of commentators gently arguing with each other, a few days ago, about who was winning the fight in Libya. 

The commentator from the left proclaimed the rebels were winning and she was interrupted by the commentator from the right who asked the piercing question:  If they are winning why are they going in the wrong direction?  He went on to say the rebels were going east while Gaddafi and his troops were in the west.

I had to laugh as I remembered the expression coined during the Korean conflict (WAR) when American troops were in retreat from the communist Chinese troops.  The US commander declared his troops were not retreating; they were simply advancing in another direction. 

While we armchair generals assess Obama's efforts at playing soldier, we would find it amusing were it not for the fact that lives are being lost in a cause that, without troops on the ground, is already a lost cause.

Any military veteran can tell you that superior air power will enable a force to clear a piece of ground of the enemy.  But air power, alone, cannot secure that piece of ground.  It requires troops on the ground, infantry, artillery, etc to hold that piece of real estate.  The same applies to a country.

Obama's War in Libya is already a mess.  In my time in the military we had what was known as a SNAFU.  Interpreted it is an acronym that stands for and this is the "clean" version:  "Situation Normal -- All Messed-up!"  Later, as things got worse, the term FUBAR came into use.  It, too is an acronym which stands for -- and, again, this is the clean version:  "Messed-up Beyond All Recognition!" (You can decide fior yourself what the letter "F" stands for in each acronym. ) 

What we are seeing in Libya is a SNAFU quickly turning into a FUBAR!

FUBARS occur when you have commanders at the top who haven't a clue what they are doing. They tend to always make the situation, whatever it is, worse!

A couple of two-man teams from the military base near me, here in North Carolina, could relieve the world of a madman, in a few days, and the thorn in the side of the world would be removed.  Many lives would be saved.

These men are specially trained to do those "wet"  jobs and like ghosts never leave any provable evidence of their ever having been there -- thus, providing the President with "plausible deniability."

Contrary to what you may have heard, or read, or been told, there is no US law forbidding the killing of the leader of another country. There is only a presidential directive, or executive order, which can be changed by the issuance of another directive from the then serving President.

So far Obama's War resembles a dog chasing its tail.  It is furiously going round and round but making no discernible progress -- at all.

So -- now that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -- NATO -- has the reins (NATO is simply another name for the US military when it doesn't want the world to know that it is controlling the on-going unpopular military action in which the US is deeply involved.) The 28 members are tying themselves in knots trying to decide whether to arm the rebels or not. My guess is -- eventually, NATO WILL arm the rebels and send in advisers and dig themselves deeper into the mire that is Obama's War. All this shortly before ground troops hit the Libyan beaches to liberate that country. The toppling of Gaddafi will be quickly followed by stratospherically expensive "nation building."

Yeah.  As a retired US general said recently, "I've seen this movie before."

It is all too familiar.

Allow me to inquire -- isn't it reasonable to determine WHO, exactly, the so-called rebels ARE before we begin airdropping weapons to them? You'd think we would have learned our lesson in Afghanistan.  We armed the Taliban only to have them use those weapons against US troops decades later. Common sense and the history of the region would certainly cause one to be leery of arming a force that may be our friend today and our enemy tomorrow.

We are already getting reports out of Libya that a number of the rebels are affiliated with al Qaida.  It would be reasonable to believe there are contingents of the Muslim Brotherhood within the ranks of the rebels as well.  Shouldn't this be a HUGE FLASHING CAUTION SIGN?

As we said above, Obama's War is quickly turning into the fabled FUBAR from its current SNAFU condition.

I might point out that this sort of mess is the risk America takes every time it elects a President with no military service in his, or her, resume. 

Maybe the Republicans ought to be looking within the ranks of the military for a presidential candidate to run against Obama in the 2012 election.  I mean -- what would it hurt?  As of this writing, none of the current crop of candidates, or would-be candidates, has a snowball's chance of claiming victory over Obama in 2012.

J. D. Longstreet

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Against All Energy Anywhere ... Alan Caruba

Against All Energy Anywhere

By Alan Caruba

One of the great afflictions of the environmentalists—Greens—everywhere is a profound lack of understanding of the role that energy plays in whether a nation prospers or just limps along, barely keeping the lights on.

A classic case is the communist paradise of North Korea that is almost completely dark at night while just across the 38th parallel, South Korea is ablaze with light, energy, and a thriving economy.

Dedicated Greens don’t really like any kind of energy whether it is nuclear, provided by burning coal, from natural gas, oil or from hydropower. They think that wind power is trouble-free and cost effective when it is neither. They feel the same way about solar power. Both are deemed acceptable because they don’t "emit" anything. This viewpoint is not merely naïve, it is profoundly stupid.

Before we go further, let’s examine the basic facts of U.S. power, give or take a percentage point or two, coal provides over 50% of electrical power. Nuclear provides around 20%, natural gas is just over 20%, hydroelectric is close to 7%, and so-called "renewables" like wind and solar are credited with about 3%. Petroleum generated electricity is 1% and "other sources", whatever they may be, come in at around 0.3%.

These are figures from 2009 and, suffice to say, are subject to change, but not much. Friends of the Earth, an international Green organization, (FOE) is no friend to humanity. Hardcore Greens think Earth’s problems would be solved if human beings were not part of its ecology.

Following the Japan earthquake, FOE sent an email to its members and fellow travelers saying, "We must learn from this disaster. Tell your members of Congress that nuclear power should not be part of our energy future." Ironically, FOE is very unhappy with President Obama and his administration which has been very inclined toward nuclear energy.

The Sierra Club, another ultra-Green organization, put out a newsletter reminding its members that it is "unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy" and has been "for more than three decades." The same newsletter warned that "politicians who owe their primary allegiance to the fossil-fuel industry (coal, natural gas, and oil) are quick to promote domestic drilling and deregulation, as if that would make the gauge on the gas pump start to run backward." In point of fact, it would. U.S. domestic oil is always cheaper than imported oil.

The Sierra Club just conjured up a petition "to tell the Obama administration to protect the Arctic Refuge" because "We cannot allow these oil companies to destroy the pristine wilderness of the Arctic Refuge." Every time you hear the words "pristine wilderness" think of a place no human would ever want to live, let alone visit. And no one is really addressing the economic devastation the Obama administration has visited on the Gulf States because of its refusal to allow oil drilling to resume.

FOE recently was fulminating against the use of coal to light up the homes, businesses and streets of South Africa and was equally unhappy about the effort to install a pipeline from Canada to the U.S. to transmit oil derived from its tar sands. A lot of our "imported" oil comes from Canada. That’s because it has been government policy for decades to make it difficult, if not impossible, to drill, extract, and refine oil here in America.

The March 21-27 edition of Bloomberg Business Week has an article by Brendan Greeley that is a good analysis titled "Facing Up to Nuclear Risk." When nuclear plants have been built as many safety factors as possible have been built into them, but it is impossible to calculate the impact of an earthquake. The U.S. has its own tectonic fault lines, all well known, but the fact remains nuclear plants have been built near or on them.

"David Okrent, who advised the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on reactor safety for 20 years, points out that reactors are designed for only a set of defined events. ‘The early nuclear reactors weren’t designed for tornadoes,’ he says, ‘until one came along in Arkansas, and then we thought, ‘we gotta design for tornadoes.’ It’s not easy to be all-knowing."

Were it not for Green propaganda, the U.S. would not be wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on idiotic wind and solar farms that are utterly dependent on government subsidies and mandates that require utilities to use the pitifully small amounts of electricity they produce.

The same can be said of the equally idiotic regulatory mandates for ethanol that drive up the cost of every gallon of gas pumped while, at the same time, reducing the mileage and damaging to your car’s engine. Even Al Gore thinks ethanol is a bad idea.

Ironically, more people have died from wind turbines than nuclear plants. In 2008, there were 41 recorded deaths. The carnage on birds and bats is rarely mentioned by the media. Despite all the blather about Three Mile Island not one person has died from radiation since nuclear plants were first introduced.

It is surely worth noting that coal-burning plants in a nation that is the Saudi Arabia of coal do not have meltdowns causing radiation that can make large areas uninhabitable. That "smoke" you see coming from the smokestacks of such plants is steam. Water vapor. Clouds are made of water vapor.

If we were really serious about safety and the provision of more electrical power, the U.S. would be building a hell of a lot more coal-burning plants right now and into the future.

© 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, is the place to visit.

Israel’s Samson Option

Israel’s Samson Option

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

If, while watching the disturbing events in the Middle East, you are not focusing your attention on Israel – then you are looking in the wrong place.

Once, a very long time ago, I heard someone refer to Israel as the "world’s canary in the coal mine." That is as apt a description of modern Israel as I have ever heard.

As I watch events in the Muslim countries surrounding Israel deteriorate it looks, for all the world, as if we are racing toward Armageddon. The great armies, just now dipping their toes into the deepening unrest in that region, are unaware that they are playing out a story line written thousands of years ago.

Those of us who have read that storyline know how the story ends and, too, we are aware of the events leading up to the true "Mother of all Battles."

For the first time in its history, America is on the wrong side.

Our President, with his loyalty to the world and not to the country that trusted him with the sacred duty to be leader of America and Commander-in-Chief of the mightiest military force in all of history, has gone over to the "Dark Side." He has turned his back on the one nation, which occupies the most important piece of real estate on the globe. He has made it clear he favors the countries, which consider themselves Israel’s most ardent enemies. Israel knows they, now, stand alone.

Just this past weekend, Israel deployed their homegrown antimissile defense system "Iron Dome." Another anti-missile defense system, a shorter-range system as we understand it, is in the pipeline and scheduled for deployment soon. Israel is getting ready for the coming conflagration when all the Muslim anger, boiling in the crucible of that region, boils over and pours onto their tiny country.

Without America standing with Israel, Israel stands a better than 50-50 chance of being over-run and wiped out as a country.

The Israelis have planned for that.

The plan is referred to as: "The Samson Option."

The "Samson Option" is Israel’s strategy of massive nuclear retaliation against "enemies" should its existence as a Jewish state be jeopardized through military attack.

The term was inspired by the Biblical figure Samson, who destroyed a Philistine temple, killing himself, and thousands of Philistine enemies.

The Samson option is a strategy of last resort retaliation - even if it means Israel’s own annihilation.

It has been estimated by so-called experts that Israel has at least 400 thermo-nuclear weapons. They can be launched from land, sea, and air. This means that Israel has a second strike option -- even if much of the country is destroyed.

Nuclear weapons were viewed by Israel as the ultimate insurer of Israel’s continued existance. Israel decided, as early as the 1960’s, to build-up its military and achieve absolute conventional military superiorty over it’s enemies, and not place its reliance on nuclear weapons. Israel did this in the hope that they would never have to call on their thermo-nuclear weapons stockpile to rescue their country.

Clealy the danger to Israel’scontinued existace has escalated until today Israel finds itself ann island of sanity in a sea of madness.

We have warned of Israel’s "Samson Option" many times before. Like their ancient ancestors on Masada, Israel, it would seem, is prepared to sacrifice itself rather than be driven into slavery -- or extinction -- by the enemy hordes that surround it.

Sadly, the only country that can prevent those Middle Eastern madmen from breaching the walls of Israel is the United States. But the US is leaderless, at least until 2013, and the man who currently occupies the office of President of the United States has shown no favor towards Israel or its plight.

Today, the entire world is threathened. The Damocles Sword of Islamic terrorism hangs precariously over our heads. Here, in America, the lives of every man, woman and child has changed since September 11, 2001. And yet, compared to the threat Israelis live under, every day, Americans live in perfect secutity and safety.

The canary in the coal mine is telling us the threat is real and it is lethal. The actions of Israel should be the warning the world heeds. But, sadly, it will not be taken seriously until it is too late. America should be shoring up its relationship with Israel and making it clear to all who threathen that tiny country that Israel’s big brother is back by her side. But that won’t happen until the electorate of America decides to send Obama into retirement where he can play golf and basketball to his heart’s content and leave the job of leading the free world to someone who actually knows how.

J. D. Longstreet

Monday, March 28, 2011

Taxes By The Mile In The USA?

Taxes By The Mile In The USA?

The Proposed Vehicle Mile Tax

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

They are testing the waters again in Washington. Always looking for an opportunity to take advantage of a crisis to squeeze even more money from the taxpayers of America. There is a proposal being floated about in “Foggy Bottom” to tax US drivers for every mile they drive in their cars, trucks, vans, SUV’s, or whatever. The Congressional Budget Office is referring to it as the “Vehicle Mile Tax” or VMT. Here’s what has happened: Due to the high per gallon price of gasoline many drivers have greatly reduced the use of their cars and trucks. My truck, for instance, is virtually parked. I drive it one or twice a week and then only on short hops -- all within the city limits. My truck is ten years old but has only about 50,000 miles on it. But it uses more gasoline than the family Buick. So it remains parked. It would seem that most American families are doing the same thing or something very much akin to it. A huge portion of the per gallon price of gasoline is state and federal taxes. So, you can imagine that when Americans began driving less and using less gasoline, the tax stream from gasoline into the tax coffers of the states and the federal government went from a roaring stream to a trickle. And THAT got the attention of the “taxaholics” in Washington, DC and in the states. Thus the proposal to tax American drivers for every mile they drive -- and that is on top of the taxes we are already paying on every gallon of gasoline we purchase. I must tell you that my state, North Carolina, has one of the highest taxes on gasoline of any state in the Union. So, when I heard about the “mileage tax” proposal, it got my attention. Just so we are clear: I HATE the idea! In 2008, here in North Carolina, something called the 21st Century Transportation Committee recommended the state adopt a “taxes by the mile” plan. As I understood the proposal, the state would carefully record the miles each Tar Heel driver drove, over the preceding twelve months, and the vehicle’s owner would be charged the appropriate amount in taxes for each mile driven. As North Carolinians take their cars in each year for the mandated annual state inspection (which by itself is a gigantic tax scheme!) The mileage on the odometer would have been recorded. This was to be the source of the mileage figures used to tax NC drivers. Transportation experts told us then that sometime later the state could switch to GPS tracking of NC Drivers. This scheme was called the “Road Use Tax.” It is interesting to note that NC had a Democratic Party controlled legislature in 2008. So what happened? The NC voters told the Democrats in the NC Legislature to hit the very road they wanted to tax -- and replaced them with a Republican controlled legislature. Oregon and California have also considered imposing such road taxes on their citizens, as well. The fact that driver’s pockets would be picked by a “tax by the mile” (Vehicle Mile Tax) road tax was just too much for the North Carolina voters to stomach. There is another disturbing aspect of these mileage tax rip-offs; the device attached to our cars would also emit a signal, much as a GPS device does, that would allow the government to know where we are, in our car, at all times. Sounds incredible, does it not? THAT HAS been suggested. More than likely, it would be continuous tracking of our road miles. Either way, it is just more big brother government intrusion into our lives. Look: US drivers pay approximately 35 billion dollars in federal gasoline taxes annually. You’d think our highways would be paved in gold rather than asphalt! This whole thing smacks of another trick by the liberal-socialists to herd Americans into mass transit. It is all a part of the “green agenda” to deprive Americans of their celebration of freedom – the automobile – in favor of bicycles, trolleys, and commuter trains, etc. There is an editorial at the Washington Times we urge you to read. It is entitled: CBO’s toll-road fib. You will find it HERE. “Motorists are one of the most overtaxed groups in America, and the automobile has done more to enable this country’s economic success than any other invention.”(Read the entire article in the Washington Times HERE.) I am inclined to believe this is more of the leftist agenda to dismantle America until it becomes just another third-world country. J. D. Longstreet

Saturday, March 26, 2011

Nuclear safety: Reactors that can't melt down ... Kelvin Kemm

Nuclear safety: Reactors that can't melt down Kelvin Kemm

The recent tragic events in Japan have brought the issue of nuclear energy to the forefront of public discussion. While some have exploited the tragedy to advance anti-nuclear policies, others have tried to defend this important energy source on the grounds of its importance to our economy and standard of living.

Missing in the discussion are several important facts. First, the 9.0 earthquake and 30- to 40-foot-high tsunami was a disaster of unprecedented proportion. It killed at least 10,000 people and possibly as many as 18,000.

Second, the Fukushima Daiichi 1 nuclear power plant withstood the quake, which released 32 times more energy than the plant was designed to absorb. But the tsunami came over the 25-foot-high seawall, carried off fuel supplies for the plant’s backup generators, shorted their circuitry and caused other damage, while also knocking out all remaining primary electrical power for dozens of miles. Even so, plant workers and other emergency crews avoided the kind of nuclear disaster many initially feared would occur.

Third, the Fukushima plant had many upgrades since it was first constructed. Numerous enhancements have been added to dozens of other nuclear reactors built since then, under that original design and newer designs.

Fourth, and equally important, significant breakthroughs in nuclear engineering continue to be made. They should now be vetted properly – as they could further reduce or even eliminate the threat of nuclear meltdown. To grasp the significance of these breakthroughs, informed citizens should have a basic understanding of how nuclear power technology developed over the years. The world’s first nuclear power plants began operating fifty years ago. Since then, nuclear power has advanced considerably, to the point that today some 16% of the world’s electricity is produced by nuclear power. France is the world leader, producing nearly 80% of its electricity from nuclear – and exporting a substantial amount of nuclear-generated electricity to countries like Italy and the UK.

As one might expect, nuclear power technology has improved dramatically over the last half century. In line with any technology development, various routes and options were examined, and rejected or implemented.

Because nuclear plant technology evolved from systems designed for nuclear submarines, early nuclear plants for generating electricity were engineered to be cooled by water. As a result, most of the world’s large nuclear power plants are situated on ocean coastlines or the banks of large inland rivers and lakes.

Basic nuclear power production physics involves a nuclear reaction that produces heat, which then converts water to steam. Most nuclear reactors use uranium as fuel. Pellets containing uranium are placed into tubes grouped in clusters, known as fuel elements. A number of fuel elements stand vertically in the core of the reactor, where they are covered by water. As uranium atoms are split via nuclear fission, the heat this reaction generates is extracted to convert water into steam.

The steam drives a turbine, which in turn drives an electrical generator. Water pumped from the ocean, river or lake cools the steam after it has passed through the turbine, condensing the steam back to water, so that it can be returned to the reactor heat source and reheated. From the early beginnings of reactor development, two branches of water reactor evolved.

In the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR), the water around and in contact with the fuel elements boils to produce steam, which then passes directly to the turbines.

In the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), water around the fuel elements becomes very hot but does not boil, because it is under pressure. This water then flows to a heat exchanger, which passes the heat to another water circuit that converts the second volume of water to steam. A PWR thus has two independent water circuits, and coolant water and steam never come in contact with the fuel elements.

Over the years the PWR has emerged as the preferred technology, and all modern water-cooled nuclear plants operate as PWRs. However, Japan’s 40-year old Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant was a BWR design, and was approaching retirement. Sadly, before that happened, Japan suffered the worst earthquake and resultant tsunami in its recorded history.

The severe earth movement caused eleven Japanese nuclear power stations to shut down, as their design intended. However, the Daiichi plant was then hit by the tsunami’s massive wall of water. Together they destroyed electricity supply lines to the power station’s primary cooling pumps, while the tsunami knocked out the diesel powered backup systems. Batteries took over, but had a life of only eight hours.

As a result, although the reactors had been shut down successfully, their residual or “decay” heat was still enough to boil water to excessive pressure inside the reactors, in the absence of a functioning cooling system.

Reactor staff then had to release some of the steam to the atmosphere. With it went hydrogen gas, which mixed with air to produce an explosive mixture. That detonated in the outer building structures, blowing them open. The TV images were dramatic, even though the plant’s actual containment structures remained intact.

The reactor operators then had to resort to pumping sea water directly into the reactors to cool them, as their decay heat died away. Their actions appear to have worked, averting a serious nuclear disaster, even though some radiation was released on several occasions. Thus even this very old plant avoided a disaster.

However, over recent years, engineers have developed an innovative alternative nuclear reactor design, known as High Temperature Gas Reactors. Instead of water, they employ helium gas as a coolant. In South Africa, a similar reactor design was developed: the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR). Its fuel is small tennis-ball-sized graphite balls containing granules of uranium, rather than large metal fuel elements. The balls cannot melt.

The PBMR design was developed to be “walk away safe,” which means that the nuclear reactor and its cooling system can be stopped dead in their tracks. The reactor cannot overheat, but will just cool down by itself.

A real-world trial of the reactor system was carried out in Germany, and the reactor cooled just as designed. The operating team really can walk away to have lunch, and the reactor will take care of itself in the event of an emergency shutdown.

As time passes, one would expect that BWR-type reactors will pass into the pages of history, as gas-cooled reactors and other more modern designs move to centre stage. In the meantime, though, steady improvements in nuclear power plant design and safety features have been implemented worldwide.

Nuclear power will likely be the world’s future power source, as nuclear technology continues to evolve. Many great minds have trodden the path of nuclear development over the last half century, and many more are following.

From the dry, dusty plains of Africa, a great contribution has been made toward even safer, more dependable nuclear power, with the development of a reactor type that does not have to rely on large volumes of water.

As Pliny the Elder said almost 2,000 years ago: “There is always something new out of Africa.” Nuclear power will one day power Africa, and the world – helping to lift billions out of poverty and ensuring that billions more continue to enjoy living standards that poor nations also deserve to have. __________ Dr. Kelvin Kemm holds a PhD in nuclear physics, is currently CEO of Stratek and lives in Pretoria, South Africa. He also serves as a scientific advisor to the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow.

A World in Disarray ... Alan Caruba

A World in Disarray
By Alan Caruba

It almost makes one wistful for the Cold War when the world was neatly divided between the United States and its allies against what Ronald Reagan called “the evil empire”, the Soviet Union and its satellite nations.

Trying to bring about a League of Nations after World War One virtually killed President Woodrow Wilson who suffered a massive stroke, but liberals have always been entranced with the notion that an international organization would bring an end to war. Until, that is, World War Two.

As WWII was winding down, Franklin Delano Roosevelt set to creating the United Nations and, following his death, it came into being on June 26, 1945. The preamble to its charter says:

“We the people of the united nations determined

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,”

Yada, yada, yada!

The United Nations has devolved into a cesspool of evil and irrelevance. I cannot think of a single war, large or small, nor any genocides, it has managed to stop. There were a couple of military conflicts in which it was an active participant, mostly in the form of telling the United States to “go get’m!” and “don’t forget to wear our blue helmets.”

If there has been a force for freedom in the world, it has been the might and power of the United States of America.

Until now.

Now our President says, “No U.S. troops will be in Libya.” This administration is desperately looking for some other nation to take the lead on Libya.

Let me be clear. I have not been a fan of spending our treasure and blood for the people of the Middle East. I am not a fan of war, but I know that war is the only way that most international conflicts get settled for good or ill.

The last President, George W. Bush, put together a coalition and invaded Iraq because, well, because he really did not like Saddam Hussein who, incidentally, had been invading his neighbors since the 1980s. His father had previously done the same to drive him out of Kuwait in the first Gulf War.

If there ever was a coalition regarding Libya, it was made of sugar candy because Germany and France had serious second thoughts after a week. No fly zones, it seems, cost a lot of money to maintain and most Western nations are broke, including our own.

The Arab League that called for a no-fly zone over Libya ran away even sooner. Arabs, who have shown an unparalleled talent for killing one another, lack the stomach for anything that involves mounting a real war to stop one of their own from killing the unfortunate citizens of his satrapy.

As it is, alphabetically from Bahrain to Syria to Yemen, despots throughout the Middle East are busy right now putting down their own internal insurrections. In the late 1990s Osama bin Laden gained a lot of attention by calling for the downfall of all the monarchies and despots throughout the region and the implementation of sharia law in anticipation of a global caliphate. The Saudis exiled him as they thought this was a really bad idea despite being the protectors of Islam’s two holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

At the same time we are witnessing a remnant of the Cold War, NATO, that does not seem to be functioning all that well, nor the European Union that was formed to be an enconomic bloc and clearly not one with any kind of a military component or sense of mission.

What the world needs is decisive leadership, but instead it has the Hamlet of the White House, Barack Hussein Obama, whose initial tour of the Middle East has, in retrospect, turned out to be one that caused its despots to conclude he was a wuss, a naif, a moron.

Who’s in charge of Operation Free Libya? No one knows!

The result is a world in disarray because the one nation every other nation thought it could count upon, for better or worse, is led by the Vacationer-in-Chief, a man who thinks that merely “saying the right thing” is the same as “doing the right thing.”

The situation in Libya will not likely turn out well, nor the growing opposition in Syria. No one knows what the outcome in Egypt will be, but everyone is pleased the crowds in downtown Cairo have gone home.

Meanwhile, Hamas is gearing up to cause trouble in Israel, waging its usual Made-in-Palestine terrorism based on the Yassir Arafat Guide to Always Saying No.

It is my profound hope the Israelis will strike back very hard, but it is also my profound belief that the UN Security Council will hastily meet to pass another resolution against Israel taking any measures of self defense.

This is how really big wars break out because no one at this point wants to fight the small ones.

© 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, is the place to visit.

Friday, March 25, 2011

America’s Most Unpopular War in Forty Years

America’s Most Unpopular War in Forty Years
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

The Libyan War is proving to be America’s most unpopular war in the past four decades say the pollsters.

OK. I AM calling it the Libyan War. Despite what the left, Obama’s supporters, and Obama himself, would have you believe, the act of establishing and enforcing a no-fly zone over a country IS AN ACT OF WAR!

From my standpoint, one of the reasons why Americans are not enamored of the Libyan War is because -- Obama will not take out Gaddafi. Americans would like to see Gaddafi GONE. I don’t mean gone to Venezuela, but GONE as in departed this life.

Another reason, I believe, Americans just cannot support our efforts in Libya, is that Obama does not seem committed to winning in Libya. The moment he stated publicly that the US would not place US troops on the ground in Libya; he lost a huge chunk of American support for the war. Whether we do, or do not place boots on the ground in Libya, is really not the issue troubling so many of us. It is what seems to be a lack of commitment on the part of the Commander-in-Chief to do whatever it takes to get the job done in Libya. THAT is the problem.

Handing the war off to NATO is only going to make the execution of the war even worse. It will be war by committee. Thee is a better than even chance that without American leadership, Gaddafi will die of old age in Tripoli!

But, the longer I observe America’s third consecutive war with a Muslim country the uneasier I become. I have a persisting feeling that there is much more going on in the Middle East -- and we are unaware of it -- because that is what the Obama Regime wants.

Over the past weeks and months I, along with many other commentators, have described the Middle East as “aflame.” While that is a truthful description of current events there, I have the foreboding feeling that the REAL crisis has not even begun.

Have you noticed the only Middle Eastern country not aflame with “rebels’, or protesters, demanding a change in their government? Yes. It is Israel.

But, I must tell you that while the eyes of the world are drawn to the uprisings in the Muslim world, events are taking place in Israel that force me to believe that soon, Israel will be leading the news … not Libya and not Gaddafi. In fact, I have come to believe that the dust-up in Libya will soon become a sideshow to the war, which I have come to believe, is eminent in Israel.

On Wednesday of this week Hamas fired 15 more shells into Israel. Amos Gilad, Israel’s senior Defense Ministry adviser, has reportedly told Hamas to knock-off the rocket and mortar attacks on Israel and to not do so will be a grave mistake.

Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu was reported in the Israeli press as saying: “We have set a clear policy on security, the essence of which is a vigorous response to any attempt to harm Israeli citizens, and systematic and assertive preventive measures against terrorism.” Netanyahu went on to say: “They are trying to test our resolve and the fortitude of our people. They will learn that the government, the IDF and the Israeli public have an iron will to defend the state and its citizens.”

Israel is gearing up for war. The coming conflict will make the “Cast Lead” Operation resemble a Sunday School picnic.

If Israel attacks Gaza and Hamas with a full scale IDF invasion -- while the Muslim blood lust is up -- there is the potential for a hellish regional war, which would, no doubt, involve the use of nuclear weapons.

Why do I continue to pound the nightmare of a nuclear war in the Middle East? Because Israel is ready to unleash her nuclear arsenal as a last ditch effort to save their tiny country.

Now, this is important: We know that Obama is no friend to Israel. We are fairly certain that when Israel goes to war Obama will not lift a finger to help Israel. That means Israel will have to use whatever it has to defend itself. That means nuclear weapons.

Obama is supposedly a well-read man. I don’t know how much of the Bible he has read or how much of it he believes. I must tell you, as a southerner, I was reared in a home where the Bible was revered, read, discussed, and committed to memory. I distinctly remember God’s promise to Abraham: “I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you.”

It is apparent to anyone with eyes to see that Obama has stopped America’s support of Israel. It is also clear to anyone who cares to accept reality, that America is already paying the price for forsaking Israel. If you doubt it, look around you. Read a newspaper. Watch the news on TV. Check it on the Internet. America will pay a horrible price for throwing Israel to the wolves of the Middle East.

It is clear that Obama has no taste for war. The leader of a warrior nation, like America, ought to be a warrior. Obama is not. He is obviously out of his element as are the majority of his administration. He has withdrawn America from the leadership role in practically everything around the globe. What we are seeing in the Middle East is the result of Obama’s withdrawal of American leadership.

Like it or not, America is the Global Police. At least we have been until Obama. When the world dialed 911 – America answered. No longer.

Is Obama deliberately destroying America? It is an honest, sincere, question and it deserves an answer. He does not believe in American exceptionalism. He apparently DOES believe in an open society, a world without borders, and the redistribution of America’s wealth. In other words: Obama speaks, acts, and governs as a communist would speak, act, and govern. (See Alan Caruba’s recent article: “Obama: As Red As It Gets” HERE.)

America is in trouble today… but the REAL trouble hasn’t arrived … yet! But, rest assured, it IS on the way. And America has the wrong man in the Oval Office to deal with it when it arrives.

America: Prepare for a great tribulation unlike anything this nation has seen since it’s founding. And who is to blame? We are – for we elected Obama. Sometimes democracy can be it’s own worst enemy.

J. D. Longstreet

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Banning the Bulb

Banning the Bulb
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Americans have nine months left in which they can purchase 100-watt incandescent light bulbs. As of the first of 2011, no new 100-watt incandescent light bulbs (except for those left in the store’s inventory) can be sold to the American consumer.

The last factory manufacturing the 100-watt incandescent light bulb was has been closed and shuttered. The incandescent light bulb manufacturing business has moved the China.

The US manufacturers of light bulbs in America will make only fluorescent bulbs. You’d never guess, would you, that manufacturers will make more profit off the fluorescent bulbs than they did on the old incandescent bulbs?

Back in January of 2008, I wrote the following:

“The US Congress recently passed a bill to ban incandescent light bulb use in the United States by the year 2012. (The President signed it into law.) What will replace them? The compact fluorescent light bulb.

Why does this upset me? WHY, indeed?!

I’ll point you in the direction of some evidence that the fluorescent bulbs may not be as helpful and energy efficient as claimed and might even damage American’s health and contribute to pollution of the earth. You decide, for yourself, if you really want to put them in your home, where you and your children will be exposed to them, or if you want to raise hell with the Congress until they repeal this ridiculous law and give us back our tried and true incandescent light bulbs.

Did you know it required a special exemption from the Environmental Protection Agency of the US government to allow fluorescent lamp bulbs to be sold to the pubic in the US in the first place? Why? Mercury, that’s why!

“Fluorescent lights are filled with a gas containing low-pressure mercury vapor and argon, or sometimes even krypton. The inner surface of the bulb is coated with a fluorescent coating made of varying blends of metallic and rare earth phosphor salts. Fluorescent light bulbs are more energy efficient than incandescent light bulbs of an equivalent brightness, and the efficiency of fluorescent lighting owes much to low-pressure mercury photon discharges. But fluorescents don't produce a steady light, and they burn out more quickly when cycled frequently; they also contain items such as fluorine, neon, and lead powder as well as mercury.” (From: “Compact fluorescent light bulbs contaminate the environment with 30,000 pounds of mercury each year.” ) You will find it HERE.

(This article -- referred to above -- was written by Mike Adams a natural health researcher and author with a strong interest in personal health, the environment and the power of nature to help us all heal He has authored and published thousands of articles, interviews, consumers guides, and books on topics like health and the environment, impacting the lives of millions of readers around the world who are experiencing phenomenal health benefits from reading his articles. Adams is an independent journalist with strong ethics who does not get paid to write articles about any product or company.)

Also from the same article we learn this: “According to, each year an estimated 600 million fluorescent lamps are disposed of in U.S. landfills, amounting to 30,000 pounds of mercury waste. Astonishingly, that's almost half the amount of mercury emitted into the atmosphere by coal-fired power plants each year. It only takes 4mg of mercury to contaminate up to 7,000 gallons of freshwater, meaning that the 30,000 pounds of mercury thrown away in compact fluorescent light bulbs each year is enough to pollute nearly every lake, pond, river and stream in North America (not to mention the oceans. “

Then, there is this. The CFL bulb “…. can cause people with epilepsy to experience symptoms similar to the early stages of a fit. There have also been complaints of discomfort from people with lupus.” Read more about this in The Daily Mail HERE.

Now… what if you accidentally drop and break one of the CFL’s? Well, you could be looking at a $2,000.00 plus “professional clean-up job”. I mean… they do contain Mercury, remember? Don’t believe me? Check this story out: The CFL mercury nightmare [break a compact fluorescent, face $2000 in cleanup costs] HERE.

Add to this the fact, and I do mean fact… that there certainly appears to be less light output (lumens) from the CFL than from an incandescent bulb.

Now… all the research I have done tells me that the CFL’s produce the same lumens as a comparable incandescent bulb. But, in practice, I have found that replacing a 60 watt incandescent with a 60 watt CFL will NOT produce the same amount of lighting. The area I am trying to light is dimmer, not lighted nearly as well, with the CFL as it was with the incandescent. I have found the same true with 75-watt bulbs and 100-watt bulbs. I have even swapped the 60’s out for 75’s and the 75’s out for 100 watt CFLs and I STILL don’t see the crisp brightness I get from the old incandescent bulb.Now, I am not an engineer. I’m just an old country boy, who has been around the block few times, and experience tells me there HAS to be something different about the lumens emitted by an incandescent and the lumens emitted by a CFL. Is it a different KIND of light? Is that what the matter is?

OK... so I did a bit more research and this is what I found: A 100-watt incandescent light bulb will produce about 1200 lumens. I read that a 20 t0 25 watt CFL will produce the same amount of lumens... but… if the light fixture you are using isn’t DESIGNED for CFLs you will get a "dingy looking" light. Not nearly as bright as the old incandescent bulb! It seems someone forgot to inform us that CFLs radiate their light differently. What that means is... that even though the CFL is producing the same amount of lumens, it may not be producing the same amount of LIGHT to the lighted area! AH -HAAA! I knew it! Read more on this HERE.

So, besides the fact that CFLs don’t work well in cold climates… or just plain old cold weather, they don’t work well, at all, in overhead fixtures, they don’t work, at all, with dimmers, they contain poison, they do not produce the same amount of light as the incandescent light bulbs… in today's light fixtures, and ...they must be treated as hazardous waste material when you get ready to toss one out, … why… they’re just GREAT!

Why do I get the feeling I’ve been scammed… yet again?

As I write, I am in my office, and I have five different light fixtures on right now. I have CFLs in all five of them and, frankly, it is as through I am sitting here, in front of this computer, working by the light of a number of oil lamps situated around the room! The light is that bad!

If I drop something on the floor, I have to get up and turn on the overhead lights, which have incandescent bulbs in them, so I can find the dropped item on the floor.This is madness! I’m at the point, with the CFL bulbs, that I would happily see the oceans boil and keep my incandescent bulbs!Between now and 2012, I’m going to horde as many incandescent light bulbs as I can get. Every trip to the store I intend to buy light bulbs and store them.We should condem the Compact Fluorescent Light bulb to hell! (This article can be found HERE.”)

Although there is SOME movement abroad in the Congress to repeal this ban on 100-watt incandescent light bulbs, who knows how the unresponsive bunch of old hippies, tree-huggers, and “Gaia worshippers” will vote -- especially in the Senate!

It is time to do two things: Aggravate the living daylights out of Congress -- and the President -- to repeal this abomination of a law – and begin hoarding incandescent light bulbs every time you venture to a store stocking light bulbs. I have already begun stocking all the incandescents I can get my hands on. (Remember -- many of today’s light fixtures will not even allow a CFL bulb’s usage. They simply will not fit in them – and -- when they do … the actual lighting produced by them is so poor that you may have to set up lamps, in the same room, with incandescent bulbs in them -- just so you can see! Consider this: You may well be forced to change every light fixture in your home, your office, your business, etc, just to accommodate those cussed, pathetic, excuses for a light bulb.

So far, our toilets have to be flushed multiple times in order to remove the waste, which actually increases the use of water rather than saving the water. Our showerheads are so poor we have to install additional plumbing to increase the pressure, or drill out the holes so more water can get thru and the bather can, at least, get the soap of him or her.

Our gasoline is dilutee by ethanol, something we southern folks recognize as a form of rot-gut home distilled whiskey, which comes from corn -- and is driving the cost of food stuffs and nearly everything else sky high.

Government intrusion in our lives has reached the intolerable point and we have to fight back.

It is time to let your congressperson, including your senators, know you are sick and tired of all this BS and make sure they understand you intend to vote in November of 2012.

J. D. Longstreet

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Obama, As Red as It Gets

Obama, As Red as It Gets
By Alan Caruba

Isn’t it about time that the mainstream media and all others begin to examine the record and conclude that a Communist holds the reins of power in the White House?

Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, it is often believed that Communism died with it. Not so, Communism is alive and well in China, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela.

From the days of Harry Truman who discovered that Franklin Roosevelt had given the Soviets Eastern Europe at the WWII Yalta Conference, American presidents have steadfastly done what they believed was required to keep Communism “contained.”; some more successfully than others.

The Communist Manifesto is well worth reading. Among its planks is the abolition of private property and a government that owns or controls much of the U.S. landmass is antithetical to this keystone of capitalism.

The Manifesto calls for “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax." It calls for the centralization of credit in the hands of the state. We have a “Federal Reserve” that is a national bank.

It calls for “centralization of the means of communications and transportation.” We have a Federal Communications Commission. There’s more and you can read about it here.

America has never had a Communist President until now.

While others have written how obvious it is that Obama is a “Socialist”, I think this is a matter of caution in a society that has not seriously used the word “Communist” since the 1950s when entities like the House Un-American Activities Committee actively investigated and exposed how many existed in the government, the unions, and Hollywood.

It’s not like Barack Hussein Obama has come out and said, “Yes, I’m a Communist”, but you don’t have to have a PhD in Political Science to connect the dots. The process is made murky by the way Obama has deliberately covered his tracks wherever he could, while dropping broad hints.

Obama is the classic “red diaper” baby, the result of a union between his mother, Stanley Dunham and Barack Obama Sr., memorialized in “Dreams of My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.” However, Jerome Corsi, the author of “Obama Nation” notes that “we are told by Obama outright…that much of the autobiography is not factually true, at least not as written.” Indeed, much of what Obama has had to write or say of his life is fiction of one sort or another.

His father abandoned his mother, returning to Africa “to live the life of a chronic alcoholic.” He was also “a man of the left.” Obama’s mother remarried and took him off to Indonesia, but other than developing a fondness of Islam, not much is known of that period. A second divorce put Obama in the care of his grandparents in Hawaii and it was there where his most formative development occurred.

In his excellent book, “Dupes”, historian Dr. Paul Kengor traces the role of the former Soviet Union and the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) as it developed both spies and “fellow travelers” devoted to turning the U.S. toward Communism.

Towards its end the book traces the most important influences in the life of President Obama. The conclusion that he is a Communist is unavoidable.

Obama’s grandparents were devoted to socialism, raising their daughter in schools known for it, even attending a church that reflected it. They were close friends with Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the CPUSA and an Afro-American. Dr. Kengor noted that, during the 1970s, the period of Obama’s adolescence, “His impact is profound because he mentored a young man who made it all the way to the White House.”

Among the hints Obama drops in “Dreams of My Father” was a reference to his college years “hanging out with Marxist professors”, attending “socialist conferences”, and discussing “neocolonialism.” Dr. Kengor quotes Dr. John Drew, a contemporary of Obama at Occidental College for whom Obama was “as a fellow Marxist” and said of the President, “Obama was already an ardent Marxist when I met (him) in the fall of 1980.”

After graduating from Columbia University, long a hotbed of a Leftist faculty and students indoctrinated with a liberal political philosophy, and later Harvard Law School, Obama moved to Chicago where he became close friends with former far-Left Weatherman terrorists of the 1960s, Bill Ayers and his wife Benardine Dohrn. His first venture into politics took place in a fund-raiser in their home. Obama attended a Black Liberation church in Chicago led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright who rarely had a good word for America. Ayers calls himself “a communist with a small ‘c’.”

Among those chosen to be in his administration was Van Jones, “an avowed communist” named as Obama’s “green jobs czar.” When exposed, he resigned. Another figure of the far Left was Jeff Jones whose consulting firm, the Apollo Alliance, “helped write President Obama’s budget-bursting $800 billion ‘stimulus’ bill passed by Congress shortly into the Obama presidency.”

For those still in denial, consider an article by Stanislav Mishin that appeared in Pravda, the Russian newspaper that was formerly one of the main organs of the Soviet Union. “It must be said that like the breaking of a great dam, the American descent into Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed, against the backdrop of a passive, hapless sheep”, much of which he attributed to “the election of Barack Obama.”

That was written before the spontaneous explosion of the quintessentially American Tea Party movement. Since then we have seen the dramatic reversal of power in Congress that occurred as the result of the November 2010 elections.

The harm and damage done by our first Communist President will take years to repair, but Americans have wakened to

• the socialist menace of the nation’s public sector unions,

• the centralization of education in the federal government,

• the threat of the Environmental Protection Agency’s assertion of control over America’s energy sector,

• the refusal of the Interior Department to grant drilling permits,

• the devaluation of the U.S. dollar by the Federal Reserve,

• and the incremental efforts of an anti-American government to undermine defense, national security, our economy, and our worldwide reputation as a defender of freedom.

Winston Churchill, the former British Prime Minister who led that nation through World War II and coined the term “Iron Curtain”, said of Communism, “it is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

© 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, is the place to visit.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

The Obama Doctrine: Don’t lead … At Any Cost

The Obama Doctrine: Don’t lead … At Any Cost
“Hamlet on the Potomac”
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Well, we now know. We have a “Hamlet on the Potomac” in our Oval Office. If you listen closely you can hear Obama twisting himself into knots asking the wrenching question: “To lead… or NOT to lead?” (Our apologies to Bill Shakespeare!)

As America’s regal eagle, King Obama resembles Denmark’s overly sensitive prince, Hamlet, in so many ways. Obama never seems quite able to make up his mind. He pines away in the shadow of such great presidents a Ronald Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt, James Monroe, et al.

Obama doesn’t seem to understand the consequences of all that soul searching he is attributed by his flunkies. Nor does he seem to understand that while he “takes his time” and “considers carefully,” bodies keep piling up and circumstances that claimed those bodies (and will claim more) continue to worsen.

I can’t shake the feeling that the escalating body count comes in a distant second, in priority, to Obama’s “electability” in 2012.

Every President of the United States gets to define his own “doctrine.” My personal favorite was James Monroe’s, which came to be known, of course, as the Monroe Doctrine. It served the country well -- until we began to elect “internationalist” Presidents, like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Hussein Obama. All three of these Presidents relied heavily upon the so-called (or as a TV commentator said over the weekend -- “fabled”) International Community, to either solve problems around the globe or take the lead in seeking solutions to those problems.

It didn’t, and it doesn’t, work.

When Obama went to the United Nations – FIRST – to ask PERMISSION to intervene in Libya and DID NOT GO FIRST to the US Congress where lies the constitutional power to declare war, it was clear where his allegiance lay/lies.

Mr. Obama has said he considers himself a citizen of the world. (Could it be that Obama is the first citizen of the world, not a citizen of the US, to hold the office of US President?? We will learn the truth of this only after his days in office are ended.) If that is so, then he was acting within character when he ignored the US constitution and the US Congress. Seems to me these are grounds for impeachment.

Watching Obama make a decision, especially one that involves US foreign policy to any degree, IS like watching Hamlet wrestling through every line of the play. In short order, the reader, or observer of the play, wants to take the screwed-up prince and give him a swift kick in the butt to reset what passes for his mind.

I’ll let you in on a little secret of mine: I don’t think Obama is all that bright. Nosiree, I don’t. See: I learned in grammar school that a fellow with an average IQ and an expansive vocabulary with the ability to speak authoritatively -- and do so in public -- could con folks into believing he was smarter than the average Joe.

Well, it’s not really a con -- if you don’t present yourself as smarter that other folks.

It is the nature of the human animal to seek out a well-spoken leader (Oftimes mistakenly perceived as an “Alfa” personality) to follow. Yes, humans DO act more like sheep than I am comfortable with.

Problem is – our reluctant leader, our Shakespearian prince in Washington, DID present himself as smarter than everyone else. (At least his cohort of socialist fellow travelers did.) The risk involved when one does that is simply that … at some point … your bluff is going to be called.

OBAMA’S BLUFF HAS BEEN CALLED and it turns out – between Obama and Hillary Clinton – Hillary’s testosterone levels are much higher!

Speaking of Presidential doctrines, I think Ronald Reagan’s was every bit as clear as that of Teddy Roosevelt. Put simply, Reagan’s doctrine was: You harm an American, anywhere in the world, and we will come after you. You cannot hide. It is short and sweet and to the point. The world knew that when Reagan said it … Reagan meant it!

George H. W. Bush’s doctrine was to follow the UN’s direction -- and he did. Of Course, we had to turn around and go right back to Iraq, to finish the job, when his son took office.

Unfortunately, it now appears that Obama is going to imitate George H. W. Bush and not take out Gaddafi, as Bush the First did not take out Hussein, therefore setting the stage for a second Libya war some months or years down the road. Frankly, I am counting on the British SAS to send that Libyan thorn in the side of the world to settle up with Allah at the earliest opportunity.

The George W. Bush Doctrine was “hit ‘em first!” It was to fight them “over there” so we didn’t have to fight them “over here.” The thing I don’t like about it is our feeble attempts at nation building. We might have been able to carry it off in the 1940’s and 1950’s with Germany and Japan, but today -- we suck at it!

Bill Clinton’s Doctrine was to lob a few cruise missiles into a reputed aspirin factory, after dark, when no body was in the building, which, reports tell us, was an abandoned building, anyway. And Clinton insisted our warplanes over Serbia had to drop bombs from such a high altitude that the bomb runs were a useless waste of munitions.

Obama’s Doctrine is to first dither while the bodies pile up -- and then, when all else fails, persuade someone else to do it. Then, find a way to take credit for it – if it goes well, of course.

Understand: I did not want America involved in Libya, in Egypt, or in any of the Middle Eastern countries now in flames. I am not unconvinced that the whole blow-up in the Islamic nations of the Middle East was designed as an old “draw play” worthy of my Native American ancestors, to draw a weakened America, with a decidedly weak President, into a unending, continually deepening, fray that would suck the life out of our economy and eventually collapse our government.

Talk about having the right man, in the right place, at the right time! For our Middle Eastern enemies Obama was a godsend -- the same for our domestic enemies, as well.

America, today, resembles a great ship caught in a storm, rudderless, and being blown onto the rocks of doom by the winds of change brought us by the Obama Regime.

Conservatives are desperately tossing sea anchors over the side hoping to slow the great ship’s eminent doom until a new captain can be elected, the rudder repaired, and a new course stirred taking the massive vessel away from the shoals of certain disaster.

To affect the rescue of America we need a candidate for President who actually has a chance at winning. NONE of those expected to announce as candidates stand a snowball’s chance in Hades, in August, against the great socialist machine behind Obama.

In my opinion, people of faith would do well to petition the deity to whom they pray to mercifully cut short our chastisement and send America a leader who will lead us in the quest to restore America’s greatness and once again illuminate the “great city set on a hill” as a beacon to all mankind.

J. D. Longstreet

Monday, March 21, 2011

Obama Answers to the UN -- NOT Congress

Obama Answers to the UN -- NOT Congress!
Obama Puts Congress In Its Place!
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Did you notice that Obama asked permission of the United Nations to go to war against Libya – but he did not ask the US Congress, which has the constitutional power to declare war? Why?

We have been warning from the start of the Obama Regime that he was out to make the Congress superfluous. In other words – Congress doesn’t matter to Obama. That means the American citizen does not matter to Obama.

In Obama’s world, HE is OBAMA. He can, and does, rule by executive order – and -- through his Czars and the members of his Cabinet. What the heck does he need Congress for, anyway? Why, he just makes the laws up as he goes and calls them “rules and regulations.”

This time, however, Obama really rubbed Congress’ collective nose in it. By approaching a would-be world governing body, hat in hand, to ask permission for the greatest military power the world has ever seen, to swat another Middle Eastern fly, was not only humiliating to the American people, it also put the Congress in it’s place which is a notch BELOW the United Nations.

I have to ask: How much longer will the limp-wristed US Congress put up with Obama’s Napoleonic delusions before they impeach him? Watch this space for further developments!

Now, let’s look at the Libyan fiasco: As a US military veteran, I am totally against having US troops taking orders from a commander who is not a member of the US military. It opens the door to the possibility of all sorts of problems -- some that COULD, conceivably, lead to war crimes charges levied against US soldiers. That is just ONE of my concerns. It may be the most grave of all.

A question I have about the no-fly zone operation in Libya is: What, exactly, will US forces be doing there? I mean, of course, after we kick-in Gaddafi’s front door. Nobody seems to know – or, if they do, they are not telling us.

Ok. So here’s what we know – or THINK we know: We know the current commander is an American. We are told that may very well change, and soon. We know US bombers flew in from Missouri and took out an airfield or two. We know US naval assets fired a huge number of Tomahawk missiles at Libya’s SAM sites, radar sites and command and control node(s).

But we are being told that the US will not make an attempt to remove Gaddafi, dead or alive. Then, I have to ask, why get involved, at all, in what will surely be one very large odiferous MESS in Libya -- and very soon.

Even an old swamp rat, like yours truly, knows that if Gaddafi is not taken out, he is going to lash back months or years from now and needless deaths will occur due to his sponsorship of terrorism aimed at those countries taking part in this sound and light show in Libya today.

To be frank, dear reader, this operation seems destined to be another liberal-socialist-democratic-president-led screw-up … ALREADY!

Look. We have stated time and again… liberal-socialist democrats do not understand the military. They do not understand the implementation of military power. They cringe when told it is the job of the military to destroy other countries and other societies and to kill the enemy’s soldiers -- and when necessary -- the enemies civilian population in order to deprive them of the means to wage war and the WILL to wage war. Simply put – the US military’s mission is to kill people and break things.

Our liberal friends on the left find this unacceptable. Instead they actually believe they can talk the enemy into surrender and convince them to embrace our demands and quietly and gently acquiesce to our will.

Of course, that is total Bovine Scatology … but a good socialist-liberal democrat believes that. They will not, I repeat, they will not accept that you cannot negotiate with a country, or a stateless bunch of terrorists, when they don’t want to talk with you and have absolutely no intention of negotiating with you.

In their arrogance, the left’s extremely high self-esteem blinds them to the truth. The truth is -- the people they are trying to negotiate with find them fools and lackeys and gutless wonders, full of hot air and devoid of any honor at all. (We might mention that view is held by rather a large number of conservative Americans as well.)

Did you notice how the Commander-in-chief of American forces committed American troops to harm’s way in Libya and then jetted off on a tour of Central and South America? That speaks volumes of his interest in the mission and his concern for the welfare of his troops.

Already, America is involved in two wars in the Middle East. The war in Iraq is remarkable in that we captured the evil ruler of that country. He was tried and hanged.

After all the US dollars and blood spent there I see nothing to make me believe that Iraq will not revert, right back, to its former “strongman dictatorship” form of government as soon as the US military leaves.

Afghanistan is a tragic comedy. We are wasting blood and money on a lost cause. The tribal leaders there will suck up our cash as long as we are stupid enough to continue making an effort at so-called “nation building” in that moonscape of a country where robbing the enemy blind is down to a fine art. That country will change IF, and WHEN, the Afghanis WANT TO CHANGE -- and not one second before. It makes not one whit of difference how long we stay or when we go.

Care to guess what the Afghanis will do as soon as the last US deuce-and-a-half rumbles away over the horizon? You don’t have to guess. You know.

And now, simultaneously, we are in our third war in the Middle East. (I can remember when the big question was if the US military could successfully fight only two wars? Remember?)

America is in deep trouble. Obama (and his leftist, socialist, communist, domestic terrorist henchmen) is an albatross around America’s neck. If we are to survive as a viable country, we have to rid ourselves of this dead weight dragging us down into the depths of mediocrity at the polls in November 2012. It is a matter of survival.

J. D. Longstreet

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Obama: Citizen of the World!

Obama: Citizen of the World!
By J.D. Longstreet

I have a lot of difficulty relating to anyone who claims citizenship in the world. Frankly, that person is frightening. Saying one is a citizen of the world negates one’s actual citizenship as… well, a native of the country within which he/she was born and, to which, he/she owes allegiance. Saying you are a citizen of the world is too…well… vague. But then… that is exactly what Mr. Barack H. Obama is… vague.

I’m one of those old geezers, still alive today, who actually heard some of President Franklin Roosevelt’s speeches. While listening to Obama in Berlin, my mind began shifting gears, feeling its way around his words and phrases, because I was sure I had heard them before. It continued to nag at me until a picture of FDR solidified in my mind’s eye. It was then that I realized this was the effect his speech was supposed to have on me! It was beautifully delivered. It was oratorical music. It was a symphony of simplistic sermonizing declaring… not much, really. As an American of part German ancestry, I understand the magnetism of compelling oratory. It stirs my soul. And for a brief moment, or two, I WAS stirred.

But, that’s about as far as it went. Once I focused on his words, I was dismayed to hear his proud profession of faith in, (gasp!) globalism!

Look, I am unashamedly a nationalist. I am an American, first, last, and always. I am proud of my country and have been all my life. Some of my country’s leaders have certainly not lived up to the greatness America offered them, and THEY have shamed me, but, never my country.

It is apparent that Mr. Obama IS a globalist. One who believes in cleansing the globe of national borders and having one single worldwide government…a one-world government.

Globalism is another of those ethereal dreams our liberal brethren have latched onto. It dates back to, at least, the Hippies. You know: tie-dyes, long hair, sandals, free love, free dope, etc, etc. Oh, I had a momentary lapse of memory! Many of our Congressional delegates ARE old hippies! How, could I forget that, even for a moment? Not Obama, of course. From my perspective, he’s just a “wannabe hippie”.

There was something very unsettling about hearing a terrific orator drawing throngs of cheering Germans into a public square in Berlin. I had flashbacks of another great orator doing the same thing back in the 1930’s and early 1940’s. We still bear the scars from the fall-out of the explosion HE caused. Listening to Obama play the crowd, as a master violinist would play the violin, was unnerving.

I have mentioned before how watching the faces in the crowds at Obama events remind me so much of the faces in the crowds at Hitler’s speeches. As could Hitler, Obama can lift a crowd’s emotions to a near orgasmic response. An emotion charged crowd is only a click or two away from transformation into a mob.

To say Obama’s event in Berlin was troubling to me would be an understatement. One, blessed with both charisma and special oratorical skills, has a responsibility, it seems to me, to never allow his words to stoke a crowd’s emotional furnace too much. It is entirely possible to strike the trip wires that loose the hearer’s motivation to take action based on faulty judgment made at the height of passion. That has happened before, and in Berlin.

OK, so I am an old fogy, long past my prime, and prone to judge current events by events I have witnessed in the past. That used to be looked upon as a sort of “wisdom of the aged”. I realize that is not so in this modern era. But, I must tell you, I feel a certain responsibility to hold up the “caution signs” when I see things, hear things, and experience things that indicate to me there could be trouble ahead.

Historians tell us that as the great Roman generals would ride in their chariots in the triumphal parades through the flower strewn streets of Rome, soaking up the cheers and accolades of the crowds of admiring fellow Romans along the way, there was a fellow Roman, sometimes even a slave, whose job it was to stand in the chariot with the hero, slightly behind him, and whisper, continuously, in his ear: ”Remember, thou art but a man… thou art but a man.” Seems to me, Obama needs someone to whisper those words in his ear, and often.

J. D. Longstreet

Saturday, March 19, 2011

Give the Peace Prize Back, Barack ... Alan Caruba

Give the Peace Prize Back, Barack
By Alan Caruba

As the Middle East begets one insurrection after another against the oppression that has been endemic to the region for centuries and as Japan faces the worst nuclear energy disaster since Chernobyl, the President of America and Commander-in-Chief is Absent Without a Leave (AWOL).

Barack Hussein Obama is the first President of the United States who received a Nobel Peace Prize just for showing up. It is a mark of how debased this once prestigious international prize has become. He should give it up.

In the past, the Peace Prize went to Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 for negotiating an end to a Russian-Japanese conflict and to Woodrow Wilson in 1919 for his efforts to create the League of Nations. Its value began to fall off the cliff when it was given to Jimmy Carter in 2002 and Obama in 2009. In between, it was awarded to former Vice President Al Gore and the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change in 2007.

It is an ancient axiom that power is lost when power is not exercised. Osama bin Laden seriously misread the U.S. when he referred to it as “a weak horse”, an Arab way of saying it could be attacked with impunity. George W. Bush responded by bombing the hell out of Tora Bora in Afghanistan and then by invading Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden has been in hiding ever since and his top lieutenants keep getting whacked.

Obama’s approach to foreign affairs has been to misunderstand and denigrate the role of America in a dangerous world. Daniel Henninger of The Wall Street Journal calls it “The Collapse of Internationalism” because the failure to lead has demonstrated the uselessness of the United Nations, its Security Council, NATO, the European Union, and the Arab League when it comes to facing down a psychopathic despot like Libya’s Quadaffi and, of course, the same was true regarding Saddam Hussein.

This is how big wars occur.

Recent history bears out the failure to take action against Mussolini’s invasion of Ethiopia, against Adolf Hitler prior to his invasion of Poland, to anticipate the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, and now the inevitable acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran.

This is what happens when an administration’s policy makers are all “intellectuals” who have spun out hypothetical views of the world that have no relationship to history or present realities.

This is what happens when, despite our present financial woes, the most powerful nation on Earth has reduced its naval and air power, and asks its military to engage in nation-building while fighting our enemies. What is needed are entirely separate, highly trained units devoted to that task.

This is what happens when “foreign policy” involves wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on the United Nations and billions more in so-called “foreign aid” to nations that do not like us, nor support us in times of crisis and need.

Libya, said Henninger, “was a test case, and what we have seen is that a world in which the U.S. doesn’t unmistakably lead is a world that spins its wheel, and eventually the wheels start to come off.”

The U.S. is not, as Obama believes, just one more nation among others or that it is not the single most exceptional experiment in democracy and freedom.

Just as Americans must organize to resist and survive Barack Hussein Obama over the next two years, having come to realize how utterly incompetent he is, other nations are wondering what will occur without the leadership the U.S. has always provided in the past, including two world wars, several smaller ones, and the containment of the former Soviet menace.

The presidency is much more than frequent trips to the golf course, predicting the outcome of the NCAA tournament, and an ill-timed visit to Rio. It is a dangerous place filled with people like Quadaffi and others of his ilk.

© 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, is the place to visit.