Wednesday, October 31, 2012

We're All Going To Starve ... J. D. Longstreet

We're All Going To Starve
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet


You may have seen this a few days ago:

"UN warns of looming worldwide food crisis in 2013

• Global grain reserves hit critically low levels

• Extreme weather means climate 'is no longer reliable'

• Rising food prices threaten disaster and unrest


If this comes as news to you -- then you have not been paying attention.

See,  a number of us from the "conservative commentariat" have been warning of just such dangers for years now.

Just so we are clear -- I don't buy the UN's global warming/climate change excuse.  Weather is what weather IS -- period.  The earth has periods that are great growing seasons and we have some periods that are lousy growing seasons -- and -- since man first set foot on "Terra Firma," there have been periods of famine and starvation.  World overpopulation had nothing to do with it then, either.

The warning that earth will be struck by famine next year blames low grain reserves as one of the contributing factors.  I can't argue with that.

Question:  Is the US the only country to burn their grain in their automobiles and trucks?  Hum.  Just wondering.

Conservative commentators have been warning for years now that this day would come -- and if we didn't stop  burning our food we were going to find ourselves with empty pantries and empty bellies.   It would appear, if the UN (that paragon of virtue) is to be believed, that day has all but arrived.

If the next President of the US really wants to do something useful for the American citizens -- and the world-- he will, somehow, see that we stop producing ethanol and commit our farmland to, once again, growing food for America and the world. 

The whole ethanol thing is the height of stupidity.  It's just wrong on so many levels.

First and foremost, we are burning our food supplies, corn, especially!  Second we are damaging our automobiles by burning that "white lightening"/"moonshine" as fuel.  And a car burning ethanol does not, repeat, does not, get as much mileage from a gallon of fuel as ethanol-free gasoline doesThat is a FACT. 

Here in SENC, where I reside, at least one service station sells ethanol free gas.  Motorists drive from miles around to buy it because their cars and trucks get better mileage and they don't have to worry about damage to the engines in those vehicles wrought by the alcohol/ethanol.

Not only has the production of ethanol reduced the amount of available grain on the world market, it has driven the price of the grain that IS available sky high.  As a result, we may be on the brink of worldwide food riots. 

Haven't you noticed the increase in your grocery bills each week?  Practically everything on the shelves and in the freezers of the supermarkets depends, to one degree or another, on corn.  

Read the labels on the cans and you will clearly see the corn product included in the contents.  As far as meats are concerned -- corn is THEIR food, and after they are slaughtered they are driven to market in vehicles now operated partially on ethanol, a corn product.

The impact of that single product, ethanol, is having a world-wide effect on the human race.  It may yet lead to food wars. 

It is 100% fixable!

STOP PRODUCING ETHANOL.  Knock holes in the ground and begin sucking OUR oil out.  Begin processing that oil-laden shale and oil-rich sands and squeeze all the oil we can get out of them.  Flood the American market with domestic crude oil -- from our own wells!

Within a short time, America will have enough fuel -- AND FOOD -- to replenish our stores as well as feed the American people -- and we can place the reminder on the world market at prices third-world countries can afford.

Look. This whole thing could have been avoided by not buying into the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind -- global warming, and by common sense planning. 

Look.  This food (grain) shortage was a forgone conclusion.  A fool could have foreseen this grain shortage.  You cannot burn your food supplies and not expect to run out of food at some point in the future.

Please don't harangue me with claims of an unreliable climate.  The climate has always been unreliable.  Ask any farmer.  They have known for millenia.  They PLAN for it. 

Good leadership and good planning could have avoided all this.  Unfortunately, the US -- and yes (for the most part) -- the remainder of the world is not currently blessed with either.

What we have here, ultimately, is a hoax that has come back to bite us in the butt.  Planning for global warming, which does not exist, was the catalyst for the creation of ethanol in the first place.

I must tell you, it sort of makes me wonder if the "environuts," who believe the earth is overpopulated and that man is the root of all evil done to "mother earth"(Gaia), were aware at the formulation of the food burning plans that it would result in world-wide starvation.  Starving the planet's occupants will most certainly reduce the earth's payload of humans and save the earth from said creatures.

Sounds crazy, doesn't it?   .

Look.  I'm a country boy. My family and I will eat, rest assured of that.  My concern is that we country folk may be forced to take up arms to defend our food supplies from the threat produced by the flood of starving city dwellers who will inevitably invade the countryside in search of food. Fueled by hunger they will be determined to take what they need from those just as determined to stop them.

Sounds like bad science fiction, eh?   Problem is -- it ain't fiction.

There are two articles I'd like to recommend to you.  They are:

"UN warns of looming worldwide food crisis in 2013" at:

-- and --

"Food Scarcity: A Ticking Time Bomb" at:

In less than a week Americans will go to the polls to choose the next President of the US for the next four to eight years.  May I be so bold as to suggest that every voter consider just how important it is, not only for America, but for the entire world, that we choose wisely? 

I would be less than responsible if I did not point out that the current US Presidential Administration consists of disciples of the type of planning that has led us to the doorstep of worldwide starvation. 

Americans should vote as if their life depended upon it -- for ultimately -- it does.

© J. D. Longstreet

VISIT J. D. Longstreet's "INSIGHT on Freedom" Face Book Page!!:   (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)


To My Fellow Jews-You Can Vote For Mitt Romney, Or You Can Commit Jew-i-cide. ... Jeff Dunetz

To My Fellow Jews-You Can Vote For Mitt Romney, Or You Can Commit Jew-i-cide.


There are many domestic reasons to vote for Mitt Romney on election day, most of which have been covered on these pages over since he became the apparent GOP
nominee in the spring.

There are also foreign policy issues, the one most relevant to the Jewish community is the future of Israel. This particular column focuses on the issue of Israel.

There is no other way to put it.  Any Jew who believes in the State of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State and still votes for Barack Obama next week is committing Jew-i-cide.

Obama’s positions on Israel and terrorism during his first term will only worsen in a second when he would not need financial support from major Jewish donors and electoral support from Jewish voters for reelection, or (as he told Russian President Mevedev) he will have more flexibility in a second term.

Lets take a look at Obama’s first term (note I am concentrating on the major issues, if I wrote about all of the anti-Israel or pro-terrorist policies of the Obama administration this post wouldn't be ready till after election day).

Obama is the reason there are no negotiations with the Palestinians
The reason there is no progress toward Israel/Palestinian peace can be explained in three words, President Barack Obama.

While the Palestinian's have never accepted Israeli settlements, secession of settlements all settlement building has never been a precondition to talks. Israel had long ago agreed not to build new "settlements" in Judea and Samaria but would continue to add housing units to existing communities. They have never agreed to restrictions on building Jerusalem.

During the government of PM Ehud Barak (and the Bush Administration), there were direct talks and construction continued as outlined above.

It was the Obama administration's naiveté that made the settlements an issue. Hillary Clinton first demanded the freeze in 2009 and was quickly backed up by Obama. What the President and his advisers perceived as a minor concession (a settlement freeze including no new housing units in existing communities) was for Israel a grave sacrifice. From the Israeli point of view he was telling parents that their children that they could no longer live near them.

This was a major error by the Obama administration and it was compounded by their inclusion of Jerusalem in the mix and their constant public berating of the Jewish State. On top of all that was the revelation that his demand for a freeze of natural community growth broke a US/Israel agreement made during the Bush administration. An agreement confirmed by former Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams many times .

Obama refused to call on the Palestinians to make the most basic of concessions; recognize Israel as the Jewish State. 

Obama has said Israel is the Jewish State and has called on the Palestinians to recognize Israel but has never called on the Palestinians to recognize Israel as the Jewish state—never (the UN partition which created Israel called it a Jewish State).

The real issue is where the Palestinian refugees go. While the number of Palestinian refugees in 1949 was somewhere between 800,000-900,000, today the number is over 4 million. This group of refugees is the only example in history where the number has grown without a population shift (the UN counts the original refugees, their children, grandchildren, first cousin twice removed on their mother's side, friends etc. as refugees (The Jewish refugees from Arab countries, 900,000+ were absorbed by Israel and other countries).

One of the stated goals of the Palestinians is to flood Israel (within the green lines) with Palestinians. Being a democracy Israel would be voted out of being Jewish.

The previous president, George Bush said that any resettlement of Palestinian refugees must take place in a future Palestinian State.

The 2008 Democratic Party platform agreed, saying ..should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel.   This was removed from the 2012 platform by the President’s people along with Jerusalem, refusal to recognize Hamas and the need  for changes to the 1949 Armistice lines.  The only one added back was Jerusalem (and that was over the votes and boos of the convention attendees).

In August 2009 Prime Minister Netanyahu announced a ten-month settlement freeze. It was approved and implemented on November 25, 2009 and ran till September 25, 2010.  Despite pressure from the United States, the Palestinians wasted the first 9+ months of the freeze and would not come to the negotiation table till September 2010, three weeks before the freeze ended.
A fact lost on the Obama administration that put the onus on Israel to extend the freeze. Still Israel tried to find a way out of this Obama-created logjam and give the Palestinians a way "out."
In early October of 2010 he made a very simple offer to the PA. If you were to recognize Israel as the Jewish State, we will extend the freeze. As reported by Al Jazeera the answer was a resounding no:

Netanyahu's proposal met with swift rejection from senior Palestinian officials.

"The whole world holds Netanyahu responsible for what is happening in the region, after he chose to push ahead with the settlement project at the expense of an advance in the peace process. Settlement freeze is a commitment Netanyahu should respect," Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, told Al Jazeera.

Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior official of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, described the settlement issue as "an aggression on Palestinian rights and land".

"What Israel calls itself is an Israeli matter that does not concern us. The two issues are not related," he told Al Jazeera in reference to Netanyahu's condition that Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish state.

Nabil Abu Rudainah, the spokesman for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, said a return to peace talks required a freeze on settlement building by Israel.

"The issue of the Jewishness of the state has nothing to do with the matter," he told the Reuters news agency.

If Obama truly backed Israel as the Jewish State he would have publicly endorsed this Israeli offer that would have rid the Palestinians of the Obama-created excuse not to negotiate.

Jerusalem Israel's Capital
Jerusalem, wrote historian Martin Gilbert, is not a ‘mere’ city. “It holds the central spiritual and physical place in the history of the Jews as a people.”

The Obama policy is different from that of the Bush administration.  The Bush administration recognized Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel, but delayed the moving of the embassy till the borders of Jerusalem were determined through negotiations. Obama refuses to recognize any part of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.

During a press briefing at the end of July, Jay Carney refused to outline the President’s position on Jerusalem. Eventually the administration released a statement that Obama's position remains unchanged, Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel because its final status has not yet been negotiated.

In 1995 Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act endorsing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and requiring the US Embassy to move to Jerusalem. But Congress gave the executive branch an out, every six months the State Department/President can request and receive an automatic waiver. A waiver that President Bill Clinton issued to congress every six months as required.

President Bush continued the policy every six months, but in Bush’s case, he inserted into the legal jargon a sentence stating, “My Administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem.” The phrase appeared in all 16 Bush waiver notifications. The Obama administration removed that phrase from their waiver requests.

The 1949 armistice lines.  
Another section removed from the 2012 Democratic platform and not replaced was ... All understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. Obama walked away from that big time last May when he called for Israel to begin negotiations by agreeing to return to the 1949 lines. At the time the Democrats said it was no change from previous policy—which is a lie. 

The truth is final borders of a Israel and a Palestinian state was to be negotiated and not to be an Israeli concession before negotiation. It was Bush’s position and it was the way Bill Clinton handled negotiations at during his term. 

Obama’s position is a big change from previous administrations and it undercut Israel’s negotiation position.

Iranian Nuclear Weapons.
There is a wide space between Israel and the Obama administration on the issue of Iran.

During a recent interview, Long Island Congressman and Chairman of the House Intelligence committee told me Obama's failed foreign policy was hurting Israel and strengthening the will of her enemies.

The congressman added Israel doesn’t trust Obama on Iran, and rightfully so. On one hand Obama says the US will protect Israel should Iran get on the precipice of nuclear weapons; on the other he ties Israel’s hands. The President wants Israel to give time for the sanctions to work, but opposed Congressional action to strengthen those sanctions. King pointed out the issue of a nuclear Iran is one that should not only concern Israel, but the entire Western world.

He closed with a quote, which concisely described what makes Obama's relationship with Israel particularly disturbing:

 “We have had disagreements with Israel before, but they have always been on subjects such as settlements or boarders. This is the first time in our history where an administration disagreed with Israel on an issue of basic survivability.”

Governor Romney's position on Israel is clear:

    Over the past three years, President Obama has instead chastened Israel. In his inaugural address to the United Nations, the President chastised Israel, but said little about the thousands of Hamas rockets raining into its skies. He’s publicly proposed that Israel adopt indefensible borders. He’s insulted its Prime Minister. And he’s been timid and weak in the face of the existential threat of a nuclear Iran.
    These actions have emboldened Palestinian hard-liners who now are poised to form a unity government with terrorist Hamas and feel they can bypass Israel at the bargaining table. President Obama has immeasurably set back the prospect of peace in the Middle East.
    As President, my policies will be very different. I will travel to Israel on my first foreign trip. I will reaffirm as a vital national interest Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. I want the world to know that the bonds between Israel and the United States are unshakable. I want every country in the region that harbors aggressive designs against Israel to understand that their ambition is futile and that pursuing it will cost them dearly.

The choice for Jews on November 6th is clear—you can vote for Mitt Romney, or you can commit Jew-i-cide.

 Jeff Dunetz


VISIT J. D. Longstreet's "INSIGHT on Freedom" Face Book Page!!:   (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

A Betrayal of Public Trust ... J. D. Longstreet

A Betrayal of Public Trust
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

In all my 70 plus years I have never seen an election in which the Mainstream Media has endorsed and contributed to the campaign of a presidential candidate.  During the presidential campaign of 2008 and the current presidential campaign they MsM was -- and is -- indisputably in the tank, all the way, for Obama. 

The national media, yea, the WESTERN media, has thrown in with the Democratic Party -- and especially with Obama.  

Back in 2010 I referred to the MSM this way:  "As the doe-eyed, salivating, press corp, falls all over itself trying to hoist their failing socialist President and their liberal-socialist Congress up in the eyes of the public (whose intelligence they have so grossly underestimated) they create a comical picture, yet, one laced through and through with pathos. They are a pitiful sight." SOURCE:

My feelings have changed, considerably, since.  I no longer see them as pitiful.  I see the MsM today as  threatening ... threatening to the freedom and liberty of America and, as such, they have firmly cast themselves as enemies of the  country I love -- America.

Here we are, a week away from the most important election in the history of the United States, and the Media is deliberately covering-up one of the most important events to take place during the Obama Presidency.  I refer, of course, to the cover-up of the major screw-up at the US "mission" in Benghazi, Libya.

As the days go by, it becomes even more clear that the President's team really, I mean, REALLY, screwed-up in Benghazi costing the lives of four Americans including the US Ambassador to Libya.  BUT -- reporting on this story, especially reporting the TRUTH on this story would reflect badly o the President.  Therefore,  the MSM is, in my opinion,  deliberately choosing NOT to tell the American people what happened.

Look.  That is information Americans need, especially on the eve of a presidential election.  It is information that will will most certainly raise questions about the competence of the Obama Team -- and it should! 

The media has cast its lot with Obama and they are refusing to do their job and make the information available to the American public. 


What?  Do they think we re so dumb we wouldn't notice?  Or, is it just the Obama supporters they believe are that dumb?

The whole thing smacks of a betrayal of public trust by the news media.    

And the MsM does not understand why we have stopped buying their newspapers and turned our TV dials away from the broadcast networks to a news network that actually tries to present news in a “fair and balanced” manner.  NOW who's dumb?

It's almost funny to watch them berate and laugh at "citizen journalists" on Internet  blogs.  They can laugh, and criticize all they want, but at the end of the day, those citizen journalists are doing the job the MsM used to do, only better!  When they laugh, it is the same as whistling past the graveyard.

Since 2008, and the election of Obama, I have gone to off-shore news sources just to get news from America.  I can't trust the American media anymore. And after this presidential campaign, I don't trust them at all -- and I never will again.

Senator Marco Rubio recently said:  "Never has the political class or the mainstream media that covers them been more out of touch with the American people than they are today."  The Senator was spot-on!

Radio commentator Rush Limbaugh recently said:  "The mainstream media today has the biggest disconnect with its audience that it's ever, ever had. And as the disconnect grows and as more and more people distrust them, then the media digs in more and more and says you don't know what you're talking about, you don't know how we do our jobs, you don't know what's important."  Again, Rush is right!

The American Thinker reported the following:  "Discussing Benghazi, Pat Caddell says the press has "been in the tank on this in a way I've never seen... I am appalled right now. This White House, this President, this Vice President, this Secretary of State, all of them, are willing apparently to dishonor themselves and this country for the cheap prospect of getting reelected...willing to cover up and lie. The worst thing is the very people who are supposed to protect the American people with the truth - the leading mainstream media...they have become a threat, a fundamental threat to American democracy and the enemies of the American people... these people have no honor... cover-up is too nice of a word..." SOURCE:

For those who do not know, Pat Caddell is a fellow "Sandlapper" born just 25 miles, or so, from the birthplace and hometown of this scribe in South Carolina.  He has worked for Democratic presidential candidates George McGovern in 1972, Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980, Gary Hart in 1984, Joe Biden in 1988, and Jerry Brown in 1992. He also worked for Colorado Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff in 2010.  I point this out so it is clear that Pat and I do not necessarily share the same political philosophy even though Pat did leave the Democratic Party in 1988.

What Caddell and I DO share is the belief that the MsM is now a threat to the country.  As history records, South Carolinians have never been afraid to go against the tide when they believe the tide is going in the wrong direction.  THIS is one of those times. 

I applaud my brother from the great Palmetto State for standing, like a man, against what is clearly wrong with the Mainstream Media's censoring of the news and dissemination of propaganda for the Obama campaign.   Someone had to call them on it -- and Pat just did!  Good on him! 

I fear that as a result of the MsM's efforts, much of the electorate will go to the polls as the worst informed voters in decades, or longer.

Well, at least the facade is gone now.  Now anyone not willfully blind can see the leftist bias of the MsM in America.  It is also clear the news print media is now an anachronism of a by-gone era -- and -- even though they are desperately hanging-on they are inexorably slipping away en route to the great dustbin of history.   And not a moment too soon.

© J. D. Longstreet

VISIT J. D. Longstreet's "INSIGHT on Freedom" Face Book Page!!:   (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)


Monday, October 29, 2012

Benghazigate: What Are They Covering-Up? ... J. D. Longstreet

Benghazigate: What Are They Covering-Up?
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

(Editor's note:  YES!  I am adding the suffix "- gate" to the word Benghazi.  If Obama was a Republican, this incident would have been referred to as "Benghazigate" weeks ago!  Now, it is!   ...   JDL)
Four Americans are dead and the American people are being lied to as to how and why they got that way. 

Either the President is lying - and needs to be impeached, or he's NOT lying -- and needs to be impeached -- because he DIDN'T know what was happening!

Repeat:  Four Americans are DEAD. And as much as it pains me to say it -- it doesn't look as if our government made a genuine effort to save them.

I have watched, listened, and read as much as we have been allowed to know -- plus -- information gleaned by non-mainstream media sources,  and I have concluded there is a major cover-up at the top levels of the US government over the incident in Benghazi.

Now, let me be clear:  I am not an investigative reporter. That is not what I do.  I am a commentator -- an opinion writer ... nothing more.   I have deliberately "hung back" on any in-depth comments on the Benghazi affair simply because there always seemed to me to be more THERE there.  In other words, it was obvious, at least to me, that we were only getting drips and drabs of what really happened and, I felt (and still do) that we have been told nothing of WHY it happened.   But, dear reader, even Helen Keller could see there is a major cover-up surrounding the incident in Benghazi! 

That CIA "safe-house" has troubled me from the very beginning of this horrible story.  What was the CIA doing there?  There was no embassy in Benghazi.  In fact, the building attacked was not even a consulate.  If anything, it was a "mission."   Had it been an embassy, I'd not question a CIA presence.  They are practically a part of the furniture in any US Embassy.  But, as I said,  this was NOT an embassy.

Remember too, the last person our ambassador met with the evening of the attack was a Turkish diplomat.  What was a Turkish diplomat doing in Benghazi, Libya, meeting with Ambassador Stevens at an unprotected site.  Why not meet in the embassy in Tripoli? 

It now seems that the ex-SEALS were not attached to the consulate, but were assigned to the CIA "safe-house." They (laudably) went against orders and made a rescue attempt of the US officials and staff at the consulate -- and lost their lives in the attempt.

There is now a fog of misinformation spewed up and out by the Obama Administration in what -- in my opinion -- is an attempt to cover-up an on-going scheme/operation to smuggle weapons into Syria through Turkey.

A few weeks ago, there was a report that Libyan militia members had been ordered to turn-in the weapons that had been supplied them in their struggle to overthrow Qaddafi. That report confirmed that many of those weapons had been turned in.  Where did those weapons go?  Perhaps, to the Syrian rebels?

It has been suspected for some time now that the US has been supplying small arms to the rebels in Syria for a while -- even though the Obama Administration denies it.

It is the kind of operation the CIA would be up-to-their-necks in and it would explain their presence on the ground in Libya in a safe-house a mile away from the consulate/mission.

For the sake of argument, suppose the guns gathered from the Libyan militia were being covertly sent to Turkey and then smuggled across the Turkey/Syrian border to the Syrian rebels.

I continue to cycle back to the question -- why was the Ambassador THERE , alone, without a security detail, at that particular time, meeting with a high Turkish diplomat.  Remember, this was on September 11th.  If there was going to be an attack by terrorists -- September 11th would be the day for it.

Now, I'm just hypothesizing here.  I have no idea, at this point, what was really going on. But, I have confidence in my opinion that there was a covert operation underway -- one so black that sacrificing the lives of four Americans was deemed "worth it" by our leaders in Washington. 

For whatever reason, the Obama Administration has chosen to tell the world a bald-faced lie about what happened in Benghazi. 

So politicians lie, right? Yeah, they do. But this time -- four Americans are dead and the country wants to know why that happened and why the Obama Administration chose to lie to us about it. 

It is clear now, that all the warnings from the political right about the penchant of this President and his administration for lies was absolutely correct. If they are lying about the "Incident in Benghazi," what else are they lying about?

Americans have a week to decide if they trust Obama enough to vote for him to lead the country for another four years.  It is clear the Mainstream Media is NOT going to cover this story.  They are NOT going to investigate what happened for fear that it will drive down support for Obama at the polls.  They seem to have taken the attitude:  the truth, the welfare of the country, be damned.  Getting their man, Obama, reelected is the most important thing, bar none. 

Look.  The cover-up of "Benghazigate" is far more important that Watergate ever was! 

We need a "Congressional Investigation" of the incident at Benghazi and we need it post haste!  I understand there is no way that is possible before election day, but -- if ever an incident deserved investigating by the Congress, this horrible event in Benghazi is it. It is looking more and more as if grounds for impeachment proceedings are present. 

Yes, if only Obama was a Republican, there would be no need for commentators to beg the Congress to investigate -- or -- for commentators to  opine at the reluctance of the MsM to investigate.

It is what it is.  The Mainstream Media in America is an organ of the political left -- as is President Obama.  There is simply no way we are going to get anything approaching impartial reporting or a REAL investigation of Benghazigate from the MsM. 

It behooves every voter to weigh what little we know about Benghazigate and decide if we want to have Obama continue to lead this country after January 20th, 2013.

For me, it is not just a matter of trust, it is a matter of honor -- NATIONAL HONOR. 

America deserves better than we have gotten, or, are likely to get from Obama. 

As you enter the voting booth ask yourself, what else has Obama lied to you about.  What else is Obama lying to you about today?  Then for the sake of our country -- do what's right.

J. D. Longstreet 

VISIT J. D. Longstreet's "INSIGHT on Freedom" Face Book Page!!:   (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Hurricane Sandy's Message to America ... Alan Caruba

Hurricane Sandy's Message to America

By Alan Caruba
When Mother Nature demonstrates her extraordinary power, I always hope that people will draw a lesson from it, but they never seem to. Hurricane Sandy is just the latest example of the futility and foolishness of thinking that humans can do anything about a hurricane or similar demonstration of who is really in charge. It is the planet. Not us.
This suspension of common sense is worsened when our President goes on television, as he did last Friday on MTV, to say “I believe the scientists, who say that we are putting too much carbon emissions into the atmosphere, and it is heating the planet and it is going to have a severe effect.” This is literally junk science, long since debunked by legions of scientists who know that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with the Earth’s temperature. The planet has been in a cooling cycle since 1998.
I keep hoping, too, that lacking the vital lifeblood of our nation--electricity—millions of people sitting around in the dark will ask themselves where it comes from, what generates it, how does it get to their home, and perhaps even why its cost keeps increasing even though the U.S. sits atop enough coal and natural gas to provide affordable power for two hundred years at current consumption rates.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) in March of this year electricity from coal has fallen from 50% production to less than 40% by the end of 2011. Other sources include natural gas at 26%, nuclear at 22%, hydroelectric at 7% and “other” was said to be 6%. It should be noted that oil is a transportation fuel and not used to generate electricity. I believe that the amount that solar and wind produces is more likely closer to three percent. It is unreliable and uncompetitive and requires a traditional plant as backup when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun is obscured by clouds and, of course, at night.
Not surprisingly, the environmental organizations such as Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club are already beating the drums about “climate change”, asserting “unpredictable, extreme weather.” The planet is always in a state of climate change if for no other reason that it is subject to the seasons. Blaming extreme weather on “climate change” is just a code for keeping the “global warming” hoax alive. The only reason President Obama talks about climate change is his hope that a carbon tax can be imposed to raise more money for the government to waste.
Electricity is not magic. Some form of energy must be burned to generate it and then it must be transmitted by a huge, very old grid to consumers.
In January of this year, The North American Electric Reliability Corporation warned that the reliability of the grid was in jeopardy. Thanks to the Obama administration’s (i.e. EPA) relentless attack on coal, the NERC noted that beyond the 38 gigawatts of electricity capacity that has already been announced to retire, it estimated that another 35 to 59 gigawatts will come off-line by 2018 depending on the “scope and timing” of EPA regulations. If you think the downed lines that Hurricane Sandy will produce are a problem, consider a future in which the electricity they are supposed to distribute will be significantly reduced.
What most Americans don’t know is that coal is the fuel of choice to generate electricity in many other nations of the world. Just five years ago it produced fifty percent of our electricity, but today it is less than forty percent, the lowest share since data began to be collected in 1949.  For example, China’s coal consumption grew 9.7% between 2010 and 2011. Last year China consumed 49% of the world’s coal supply. India’s coal consumption increased 9.2%
While the President blathers on MTV about CO2 emissions, my friend Dr. Jay Lehr, the Science Director of The Heartland Institute, dispatches that nonsense noting that “A simple volcanic eruption will cancel a decade of effort” to reduce emissions.
“Today,” says Dr. Lehr, “it is our government that is attempting to thwart our energy independence by blocking nearly every effort to develop our resources through completely unreasonable restrictions placed on us by the EPA and the Department of the Interior, and horrible policies of the Department of Energy which choose to throw unconscionable sums of money at renewable energy projects…”
Ultimately, while millions of Americans light candles in the dark or hope their flashlight batteries hold out, we have to ask WHY the Obama administration has waged a war on the provision of electricity.
This is a deliberate policy to weaken the nation’s capacity to function at every level and yet we are days away from an election where millions of Americans will vote to reelect Obama and send his Democratic Party minions to Congress.
It is in line with the Obama administration’s deliberate policy of reducing our military capacity on land, sea and air.
The only silver lining in the distress and disruption of Hurricane Sandy may be the awakening of voters to the critical need for more, not less, production of electricity, for improvements to the national grid, for more oil production for our transportation needs, and concurrent with this, the hundreds of thousands of jobs that such efforts would produce and billions it would generate to begin to reduce the national debt, now in excess of $16 trillion.
Long ago, the cartoon character, Pogo, famously said, “We have met the enemy and it is us.”
The enemy, I would suggest, is President Barack Hussein Obama, his many shadowy, unaccountable “czars” influencing energy policies, his Cabinet Secretaries of Energy and the Interior, and the rogue Environmental Protection Agency that is set to unleash regulations that will destroy the economy, aided and abetted by the nation’s environmental organizations.
That’s Hurricane Sandy’s message to America.
© Alan Caruba, 2012
Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" and shared on dozens of news and opinion websites. His blog recently passed more than 1.7 million page views. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. For information on his professional skills, Caruba Editorial Services is the place to go! You can find Alan Caruba on both Facebook and Twitter as well.

American Voters Will Politically Hang Obama for Benghazi ... JB Williams

American Voters Will Politically Hang Obama for Benghazi
By JB Williams

Yes, Obamanomics are horrific! -- No, it’s not just the economy this time stupid. What the Obama administration have done to intentionally destroy the U.S. economy is cause enough for a political hanging of everyone in the Obama administration. The people responsible for driving our nation’s debt up more than 60% in less than four years, while decimating jobs and forcing a record number of Americans onto federal assistance, demands a short rope swinging from the political tree.
·         Unemployment still in double digits and worsening
·         80% of college grads cannot find work in chosen profession
·         Over 40% of Americans now on federal assistance (an all-time high)
·         National debt UP 60% since taking office (over $16 trillion)
·         An 84% failure rate on “green” taxpayer investments that most taxpayers opposed
·         Average American income DOWN over $4000 per year
·         Home values still DOWN more than 30% nationally
·         Businesses are closing and investors are leaving America
·         Obama has sent more jobs overseas than all of the last five presidents combined
·         Cost of gas UP 137%
·         Cost of potatoes UP 306%
·         Cost of butter and coffee UP more than 150%
·         Beef, milk and flour UP more than 100%
·         Eggs and rice UP over 70%

And that is the good news…. The economic terrorism waged on the American people by the Obama administration is nothing when compared to the national security threat this administration represents.
Benghazi is important not only because we lost four Americans there, an Ambassador, his aide and two SEALS, all of whom died needlessly. It is important because Benghazi is a microcosm into the broader Obama-Clinton foreign policy.
The Obama-Clinton policy of toppling foreign governments in the jihad torn hotbed of the Middle East, arming known terrorists including Al Qaeda, leaving our foreign installations like sitting ducks -- standing down as those so-called “freedom fighters” murder Americans with American weapons, is unconscionable and unforgivable. Someone must pay and American blood is on the hands of many in the Obama administration.
In addition to the fact that Americans can’t economically afford four more months of Obamanomics, they cannot survive four more minutes of Obama foreign policy aimed at advancing Radical Islam at the expense of American lives.
Even assuming that Romney and Ryan can somehow overcome the most massive Democrat voter fraud in election history to win November 6th, we still have to make it from then until January 20, 2013 – as the Obama administration will continue to decimate the nation from all angles, or worse.
If Americans needed more proof that Barack Hussein Obama is a radical Muslim Marxist terrorist operating from the people’s Oval Office, they now have it in the Benghazi story.
What we now know about September 11th events in Benghazi Libya is far from what the Obama administration has been telling us about the events of that day for the last several weeks.
·         The Obama administration said they had no prior warning of the attacks on Benghazi – LIE
·         They said the attacks were due to a protest – LIE
·         They said the protest was a reaction to a totally obscure YouTube video – LIE
·         They said that they did not know what happened for more than 17 days after – LIE
·         They said that they had nothing to do with that YouTube video – LIE
·         They said they were confused by a “fog of war” – LIE
·         They said it was not a terrorist attack – LIE
·         They said it had nothing to do with Obama foreign policy – LIE
·         They said they had bad intelligence – LIE
·         They said they didn’t have the funds for more security – LIE
·         They said they didn’t know who killed our Americans – LIE
·         They said Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood were not involved – LIE
·         They said that Obama was not directly involved – LIE
·         They said that concerned people were “politicizing Benghazi” – LIE
·         They said that they didn’t arm the people who killed four Americans – LIE
·         They said they did all they could do – LIE

The original unclassified Benghazi cables covering more than twelve months leading up to Benghazi prove that the Obama administration is full of bold faced liars, at a minimum. Our Executive Brief covers the period leading up to the events of 9-11-12.
The House Committee on Oversight of Government Reform is asking questions that they already know the answers to and in case you are wondering why nobody is taking any serious action on the Obama massacre in Benghazi, it’s because many Washington DC politicians have American blood on their hands.
Since we covered the Benghazi tragedy and unclassified cables long before information was reported by FOX News and ignored by every other mainstream press room busy campaigning for Barack Obama, much more damning information has emerged.
The facts are starting to support a theory that the Obama administration might have been much worse than inept. The facts are adding up to blatant treason by the Obama administration in Benghazi, possibly setting up Benghazi for death and destruction as a campaign stunt to win re-election.
An ABC affiliate in Denver tried to extract a straight forward answer out of Obama at a campaign stop on Friday.
After being asked about possible denials of requests for aid, and whether it’s fair to tell Americans that what happened is under investigation and won’t be released until after the election, the president said, “the election has nothing to do with four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened. These are folks who served under me who I had sent to some very dangerous places. Nobody wants to find out more what happened than I do.”

The Obama administration has such a long string of lies already in the air on Benghazi that Obama is scared to utter a word on the matter until after the election. They are trapped in their own web of lies and administration rats are looking for cover, exposing Obama to campaign problems if they can’t shut down this story until after the election. At least a local ABC affiliate was willing to ask the questions that no other lame stream press room is asking, other than FOX.
But a caller to the Rush Limbaugh Show describes standard protocol and standing security operations for events like Benghazi and his description is right on the mark. There is no way that Benghazi was an accident. What happened in Benghazi was a direct result of decisions made by numerous members of the Obama administration, including Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton.
The list of Obama administration officials who should be facing charges of treason today is long and distinguished. But the buck stops with Barack Hussein Obama. The Commander-in-Chief was the only administration official with the authority and duty to issue a final order to deploy a defense (or) stand down on Benghazi. Unclassified cables will neither confirm nor refute this fact. But the classified documents that Hillary keeps hinting to would.
CIA officials have publicly stated that it was no one in the CIA who issued any order to “stand down.” Hillary says that she didn’t issue any order to stand down. DoD chief Panetta is also refusing to accept responsibility for standing down in Benghazi… that leaves Obama, the Commander-in-Chief.
Less than two weeks before the 2012 election, with people in DC running cover for each other and the so-called news media so focused on campaigning for Obama that they too deserve to swing from a tall tree, only the American people can hold any of these criminals accountable.
The American people will get only ONE chance to politically hang them all on November 6, 2012.
If they have the courage and honor to remove these criminals from power on November 6th, they should demand treason charges be filed against a laundry list of Obama officials on the morning of November 7th.
Yes, Americans need to throw Obama out of office over his economic tyranny. However, if the American people lack the intellect, honor or courage to hold Obama fully accountable for Benghazi, they will NEVER get their country back.
What happened in Benghazi was in Barack Obama’s hands. But what happens next is in the hands of the American people. God help us if they fail.
VISIT J. D. Longstreet's "INSIGHT on Freedom" Face Book Page!!:   (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)


Perverse Environmentalist Oil Sands Ethics ... Paul Driessen

Perverse environmentalist oil sands ethics
Opposition to the Canadian oil sands and Keystone Pipeline reflects debased moral code 

By: Paul Driessen 

The duplicity and hypocrisy of environmental pressure groups seem to be matched only by their consummate skill at manipulating public opinion, amassing political power, securing taxpayer-funded government grants, and persuading people to send them money and invest in “ethical” stock funds.

In the annals of “green” campaigns, those against biotechnology, DDT and Alar are especially prominent. To those we should now add the well-orchestrated campaigns against Canadian oil sands and the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Oil has been seeping out of Northern Alberta soils and river banks for millennia. Native Americans used the bitumen to waterproof canoes, early explorers smelled and wrote about it, and “entrepreneurs” used it in “mineral waters” and “medicinal elixirs.”

Today, increasingly high-tech operations are extracting the precious hydrocarbons to fuel modern living standards in Canada and the United States. Enormous excavator/loading shovels and trucks used in open pits during the early years are giving way to drilling rigs, steam injection, electric heaters, pipes and other technologies to penetrate, liquefy and extract the petroleum.

The new techniques impact far less land surface, use and recycle brackish water, and emit fewer air pollutants and (plant-fertilizing) carbon dioxide every year. Water use for Alberta oil extraction is a tiny fraction of what’s needed to grow corn and convert it into ethanol that gets a third less mileage per gallon than gasoline. Affected lands are returned to forest and native grasslands at a surprising pace. And the operations are removing oil that would otherwise end up in local air and water.

Instead of requiring perpetual subsidies, á la the “renewable” technologies that President Obama intends to redouble if he is reelected, the oil sands generate vast sums in royalties and taxes: an anticipated $690 billion into federal and provincial coffers all across Canada over the life of the project. That’s on top of tens of thousands of jobs of every description, including nearly 2,000 Native Canadians (Aboriginals), whose communities have enjoyed soaring living standards since the operations were launched. In fact, the oil sands project will ultimately generate 11,219,000 person-years of high-paying employment from Alberta to British Columbia, Ontario and the Maritime Provinces, say government sources.

This North American oil is displacing millions of barrels of annual US oil imports from some of the least savory countries on Earth, while adding billions of barrels a year to planetary petroleum production, and thereby keeping world oil prices lower than they would otherwise be. 

These are huge benefits. The oil sands project is hardly perfect. It causes environmental impacts, just as all human enterprises do, especially those that provide energy. Indeed, even fantasy fuel projects – wind, solar and biofuel boondoggles that provide comparatively minuscule amounts of energy, but require billions in taxpayer subsidies – have enormous ecological impacts.Here’s the most important point:

Canada’s oil sands (and the Keystone Pipeline that will bring their petroleum to the United States) must be evaluated on environmental and ethical grounds that compare them to real world alternatives to them – not to some utopian energy resource that exists only in the minds of idealists, ideologues and special interest environmental pressure groups.

These critics viciously attack Alberta and the oil sands industry – accusing them of “blood oil,” environmental devastation and unethical practices. In reality, oil sands petroleum is among the most ethical and ecological on Earth, especially when compared to real-world alternatives like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Sudan, Russia, Ecuador and Venezuela, whose human rights violations, terrorism sponsorship and reckless environmental records are legendary. And yet oil sands critics give them a free pass, while heaping opprobrium on Canada.

Whole Foods says oil sands fuel “does not fit our values.” Perhaps the grocer and its “ethical” colleagues prefer values espoused in alternative oil-supplying nations on rights of women, children, gays and foreign housekeepers; stoning, lashing and lopping off hands and heads; treatment of civilians during wars in Chechnya and Darfur; massacres and environmental degradation in the Nigerian delta region; rigged elections and Swiss bank accounts for oil proceeds; or treatment of aboriginals, minorities and Christians.

Perhaps Whole Foods, Sierra Club, NRDC, Obama’s EPA and allied critics prefer to look toward China, which provides 95% of the rare earth metals that are essential for wind turbines and solar panels. Those operations have brought unprecedented air and water pollution, cropland and wildlife habitat wastelands, widespread radiation contamination, and cancer and lung disease in workers and local residents.

28% of Canadian oil industry jobs held by women is “not enough,” intones Kairos, a left-leaning coalition of churches. Compared to what? Women’s jobs in Saudi Arabia or Iran? The 3.5 million more American women who have ended up on poverty rolls since President Obama took office? 

Some 1,600 ducks died after landing in an oil sands waste pit several years ago. A repeat of this isolated incident is increasingly unlikely as open pit mining and oil-water separation pits are replaced by in situ drilling and steam. Nevertheless, using analytical methods that only  IPCC climate alarmists would appreciate, the “respected” Pembina Institute conjured up the fantastical “calculation” that “more than 160 million birds would die from oil sands development” over the coming decades.

The claim is not merely wild fear-mongering. It ignores the growing impact of wind turbines on raptors, and attempts by industrial wind developers to get US Fish & Wildlife Service “programmatic take” permits: 007 Licenses to Kill thousands of eagles, hawks, whooping cranes and other protected birds every year without fear of prosecution.

Greenpeace routinely pillories oil sands companies as “climate criminals,” while the US Environmental Protection Agency uses their oil sands CO2 emissions to justify denying Keystone Pipeline permits. (Greenpeace lost its Canadian tax-exempt status, but still manages to con contributors out of vast sums, to retain its status as a $340-million-per-year pressure group. EPA conducts illegal experiments on humans, to justify regulations that are killing thousands of coal mining and utility jobs.) 

These positions reflect adherence to the shaky hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming and unsupportable claims that the oil sands contribute disproportionately to a looming climate Armageddon. However, Alberta environment office show that “greenhouse gas” emissions from oil sands plummeted 38% between 1990 and 2009, and are now 5% of Canada’s total GHG emissions – and equal to or lower than CO2/GHG emissions from petroleum operations in Nigeria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

So-called “ethical funds” likewise excoriate oil sands developers like Total, Syncrude and Imperial Oil, while promising investors that their money will purchase shares in “responsible” companies that don’t produce fossil fuels, do nuclear power or contribute to climate change. Co-operative Bank’s is one of those modern day snake oil “entrepreneurs.” Its über-ethical Sustainable Leaders Trust (don’t you love that name?) makes that pitch – and then invests client cash in Third World coal mines … and oil sands

The rogues’ gallery of oil sands critics and their shady dealings is so vast that someone could write a book about them. In fact, Ezra Levant did exactly that. His Ethical Oil is an eye-opening companion to my own Eco-Imperialism, which chronicles the often lethal misdeeds of other self-righteous pressure groups.

Their misrepresentations, double standards, questionable practices and perverse ethics would get them brought up on fraud charges, if they were oil companies or non-“ethical” investment “trusts.” 

It’s time to apply the same legal, ethical and credibility standards to these “socially responsible” outfits that they insist on applying to the corporations they denounce. Keep that in mind the next time you see EPA, Greenpeace, Co-operative Bank or anyone else taking pot shots at oil sands or Keystone.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author or Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.

VISIT J. D. Longstreet's "INSIGHT on Freedom" Face Book Page!!:   (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)