Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Israel Edges Closer to Iran Attack

Israel Edges Closer to Iran Attack

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Israel (and the world) is edging closer, everyday, to an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Completely disgusted with the Obama Regime’s “pretty please” approach to diplomacy with Iran, and frustrated with the US government’s “hovering” and insistence that Israel notify the US before any such attack, Israel is leaning forward and chomping at the bit to make the hit and make it ASAP.

Recent reports tell of an Israeli drone capable of reconnaissance, surveillance,  -- and attack – that crashed on a test flight over Israel recently.  News reports of the incident resulted in tensions being raised one more notch.

The Israeli drone – a Heron TP – has a range of well over 4,000 miles.  Iran is roughly 1,000 miles from Israel. 

The Heron is a BIG airplane.  It has a wingspan nearly equal to that of a 737 Airliner -- approximately 85 feet. It can carry a payload of well over a ton. 

According to a report in the Washington Times the Heron TP, which soars as high as 40,000 feet, would likely play a key role in an attack on Iran.  The plane can be utilized for recon and surveillance or “for firing rockets, and can be used in a variety of missions such as aerial refueling, jamming communications and relaying ground control in Israel to manned aircraft over a distant target.”  (SOURCE)

The Heron TP is not a new aircraft.  It has been in service for at least two years.

While Israel feels pressure from Iran, it also must keep an eye over it’s should watching the “New” Egyptian government.  Egypt’s recently elected parliament has said it has no intention of renewing the its long standing peace treaty with Israel.  To Israel’s north, Syria is in flames with Assad’s government slaughtering its citizens in a near Syrian civil war. 

It is not outside the realm of possibility that Assad, Syria’s dictator, could stir up trouble with it’s southern neighbor, Israel, to redirect the attention of it’s people and take some of the pressure off Syria’s unpopular government.

Israel is in a world of trouble with threats from all sides -- not including the so-called Palestinians, who are, in fact, Arabs.  They are pushing the UN to carve a Palestinian state out of Israeli land.

The entire Middle East is in flames with a regional war almost certain in the immediate future.  Any “regional” war in the Middle East, will, of necessity, involve most of the industrialized nations of the west – including the US and the UK.  The Middle East is, of course, the source of much of the world’s oil and that oil must continue to flow even if the price is paid, as it almost certainly will be, in blood.

Here in America, we are confused at our government’s downsizing of the US military.  It makes no sense.  We are on the cusp of a war that has the potential to make the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq … and even Libya, look like Sunday School picnics. 

I have a theory as to why Obama is pushing this draw down of the US military.  It is far-fetched, I grant you, but the Obama Regime is a past master at utterly stupid decision making, so this theory is as good as anyone else’s – at the moment.

Hypothetically, just suppose, the idea is to allow the Middle East to engage in a war with very little involvement by the US.  It would most likely be a protracted war that would reduce the flow of oil to a trickle.  That would send oil prices and fuel prices for transportation, fuel to heat our homes, and the myriad other uses we have for petroleum products astronomically high. 

Americans would, of necessity, be forced to cut back on oil consumption.  That would, supposedly, be good for the environment. Of course, our economy would collapse entirely and set the stage for a takeover of the American government by socialists who will provide a way to “restore” America -- as a socialist country.

Far-fetched, you say?  Really?  Is it really THAT far-fetched?  Think about it:  These are leftists, Marxists, socialists, communists, democrats, anarchists, and yes, environmentalist.  We have come to believe that environmentalism is nothing more that a religion based on Marxism.

Remember:  Just because it is a conspiracy theory doesn’t mean there isn’t a conspiracy.

The US is about to be drawn into a near world war – and we are cutting back our military?   This entire scenario lends itself to all sorts of conspiracy theories.  I’m sure you have your own.

In the meantime, the Obama Regime is allowing our only friend in the region, Israel, to hang out there, twisting in the wind, feeling for all the world like a sacrificial lamb.

Yes, a war between Israel and Iran is on the agenda.  It could be months away, or it could be before sunrise tomorrow. And it could be a nuclear war.       

J. D. Longstreet

Monday, January 30, 2012

There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See

There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

I received the article below recently by e-mail as I expect many of you did.  I have no clue as to the author.  The message it contains is profound.

Many of my generation remember Castro -- even before he proclaimed he was a communist by his words and deeds.  By that time, the people of Cuba were enslaved.  The nearest freedom lay ninety miles away -- across a watery divide.  The “five and ten cents” stores sold Castro hats and Castro beards to America’s children.  Castro’s façade was THAT complete and THAT effective. 
Many conservative commentators have been warning America for four years that unmistakable signs of communism are emanating from the leader of our nation.  The warning flags went up long before he was elected.  They were ignored. 
Those issuing the warnings have been scoffed at, belittled, and made the butt of jokes.  It matters not that those warning America to beware were, and are, men and women of experience.  Their words of caution have come from a lifetime of defending America in and out of uniform.
See, we recognize the philosophy of America’s leader.  Why?  The answer is simple … because we have seen it all before.  If fact, we saw it in our neighboring country … Cuba.  We watched as Cuba embraced a charismatic savior with flowing oratory who quickly became their slave master.  
“There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT SEE.”   John Heywood is credited with having said this way back in 1546.  It is as true today as it was then … and even before Heywood made the remark.
In 2008, America underwent a period of willful blindness during which voters elected America’s current leader.  Over the past three years, the scales have been slowly falling from our eyes as we survey the damage that mistake has caused the United States of America … and the world.  
Whoever the author of the piece below, he/she has also seen the many disguises communism uses to successfully attract those who do not have the benefit of experience.  Like moths to a flame, they flock to the warmth of the bright light that will consume them.
To those of us with a lifetime of experience, the Obama Regime is all too familiar and utterly frightening.
Please read the article below.  The author is unknown to us.
J. D. Longstreet
What others see plainly, we often ignore.

*Here's something to think about. *

I remember asking dad about Castro when I was about 9 years old. I asked, "Is Castro a good guy or bad?"

Dad said...he couldn't tell!! This was about 1955. We were living in Louisiana ...at the time. Dad was in the Army there.

Cuba was fairly close and in the news a lot. The Cubans were asking the same question!

Ike was President.

This past July, we had the pleasure of sharing a summer barbecue with a refugee from Cuba. Our dinner conversation was starkly different than most.

This refugee came to the United States as a young boy in the early 1960's. His family was more fortunate than most, as they were able to bring a suitcase...and $100 when they fled Castro's newly formed revolutionary paradise.

Our dinner consisted of all-American fare: hamburgers, potato salad, watermelon, and fresh ears of sweet corn. This is a menu shared with family and friends nationwide...while celebrating the birth of our beloved America ...on the Fourth of July.

We began with a simple discussion about our country, and the direction it has taken since Barack Obama came to power. We shared the usual complaints about the sour economy and liberal social engineering emanating from the rulers in Washington.

But then he said it. The sentence came naturally. I assume it was unplanned. But it carried the weight of a freight train. "You know, when Castro took power, none of us knew he was a Communist.”

We sat stunned. He continued, "Yes, we all thought he was a patriot, a nationalist. Before the revolution he didn't sound like a radical."

The comparison at this point was easy, and I interjected,
"You mean just like Barack Obama?"

He responded;
"Yes, just like Barack Obama."

He continued, "We were all shocked as the government just continued to grab more power. First they said the revolution is over, so please turn in your guns. We all complied."

I remember my uncle saying after it started;
“Castro will only nationalize some of the big industries. He will never come and take our family hardware store!!” But that is exactly what happened. Castro started with the sugar mills and the large industries, but they eventually came and knocked on the door of our family hardware store. My family had run this store for generations. They said we now own the hardware store. You work for us. And that nice, large four-bedroom home you own...it is now our property also, and ... you can move yourself and five children into two rooms of the house, because others are moving in with you."

The lesson learned from this discussion, is a lesson most Americans refuse to hear. Political leaders can lie about their agenda and once in office...they can take totally unexpected turns.

If you had asked us three years ago if we thought General Motors would be nationalized, we would have never believed it. We could never contemplate a country where the rule of law, the most fundamental building block of a just society...would be evaporating, just like it did in Castro's Cuba in the early 1960's.

But the news of injustice keeps increasing. Black Panthers are not charged with wrong doing by the U.S. Department of Justice...because their crimes are against whites. The bondholders of GM are stripped of their assets...without due process by the government! Governmental leaders are bribed in full daylight...only to have all investigation of the crimes stifled...by the Attorney General.

The U.S. borders are over run with crime and illegal activity, and the leaders in D.C. act as if it is important to protect the lawbreakers.... while
the innocent are killed and over run. When local communities attempt to enforce the law, they are ridiculed...and threatened as racists and bigots. They are sued by the very administration...entrusted with enforcing the law.

Without the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution is a sham!!
Without the rule of law, our beloved America is swiftly becoming a country where only the well connected and politically powerful will be safe. As Michelle Malkin has so eloquently explained in her recent book...a culture of corruption has replaced honest government.

The only way this problem will be fixed is by massive citizen action. All honest citizens that want to be treated equally, must come together...and demand that the favoritism, the bribes, the uneven enforcement of law...end now!!

Sunday, January 29, 2012

A Republican Perspective On Black History Month ... Frances Rice

A Republican Perspective On Black History Month

By Frances Rice 



Black History Month affords us an opportunity to pause and reflect on why it is important for black Americans to know the true history of civil rights. 

Democrats have been running black communities for the past 40+ years, and the socialist policies of the Democrats have turned those communities into economic and social wastelands.  Buildings are dilapidated, teen pregnancy is at an all time high, school drop out rate is 50% and 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock.  In his book “Dreams from My Father,” President Barack Obama described what he and other Democrats do to poor blacks as “plantation politics”.

Democratic Party leaders foster dependency on government handouts that result in generational poverty.  Yet, black Americans continue to vote monolithically for Democrats.  Why?  Blacks have been wrongly convinced that the Republican Party is a racist party. 
Democrats have spent the last 40 years re-writing the history of civil rights and put on the shoulders of Republicans the racist past of the Democratic Party.

As author Michael Scheuer stated, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S’s:  slavery, secession, segregation, and now socialism.  From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, the Republican Party has always been the party of freedom and equality for blacks.  After winning the Civil War, Republicans amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote.  Republicans then passed civil rights laws in the 1800s that were overturned by Democrats with the Repeal Act of 1894 after Democrats took over Congress in 1892.  Democrats also enacted the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.  It took Republicans nearly six decades to finally achieve passage of civil rights legislation in the 1950’s and 1960s. 

Even though Democrat President Harry Truman’s issued an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military, it was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military and subsequently pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957.  Further, it was Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt who began dependency on government handouts during the Great Depression with his “New Deal” that turned out to be a bad deal for blacks. 

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. fought against the Democrats, including Democrat Public Safety Commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor in Birmingham who let loose vicious dogs and turned skin-burning fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators.  Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox famously brandished ax handles to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant, and Democrat Alabama Governor George Wallace blocked the entrance of two black students at the University of Alabama in 1963.  All of these racist Democrats did not become Republicans.

The so-called “Dixiecrats” were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, formed a third party – the State’s Rights Democratic Party – but continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections. 
It defies logic for Democrats today to claim that the racist Democrats suddenly joined the Republican Party after Republicans finally won the civil rights battle against the racist Democrats.  Notably, Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois pushed through the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act.  In fact, Dirksen was instrumental in the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968.   Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen’s “able and courageous Leadership” in obtaining passage of civil rights legislation. 

Democrat Presidents Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy are heralded as civil rights advocates.  However, both Johnson and Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act.  In his 4,500-word 1965 State of the Union Address, Johnson addressed numerous federal actions, but devoted only thirty five words to civil rights and none to voting rights. 

Johnson’s anemic civil rights record can be found in his presidential papers.  Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington and authorized his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, to investigate Dr, King on suspicion of being a Communist.
 Democrats condemn President Richard Nixon for his “Southern Strategy” that was an effort to get fair-minded people in the South to stop voting for racist Democrats.  Pat Buchanan, the architect of the “Southern Strategy,” wrote in a 2002 article that Nixon said the Republican Party would leave it to the Democratic Party, the “party of Maddox, Mahoney and Wallace to squeeze the last ounce of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.”

A key feature of National Black Republican Association’s educational campaign is publicizing the fact that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican and remained a Republican until the day he was killed.
If we are successful with our educational campaign, black Americans can seize control over their own destiny, stop having their vote taken for granted, and vote for politicians based on the content of their policies, and not merely the label of their party.
 Frances Rice, Esquire – Lieutenant Colonel, US Army (Retired)

Frances Rice’s great-great-grandparents were slaves.  She spent her formative years in poverty in the segregated South during the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. She suffered personally from discrimination in the Democrat-controlled South and while in High School participated in civil rights protests.

 Frances was born in Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, the same hospital where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was born.  She occasionally attended Ebenezer Baptist Church where Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr. was the pastor.  She knew that Dr. Martin Luther King. Jr. was a Republican, as was the rest of the King family.
Over the years, using her Republican Party principles of hard work, getting a good education and personal responsibility, Frances pulled herself out of poverty.  She joined the Army in 1964 as a Private and retired as a Lieutenant Colonel after 20 years of active service.  She received a Bachelor of Science degree from Drury College in 1973, a Master of Business Administration from Golden Gate University in 1976, and a Juris Doctorate degree from the University of California, Hastings College of Law in 1977 – all while serving in the US Army.

During twenty years of active duty in the US Army, Frances served in a variety of positions, including commander of a WAC company, adjutant of a basic combat training brigade, a prosecuting attorney, and chief of the administrative law division.  She also served as a special assistant to the Army Judge Advocate General and an adviser to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Equal Opportunity.

Subsequent to her military career, Frances worked for the McDonnell Douglas Corporation, serving first as a member of that company’s “think tank,” and then as a government contract advisor.  She later taught Business Law for the European Division of the University of Maryland in Brussels, Belgium. 

Frances became politically active in 1982 and served as a member of President Ronald Reagan’s Private Sector Initiatives Task Force.  She worked as a volunteer in the campaigns of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush, as well as Governor Jeb Bush and Governor Charlie Crist. 

Frances is active in the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Sarasota County.  In 2005, she became a co-founder and Chairman of the National Black Republican Association, an organization that is committed to returning African Americans to their Republican Party roots.  Recently she was honored as the Volunteer of the Year by the Republican Party of Sarasota County.

Among the awards she received during her military career is the Legion of Merit, the second highest honor that can be bestowed upon a non-combatant.  In 1987, she was accorded the distinction of being one of America’s top 100 Black Business and Professional Women by the editorial board of Dollars and Sense magazine.

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Does Obama Want to Lose? Yes! ... Alan Caruba

Does Obama Want to Lose? Yes!

By Alan Caruba

It seems like a bizarre notion, but does Barack Obama want to lose the election in November?

I think he does!

One is struck by the way Obama has visibly aged in the job. He may well have grown weary being POTUS.

By any rational standard, one would say he wants a second term, but Obama has always operated in a fantasy world where mere words are supposed to translate into reality. And he has repeatedly talked about being a one-term president.

He is, after all, his own invention; the author of two memoirs of a life that had little achievement to point to other than getting elected first to the Illinois legislature and then to the Senate where he lingered a bare two years before running for president.

I raise the question because Obama seems to be deliberately irritating the very people who are supposed to be his “base”; the hard core liberals, the Hollywood crowd, youth, and unions, among others. His partisanship has put Congress into total gridlock.

When members of the Occupy movement showed up in Washington, D.C., one of them threw a smoke bomb onto the White House lawn. Others who have been camped out in a park there are likely to be tossed out if for no other reason than the place is overrun with rats and has become a public health hazard.

The decision to stop the Keystone pipeline is a deliberate offense to the unions that have contributed millions to his campaign. Why? It pleased the environmental groups like the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth. Americans, however, understand the pipeline represented both jobs and oil, two things they deem worth having.

Then there are all the vacations Obama and his family takes. They have one thing in common. They are ostentatiously expensive. Obama or Michelle always seem to be going on vacation or returning from one. The characterization may be unfair, but perception is everything.

Americans are very keen on their military and, of all the government programs Obama could have chosen to trim, he’s had the knives out for the Pentagon since he took office. While a war-weary public was likely pleased when he withdrew troops from Iraq (neither Bush, nor Obama had a choice as the Iraqis made it clear they wanted U.S. troops out), the fact remains that the main news out of Iraq these days are bombings as the Sunni versus Shiite conflict has returned. Afghanistan remains a millstone.

Even in the face of a clear threat, it is unlikely that Obama would respond militarily between now and Election Day. The most likely scenario, however, would be an Israeli decision to strike at Iran before it becomes a full-fledged nuclear threat. It must be said, however, that Obama and other NATO nations have positioned some military assets in the Persian Gulf, but would he pull the trigger? It’s doubtful.

The most obvious problem Obama faces is unemployment. It’s variously set at anywhere from 11% to 20% depending on the part of the nation you’re discussing. It still is far too high everywhere and he gives every impression of being, if not indifferent to it, at least in no hurry to address it. Most certainly none of his programs have reduced it. His alleged “stimulus” was little more than a political slush fund that added billions to the national debt and failed.

Every President is subject to “events” and the likely default of Greece and financial troubles of several European nations are likely to impact the national election as Americans try to sort out what effect it will have here. Obama has already presided over the first downgrade of America’s debt rating and we shall surely be reminded of that in the months ahead.

The other event will be the Supreme Court hearing of the case against Obamacare in March. They may not issue a decision right away or they might issue one just before November 6th.

There are two lines of thought about the forthcoming national election. Past Presidents were relieved to leave office despite its power and prestige. (1) Obama may not like being President and (2) he has concluded that he will be defeated. He gives the impression of not caring about public opinion anymore.

The only people publicly defending him seem to have Attention Deficit Disorder. Either they haven’t paid attention to what a disaster his term has been thus far or they just don’t think it’s his fault.

I think he will go through the motions, but I also think a majority of voters no longer believe a word he says anymore.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

Friday, January 27, 2012

Snatching Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory

Snatching Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Recently I wrote:

“America is at a point in world history when we need a strong leader -- a leader not afraid to assert America’s leadership.  Obama is NOT that person.

I am very afraid there is no one vying for America’s leadership today any stronger as a national or world leader. 

In a recent column, Thomas Sowell said:  “The 2012 Republican primaries may be a rerun of the 2008 primaries, where the various conservative candidates split the conservative vote so many ways that the candidate of the mushy middle got the nomination – and then lost the election.”   I think he pegged it.” (SOURCE)

I have watched intently as the GOP goes all out to lose the 2012 election to Obama and the democrats.  I continue to be puzzled, or as we used to say in the south – “bumfuzzled” – by what MUST be a concerted effort to lose the next election.

Pardon me, if I show my befuddlement … because I just don’t get it.

A sense of “doom” has already set in among the legions of conservative voters in the south. Their sense that the hierarchy of the Republican Party is so completely detached from the reality on the ground (at least here in states of the old south) has been, (they feel) proved absolutely true.

There is a growing sense of “why bother” to go to the polls and vote when the election is already lost to Obama.

Look.  I am no more intelligent that the average guy.  And I have seen the great wave of exhilaration and expectation of victory crash against a shoreline of mediocre candidates that have proved more an embarrassment than anything else.  That great wave has been diminished to a mere ripple in an isolated tide pool.

If you want to know what’s going on in your community – go to the community barbershop.  I did that yesterday.  Turns out, my barber has been taking a very unscientific poll on who his patrons would vote for in the GOP Primary here in North Carolina (currently scheduled for May).  He has been polling since the South Carolina Primary.  The results are interesting and informative.

My barber told me that, to a man, every single patron stated they would vote for Gingrich in May.

My community is heavily Democratic and heavily conservative. 

I pressed to learn who those would-be primary voters thought would win the election in November.  The answer, to a man, was … Obama.

For months now we have warned that if the GOP is counting on conservative voters to vote for the nominee, whomever the nominee turns out to be, then – the GOP is very wrong.  Sure, there will be SOME conservative voters who would cast a vote for, well, anybody, just to vote against Obama. But I am not hearing that sentiment expressed here.

Here’s what I THINK is happening:

Southern voters have concluded that Romney cannot win. Southern voters just don’t like the man.  They are satisfied that Gingrich will not win the nomination, so they feel it is safe to support and vote for Gingrich if for no other reason than Gingrich brings a little fire, fervor, passion, and a little excitement to an otherwise hum-drum campaign that is already a lost cause.

The more debates, the more infighting, the more defecation is tossed into the fan blades, the more damage will be done the eventual republican nominee.  It is already bad enough, but it is sure to get worse.

So, I wonder if it is time to turn our attention to the candidates for the US Senate and House of Representatives and redouble our efforts to claim more governorships for conservatives and stop wasting our time and effort on a predetermined race for the GOP nominee for President.

I am neither an optimist nor a pessimist.  I am a realist.  With me the glass is neither half full nor half empty.  It is simply the wrong size glass.

J. D. Longstreet

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Democrat Code Words for Socialism

Democrat Code Words for Socialism

Fairness, Fair Share, income inequality, etc

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Wouldn’t it be nice if the Democrats would simply drop their façade and admit they have morphed into some sort of American breed of a socialist political party?

In the past few months, even years, my teeth have been set on edge when I have listened to their rhetoric about “fairness,” in this or that, and their use of the words “fair share” to drive a wedge between the American classes, and especially the words, or phrase, “income inequality” which seals the deal.  

When a nation seeks income equality it is assuming socialism as its core philosophy.  Income inequality is the clarion call for redistribution of a nation’s wealth. It is as simple and as basic as that.

In the past two decades I have slowly come to the realization that the dumbing down of Americans is near completion.  It has taken approximately 50 years to realize, but the leftist movement in America successfully infiltrated and gained control of America’s public education system.  Now we have a full generation and most of a second generation who have no clue what America is about.  They don’t have a clue what their freedom cost.  They don’t have a clue that the federal government was created by the states to serve the states as an agent.  They have been taught -- and they believe -- that the people of the states are subservient to the federal government.  They do not understand that the Bill of Rights is a protection for the American people from their federal government.  Those ten amendments restrain the federal government in the interest of the people. 

Most of our young Americans today don’t know the difference between the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.  Don’t believe me?  Ask ‘em!

I have mentioned in previous articles that as a solider in the US military I was trained to meet and combat socialism on the battlefield.  It was rightly recognized as an enemy of freedom.  It was recognized as a form of government that was destined to fail, but before its demise, it would enslave the people of any nation that was so utterly stupid as to even try it.  No nation has yet survived socialism.

Europe is teetering on the edge of complete disaster simply because they have run out of other people’s money with which to pacify their populace after decades of coddling and teaching them to depend on their government for their very existence.

The USSR is now a footnote in history.

Yet, despite the fact that America was nearly crushed under the weight of a mere sampling of socialism, the left persists in their socialist agenda for America.

In 2008, they managed to elect a socialist as President of the United States.  In 2010 the people of the political right in America successfully blunted the socialist left’s endeavor to shove America deeper into socialism.  Conservatives were successful in retaking a majority of the Congress.

Now we have a chance to solidify conservative control of the American government by refusing to reelect the socialist in the White House this November. 

It was clear after the President’s State of the Union address that their next step is to incite a class war in America.  The great-unwashed masses in America must be taught to hate the “patricians” and the “plutocrats” – the very people who financed -- and continue to finance -- America’s success as the greatest nation in the history of mankind. 

The wealthy Americans must be brought low and their wealth confiscated and redistributed to the – ahem – less fortunate among us.  That is what I like to refer to as: BOVINE SCATOLOGY!

Nevertheless, their efforts to incite class warfare has been more successful than most think. It ought to be.  It has been an underground movement for at least nine decades now.  With the left’s capture of the Oval Office the socialist were emboldened to rise to the surface and ram their agenda through the national legislature. 

But the right stopped them in 2010.  That, dear reader, is why we now see the President’s abuse of the power of the Executive Order.  Obama is intent on diluting democratic freedom in America by infusing socialism into every agency and administration under the control of the executive branch of the government.

Americans must retake control of their government in November and free it from the clutches of the socialist elite who have dipped their fangs into America’s bloodstream and are sucking her dry.

America needs a champion who will lead from the front.  A leader who take a stand on the deck of our sinking ship of state, much as the Father of the US Navy, Captain John Paul Jones, when his ship was blown to bits and sinking from enemy fire.  When asked if he was prepared to surrender Jones famously replied:  “I have not yet BEGUN to fight!” Against all odds, Jones won the battle and took the enemy ship.

THAT is the spirit we need, indeed, the spirit it will take to lead America out of the muck and mire of socialism, put her back on course, trim her sails, and stir for the safe harbor of capitalism and freedom.

It is a life or death decision we Americans will make in November -- the life or death of America.

J. D. Longstreet

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Stupid Voters ... Alan Caruba

Stupid Voters

By Alan Caruba

It’s a comment I hear all the time these days. “The voters are stupid.”

I am not sure that those saying it mean literally that the voters have a low level of intellect or academic achievement, but rather that they mean voters seem prone to making their choices based more on emotion than on a serious examination of the candidate’s qualifications and character.

The best example of this was the 2008 campaign in which a candidate was presented in much the same way companies seek to “brand” their product or service, repeating the same message (Obama’s was hope and change) until it becomes part of the consumers’ decision-making process. It’s why we buy a particular brand of cereal or car. We have come to associate values with it that go beyond the taste or the look.

Barack Obama had served barely two years in the U.S. Senate before he made an unprecedented leap from there to the White House. He was, for all intents and purposes, an unknown quantity with a legislative record—if anyone bothered to check—that was a straight Democratic Party line vote.

In his earlier incarnation as an Illinois legislator, he had voted “present” so many times it was clear he was avoiding taking any position he regarded as politically dangerous; a vote that would come back to haunt him and very few did. The media cooperated in this, avoiding calling attention to anything that might be deemed controversial.

By contrast, Hillary Clinton, whether you liked her or not, was a candidate with a full cart of baggage from her years as the former governor’s and president’s wife, and her years as a U.S. Senator who served, not from Arkansas where she first came to notice, but from New York where liberals thrive. The process of campaigning wore her out and, being the first women to seriously contend to be president, she had even more of a challenge to overcome. Her raw ambition tended to make people afraid of her.

What elected Obama had nothing to do with the slim qualifications he put forth. Few candidates had less to offer. He had never met a payroll. All information regarding his academic records was sealed from view. The press made no effort to ask what passport he had traveled on to Pakistan at one time and did not raise any question about his Social Security number, issued in Connecticut where he had never lived or worked. Famously, he released a “birth certificate” that anyone in Hawaii could attain for the asking, not the “long form” which is deemed credible.

The voters have paid a fearful price for electing Obama; increased unemployment, a huge national debt, a hollowed-out military, billions wasted on “Green” energy, unprotected borders, a Congress in near total gridlock, and a world beyond our shores that perceives an America made weaker by Obama’s three years in office.

I have worked as a public relations counselor for most of my life with earlier years spent as a journalist. I know something about how a product, a service, or an individual is “packaged” to present a positive “image.” What we have all learned since 2008 was that Obama was superbly “packaged” and that the image of an articulate, highly intelligent, well informed candidate was without substance. His inability to speak publicly without a TelePrompter swiftly became a joke.

So, to say that those who voted for him were “stupid” is to misread the new era of politics, one that has more to do with “American Idol” and “Dancing With the Stars” than with the serious selection of the leader of the nation and the free world.

As they say in advertising, voters bought the sizzle, not the steak.

We are seeing this process continue as the Republican candidates vie for votes. The Gingrich “surge” in South Carolina came after he had two successful debates. It is true that Gingrich is a good debater, but the real question is whether he would be a good president. Questions about his character remain.

Gingrich has been comfortable sharing a couch with Nancy Pelosi to advocate the bogus global warming “theory” or taking money from Freddie Mac.. Now he is trying to appear to be a “real” conservative as opposed to Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and the quixotic Ron Paul.

While his judgment on issues has been called into question, Romney’s character never has. There has never been a hint of scandal in his life. In terms of policy, he was the Governor of one of the most liberal states and he did support Romneycare there. Politics is rarely pretty and even New Jersey’s fire-breathing Governor, Chris Christie, has taken some extraordinarily liberal positions and made some questionable appointments.

There might have been a time when Gingrich was, indeed, a bona fide conservative, but his long years in Washington, D.C., have taught him that “to get along you have to go along” In the end, even his colleagues in the House, for reasons of policy and personality, could no longer support him as Speaker.

From the days of Bush41 until the 2010 elections the Republican Party looked so much like the Democratic Party, voters had an increasingly hard time telling them apart. The Tea Party movement changed that. They and the “independents” are going to decide the 2012 elections that are currently making history with endless debates.

The debates are proving to be a succession of sound bites and vitriol between the candidates. They increasingly demonstrate how the mainstream media, the debate sponsors, are visibly seeking to influence the outcome of the election and they demonstrate that many voters are easily swayed by matters that have little to do with actual policies and issues.

There has been less and less substance with each debate.

I fear that too many Republican voters are having too many mood swings, relying on a moment or two from the most recent debate than on a serious examination—I repeat myself—of the candidate’s qualifications and character. Romney is carefully scripted and a tad robotic, but Gingrich could become the GOP nominee simply because he is entertaining.

Without doubt, President Obama and the Democrats are enjoying the Republican free-for-all and, without doubt, they have concluded that the voters are stupid.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

 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, January 24, 2012

Obama Regime Continues To Shred US Constitution

Obama Regime Continues To Shred US Constitution
US Senator Unconstitutionally “Detained” by TSA
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

If the US Constitution was still in effect, was still an operational document, was still the law of the land, then the Transportation Security Administration would be in very deep trouble today.  However, as we have all come to know all too well, the constitution is all but totally ignored today, especially under the administration of the Obama Regime.

When Obama was sworn in, the constitution was considered, found to be inconvenient for his socialist agenda, and ignored.

The latest blatant violation of the US Constitution was the much-publicized “detainment” of Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky -- while he was enroute to Washington, DC to exercise his duties in the US Senate.  That “detainment” was totally unconstitutional … period. 

You see, Senators and Representatives cannot be arrested for a crime, except for treason, felony, or breach of peace, while meeting in Congress or while traveling to or from a meeting of Congress.

If Senator Paul was detained, then he was arrested.  Consider this: “(v) Arrest is the action by which a person is stopped from his normal activities by virtue of a legal authority or sanction, either by detaining him or by stopping his external accesses.” (SOURCE)

Don’t believe me?

Read it for yourself:
Article 1, Section 6 … US Constitution: 

1:  The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.6   They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Now, THAT’S the wording from the text of the US Constitution … the law of the land.

I do not particularly agree with that portion of the US law, but it DOESN’T MATTER.  It is THE LAW!  Until such time as there is an amendment to the constitution affecting Article one, Section six to change or remove those few words, it remains the law of the United States.

There has been much bloviating in the press and in the blogosphere since the incident happened.  So I don’t expect my opinion to make much difference, at all.

However, on the outside chance that you might care, allow me, please, to point out, once again, that our government, as it is currently constituted, is NOT following the law of the land.  We have, in my opinion, a rogue government in place in Washington, DC.

The Transportation Security Administration is just another government agency out of control. It is a power hungry bully; full of itself, and -- in the real world -- it does more to restrict freedom of movement in this country than it does to ensure it.

On the TSA’s website they say: “We are 50,000 security officers, inspectors, directors, air marshals and managers who protect the nation's transportation systems so you and your family can travel safely.” (SOURCE)  I dare say the “volk” of the Gestapo, in 1930’s Germany, thought of themselves in much the same manner.

I have been offering commentaries for decades and there has been a common thread running through the millions of words of opinion I have shared.  It is this:  We Americans are voluntarily giving up our freedom.

Have you noticed how we whine and complain when the Congress is tied up in knots and unable to legislate?  We seem to have forgotten that to legislate is to pass laws. 

Every time a law is passed some of us lose a little bit more of our freedom.  Eventually, ALL of us lose small portions of our freedom, until one day, we finally stop and take stock of our current liberties -- and we find we are in deficit.  Our freedom is gone and we are in hock to the government.

It seems to me that pretty much sums up our current situation. 

Freedom, once lost, is almost impossible to reclaim.  Much like an ocean liner,  it takes a very long time to stop a government with the momentum of the US government.

Back in 2010 we sent a new batch of conservatives Senators and Congresspersons to Congress with a clear mission to bring the Congress to a halt and keep it static until the Obama Regime could be ended in November -- and we could gain control of enough of the national legislature to begin the process of returning sanity to our government.

Both the left and right wings of the American political spectrum have reviled them.  Even so, they have done a fair job at slowing the Congress down. 

Somehow, we Americans have lost our love of the freedom and liberty for which our forefathers gave their lives and fortunes. 

Now, if you think I am being overly dramatic here, I ask you to look again at what a government agency did to a US Senator and ask yourself, if they can do that to one of the most powerful men in the country, WHAT can they do to me? 

J. D. Longstreet

Monday, January 23, 2012

Was South Carolina A Fluke?

Was South Carolina A Fluke?
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Within mere moments after South Carolina’s primary win by Newt Gingrich members of the mainstream media began referring to Newt’s win as a fluke.  I beg to differ.

You’d think the “experts” would have had time to discern exactly what the conservative voters of SC would do.  We told you -- weeks ago -- they would not vote for Romney. 

If Newt is able to assemble an organization and pull in the necessary funds, SC is not the only state in the south he will win.

Look.  Newt is not all that popular in the south.  Referred to often as a “carpetbagger” having been born in Pennsylvania in 1943 and partially reared in Georgia.  Newt’s stepfather was a career solider so Newt actually grew up in several states but finally took root in Georgia.

According to Wikipedia, he attended high school in Columbus, Georgia. Gingrich attended Emory University and received his Ph.D. from Tulane University. In the 1970s he taught history and geography at West Georgia College. (SOURCE)
Just as Romney is seen as a “northeastern elitist,” Newt is often spoken of as a “carpetbagger.” Southerners do not easily accept either.

So why did the quintessential southerners, in my native state of South Carolina, hand the primary election to Newt on a silver platter?  For several reasons.

Primarily, Newt is not Romney.  That was the number one reason Newt won in SC.  Secondly, Newt demonstrated that “fire” in the belly we mentioned in an earlier commentary.  THAT is what southerners like to see in a leader -- a leader who will actually, in fact, lead.

 Southerners are desperately seeking a leader who is not afraid to confront his detractors, head-on, with a withering counter attack.  Newt demonstrated he could do that with devastating efficiency.  And thirdly, Newt was exactly the candidate conservatives needed to send a message to the GOP.  That message, sent loud and clear, was -- we do not want Romney as our nominee.

One could also add that Romney’s conversion from moderate to conservative simply is not believed in the south, especially in South Carolina, as we have just seen.

Then there is the belief in the south that Gingrich could, and would, slice and dice Obama in a debate.  A friend told me recently that he would pay good money just to see a Gingrich/Obama debate. 

I stand by my earlier prognostications that the southern states will not support Romney in the primaries. Having said that, allow me to hastily add that I expect Romney to win the Florida primary.  Is it a contradiction?  No, it is not.  Depending upon the region in Florida, Newt will deliver a very good account of himself in the votes cast. 

Understand, we southerners do not really consider Florida a “southern” state, even though it is, next to Texas, the southernmost state in the Union – geographically.  Culturally, it is about as southern as New York City. Northern Florida could just as easily be southern Georgia.  The panhandle of Florida is a mix with a huge military presence.  Central to southern Florida is a mix of “snowbirds,” refugees from the colder climes of the northern states, Hispanics, and a few native Floridians.  It is a melting pot of all races and cultures.  It is, some would say, cosmopolitan and sophisticated. Some would say that.  I would not.

Romney has a huge, well-financed, well-oiled political machine in Florida, which has been hard at work for at least five months.  More votes have already been cast in early voting in Florida than the total number of votes cast in the Iowa caucus.  Romney has a huge jump on Newt as the battle for the GOP nominee steams into Florida. 

But what about the primaries after Florida?

I expect Romney to continue to do well in the northern states.  As in New Hampshire -- he is one of “theirs.”  However, he will continue to have problems in the southern states – until – the republican establishment destroys Newt. 
 The attacks have already begun.  The Mainstream Media, the Democrats, and the Republican Establishment will bring their collective firepower to bear on Newt in a combined effort to assure that he is removed as an impediment in the anointee’s parade to the presidency. 

Problem is, many conservatives do not believe Romney can beat Obama.  (I count myself among them.)  And, what’s worse for the GOP, those conservatives are not going to vote for Romney, because they do not believe he is a conservative.  Without the conservative vote in November, Romney hasn’t a prayer of a chance against Obama.

The GOP establishment made another significant error in South Carolina.  Sandlappers were offended by the Romney camp’s assumption that they would win SC. There was, about the Romney camp, an air of a prince awaiting his crowning as king.   That attitude is especially repugnant to South Carolinians and to the people of the so-called “Deep-South” states.

Conservatives have been seeking an anti-Romney candidate they could coalesce around and exercise their considerable power at the ballot box.

Conservatives realize a battle has been won – but the war still lies ahead.  

The prevailing attitude among southern conservatives today seems to be: Newt ain’t perfect, but he ain’t Romney, either.

J. D. Longstreet

Sunday, January 22, 2012



By Frances Rice

As we honor the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., let us pause to reflect on who he was and why his struggle to obtain civil rights for black Americans was necessary.

First, Dr. King was a Republican until the day he died because he knew that the Republican Party, from its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, championed freedom and civil rights for blacks.  For details on the history of civil rights, see the NBRA Civil Rights Newsletter posted on the NBRA's website.

Second, the nemesis of Dr. King's valiant and historic campaign to end discrimination and gain equality for blacks was the Democratic Party, the party of slavery, segregation and the Ku Klux Klan.  Led by the former Senator and Klansman Robert Byrd, Democrats launched a despicable crusade to smear and undermine Dr. King.  This relentless disparagement of Dr. King resulted in his being physically assaulted and ultimately to his tragic death.

When Dr. King left Memphis, Tennessee in March of 1968 after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Byrd called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited.  A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Prior to his death, Democrats bombed Dr. King's home several times. The scurrilous efforts by the Democrats to harm Dr. King included spreading rumors that he was a Communist and accusing him of being a womanizer and a plagiarist.

An egregious act against Dr. King occurred on October 10, 1963.  Democrat President John F. Kennedy authorized his brother, Democrat Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, to wiretap Dr. King's telephone using the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Wiretaps were placed by the FBI on Dr. King's telephones in his home and office. The FBI also bugged Dr. King's hotel rooms when he traveled around the country.

The trigger for this unsavory wiretapping was apparently Dr. Kings' criticism of President Kennedy for ignoring civil rights issues, according to the author David Garrow in his book, "Bearing the Cross".   As was pointed out in the book by Wayne Perryman "Whites, Blacks and Racist Democrats", Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator.  After Kennedy became president, he was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King.

The justification given by the Kennedy Administration publicly for wiretapping Dr. King was that two of Dr. King's associates, including David Levinson, had ended their association with the Communist Party in order to work undercover and influence Dr. King.   However, after years of continuous and extensive wiretapping, the FBI found no direct links of Dr. King to the Communist Party.

Kennedy's disdain for blacks further manifested itself when the King family sought help with getting Dr. King out of a Birmingham jail.  Kennedy's civil rights advisor, Harris Wofford who was a personal friend of Dr. King, made a telephone call on behalf of Kennedy without Kennedy's knowledge.  That call resulted in Dr. King's release.  Kennedy was angry about the call because he feared he would lose the Southern vote.  History shows, though, that the call by Wofford eventually worked in Kennedy's favor and is the primary reason so many blacks today wrongly venerate Kennedy.

The unrelenting efforts by Democrats to tarnish Dr. King's reputation continued for years after his death.  To his credit, Republican President Ronald Reagan ignored the Democrats' smear campaign and made Dr. King's birthday a holiday.

Today, while professing to revere Dr. King, Democrats are still attempting to sully his image by claiming that he was a socialist.  In reality, Dr. King was a Christian, guided by his faith and Republican Party principles as he struggled to gain equality for blacks.  He did not embrace the type of socialist agenda that is promoted by the Democratic Party today, which includes fostering dependency on government handouts that trap blacks in generational poverty.

Frances Rice is a retired US Army Lieutenant Colonel, a lawyer and chairman of the National Black Republican Association.  She may be contacted at:  www.NBRA.Info   

About the author: Lieutenant Colonel Frances Rice, United States Army, Retired is a native of Atlanta, Georgia and retired from the Army in 1984 after 20 years of active service. She received a Bachelor of Science degree from Drury College in 1973, a Masters of Business Administration from Golden Gate University in 1976, and a Juris Doctorate degree from the University of California, Hastings College of Law in 1977. In 2005, she became a co-founder and Chairman of the National Black Republican Association, an organization that is committed to returning African Americans to their Republican Party roots. 

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Whatever Happened to...? ... Alan Caruba

Whatever Happened to...?

By Alan Caruba

In the run-up to the South Carolina primary election on Saturday, it strikes me that the overwhelming coverage of the campaign process has shoved some important stories to the sidelines.

There is noticeably little coverage of the nation’s obscene unemployment problem; one that is comparable to the Great Depression.

With ample good reason, we no longer hear anything about (a) global warming or (b) climate change. We don’t hear “renewable energy” stories in the wake of the Solyndra scandal or the demise of comparable “Green” companies, but Obama’s decision to refuse to permit the XL Keystone pipeline was a reminder that all his talk about job creation is just that—talk.

The rising price of a gallon of gasoline is never mentioned in the news, up from $1.86 when Obama took office to $3.40 now. That sort of thing used to get incumbent presidents defeated in the past.

Events beyond our shores continue whether we are in a primary season or not.

The future of the European Union is still somewhat precarious. Whether the Euro continues as the currency of the EU is an important issue affecting America’s trading partners. The U.S. Sovereign debt rating has already been reduced but now nine EU nations have been put on notice as well.

The Obama/Clinton foreign policy in the Middle East continues to erode. Egypt, a major player, is moving into Islamist—anti-American, anti-Israeli—control. For decades, the Muslim Brotherhood was suppressed as a political force in Egypt and today they have emerged as the biggest player. Egypt is moving out of our orbit of influence.

Iran continues inexorably toward acquiring the capacity to make its own nuclear weapons. Its growing desperation regarding the sanctions is generating a lot of bellicose threats. The entire Middle East is silently praying that Israel attacks and disables its nuclear capabilities. Anything else is morally indefensible.

Following the withdrawal of U.S. troops, Iraq is in shambles once again with bombs going off in its cities and little likelihood it will be able to function as a nation despite its vast oil riches. Libya has lots of oil, too, but it is still struggling to create a functioning government in the wake of Gaddafi’s overthrow. Syria has everyone in the Middle East on edge watching to see if Assad can avoid what appears to be his inevitable overthrow. His late father, though, did just that by slaughtering thousands.

The seemingly endless political debates continue minus Jon Huntsman who is backing Mitt Romney and Rick Perry who has endorsed Newt Gingrich. Pretty soon we shall be calling Romney “Teflon Mitt” because the voters appear to be bored with all the sniping from his opponents regarding his success in the private sector. Newt Gingrich seems to have no idea what capitalism is or does.

Even the calumnies heaped on the Tea Party movement don’t get much attention these days. We have learned, however, that the current Congress has been the least productive, accomplishing less in 2011 than any other year in recent history. Records have been kept since 1947. In light of the disaster called Obamacare, that is probably a good thing.

One trend is noticeable. With the exception of the Keystone decision, any news that might harm the reelection of President Obama is hard to find in the mainstream media.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

Friday, January 20, 2012

Charles Manson energy ... Paul Driessen

Charles Manson energy
It’s time to apply endangered species, wildlife and economic laws fairly and equitably
Paul Driessen
“… gleaming white wind turbines generating carbon-free electricity carpet chaparral-covered ridges and march down into valleys of Joshua trees.” This is “the future” of American energy – not “the oil rigs planted helter-skelter in [nearby] citrus groves,” nor the “smoggy San Joaquin Valley” a few miles away.

The Forbes article’s poetic paean to Aeolian energy nevertheless voiced consternation that a 300-megawatt “green” turbine project might kill some of the magnificent California condors that are just coming back from the edge of extinction – and the project might be cancelled as a result.
Indeed, the US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) has asked Kern County to “exercise extreme caution” in approving projects in the Tehapachi area, because of potential threats to condors. The “conundrum will force some hard choices about the balance we are willing to strike between obtaining clean energy and preserving wild things,” the article suggested. Hopefully, it concluded, new “avian radar units” will be able to detect condors and automatically shut down turbines when one approaches.

All Americans hope condors will not be sliced and diced by giant Cuisinarts. But most of us are puzzled that so few “environmentalists” and FWS “caretakers” express concern about the countless bald and golden eagles, hawks, falcons, vultures, ducks, geese, bats and other rare, threatened, endangered and common flying creatures imperiled by turbine blades.
And many of us get downright angry at the selective, indeed hypocritical ways in which endangered species and other wildlife laws are applied – leaving wind turbine operators free to exact their carnage, while harassing and punishing oil companies and citizens.

In 2011, following an intensive million-dollar, 45-day helicopter search for dead birds in North Dakota oil fields by FWS officials, US Attorney Timothy Purdon prosecuted seven oil and gas companies for inadvertently killing 28 mallard ducks, flycatchers and other common birds that were found dead in or near uncovered waste pits. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the companies and their executive officers faced fines of up to $15,000 per bird, plus six months in prison. (They eventually agreed to plead guilty and pay $1,000 per bird.)

Also in 2011, an FWS agent charged an 11-year-old Virginia girl with illegally “taking” a baby woodpecker that the girl had rescued from a housecat, even though she intended to release the bird after ensuring it was OK. The threatened $535 fine was finally dropped, after the FWS was deservedly ridiculed in the media.

The mere possession of an eagle feather by a non-Indian can result in fines and imprisonment, even if the feather came from a bird butchered by a wind turbine: up to $100,000, a year in prison or both for a first offense. Poisoning or otherwise killing common bats that have nested in one’s attic can cost homeowners thousands of dollars in fines.

Wind turbine companies, officers and employees, however, are immune from prosecution, fines or imprisonment, regardless of how many rare, threatened, endangered or migratory birds and bats they kill. In fact, FWS data show that wind turbines slaughter some 400,000 birds every year. If “helter-skelter” applies to any energy source, it is wind turbines, reflecting their Charles Manson effect on birds.

The hypocritical Obama-Purdon-FWS policy certainly protects, promotes and advances an anti-hydrocarbon, catastrophic global warming agenda that is increasingly at odds with environmental, scientific, economic, job-creation and public opinion reality. It also safeguards wind turbines that survive solely because of government mandates, taxpayer subsidies … and exemptions from laws that penalize and terrorize the rest of us.

It may be true that housecats and reflective windows kill more songbirds than turbines do. However, that oft-cited defense of wind energy Cuisinarts is irrelevant to the birds and bats discussed here.
Even if avian radar and turbine shutdown systems do eventually work, and can actually and abruptly stop turbine blades before they butcher an approaching bird, should they be limited to condors? Shouldn’t they be required for eagles and falcons – and for hawks, ducks, flycatchers, bats and other protected species? Geese, for example, to prevent a repeat of the December 7, 2011 massacre of numerous snow geese by wind turbines along upstate New York Route 190, as reported by a motorist?

Why aren’t wind developers and permitting authorities required to consider the lost economic benefits of butchered birds and bats, which do so much to control rats and insects that carry diseases and destroy crops? Shouldn’t that analysis be made mandatory, as more wind projects are proposed, thereby posing an ever-increasing threat to numerous species – and even to the survival of some?

Of course, even condor protection alone could reduce affected turbine electricity output to 20 or even 10% of rated capacity, instead of their current 30% average. Adding other protected species would drive nearly all actual wind turbine electricity output down below 5% – making the turbines virtually worthless, and driving the exorbitant cost of wind energy even higher. 

But why should wind turbines be above the law? In fact, why should we even worry about reducing their electricity output?

America’s environmentalists, legislators, judges and bureaucrats have already made hundreds of millions of acres of resource-rich land off limits – and rendered centuries of oil, gas, coal, uranium, geothermal and other energy unavailable. The Environmental Protection Agency’s anti-coal zero-pollution rules, intense opposition to the Keystone pipeline, and looming restrictions on hydraulic fracturing for natural gas are already further impairing electricity and other energy availability and reliability.

This government-imposed energy deprivation is already driving families into energy poverty and sending more jobs overseas.

Put bluntly, wind energy is unsustainable. It kills unconscionable numbers of bats, raptors and other birds. It requires billions in perpetual subsidies – and billions more for (mostly) gas-fired backup generators. It impacts millions of acres of scenic, wildlife and agricultural land – and depends on vast amounts of raw materials, whose extraction and processing further impairs global land, air and water quality. Its expensive, unreliable electricity kills two jobs for every one supposedly created.

A far more rational public policy would cut out the costly, unreliable middleman. It would forget about wind turbines, simply build more gas, coal and nuclear generators, to generate reliable, affordable, sustainable electricity – and apply the same laws fairly and equitably to all energy sources.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.