Obama Has Authority To Launch ‘Preemptive’ Cyberattacks Eurasia Review.
This story if true is disturbing on many levels. It says nothing of the executive branch requiring any approval from Congress, or even that Congress has approved anything.
Excerpt “The Obama administration is currently drawing up a set of rules about how the US military can defend against or conduct cyberattacks, the New York Times reports. The Obama administration is also allowing intelligence agencies to declare potential threats. But even if these threats are nothing more than a suspicion without evidence, the military now has the authority to attack foreign nations, regardless of whether or not the US is involved in a conflict with them.
This would not only spare the US from sending its own troops overseas, but it would also allow the administration to make decisions without the deliberation that usually occurs before sending Americans into a conflict zone. And if the administration conducts an attack based on false premises, it would be saved the embarrassment that occurred when President George W. Bush sent thousands of US troops into a war with Iraq that lasted nearly 9 years, based on the false premise that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and was a security threat.”
It also says that the government has the ability to act domestically…
The administration’s new rules would also allow the military to operate domestically, the thought of which has always made many people uncomfortable.
Even more disturbing is that this administration considers their actions so far restrained according to the report, what if there was a administration that had no restraints?
A senior administration official told the Times that the US has so far kept its cyber capabilities restrained and that the new rules could allow the administration to exercise its full potential.
“The [National Security Administration’s] cyber security operations have been kept very, very secret, and because of that it has been impossible for the public to react to them,” said Electronic Privacy Information Center attorney Arnie Stepanovich in November. “[That makes it] very difficult, we believe, for Congress to legislate in this area.” Read the rest at
Obama Has Authority To Launch ‘Preemptive’ Cyberattacks Eurasia Review.
Image via Wikipedia
American Minute with Bill Federer
“Each year on JANUARY 16, we celebrate Religious Freedom Day in commemoration of the passage of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom,” wrote President George W. Bush in his 2003 Proclamation. Jefferson‘s Statute for Religious Freedom, which he commemorated on his tombstone, was passed in 1786 by the Virginia Assembly. In his draft, Jefferson wrote: “Almighty God hath created the mind free, and…all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments…tend only to begat habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone.” In his Second Inaugural Address, 1805, Jefferson wrote: “In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government.” In 1808, Jefferson wrote to Samuel Miller: “I consider the government of the United States as prohibited by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises…Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets.”
America’s Role in the World: Peace Through Strength and Clarity
NOVEMBER 21, 2011
A few days ago, after coming under criticism for my answer to a question about Libya in an interview, I made a lighthearted comment that reflected all this – that I’m not supposed to know everything (most of the media quoted me as saying “anything”) about foreign policy
Bizarre things happen when you run for president, one of which is that statements like this go viral, with people claiming I had somehow made the case that no knowledge of world affairs is required for the job.
I obviously don’t think that, but I’m also quite willing be honest about my strengths. My background is in the business world, and my greatest strength concerns the economy. My motivation in running for president is to apply my leadership skills to all issues – foreign and domestic. But clearly, as I have met with foreign policy luminaries like John Bolton and Henry Kissinger, I have done a lot more listening than talking – because they know a lot more about it than I do, and it would be absurd for me to claim otherwise.
That said, a man taking the oath of office for the presidency must have a sense of America’s place in the world, and must have a clear idea of the challenges, threats and opportunities that present themselves. Otherwise, success on the economic front likely goes for naught, as mistakes in the international arena tend to be costly both in the short term and in the long term.
My approach to foreign policy is to apply a general set of principles to each situation we face, and I have summarized these principles as peace through strength and clarity. This is a modernized version of the Reagan philosophy that helped bring down the Soviet Union and the communist regimes of Eastern Europe, and also won a series of victories – though not a complete and lasting victory – in South and Central America.
What does this mean?
In a broad sense, it means that I would not retreat on initiatives that strengthen America’s strategic standing in order to buy some sort of accommodation with those who do not have an interest in our security. For example, I would not have welched on America’s commitment to install a missile defense system in Eastern Europe because the Russians didn’t like it. The security of the U.S. and our allies would take precedence over the concerns of a nation whose strategic interests are often contrary to ours.
That is one of the reasons I would not have signed the New START treaty, as President Obama did in 2010. Not only did that treaty commit America to arms reductions that the Russians would not necessarily have to match, but it permitted them to maintain a sizable advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, while ignoring programs and ambitions of other nations like Iran, North Korea, China and Pakistan. But more to the point, we simply don’t need to be signing treaties like this with unfriendly countries. The United States can make its own decisions about the nature and the volume of strategic assets we want to deploy. We don’t need to ask anyone’s permission.
As president, I intend to be a strong supporter of America’s strongest allies, and that absolutely includes Israel. I agree with the statement of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that if Israel’s enemies were to lay down their weapons today, there would be peace, whereas if Israel were to lay down its weapons, there would be no more Israel. Supporting Israel is crucial not only because it is an important strategic ally, but also because it is the most free and democratic nation in the region, and a threat to Israel’s security is a threat to freedom everywhere.
Peace through strength and clarity means there is no doubt about where we stand, for what we stand and with whom we stand. We stand in support of free nations who respect the rights of their people and do not threaten their neighbors. And we treat our allies like allies. President Obama’s lukewarm treatment of Great Britain has served to create tension within the most important strategic relationship we have ever had. Likewise, his friendly embrace of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez during a meeting of regional leaders sent exactly the wrong signal, as did his naïve statement during the 2008 campaign that he would sit down and talk to Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without conditions.
Peace through strength means recognizing that we are the United States, and we are the ones who approach these things from a position of strategic superiority. Clarity means we treat our allies like allies, and others have to earn the right to stand with us (and that especially applies to those who hope to receive aid from us – that isn’t happening if you are hostile to us or to our allies).
I agree with former President George W. Bush that the United States should promote free democratic movements throughout the world, and that it is in our strategic interests to do so. That does not mean we try to “impose democracy at the barrel of a gun,” as some of Bush’s rather disingenuous critics claimed he was doing. It means we support these movements where the opportunity presents itself (as President Obama should have in Iran and Syria) or when strategic necessity compels us (as I believe President Bush correctly did in Iraq in 2003). And you don’t always have to use force.
Peace through strength and clarity also recognizes the danger posed by nuclear proliferation, particularly when it involves regimes like Iran or North Korea, which give every reason to believe they may initiate the use of nuclear weapons against other nations. The U.S. must be willing to use its power to stop nuclear proliferation. If we regard such action as beyond the pale, then we essentially concede that all non-proliferation agreements are meaningless.
The most effective application of strength is that which is rarely used. Our troops are already overstretched and our financial resources are limited. An America that is capable and ready, and backs up what it says, won’t have to take action all that often. The world’s bad actors will know we are serious.
I think it’s clear by now that I am not going to score the best of all the candidates on media pop quizzes about the details of current international events. Some have claimed that I take some sort of perverse satisfaction in not knowing all these details. That is not true. I want to know as much as I can. But a leader leads by gathering all the information available in a given situation, and making the best decision at the time based on that information, and in accordance with sound principles. As president, I would not be required to make decisions on the spur of the moment based on a question from a reporter. I would make them the way I made them as a CEO – based on careful consideration of all the facts and the best advice of the best people.
But it is crucial to understand that my foreign policy decisions will always be based on the principles I have laid out here. That will not change, because these are the principles that best represent America’s heritage, and best advance our interests, as well as the interests of all freedom-loving nations and peoples.
The “arc of instability” includes 97 countries. A startling number of these nations are in turmoil, and in every single one of them, Washington is militarily involved.
It’s a story that should take your breath away: the destabilization of what, in the Bush years, used to be called “the arc of instability.” It involves at least 97 countries, across the bulk of the global south, much of it coinciding with the oil heartlands of the planet. A startling number of these nations are now in turmoil, and in every single one of them — from Afghanistan and Algeria to Yemen and Zambia — Washington is militarily involved, overtly or covertly, in outright war or what passes for peace.
Garrisoning the planet is just part of it. The Pentagon and U.S. intelligence services are also running covert special forces and spy operations, launching drone attacks, building bases and secret prisons, training, arming, and funding local security forces, and engaging in a host of other militarized activities right up to full-scale war. But while you consider this, keep one fact in mind: the odds are that there is no longer a single nation in the arc of instability in which the United States is in no way militarily involved.
Covenant of the Arc
“Freedom is on the march in the broader Middle East,” the president said in his speech. “The hope of liberty now reaches from Kabul to Baghdad to Beirut and beyond. Slowly but surely, we’re helping to transform the broader Middle East from an arc of instability into an arc of freedom.”
An arc of freedom. You could be forgiven if you thought that this was an excerpt from President Barack Obama’s Arab Spring speech, where he said “[I]t will be the policy of the United States to… support transitions to democracy.” Those were, however, the words of his predecessor George W. Bush. The giveaway is that phrase “arc of instability,” a core rhetorical concept of the former president’s global vision and that of his neoconservative supporters.
The dream of the Bush years was to militarily dominate that arc, which largely coincided with the area from North Africa to the Chinese border, also known as the Greater Middle East, but sometimes was said to stretch from Latin America to Southeast Asia. While the phrase has been dropped in the Obama years, when it comes to projecting military power President Obama is in the process of trumping his predecessor. Read the rest….
Image via Wikipedia
I like Ron Paul but I don’t agree with him totally. Especially on foreign policy, but I could vote for him as President without any hesitation. I don’t believe that his policies would put this country at risk the way that Barack Obama and George W. Bush have done. I am not sure that being an isolationist would be that bad a thing for a few years. It would not hurt us the way the economic policies of the former two Presidents has, it might even help us a great deal. It would be nice for this country to be the place people strive to be like instead of the place they strive to destroy/
Too many people attempt to put people like Ron Paul and most other politicians in a box with a nice label as if the label itself will tell you all you need to know. It kind of makes people lazy and makes them think that they don’t have to bother to do their homework because it tells them all they want to know. If our country truly ever wants to become the place that we can be we will need to ignore the labels and look at the character.
In a way that is how we got Barack Obama. Too many democrats looked at the label and didn’t go beyond that to look at the character.
via The Tree of Mamre
Image via Wikipedia
Since the media started reporting that Perry was going to enter the race for the GOP nomination, I have questioned the excitement that seem to go through the blogosphere and the mainstream media. I will be honest and say that I just don’t see the reason for the excitement. Looking at his body of work, I don’t see a lot that he has actually done.
As we learned with George W. Bush, being governor of a large state like Texas that is run more by the Lt. Governor than the Governor doesn’t get you much except a public figure that is in the news more for what the state itself does, than what he does. I see Perry as a typical politician that panders to what he thinks that the people he represents wants to hear. This is a time that we need something more. We don’t need the typical politician and although Perry has a pretty face and talks the talk, is there more to him than meets the eye?
There are plenty of articles out there that talk about what he has done and what he supports or does not support but one thing that really bothers me is his possible ties with Islam. Sultan Knish has an excellent article about that and I have posted a portion of it here but please read all of it at his site!
Call me contrary but I tend to look askance at people that the media get excited over and that main line, so called real Republicans, think is right for America. Since these are the same people that got us into the mess that we are in, I see no reason to either trust them or accept their insistence that they know what is best for us! This election is too important for the future of this country than to blindly accept anyone’s word. I hope that we have learned our lesson and are willing to take the time to investigate each candidate and decide if what they have done in the past will tell us what they will do in the future.
I am not willing to accept anyone’s word that they have changed unless their is ample proof to go along with it. It is easy to tell people what they want to hear. That is how Barack Obama got elected. We must make sure there there is substance in the next person who is elected to represent us, not just a bully with a pretty face and empty rhetoric!
Rick Perry and Islam – by Sultan Knish
Monday, August 15, 2011
Some questions have been raised about Rick Perry’s views on Islam. Islamic infiltration into American politics means that every candidate deserves close scrutiny. My purpose is not to attack Perry, but to conduct a preliminary discussion of the subject. Pamela Geller and Debbie Schlussel have written their own articles, which add more pieces to the puzzle. As with every candidate, the discussion will go on as more materials are brought forward.
|Perry at the signing of the Texas Halal Law
First of all it’s important to recognize that the Rick Perry question, is also the Chris Christie question, it’s the question that comes with every governor from a state with a large and politically active Muslim population. This question will have more serious implications as the size of the Muslim population expands even further.
The multicultural pandering that used to be associated with the Tammany Hall political machine has become second nature in American politics. There is hardly a governor who does not pay lip service to diversity or do roundups of all the religious groups in America. That’s an unfortunate reality.
The initial good news is that Rick Perry did not try to influence the judicial system on behalf of a member of a terrorist organization, or appoint a terrorist Imam’s political affiliate to a superior court judgeship the way that Christie did.
The worst thing he seems to have done is played footsie with the Aga Khan and appointed one of his people to the State Health Council. He also seems to have met with a group of black clergy, which included a Nation of Islam minister, and made the usual trips to Dubai to talk up trade and academic exchanges.
Then there’s the Texas Halal Law, which makes it a criminal offense to sell Halal and non-Halal meat in the same store, without specifically labeling the two, and of misrepresenting non-Halal meat as being Halal. In theory that’s not such a big deal. Similar laws are on the books for Kosher meat. But the problem comes with the definition of what Halal is.
“Halal,” as applied to food, means food prepared and served in conformity with Islamic religious requirements according to a recognized Islamic authority.
That comes from the bill’s definition. And it raises the question of who is recognized as an Islamic authority. HB 470 leaves that question open. But in a dispute over which Islamic definition of Halal to use, the State of Texas would be forced to rule on a question of Islamic law. And to enforce that law. Texas would become an enforcer of Sharia.
The Texas Halal Law was lobbied for by Mohamed Elibiary and his Freedom and Justice Foundation and is quoted in a recent article about their positive relationship with Perry. Elibiary has spoken at an event honoring the Ayatollah Khomeini and recommends the writings of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Last year he wrote an op-ed warning against assassinating Al-Qaeda leaders. And of course he’s busyeducating Americans about Sharia.
At the signing, Perry made a point of thanking Imam Bakhash for all that he does. Bakhash also appears to be one of the judges on the Texas Islamic Court, whose decisions have been upheld as binding by Texas appellate courts.
Then there’s Perry’s friendly relationship with Farouk Shami, who has a rather ugly background when it comes to Israel, and who suggested that 9/11 might be a conspiracy. He is the Palestinian in the Perry quote mentioned below.
Believe it or not, all this is the good news. It’s a sad commentary on the state of Islamic infiltration that this is business as usual in state politics. The bad news is that this means Perry’s as bad on Islam as George W. Bush. Maybe worse.
Like most of the world’s major religions, the Islamic faith preaches peace, love and tolerance. Indeed, terrorism is the antithesis of the basic tenet to which the one billion Islamic followers all over the world adhere.
The Koran teaches that “whoever killed a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as having served all mankind.”
The heartfelt condolences and overtures of cooperation that have been offered by Islamic communities in Texas portray the true spirit of Islam.
That’s from a post 9/11 editorial. And it’s echoed elsewhere. Perry’s views haven’t changed since. Witness this NPR piece from last year.
The governor of this swiftly changing state works to take a nuanced approach to a minority group that’s been very much at the center of the news. “We have a huge Muslim community in the state of Texas,” he says, and many of these Muslims are “great businessmen and women, very good supporters of mine. … We are an incredibly diverse state. I sell it as part of our strength.”
Perry was asked if he was comfortable with the way that some people talk about the problem with terrorism — their concern to say that the real problem is “Muslims” or “Muslim countries.”
“The radicalization of Islam is a great concern,” Perry said. “Islam of and by itself is one of the great religions, along with Christianity and Judaism.” He recalled meeting one of the Democratic candidates for Texas governor in the recent election. “He’s a Palestinian. And he and I were having a conversation about Ground Zero. How do you deal with this? He said, well, it’s pretty easy. He said, ‘Build a synagogue, a temple, and a church there. And bring these people together.’”
How problematic is this? Again this is Bush territory. It’s insipid and dangerously ignorant. It’s one thing to hear it from the governor of a state with a sizable Muslim population. But it’s inappropriate for a president. And yet it’s also inevitable.
As some have pointed out, Perry is pro-Israel. So was Bush. It didn’t stop him from toadying to Saudi Arabia and Abbas, or from pressuring Israel to make concessions to terrorists during his second term. It’s possible to be pro-Israel and pro-Islam. And when the scales are weighed, then Islam comes first. If you doubt that, go look at what happened when Bush was pressured by the Saudis.
But this isn’t about Israel. It’s about Islam. Specifically it’s about addressing the threat of Islamic terrorism.
Perry has pandered on Mexican illegal immigration and on Islamic terrorism, as Bush did before him. Will he keep it up once he gets elected the way that Bush did? Hard to say, but the odds are good that he will. Read the rest at Sultan Knish:
So, tell me, what is Barack Obama and Eric Holder‘s game? If it is to stop the guns from being sold in Mexico, they sure picked a strange way to go about it. Call me crazy, but I have never heard of selling or giving people what they want, making them decide to quit wanting it. Common sense would tell you that it would just make them want more. And is this supposed to make America safer? In what way? If you give a drug dealer a gun, that gives him another way to get rid of his enemies doesn’t it?
So what is their real game. The actions they have taken have led to increased violence and killing along the border. It has led to increased drug traffic coming into the United States. It has even led to increased danger for the citizens of Mexico. Are they perhaps trying to bring down the Mexican government? It seems that is what the Zetas cartel has in mind, and this government is happily arming them.
Or is their game a little deeper than that even? With this administration denying American citizens who live along the border the right to arm themselves, they are increasing the risk to all those who live there. Moving the defenses along the border back and basically ceding that land to the drug dealers, both puts the citizens and the environment at risk. We have seen proof the Hezbollah is working with the drug cartels and that they are setting up bases just to the south of the border, and anyone with a shred of common sense would realize that they do not have our best interests at heart! Are we going to start seeing missiles lobbed across the border next?
**Posted by Phineas
Are we sure they’re not the Mafia in disguise?
From the El Paso Times:
U.S. federal agents allegedly allowed the Sinaloa drug cartel to traffic several tons of cocaine into the United States in exchange for information about rival cartels, according to court documents filed in a U.S. federal court.
The allegations are part of the defense of Vicente Zambada-Niebla, who was extradited to the United States to face drug-trafficking charges in Chicago. He is also a top lieutenant of drug kingpin Joaquin “Chapo” Guzman and the son of Ismael “Mayo” Zambada-Garcia, believed to be the brains behind the Sinaloa cartel.
The case could prove to be a bombshell on par with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ “Operation Fast and Furious,” except that instead of U.S. guns being allowed to walk across the border, the Sinaloa cartel was allowed to bring drugs into the United States. Zambada-Niebla claims he was permitted to smuggle drugs from 2004 until his arrest in 2009.
In other words, an arm of the federal government allowed one gang to bring drugs into the US in return for information about other gangs. Drugs that would enrich the gang through proceeds from their sale. Drugs that would destroy lives through their use and through the violence association with the trade. Drugs that are a federal crime to move and sell. These aren’t minor offenses being overlooked here for the greater good.
Erick Erickson of Red State wonders why Holder still has a job. While that’s a good question for many good reasons, look at the dates in the article: these operations date back through George W. Bush into Bill Clinton’s administration, indicating a tradition of “felony stupid;” they include contract killings done for the cartel while the assassin was under ICE “supervision.” Read the rest at Sister Toldjah:
Well, well. Serrano gets another scoop. DEA admits Gunwalker Scandal involvement.
DEA acknowledges supporting role in Operation Fast and Furious
The head of the Drug Enforcement Administration has acknowledged to congressional investigators that her agency provided a supporting role in the ill-fated Operation Fast and Furious run by the group’s counterparts at the ATF. Read the rest at Sipsey Street Irregulars”
“Punishing” the arsonists by giving them more matches and gasoline.
Has anyone at MSNBC interviewed Eric Holder about this yet?
The failed federal anti-gunrunning program known as Operation Fast and Furious got so out of control in November 2009, it appeared the U.S. government was single-handedly “arming for war” the Sinaloa Cartel, documents show, even as U.S. officials kept lying to fellow agents in Mexico about the volume of guns it helped send south of the border…
The precise number of casualties in Mexico isn’t known, but ATF officials confirm the murder of Mario Gonzales Rodriguez, brother of the Chihuahua attorney general, with a Fast and Furious gun.
Erudite as usual, Ace provides the Cliff Notes version of what would be lock-of-the-week impeachment material for any Republican.
Let’s see if I have this straight:
The smartest administration in the history of the world conceived of this plan.
The plan was to just let thousands of weapons flow to murderous drug cartels.
And then take those cartels down.
But they didn’t take the cartels down, because they didn’t track the guns.
They instead were to follow the money, but they also didn’t do that.
A US border agent was killed due to the illegal arms sent to a neighboring sovereign country in this massive covert operation.
In addition, so was the brother of a Mexican attorney general.
So were a number of other Mexican citizens murdered with these weapons — we don’t know the number yet.
In conducting this massive covert action, we lied to officials in this neighboring sovereign country, even though their people (and cops, and officials) were getting killed with our weapons.
As far as I know, we haven’t taken any action beyond arresting a few straw buyers… who could have easily been arrested, with the weapons, when they attempted to smuggled them or sell them. Read the rest at Doug Ross @ Journal:
Video: NRA Files Suit Over New ATF Gun Reporting Requirement (Via Nice Deb)
video h/t Nice Deb
Image via Wikipedia
With the way the Obama administration has cut off our access to our own energy sources, we are more and more dependent on foreign oil. And yet this is exactly what Mr. Obama claimed that he was going to change. With Iran heading OPEC we are in a worse situation than we were in the late 70′s under Jimmy Carter. Then it was just a few Americans that were held hostage, now it seems that all Americans are at risk of being held hostage and most of them are not even aware that they are at risk.
It’s time that we elected a leader that is interested in freeing the American people from the real hostage taker, Barack Obama. If there is anyone in America that truly wishes to remain a prisoner, I am sure that there is someone some where that is willing to make that a reality for them. As for me, I am quite tired of being held at the point of a gun and am ready to be released.
OPEC Takes Aim At America
America is hostage to its need for oil.
Only once have I looked down the barrel of a gun. I can tell you it was damn disconcerting. It happened 25 years ago. The automatic rifles that were drawn on me then are pointed at America today. Yet President Barack Obama refuses to acknowledge that America is facing Middle Eastern guns.
In 1986, I traveled to Geneva to attend an emergency OPEC meeting. My father Vernon was in his early 70s but had lost none of the drive that shaped his youth as a reporter, which led him to found Oil Week Magazine and Myers Finance & Energy (MFE).
Vern was old school. While he had not changed from his reporting days, the world had. I got a sense of that when we pulled up to the hotel decked with machine gun-toting policemen.
My dad either didn’t notice the tight security at the hotel or he simply didn’t care. He asked the desk clerk, “Where’s the meeting?”
That was a tough question for anyone, never mind someone not familiar with English.
“Are you looking for the OPEC meeting? That is on the penthouse,” he responded.
“Thanks,” mumbled my dad, as he marched toward the elevator. As I crept behind, I heard the clerk say: “Sir, you are not allowed up there!”
Inside the elevator my dad said, “Penthouse!”
The elevator operator protested until my dad spelled it out: “We are the press.”
The operator reluctantly pushed the button. As our elevator climbed higher, I got a sinking feeling in my stomach. I understood we were about to walk in unannounced on some of the world’s biggest power brokers.
The elevator stopped. The doors slid open and before you could say, “Sheik Your Booty,” four machine guns were aimed at our heads. There stood four of the biggest men I have ever seen, each wearing a turban and a bulletproof vest.
Questions were barked out in Arabic. My dad was led down a hall while a single guard stood over me. I must have put him at ease; because after a few minutes, he shouldered his gun and offered me a cigarette.
Our entrance was like the Keystone Kops, but luck would have it that Vern got his story. Down the hall was a member of the Saudi delegation who remembered my dad from a 1962 trip to the Kingdom. While I stood before the guard, Vern was talking to his old Saudi acquaintance. He learned that Saudi Arabia was going to open up its spigots. Over the next several months, oil prices began to fall dramatically.
An Energy Crisis Waiting to Explode
That OPEC no longer exists. The de facto leader of OPEC today is militant Iran, whose influence grows with each passing month. Whether we know it or not, America is staring into the guns of OPEC.
A recent simulation called Securing America’s Future Energy declared that the United States lacks effective energy policy responses in the event of another OPEC embargo. The Heritage Foundation, which is made up of current and former government officials and diplomats, reported that protracted turmoil in principal OPEC countries has the potential to cause a sharp decline in oil production and an acute price spike.
The crisis game they played was called Oil ShockWave, and it took place in The Ritz-Carlton ballroom a stone’s throw from the White House. Players included George Bush’s former deputy secretary of state John Negroponte, a former official of Jimmy Carter’s Administration and a former Shell Oil chief executive. They participated as make-believe cabinet officials. At the conclusion of the simulation, participants acknowledged America had become hostage to its need for oil, yet they couldn’t quite seem to break away.
“We are reaping the harvest of our dependence on petroleum and the fact that the countries that produce it are either unstable or hostile to our interests,” declared Stephen Hadley, who reprised his real-life role as Bush’s national security adviser. “How did we let this happen when we’ve known we’ve been dependent on oil for 20 years?”
Former Shell Oil chief executive officer John Hofmeister played the role of energy secretary in the exercise. He gave assurances about U.S. domestic supply. Not one person called for an accelerated transition to renewable energies. According to one participant, nobody even whispered the words “climate change.”
Hofmeister said: “The most powerful message that we have is that the United States of America has more oil than any other country in the world that we know of. We have simply been holding ourselves back from producing that oil. I think it is time to really get the message to Congress that it is time to start producing.”
My question is: When is Obama going to wake up to the impending crisis? It may already be too late, and if Muslim guns turn on the Saudi Royal family itself, it will be far too late — not just for the House of Saud for but the United States.
Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary under George W. Bush, said: “The president has to do something bold. He has a real challenge to his leadership.”
Fleischer’s conclusion is that Obama should announce the Federal government is going to open up every acre of land for oil drilling that was previously declared off-limits.
After 2½ years of disappointment, I think my odds of winning the SuperLotto are better than the chances that Obama will wake up to the petroleum peril America is facing. That is bad news for the country, which is staring down the barrel of $8 per gallon gasoline prices. Read the rest at Personal Liberty Digest:
Image by Getty Images via @daylife
In a normal world this would be called treason. In Barack Obama’s world, it is just your everyday practice of betraying our allies and aiding our enemies. This is the true Obama Doctrine!
via The Camp Of The Saints
Image via Wikipedia
Does Barack Obama have a chance to win re-election in 2012? Of course he does! But if they play by the rules it is not going to be easy! The economy is in worse shape than it was when he took office! I am sure that they will still try to blame George W. Bush for it, but I don’t think that it will fly. They will have had four years and with no or little improvement they will have a tough time explaining to the American people the reasons.
They are also going to have a tough time explaining why everything Americans buy costs more, in many case double or triple, what it did when he took office. Income hasn’t gone up, especially for seniors on fixed incomes, and yet the cost of Medicare has. The price they pay for things that Medicare doesn’t cover has gone up too.
Then there is the cost of gasoline. The President has made it clear that he would rather us spend more on gasoline and get green cars, but he hasn’t figured out a way for regular Americans to do it without borrowing money that they can’t get from the banks. And then there is the banks, for all the bail out money we gave them, many are still going under and they really aren’t loaning to small business’ and to average people.
Food, fuel, and energy costs are going up but there is no inflation according to the Federal Government. It’s really convenient that those particular things don’t count isn’t it. It’s almost as if they are being manipulated to make people think it is all in their heads. The American people are smarter than that and no matter how much they try to spin it, we know that there is inflation and that we are being hosed.
So can Barack Obama win re-election? Not if they play by the rules, but then this White House never plays by the rules do they? Read the excellent article below from the American Thinker and ask yourself what Barack Obama and his team are planning to do. Do you think that they might entertain the idea of imposing martial law and canceling the next election?
June 5, 2011
‘Cornered’ Obama and the administration’s lies about the economy
Obama is “cornered.” That’s according to Brookings Institution senior fellow Bill Galston:
He is in a corner, there is no question about it. He is in a political corner, a fiscal corner and an economic corner. The Federal Reserve has fired every gun in its arsenal, and there is no appetite in Congress for any more stimulus. There is every reason to think that the economy he has is the economy he is going to have for the reelection campaign, maybe plus or minus just a little bit.
Galston, the former Clinton adviser, is a true leftist. It’s not about the poor saps who voted for the One in 08 walking around with no jobs, or the dad filling up the gas tank hoping it lasts the week or the mom agonizing over whether to pay $5.99 for a jar of peanut butter. It’s only about the “reelection campaign.”
But most daunting to the White House is Obama has few good tools at his disposal to jump-start the economy in the short term.
Obama and his flunkies lie like they breathe. They spin fantastic tales of a rebounding economy, a country “continuing to move in the right direction.” A May report by the president’s National Economic Council highlights the administration’s accomplishments in assisting small businesses, including expanded tax breaks and improved access to capital, and lauds a resurgent auto industry. Read the rest at the American Thinker:
Image via Wikipedia
This is just one more straw on the camels back! How much more will it take to completely destroy the economy of this country? What is Obama doing about it? Can anyone claim that Barack Obama has done anything to better this country? And for all those that say you cannot blame him for it, I ask “Why not?” Doesn’t the buck stop with the President anymore? Or is it still George W. Bush‘ fault? Wake up people! If we don’t change our direction we won’t have a country left to save!
via 2012 Patriot
Image via Wikipedia
For all those who have their doubts about Sarah Palin, Gary P. has a great article that I have reblogged below! I know there are those who hate her and their minds are never going to be changed but for those that still have some doubts, I hope that you will keep an open mind and not just listen to those who have been wrong in the past. Sarah offers more that just the same old same old. It’s time to restore this country and get someone in office that believes in this country and her people!
via A Time For Choosing
- Chasing Sarah Palin (loopyloo305.wordpress.com)
The coverage of Sarah Palin by the media and the so-called Republican pundits verges on Schizophrenia! One day they tell us how stupid she is and the next they wonder at the attention she generates. Let me ask you a few questions: If Sarah Palin is so stupid, why are so many people listening to her? If Sarah Palin is so stupid, why do the media and the Pundits follow her every word and every move?
Is she relevant? Absolutely! How could she not be relevant? With over three million facebook fans, and her every word considered by those that love her and those that hate her as well! Does she let the pundits tell her what she should do and say? Absolutely Not!
The thing is that those people who think that we should listen to them are the very same people who gave us George W. Bush and Barack Obama! If you truly like the direction that both those men have taken us, go ahead and listen to people like George Will who said:
“The threshold question, not usually asked, but it’s in everyone’s mind in a presidential election. ‘Should we give this person nuclear weapons?’ And the answer [in Palin's case], answers itself.”
And just what does Mr. Will base this decision on? He doesn’t bother to inform us of that, he just leaves it hanging out as if since he said it, it must be true. Let’s do a little comparison and then come back to that statement by George Will.
Considering where Barack Obama has taken us on foreign policy, who would you trust more, the man who apologizes for America at every chance he gets? The man who insults and betrays our allies? The man who gives aid and comfort to our enemies while lowering our own defenses? I know what my answer to that is!
Sarah Palin stands with Israel. She doesn’t support betraying our allies. She supports a strong military as well as secure borders. She loves and supports America and would never apologize for her. I would far rather have Sarah Palin, who loves and believes in this country, rather than Barack Obama.
As for George Will, perhaps someone should ask the man for a little clarification. Perhaps he is letting his own prejudices get in the way of common sense. Or perhaps he is so used to being able to tell the American people who should be the President, that he cannot stand the idea that Sarah Palin doesn’t give a fig about his opinion. Perhaps we should stop listening to the very people who have helped get us into this mess.
After all if they were really, truly concerned with the future of the country, why are they so busy trying to tell us to do everything the same way it has been done before. One of the most beautiful things about Sarah Palin is that she listens to herself and makes her own decisions. She has faith in God and asks his guidance on what she should do. I can’t think of a better adviser than that!
Sarah Palin is the one person that has been able to withstand all the trash that the media and pundits have thrown at her. She is the person that brings the most excitement to wherever she happens to be. The very fact that she has thrived and gotten stronger with everything that has happened in the last few years, shows us that without any doubt Sarah Palin is smarter that all those who are so willing to waste their time and energy to bring her down. And isn’t that one of the things that we need most in this country? Someone who can withstand all the bad and bring us along with them?
Palin’s Path May Be Unclear, but Her Ride Is Revved Up
Published: May 29, 2011
WASHINGTON — For sheer mastery of celebrity theater, Sarah Palincannot be beat.
Ms. Palin, the former governor of Alaska, let the anticipation build for hours on Sunday in the Pentagon’s North Parking Lot, where thousands of bikers (and their rumbling Harleys) had gathered for the annual Rolling Thunder rally ahead of Memorial Day.
And then, suddenly, there she was: Ms. Palin, with her husband, Todd, and the rest of the family. Wearing matching black Harley-Davidson helmets, they rode motorcycles toward the front of the procession through a crush of cameramen, photographers, reporters and leather-clad bikers, all jostling for just a peek at the woman who might be president.
A traditional political appearance it was not. She did not make any public remarks or shake hands with dignitaries. There was no news release accompanying her visit. And after the short ride to the National Mall — she rode on the back of a volunteer’s bike — she sped off in a black sport utility vehicle to points unknown to anyone outside her small circle, even to the reporters covering her.
Ms. Palin’s visit here — to start her still-mysterious One Nation bus tour along the East Coast — provided no clarity about whether she will run for the Republican presidential nomination. But it did reinforce the idea that if she does, her campaign will not be conducted in the usual way. Read more at the New York Times (hardly a right wing paper)
Rush Limbaugh: ‘If [Palin] Is Afraid To Run, The Media Terrorists Have Won’
Government According To President Palin @ Big Government
Andrew Sullivan: ‘I’m Too Terrified For The Country’ To Urge Palin To Run Because She Could Win