Thursday, April 05, 2012

NC Marriage Amendment On Ballot In May

NC Marriage Amendment On Ballot In May

Dems Worried It Will Pass

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

North Carolina has a republican controlled legislature, the first since the War Between the States.  And it is driving the democrats wild.

NC’s current governor, a democrat, is not seeking reelection after having observed the “handwriting on the wall,” and it now seems certain the GOP will take the Governor’s office, as well, in November.

One of the items driving the NC dems mad is the proposed “Marriage Amendment” to the NC state constitution.  Basically, it says marriage between one man and one woman is the ONLY kind of marriage to be recognized in North Carolina.

Understand that same-sex marriage is already banned in North Carolina by law or statute.  Problem is, an activist judge can overturn a statute (or law).  But a judge cannot overturn a constitutional amendment. 

It will appear on the NC ballot on May 8th.  The text of the measure reads as follows:

“Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.”

Now. If the measure passes it will add an additional section to Article 14 of the North Carolina State Constitution:  Section 6 will read thusly:

“Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”

“Supporters of gay rights and same-sex marriage argue that the amendment should not be added to the state constitution. They also argue that the subject - "rights of a minority" - should not be up for a vote. Others argue that the proposed amendment may lead to more bullying of gay youth and invalidate domestic violence protections for unmarried couples.

Some lawmakers argue that the proposed amendment will hurt employment in the state. Rep. Larry Hall said, "Instead of creating an environment where we can create employment, attract entrepreneurs (and) attract talent, we're going to try to put a sign up to say, 'You are not welcome if you want to contribute to our society.”   (SOURCE).
A handful of the mainline Christian denominations in North Carolina are opposing the amendment.  And President Obama has voiced his dislike of the bill.  No surprise there.

Now, here’s the problem for democrats in North Carolina May 8th.   The problem, at first glance, may not register with you, but stay with me.

North Carolina’s black voters are expected to turn out, in droves, to vote for Obama in November.  But -- the Democratic Party desperately needs them to turn out for the May primary, as well.  If the “get out the vote” drive in the black community is successful, then it could very well result in passage of the Marriage Amendment. 
Now, here’s where it gets interesting:  Black voters in North Carolina, by and large, do not support same-sex marriage.  Blacks attend church in North Carolina, and like many of their white brothers and sisters who also attend church; they believe the teachings of the scriptures from which their pastors preach on Sundays.

As uncomfortable as it may be for some, the scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, speak out loud and long -- and as clear as crystal -- that homosexuality is a sin.  Conservative Christians, both black and white, in North Carolina believe that.  It is an integral part of their faith, their religion.

Public Policy Polling, which is based in Raleigh, North Carolina, released the results of a survey on Thursday March 29th in which they found there is, indeed, strong support for the proposed amendment to the North Carolina constitution.

P.P.P. surveyed 1,191 North Carolinians who stated they were likely to vote in the May 8th Primary.  The Marriage Amendment proposal will be on the primary ballot as a statewide referendum.

P.P.P. found that 58% of those polled said they would vote in favor of the amendment.  Only 38% told them they opposed the amendment.
Breaking the survey down a bit wore we find that roughly 76% of Republicans surveyed said they support the amendment while 48% of Democrats (who were surveyed) also support the amendment -- and -- 47% of Democrats, in the same survey, oppose the amendment.
But here is the part of the survey that has NC Democrats concerned:  The survey found that among black voters 61% are in favor of the amendment while only 30% oppose it.

You can now see how the heavy black voter turnout in May is more than a little worrisome for those who oppose the Marriage Amendment in North Carolina.  It is a something of a conundrum for the folks on the political left. 
The supporters of same-sex marriage, in order to convince blacks to vote against the measure, have mounted a campaign to convince NC voters that denying same-sex marriages is “discrimination.”   They’re claiming it is a civil rights issue. A portion of NC black folk will have none of it. In fact, they resent it.  Frankly, it also riles the white folk in Tar Heel country, too.   Also, it deeply irritates white Tar Heel voters when those opposing the Marriage Amendment accuse them of hate. 
In my opinion, the measure will be passed and the NC Constitution will be amended – because the people of North Carolina believe it is the right thing to do.
J. D. Longstreet 

Wednesday, April 04, 2012

President Liar, Year One 2008-2009 ... Alan Caruba

President Liar, Year One 2008-2009

By Alan Caruba

After years of hearing liberals tell us that any criticism of President Obama is because he is Black, it seems to me they ought to admit that he got elected because he is Black. In the interest of accuracy, he is half-Black and half-White. I say this because the media has now begun calling the shooter of Trayvon Martin a “White-Hispanic.”

Beyond that, it was apparent to anyone watching and listening to Barack Obama that a moron was running for office; one willing to say anything for five minute’s advantage. He literally lied his way into the Oval Office.

One need only revisit Obama’s campaign and his first year in office to grasp how audacious his capacity for lying was and is.

In June 2008 he was boasting that he was “the only candidate who isn’t taking a dime from Washington lobbyists” at the same time his fundraising team included 38 members of law firms that had earned $138 million to lobby the federal government. He had 79 “bundlers”, five of them billionaires, who tapped their personal networks to raise at least $200,000 each.

On October 24, 2008, Charles Krauthammer wrote “First, I will have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory.” Columnist Patrick J. Buchanan, on October 31, 2008, wrote “If Barack Obama is not a Socialist, he does the best imitation of one I’ve ever seen.” So, yes, we were warned and, yes, a majority of voters refused to acknowledge the obvious.

An editorial in the January 8, 2009 Daily Mail, a British daily, characterized Obama’s ascent to power as a “Victory for style over substance, hyperbole over history, rabble-raising over reality” adding that it was a victory for Hollywood, for “a man who is no friend of freedom”, “a victory for those who believe the state is better qualified to raise children than family” and presciently, “a victory for social democracy even after most of Europe has come to the painful conclusion that social democracy leads to mediocrity, failure, unemployment, inflation, higher taxes and economic stagnation.”

Following his election Obama was being either ignorant or deliberately lying when he told a November 2008 Governor’s Global Climate Summit in Los Angeles that “Few challenges facing America—and the world—are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season.”

Not one single word of this was true and, a year later in 2009, a cache of emails between so-called climate scientists revealed that global warming was a hoax based on phony computer models Moreover, a perfectly natural warming cycle had already ended in 1998!

Is there anyone who does not know that Obama’s stimulus plan turned out to be a massive and costly failure? The answer is yes and some of them will vote for Obama in November. Lenin called them "useful idiots."

By February 2009, Bradley R. Schiller, a professor of economics, writing in The Wall Street Journal wrote “President Barack Obama has turned fear-mongering into an art form. He has repeatedly raised the specter of another Great Depression. First he did so to win votes in the November election. He has done so again recently to sway congressional votes for his stimulus package. This fear-mongering may be good politics, but it is bad history and bad economics.”

As voters ready themselves to vote in November, it would be wise to revisit the way Obama hid his true past from them in 2008 and since. His college records were sealed, his Indonesian adoption records were sealed, his passport file was sealed and, of course, his official birth records were sealed. He has since provided a birth certificate that an investigation by Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio recently asserted was a complete forgery. His first executive order in office was to put these and other documents off limits to public examination.

As 2009 came to a close, virtually all of Obama’s initiatives were in shambles, not the least of which was his foreign policy and, in particular, his Middle East policy. He alienated Israel and the Arab League refused to provide any kind of peace gesture. Despite efforts to soften the public perception of Palestinians, they are still shelling Israel with rockets from Gaza.

By the time 2009 was history, Obama had given the Queen of England an iPod preloaded with 40 show tunes, bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, praised Marxists Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez, announced he would meet the Iranians with no pre-conditions, announced the termination of the U.S. space program the day after the North Koreans tested an intercontinental ballistic missile, wanted to try CIA agents on charges of torturing terrorists, wanted a civil trial for the mastermind of 9/11, and wanted to shut down Guantanamo. He put a card-carrying Communist and admitted tax cheats part of his administration, and that’s just the short list!

In lieu of the likelihood that Obamacare, to which he devoted his first year in office, will be struck down by the Supreme Court, his open microphone gaff in which he urged the Russians to wait until he is reelected so he can give them more U.S. missile technology secrets and reduce our nuclear arsenal, and countless other deceptions, Wall Street Journal columnist, Peggy Noonan, described  his tete-a-tete with Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev as “creepy.”

“What is happening is that the president is coming across more and more as a trimmer, as an operator who’s not operating in good faith,” wrote Noonan.

As millions of Americans still struggle with unemployment, the rolls of Food Stamp recipients grow, the mortgage crisis continues, gas prices increase, and much of the world holds Obama in contempt, the lies just keep coming, the class and race warfare is being ramped up, and media chatteratti continue to talk up his chances of being reelected.

© 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, is the place to visit.

Tuesday, April 03, 2012

See Why Israel Doesn't Trust Obama?

See Why Israel Doesn't Trust Obama?

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
Not only has our beloved "Dear Leader," Obama, managed to "PO" Israel even more, he has now "PO'ed" the Baku government of Azerbaijan.   By leaking news, recently,  that Israel and Azerbaijan have reached an agreement for Israeli aircraft to have landing rights at Azeri airbases, Obama has infuriated Israel's Netanyahu government even more and may have compromised Azerbaijan's relations with Iran (shaky as they may be), as well.     

In case you missed it when looking at a map, Azerbaijan is the small country snuggled tightly against the northern border of Iran.  There are roughly sixteen million Azeris (The people of Azerbaijan).

Now here's the thing:  Azerbaijan's government and the Israeli government have become, er, friends.  The only people who are having a problem with this is the Obama Administration in America --  and the Ahmadinejad Administration in Iran. Suddenly, it would seem, the US and Iran are BOTH going after Israel.

We have told you for months and even years that the Netanyahu government in Israel does not trust the Obama administration in the US and that is why the Israelis refuse to give Obama a heads-up on an attack on Iran.  They are convinced (as am I) that the Obama Administration would immediate pick up the phone and call Iran and tell Ahmadinejad  "the Israelis are coming."

Far-fetched, you say?  Believe what you want, but the truth is -- Obama's people have already tipped off Iran that there is a pact of some sort between the Baku government in Azerbaijan and the Netanyahu government in Israel possibly for landing rights for Israeli combat aircraft on Azerbaijan soil.

Israeli attack aircraft cannot make it to Iran, drop their ordinance, and make a return flight to Israel without refueling.  For that reason, an air raid on Iran by Israeli jets has been considered a "suicide mission."  Lack of fuel would not allow Israeli aircraft to loiter over their targets or even fend off attacks by the Iranian air forces. A second run on a target would be compromised by low fuel.

In-flight refueling could solve that problem, IF it could be done over friendly territory, which is sorely lacking in that neighborhood. Damaged aircraft would simply have to be abandoned.  If Israeli pilots chose to bail-out of their foundering jets, it was/is a given they would be captured and killed or languish for years in an enemy prison.  

Those Azerbaijan airbases make perfect refueling bases -- and forward bases for Israeli search and rescue units -- for an air raid on Iran's nuclear facilities, and an emergency landing field for damaged aircraft.  

It is no secret that the American President's favor lies with the Muslim countries of the world.  He has made that abundantly clear since he first entered the office of President of the United States.  And Israel wisely does not trust him.    

"We're watching what Iran does closely," one of the U.S. sources, an intelligence officer engaged in assessing the ramifications of a prospective Israeli attack confirmed. "But we're now watching what Israel is doing in Azerbaijan. And we're not happy about it."  -- This is a quote from an article by Mark Perry at FOREIGN POLICY.COM.   It is an excellent article and we recommend you read the entire piece. (SOURCE)

The Azeris and the Persians tolerate each other -- but just! There are those who fear that IF Azerbaijan does allow Israel to use its airbases for an attack on Iran, Iran might use that as an excuse to reclaim Azerbaijan as a part of the so-called "Mother Persia" and make a military move against their northern neighbor.

And then there is the solidly based concern that Russia may step in and create trouble in Azerbaijan to foil any attempt by Israel to use those Azeri airbases.  With Putin in charge in Russia, it is certainly within the realm of possibility.   Putin's Russia will again be seeking to expand its influence in the Caucasus. 

By and large, the people of America stand with Israel -- even if their President does not. Obama is the most divisive American president since Abraham Lincoln.  You may recall that upon Lincoln's election eleven American states pulled out of the Union.  Many Americans feel the Presidential Election in November of 2012 is every bit as important as the 1860 election, which broke apart the United States.

As Israel and many other countries of the world still look to the United States for assistance and direction, America is roiling in a national controversy to decide if the nation remains a constitutional republic or adopts socialism and dumps the constitution and representative government. The American people's attention is turned inward at this moment in history and that is allowing the mice to come out and play.

When Obama removed America from a leadership role in the world, it opened the door to all sorts of mischief around the globe.  An isolationist America has a history of producing deadly wars, some even global in scope.

Israel, the best friend to America in the Middle East, has been forced to look elsewhere for alliances simply because Obama refuses to maintain America's alliance established almost the moment Israel became a country/ state.  

The point is simple:  Had Obama maintained the long-standing relationship the US had with Israel, then there would have been no need for Israel to seek friends -- and assistance -- elsewhere.  As a result, there is a strong possibility the US will be drawn into a war in the Caucasus -- as well as a war in the Persian Gulf -- when Israel strikes Iran.

There can be no doubt Israel WILL strike Iran.  They have no choice. Otherwise, Israel will be wiped from the map just as Iran has promised so often to do.

If an alliance with Azerbaijan will help Israel destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities, then more power to them.  May the God of Israel bless them and "make straight their "aim."

J. D. Longstreet

Monday, April 02, 2012

Women of America Are Being USED

Women of America Are Being USED
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

The discussion (and the disagreement) has been turned on its head as the Democratic Party whips up women's fervor with their latest con game, which is, in reality, an assault on female voters called "The War on Women." 

That the democrats would play a con like this is not surprising. What IS shocking, however, is just how easily much of the female electorate is falling for it.  Not only are they (women voters) being used -- a goodly number are actually assisting the democrats in their own assault. 

It is simultaneously stunning and incredible.  It is, in fact, the work of past masters at political propaganda in the Democratic Party and their legions of sycophants in the Mainstream Media who seek to curry favor with the Obama Administration by their obsequious flattery and willful blindness to the blatant socialist agenda unfolding at the very heart of America's government.       

It is, of course, complete bovine scatology contrived by the democrats for one reason only.  It is psychological warfare at its finest.  It is intended to get women so worked up, and so angry at men (especially republican men) that they will embrace Obama, as they did in 2008, and hand the republicans defeat this coming November.  And it is working.  It remains to be seen how WELL it will work in the end, but for now it IS working.

Laura Ingraham recently said: "Obama's boosters are misrepresenting what's going on and they're deceiving the American people just so he can retain power. This is cynical and dishonest."  You can read the entire article here: SOURCE).

In the very same article, Ms. Ingraham goes on to say:  "Of course the Democrats want to change the subject to a wholly contrived “War on Women” narrative. If there is a war on women, it's on women's pocketbooks and it's being waged by President Obama."

Speaking as a southern gentlemen, this whole contrivance is unseemly and, frankly, disgusting.  But -- I have come to expect just this sort of behavior from the democrats.

At the risk of being called a woman hater by leftists, I have to tell you ladies that you ARE being used and it is not pleasant to look upon.  In fact, it is revolting.

Recall, if you will, that the original disagreement was between the Catholic Church and some of the more conservative protestant denominations in America with Obama's forcing the churches to go against their religious beliefs and make birth control available to their employees.  It was a "church and state" issue.  It was a question of whether the 1st Amendment was being violated by the Obama Administration.  It had NOTHING to do about "hating women" or denying women their rights.  It was a religious freedom argument and the democrats were losing the argument.  So, they did what they do best, they turned the disagreement upside down and made it about something else, entirely.  Wallah!  It became women's health issues -- with a bumper sticker slogan:  "War on Women."     

Yes, there is definitely some bitterness toward women as a result of all the feminist slander of men in the past 40 years or so.  It would be less than truthful to say otherwise.  But there was a price exacted (as there always is) and I believe a part of that price is the vulgar, gross, and crass society we have today.  Respect for women has dropped precipitously since the feminist movement blasted to center stage with their demands.

Nothing is free.  Somebody ALWAYS pays.  In this case American society paid a price that indelibly stained American respect for women -- quite possibly -- forever.

But, I digress.   

As I watch and listen to the shrill voices from the political left of America screaming about the war on women, it embarrasses me to see how easily American women have fallen victim to a bunch of smooth talking snake oil salesmen of the left.   

This whole leftist movement is not about women and it sure as heck is not about whether the government pays for women's birth control.  It IS about reelecting Obama for four more years as President of the US.  To that end --American women ARE BEING USED.

It is troubling to watch as the women of America are being sold this bald-faced lie.  The democrats obviously think American women are dumb enough to buy their pack of lies.  That should tell you everything you need to know concerning the manner in which the Democratic Party views women.

Rest assured, as the months wear on in this campaign, we can expect to look back on this as one of the "tamer" scams the Democratic Party will run on the American electorate.

You know, maybe it is a generational thing. I never thought I'd live to see women, or men for that matter, openly discussing sex, condoms, abortion, erectile dysfunction, etc, in the broadcast media of this country.  Call me a Puritan, if you will, but I would not allow the advertisement of ladies sanitary products or condoms on the airwaves of the stations for which I was responsible.  I'm not trying to shine my halo here.  It was, and remains, distasteful to me. 

Feeling shame comes naturally to the human being.  But, as we evolved (or in this case – devolved) we have managed to smother that part of our conscience  – guilt -- that reminds us that we KNOW what we are doing, or saying, is wrong.  It is then evidenced by shame at the self-knowledge that we have committed and act, which is unacceptable in polite and lawful society.  I can’t put my finger on exactly WHEN that happened, but it was at that point that we began our journey toward becoming a nation of psychopaths. 

I am convinced that giving up our privacy is directly connected to giving up our ability to feel shame.

Oh, well.  Time marches on. We cannot unring that bell. .  Somehow, descent folk will have to manage the gorge in their throats every time they hear the democrats braying about the war on women.  Trust me.  It could get a whole lot worse ... and probably will.

J. D. Longstreet

Sunday, April 01, 2012

Real American Energy Could Create Real American Jobs --- Joe Wurzelbacher

Real American energy could create real American jobs
Domestic oil and gas production, plus fuel exports, equals real jobs and revenue
Joe Wurzelbacher


President Obama supports job creation, economic growth and revenue generation – except when he doesn’t.

Official announcements from his Labor Department reported that the nation’s February unemployment rate is still 8.3 percent. That’s a decent decline from previous months. But the reality is far worse.

Most of that job growth was in business and professional services, and half was temporary. Millions of Americans are working part-time or multiple low-wage jobs to make ends meet. Overall, 23.5 million are out of work or underemployed.

Factor all that in, and the real unemployment rate is 14.9%, according to University of Maryland economist Peter Morici. Worse, many of the 8.3% jobs are government workers (police officers, fire fighters, teachers and bureaucrats), paid for with “stimulus” and other tax revenues taken or borrowed from hard working private sector companies and employees, and their children and grandchildren.

Making matters still worse, regular gasoline prices have hit $4 in numerous cities – compared to a national average of $1.61 on December 31, 2008, three weeks before President Obama took office.

Thankfully, we could reduce these intolerable numbers dramatically, if President Obama would just stop currying favor with environmental extremists, and start supporting energy policies that benefit all Americans – policies that use real American energy to create real American jobs.
The answer to our job shortage, energy shortage, and soaring gasoline prices is the same. Extract more oil and natural gas from deposits under our land and offshore areas. Bring more oil to the U.S. from Canada via the Keystone XL pipeline.

Manufacture more fuels in American refineries, to power American cars and trucks, and to sell abroad to preserve jobs and lower our trade deficit. Reduce the excessive, oppressive regulations that federal bureaucrats are imposing on our energy industry.

According to a March 2012 World Economic Forum report, the U.S. oil and gas industry created 37,000 direct jobs and 111,000 indirect jobs in 2011. That’s nearly one out of ten jobs created nationwide last year – and they didn’t need any Solyndra, Fisker, Sapphire or Solazyme subsidies.

A January 2012 Wood Mackenzie study found that 530,000 more jobs could be created if American companies were allowed to explore and drill for oil and natural gas in some of the areas that are now off-limits. The study says this would generate $150 billion in increased government taxes and fees by 2025, and expand domestic production by 4 million barrels of oil equivalent a day, greatly reducing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

Instead, President Obama has adopted a bumper-sticker anti-fossil fuels policy: “Just say no.”

The president has made 95% of federal lands and waters off-limits to drilling. He has blocked construction of the Keystone XL pipeline that would bring more than 700,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada to Texas. He wants to eliminate oil industry tax deductions, which would mean further reducing U.S. oil production and would make gasoline and diesel fuel even more expensive.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) and Institute for Energy Research calculate that the United States has 1.4 trillion barrels of technically recoverable conventional oil, plus huge additional supplies in shale deposits. That’s oil that American companies could and would produce, at today’s oil prices and using existing technologies – if they were allowed to do so.
Oil companies aren’t asking for subsidies to get this energy. They just want permission to produce it. But Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency, Interior Department and other agencies keep throwing roadblocks in their way. 

The president’s war on fossil fuels is designed to destroy many of the 9.2 million jobs already supported by the oil and gas industry – in hopes of replacing them with jobs in tax-subsidized “green” energy companies backed by his political supporters, campaign contributors and Democrat allies.

The president apparently believes some of these companies will succeed, if he just throws enough billions of your tax dollars at them. However, many of these failure-prone companies produce flawed and expensive products that American consumers wisely refuse to buy.

The $535 million in taxpayer money given to the now-bankrupt Solyndra solar power company is just one example of President Obama’s policy of subsidizing failure, and punishing success.
General Motors recently announced it was suspending production of the Chevy Volt 
 gas-and-electric car: people simply haven't been buying the cars, despite the $7,500 taxpayer subsidy the president has been giving to anyone who buys one. Now the president wants to increase the subsidy to $10,000. 

President Obama says we are running out of oil and gas, can’t drill our way to cheaper gasoline, and should blame anybody but him for $4-per-gallon gasoline. He’s wrong on all three counts.
The only petroleum we’re running out of is the tiny percentage of our total supplies that his administration is letting us produce.

Moreover, the EIA says 76% of what we pay for gasoline is determined by world crude oil prices; 12% is federal and state taxes; 6% is refining; and 6% is marketing and distribution.

The price of crude oil that refiners transform into essential products is set by the world market, and fluctuates based on supply and demand. You don’t need a PhD in economics to understand that producing more American oil and getting more from Canada would increase supplies and decrease gasoline prices.

That’s the direction we need to go.

Instead of embracing fantasy energy policies, President Obama needs to step into the real world. He should welcome expanded development of our vast oil and natural gas resources, increased oil imports from Canada, and the lower fuel prices this would bring.

Everyone would benefit – even his own dismal approval ratings.
Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher is a Republican candidate for Congress in Ohio’s ninth congressional district. Samuel Wurzelbacher rose to national fame as “Joe the Plumber” when he challenged then-candidate Barack Obama on his plans to increase taxes for the middle class. Since 2008, Wurzelbacher has spoken nationally in support of blue collar workers, encouraging voters to get engaged in the political process. Learn more at