On national security, (energy security a part thereof), slapping our friends, and coup’s
THIS ARTICLE IS OF MAJOR SIGNIFICANCE WITH REGARD TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. THE MAJOR CAUSE OF ALL WARS IS MONETARY ISSUES OF ONE SORT OR ANOTHER. THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ALONG WITH OUR CONGRESS HAS US OWING CHINA MORE THAN EVER BEFORE IN HISTORY. AT THE SAME TIME CHINA REMAINS A COMMUNIST COUNTRY AS WAS THE SOVIET UNION, THEY HAVE ALLIANCES OR DEALINGS WITH OUR ENEMIES, AND THEY ARE THE NUMBER ONE PERPETRATOR OF ESPIONAGE AGAINST US. FOR ALL INTENSE PURPOSES THERE IS A NEW COLDWAR, AND IT’S WITH THEM!
April 02, 2010
China wants US and Russia to disarm
William R. Hawkins
Since taking office, one of my highest priorities has been addressing the threat posed by nuclear weapons to the American people. And that’s why, last April in Prague, I stated America’s intention to pursue the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.
The new agreement would cut U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons by about one-third. But a bilateral agreement will not move towards a nuclear free world if other powers not party to the negotiations are expanding their arsenals. Case in point, China.
Beijing was not impressed by the U.S.-Russian agreement. An editorial i n the Communist Party foreign affairs journal Global Times asked for praise to be withheld….
MAKE NO MISTAKE, THIS NEXT ARTICLE ALSO HAS ALOT TO DO WITH OUR NATIONAL SECURITY!
April 02, 2010
The offshore oil drilling head fake
The seasoned tycoon is wise and powerful enough to seal up his walls, move his riches inside, or helicopter it offshore. This resistance forces Obama to turn his anger onto the middle class Americans, knowing they’re too weak and unorganized to fight back in timely fashion. By the time the Tea Partiers figure out who’s picking their pockets and actually strike back, the Obama looters will be long gone and the damage will be done. Time will tell whether the damage to the middle class’ savings and jobs will be irreversible, or whether the ever-hungry third world will seize the opportunity to permanently replace the American worker’s long-established dominance in the global food chain.
A carbon tax would only accelerate the jobs flow overseas to the countries that have already proclaimed they’ll not participate in a global clean-up. It would be a lethal blow to the American workforce, already on their knees after being hijacked by faulty government policies and high taxation. Obama’s about-face move on offshore drilling is just a head-fake, buying him and his cronies more time to pick the pockets of the dying middle class.
David Frum wrote on April 1st, 2010 at 2:20 pm
My latest column for The Week, argues that President Obama’s flip-flop on off-shore oil drilling is good news. But it won’t end our dependence on foreign supplies and will be accompanied by a new round of regulatory entanglements. more
The Same Old Drill
By Jonah Goldberg (Archive) · Friday, April 2, 2010
Too little, too late, too clever and for the wrong reasons. That’s a good way to describe President Obama’s decision to allow a little offshore drilling.
Of course, most of the environmentalist base of the Democratic Party sees it the other way around: too much, too soon (since “never” is their preferred timeline), too dumb but for the right reasons.
Obama justified his decision to allow drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the southern Atlantic and some coastal regions of northern Alaska on the grounds that it would create jobs and serve as a “bridge” to the carbon-free Brigadoon we’ve long been promised. The reality is that his decision was entirely political. Aiming to win vital Republican support in the Senate for some kind of bipartisan cap-and-trade legislation, he lifted the ban where the polling was in favor of doing so. Sound science, energy policy and economics were the last things on his mind. On that, there’s widespread consensus.
Back when oil cost $140 per barrel, President George W. Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore oil drilling. (The democrat led congress to which Obama was then a member, did nothing with it.) Once elected, Obama quietly reinstated it. Since then, Obama’s Interior Department has been doing just about everything it can to slow, hamper and prevent oil and gas exploration in the U.S. and offshore. There’s no reason to believe the administration won’t keep doing that. Besides, Obama’s announcement actually bans more promising oil and gas reserves from exploration than it opens up: nothing in the Pacific, nothing in the western Gulf of Mexico, nothing in southern Alaska.
But there’s an unintended irony to Obama’s decision, one that he probably has not considered since the passage of health-care reform has only reinforced his ideological hubris. The welfare state that Obama is trying to create needs money, desperately. The federal debt is currently around $12 trillion, and the Congressional Budget Office expects it to hit $20 trillion by 2020. Throw in the unfunded liabilities — i.e. promises to citizens — in our existing entitlements system and the debt creeps over $100 trillion….
It turns out that there’s no free lunch, not on health care and not on energy policy.
And that’s the irony. Obama and his Democratic successors will keep trying to squeeze the rich to pay for their schemes. But that won’t raise anything close to the revenue they need. They’ll try for a value-added tax, which will raise lots of money but also stifle growth. Eventually, if they want to avoid bankruptcy and keep the welfare state afloat, never mind pay for all of these environmental white elephants, they’ll need more revenue, and that’s where oil comes in.
Fossil fuels aren’t going anywhere for decades. Even if we don’t drill, other countries certainly will. No country in the world with significant oil or gas resources is abstaining from exploiting them — except for America. Environmentalists say that makes us a leader; the rest of the world says that makes us a sucker.
HERE NOW ARE SOME WISE WORDS, FROM A VERY WISE MAN, WHO OBAMA AND HIS DOPE VP BIDEN, AND OUR DOPES RUNNING CONGRESS – WOULD DO WELL TO LISTEN TO!
By Charles Krauthammer (Archive) · Friday, April 2, 2010
WASHINGTON — What is it like to be a foreign ally of Barack Obama’s America?
If you’re a Brit, your head is spinning. It’s not just the personal slights to Prime Minister Gordon Brown — the ridiculous 25-DVD gift, the five refusals before Brown was granted a one-on-one with The One.
Nor is it just the symbolism of Obama returning the Churchill bust that was in the Oval Office. Query: If it absolutely had to be out of Obama’s sight, could it not have been housed somewhere else on U.S. soil rather than ostentatiously repatriated?
Perhaps it was the State Department official who last year denied there even was a special relationship between the U.S. and Britain, a relationship cultivated by every U.S. president since Franklin Roosevelt.
And then there was Hillary Clinton’s astonishing, nearly unreported (in the U.S.) performance in Argentina last month. She called for Britain to negotiate with Argentina over the Falklands.
For those who know no history — or who believe that it began on Jan. 20, 2009 — and therefore don’t know why this was an out-of-the-blue slap at Britain, here’s the back story:
In 1982, Argentina’s military junta invaded the (British) Falkland Islands. The generals thought the British, having long lost their taste for foreign lands, would let it pass. Besides, the Falklands have uncountably more sheep than people. They underestimated Margaret Thatcher (the Argentines, that is, not the sheep). She was not about to permit the conquest of a people whose political allegiance and ethnic ties are to Britain. She dispatched the navy. Britannia took it back.
Afterward, neither Thatcher nor her successors have countenanced negotiations. Britain doesn’t covet foreign dominion and has no shortage of sheep. But it does believe in self-determination, and will negotiate nothing until and unless the Falkland Islanders indicate their desire to be ruled by a chronically unstable, endemically corrupt polity with a rich history of dictatorship, economic mismanagement and the occasional political lunacy (see: the Evita cult).
Not surprisingly, the Falkland Islanders have given no such indication. Yet inexplicably, Clinton sought to reopen a question that had been settled for almost 30 years, not just pointlessly stirring the embers but even taking the Argentine side (re: negotiations) against Britain — a nation that has fought and bled with us for the last decade, and that today has about 10,000 troops, far more than any other ally, fighting alongside America in Afghanistan.
Of course, given how the administration has treated other allies, perhaps we shouldn’t be so surprised.
— Obama visits China and soon Indonesia, skipping India, our natural and rising ally in the region — common language, common heritage, common democracy, common jihadist enemy. Indeed, in his enthusiasm for China, Obama suggests a Chinese interest in peace and stability in South Asia, a gratuitous denigration of Indian power and legitimacy in favor of a regional rival with hegemonic ambitions.
— Poland and the Czech Republic have their legs cut out from under them when Obama unilaterally revokes a missile defense agreement, acquiescing to pressure from Russia with its dreams of regional hegemony over Eastern Europe.
— The Hondurans still can’t figure out why the United States supported a Hugo Chavez ally seeking illegal extension of his presidency against the pillars of civil society — its Congress, Supreme Court, church and army — that had deposed him consistent with Article 239 of their own constitution.
But the Brits, our most venerable, most reliable ally, are the most disoriented. “We British not only speak the same language. We tend to think in the same way. We are more likely than anyone else to provide tea, sympathy and troops,” writes Bruce Anderson in London’s Independent, summarizing with admirable concision the fundamental basis of the U.S.-British special relationship.
Well, said David Manning, a former British ambassador to the U.S., to a House of Commons committee reporting on that very relationship: “He (Obama) is an American who grew up in Hawaii, whose foreign experience was of Indonesia and who had a Kenyan father. The sentimental reflexes, if you like, are not there.”
I’m not personally inclined to neuropsychiatric diagnoses, but Manning’s guess is as good as anyone’s. How can you explain a policy toward Britain that makes no strategic or moral sense? And even if you can, how do you explain the gratuitous slaps to the Czechs, Poles, Indians and others? Perhaps when an Obama Doctrine is finally worked out, we shall learn whether it was pique, principle or mere carelessness.
Here’s a final thought for now on National Security, not in the context of our government’s security, but in the context of our people’s. When one thinks of a Coup, it is often of the Coup d’etat and a violent overthrow of the people’s government by it’s military or a political faction. Have you ever considered that there is such a thing however, as a non-violent Coup, and it’s much less noticeable and can take place in a much slower fashion. What’s defined as the Gaurdian coup d’etat could certainly apply to what is occuring today right here in America, the stated aim of which is usually such things as improving public order, efficiency, and ending corruption. One could for example, using issues such as this, while saying change change change, get elected, and then appoint a slew of unaccoutable radicals, and act is if they have a blank slate, and commit a quiet coup by supplanting what was upon that blank slate, formerly known as the Constitution, with all kinds of new policies, laws, and treaties that are contrary thereto!
We the people of this nation, have fought a slow creep for decades, although bits have gotten through, and in a couple of cases large bits have gotten through, we still for the most part have stayed true to our roots and preserved our foundation, but now we find ourselves in a statist nanny state like never before, a dramatic change from any prior levels of such, and we realize this coup must have taken place. Upon this realization, thank God we have risen up, and we are stopping it, hopefully reversing it, but don’t be disillusioned it has already in the time frame of a year and a half, at least in part already taken place. Every angle of of foundation is under attack and much more vigilance on our part will be required.
(Note the irony that another example of a Gaurdian coup is that of Argentina from about 1930-1983. In comparison, the progressive coup in our country has culminated after about 100 years, to our credit as a people, taking about twice a long.)