The Left, Keepin' It Classy

Another mish-mash type of post, but one that packs quite a punch. This just illustrates how awesomely classy the American Left continues to be.

Barack Obama is coming for your 401k next

The Obama Administration is making plans to take over the nation’s 401(k)s in order to bail out their union backers and their bankrupted pension plans.
Connie Hair at Human Events reported:

In February, the White House released its “Annual Report on the Middle Class” containing new regulations favored by Big Labor including a bailout of critically underfunded union pension plans through “retirement security” options.

The radical solution most favored by Big Labor is the seizure of private 401(k) plans for government disbursement — which lets them off the hook for their collapsing retirement scheme. And, of course, the Obama administration is eager to accommodate their buddies.

Vice President Joe Biden floated the idea, called “Guaranteed Retirement Accounts” (GRAs), in the February “Middle Class” report.

In conjunction with the report’s release, the Obama administration jointly issued through the Departments of Labor and Treasury a “Request for Information” regarding the “annuitization” of 401(k) plans through “Lifetime Income Options” in the form of a notice to the public of proposed issuance of rules and regulations. (pdf)

The problem here, of course, is that you don't know how to spend your own money as well as the government. Think I'm exaggerating? Remember:

You're too stupid to give government the power over your life that it deserves, you see. That's how they look at you: you're stupid and worthless. Classy.


DNC uses oil rig deaths as fundraising fodder

On April 20, 2010, 11 Americans were killed when the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico.

Now democrats are using the tragedy that killed 11 and caused untold treasure to try to raise money.
The Democratic National Senatorial Committee today emailed supporters a fundraising plea: “Help President Obama hold BP accountable.”
Democrats are shamelessly politicizing a tragedy that resulted in the deaths of 11 individuals.

Making money off of the suffering of 11 American families.
That’s just sick.

Good Lord, these people are screwed up!


Aw, it's too bad the attempted Time Square bombing was conducted by a Muslim!

No joke:

I'm sure she would have been celebrating if the suspect was a Tea Party member.

What is wrong with these people?

All this and more is really turning people away from the increasingly radical and anti-American Democrat party. Legal Insurrection reports on a trend that really needs to continue:

The core of Democratic Party political strategy is falling apart. As reported by The New York Times, Black Hopefuls Pick This Year in G.O.P. Races:

Among the many reverberations of President Obama’s election, here is one he probably never anticipated: at least 32 African-Americans are running for Congress this year as Republicans, the biggest surge since Reconstruction, according to party officials.

And these candidates are seeking and getting Tea Party support:

The black candidates interviewed overwhelmingly called the racist narrative a news media fiction. “I have been to these rallies, and there are hot dogs and banjos,” Colonel [Alan] West, the candidate in Florida, said. “There is no violence or racism there.”

The narrative of Tea Party racism has been a contrived political tactic from the start, launched and perpetuated by Democratic Party operatives and their mouthpieces in the media and left-wing blogosphere.

Their worst fear is that the race card will fail, and they will have to defend their ruinous policies.

And that worst fear is about to be realized. In November.

I can't think of a more satisfying post-election headline than, "African Americans give GOP surge to historic victory". Except, maybe, for something like, "Surge in patriotism and believe in American exceptionalism propels GOP to history victory". That would be better yet.

Until then, I have no doubt that the Left will keep it classy.

There's my two cents.

Obama Gets Aggressive Against...Our Long-Time Ally Israel

This is absolutely nuts:

Do you remember when Jesse Jackson said that under Obama Jews would lose all of their clout?
He was right.

The Obama Administration and the United Nations Security Council pushed legislation to strip Israel of nuclear weapons.
The Jerusalem Post reported:

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council said they support a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, according to a unanimous statement circulated during a conference aimed at strengthening nonproliferation.

Without mentioning Israel by name, the group voiced support for the “full implementation” of a 1995 resolution intended to free the Middle East from nuclear arms. “We are committed to a full implemented of the 1995 NPT resolution on the Middle East and we support all ongoing efforts to this end,” the statement read. “We are ready to consider all relevant proposals in the course of the Review Conference in order to come to an agreed decision aimed at taking concrete steps in this direction.”

The statement also stressed “serious concern” over the Iranian nuclear program and urged all countries to sign and adhere the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Three countries are not party to the NPT, including India, Pakistan and Israel, which is widely believed to possess a nuclear arsenal. “We urge those state that are not parties to the treaty to accede as non-nuclear-weapon states and pending accession to the NPT, to adhere to its terms,” the five countries wrote.

Coming on the third day of a month-long NPT review conference, the statement spoke to competing interests: The US came into the conference pushing for tough measures against Iran, while in speeches the Arab states have increasingly focused on Israel’s presumed nuclear arms and their desire for Israel to sign the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state.

This would be akin to Great Britain demanding that we give up our nuclear weapons while the combined forces of Russia, China, and Mexico mass along our borders. I can't think of anything less ally-like than what the Obama administration is doing to Israel with this.

Of course, if Obama is doing his damnedest to give up our own nuclear arsenal, I suppose it's only natural that he thinks all of our allies should have to give up theirs, too.

Never mind the suicidal insanity of taking such a position, of course...we know for certain that Russia, China, North Korea and Iran have nothing but the purest wind-driven-snow intentions for their own nuclear weaponry/aspirations. Yep, without a doubt, oh, so pure...

By the way, don't forget this. With this move by the U.N., Joel Rosenberg once again predicts the future:

In a move ripped from the pages of The Ezekiel Option, the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday unanimously announced that they want to see “full implementation” of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), requiring a “nuclear free Middle East zone.” To the uninitiated, that may sound good on the surface, but it’s actually a direct attack on the State of Israel. Let me explain.

While Iran is feverishly trying to build, buy or steal nuclear weapons to destroy Israel, the Jewish State is currently believed to be the only country in the region that has actually has nuclear weapons. While Israel is believed to have had an arsenal of 150-200 or so nuclear warheads since the 1960s, the country has never formally acknowledged having them, a policy it calls “strategic ambiguity.” But no one has ever truly worried about Israel having nuclear weapons because everyone knows the weapons are for defensive purposes only. Israeli leaders have never threatened to annihilate its neighbors, much less do so on a daily or weekly basis.

What makes the new U.N. announcement so dangerous is that it does nothing to stop Iran from continuing to build its own nuclear weapons. Rather, it turns the world’s attention away from stopping Iran from getting offensive nukes and towards pressuring Israel to give up its defensive nukes. The world will now ramp up unbearable pressure on Israel first to disclose and second to dismantle all of its nuclear arsenal, and claim that no more action can be taken to stop Iran until the “double standard” of Israel is dealt with.

In The Ezekiel Option [see excerpt below], the Russians take the lead. In real life, it is the United States under President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that has taken the lead to turning hostile towards Israel. But the Russians, Chinese, Brits and the French have rapidly followed suit. What will happen next? That is not yet clear. But it could get very ugly. Barring some unforeseen development, Israel will be increasingly isolated from the international community. And as amazing as it is to say it, the events of this week could theoretically set into motion the fulfillment of the End Times Bible prophecies found in Ezekiel 38-39 — i.e, the “War of Gog and Magog” — if the leader of Russia begins to emerge as the leader of the anti-Israel coalition and requires Israel to comply with the treaty or face an international military coalition prepared to force her to comply.

Yet again, we are reminded by events to pray for peace, but prepare for war.

Read the excerpt from his book at the link - it could be a news report from tomorrow. That book was written five years ago, by the way. But, with the guidance offered in the Bible, and open eyes to see what's going on in the world, Rosenberg has been uncanny in his fictional predictions for years. Now might be a good time to check out The Last Jihad, and maybe crack open that Bible, don't you think?

There's my two cents.

RGA 2, Liberal Left 0

Part one was here. Now relish part two:

Remember November? Oh, yeah. I can't wait...

There's my two cents.

PS - these videos were created by the Republican Governors Association...outstanding!

Well...Well...Well...Isn't This An Interesting Tidbit About That BP Oil Rig In The Gulf Of Mexico?

Cassy Fiano at Hot Air's Greenroom has quite the barn-burner:

Well, isn't this quite the twist of events. Obama was the top recipient of donations from BP in 2008, and it looks like he favored them after all. He let BP's gulf drilling be exempt from an environmental study last year.

The Interior Department exempted BP's calamitous Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year, according to government documents, after three reviews of the area concluded that a massive oil spill was unlikely.

The decision by the department's Minerals Management Service (MMS) to give BP's lease at Deepwater Horizon a "categorical exclusion" from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on April 6, 2009 — and BP's lobbying efforts just 11 days before the explosion to expand those exemptions — show that neither federal regulators nor the company anticipated an accident of the scale of the one unfolding in the gulf.

The Obama administration?? Unprepared? NEVER!

"The agency's oversight role has devolved to little more than rubber-stamping British Petroleum's self-serving drilling plans," Suckling said.

BP has lobbied the White House Council on Environmental Quality — which provides NEPA guidance for all federal agencies– to provide categorical exemptions more often. In an April 9 letter, BP America's senior federal affairs director, Margaret D. Laney, wrote to the council that such exemptions should be used in situations where environmental damage is likely to be "minimal or non-existent." An expansion in these waivers would help "avoid unnecessary paperwork and time delays," she added.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill were talking Tuesday about curtailing offshore oil exploration rather than making it easier. In addition to traditional foes of offshore drilling such as Democratic Sens. Robert Menendez (N.J.) and Bill Nelson (Fla.), Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and centrists such as Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) said they are taking a second look at such methods.

"It's time to push the pause button," Baucus told reporters.

I am just shocked, shocked, I tell you, that the Obama administration would rubber stamp BP's drilling plans!

Now, coincidentally, he's got a ready-made excuse to throw his association with BP under the bus. And Obama also has an excuse to curtail offshore drilling, which is great for him. He was always against offshore drilling and exploration. He only budged on the issue to try to win brownie points with voters. With this oil spill, he can go right back to being ardently against it. How convenient.

I'm not espousing any conspiracy theories or anything — it's more along the lines of the phrase "never let a good crisis go to waste". Democrats who are against further drilling now have a ready-made reason to oppose it. And it gives liberals and radical global-warming lobbyists a perfect excuse to further excoriate drilling and demand alternative forms of energy.

The fact is, offshore drilling is still a critically important national resource and it is actually much safer than getting our oil shipped in from foreign countries, environmentally speaking. Jonah Goldberg points out why stopping domestic offshore drilling could actually be more environmentally unsafe:

It's funny how everyone's against setting policy in a climate of fear — unless the fear produces his preferred policy. The Three Mile Island nuclear mishap in 1979 caused America to stop building reactors for a generation because we let media hype set the policy. It would be a tragedy if we let the same thing happen with domestic oil drilling. Indeed, one irony is that America could stop drilling tomorrow and that would likely increase the number of spills worldwide, given that more environmentally lax countries wouldn't stop their efforts and we'd get more oil via tankers, which are more likely to spill than oil rigs, and the less oil we produce, the more we have to import by ship.

Environmentalists won't care about that, though. They have an agenda to push.

Like it or not, we are still primarily an oil and gas nation. No environmental caterwauling will change that until we have a reliable alternative means of energy, something I don't foresee happening in the next few years.

We need to continue drilling. We need oil. And while this is a horrible tragedy, let's keep things in perspective.

From an environmental perspective, off-shore oil drilling is far safer than Mother Nature. As the Wall Street Journal noted yesterday, oil that seeps naturally from the ocean floor puts 47 million gallons of crude into U.S. waters annually. Thus far, Deepwater Horizon has leaked about three million gallons. That sounds like a lot of oil, and it is. But the Exxon Valdez leaked 11 million gallons into Alaska's Prudhoe Bay. Even those figures are dwarfed, according to the Economist, by the amount of oil spilled in man-made disasters elsewhere around the world. Saddam Hussein's destruction of Kuwaiti oil facilities during the Gulf War dumped more than 500 million barrels of crude into the Arabian Gulf. The 1979 blowout of Mexico's Ixtoc 1 well resulted in 3.3 million barrels being dumped into the Gulf of Mexico.

Basically, we all need to calm down on the hyperventilating. Obama, if he actually cares about the good of the country, should not stop further offshore drilling exploration or make current offshore drilling more burdened by red tape.

As for the rest of us, this is just another lesson in what happens when we elect a corrupt, amateur politician with no experience who practices in cronyism and dirty politics.

Hmmm...  Just thought you should know this.

There's my two cents.

You Can't Handle The Truth!

That iconic Hollywood line really resonates with me, and seems to complete the thought that we were kicking around throughout yesterday. This time the analysis comes from RedState (emphasis mine):

With all of the rancor in the media, online and on main street, it might be easy to forget why we are talking in the first place. The fundamental reason the level of discord has risen to where it is is because the number of people who are recognizing the threats to their liberties from the progressive agenda are growing every day, and they are starting to talk about it. Such conversations rarely occur in a library tone.

The response of the newly aroused polity reminds one of that great scene from the movie “A Few Good Men” where Jack Nicholson is on the stand and responds to a badgering Tom Cruise:

“Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom…. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.”

“I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.”

While not a perfect segue to the current discussion, it’s a great quote and it opens the door in that the success the United States has engendered, both at home and abroad, has provided an umbrella of prosperity under which progressives feel sufficiently secure that they can turn around and attack its very foundations. As a result of that attack, much of the country has awoken to the fact that the success of nations is not preordained and that the unique set of ideas that have made America such a beacon of freedom and prosperity are not set in stone, and are in fact in peril. It’s that newly awoken spirit that has fueled the Tea Party movement.

While the media portrays the Tea Party participants as anti-government zealots who don’t want to pay their fair share, there is little to support that caricature. They simply recognize that the continuance of everything that Americans hold dear, from the consequential – such as freedom of speech, economic liberty and a right to property; to the inconsequential – the iPhone, Facebook or the Snuggie, are threatened by the progressive Lt. Weinburgs who assume the wonderful world they live in was created magically out of sugar and spice where everyone plays nice and the planet turns on its happy axis. The discussion we are having today across the country is occurring for the simple reason that much of the citizenry has come to recognize that Ronald Reagan was indeed right “Government is not the solution; Government is the problem.”

It is in that context that Barack Obama has started this firestorm by pulling back the curtain to reveal the true progressive agenda: Government control of the economy, and with it control over its citizens. Content with their 500 cable channels, a bounty of food options, an infrastructure that largely functions and a plethora of government band aids to cover every minor scrape, Americans had largely become a torpid bunch in terms of paying attention to the underpinnings of their prosperity. The progressive agenda had been advancing inch by inch for most of the last century with few people other than Reagan seeking to beat it back. Had McCain won in 2008 we would likely have remained on that same slow train. Instead Barack Obama pulled back the lever and put progressivism into overdrive.

Frankly, it was not the progressive direction that awoke the citizenry, but sudden acceleration. Fortunately for America, Barack Obama is more wedded to his ideology than his legacy. In some respects he’s a lot like the Communist Party USA in the 1970s. If their true agenda was to see socialist parties enacted in the United States, they would have supported the Democratic nominee. Instead they always ran a candidate who stood on their platform and never had a chance to win. Obama of course doesn’t share the problem of never winning, however in the long run he will likely share their record of failure. If he had just governed from the center he would likely have already accomplished many of the things he wanted, without waking the American polity out of their decades long stupor.

Americans are many things, but suicidal is not generally one of them. Although many of us have known for a long time the truth about what makes America great –economic liberty, entrepreneurial fervor, individual freedom and an expectation of exceptionalism – it has taken Barack Obama and his Democratic Oompa Loompas shoveling massive amounts of coal (sic) into the engine of the progressive train to wake much of the rest of the country to what has been going on. As a result, the discussion around the water-cooler on any given morning is no longer about who was kicked off American Idol the night before, the picture of Tiger Wood’s latest paramour or what crazy thing Lindsey Lohan will do next; rather, people are discussing taxes, the Constitution and who’s running for Congress. While I may despise everything that Barack Obama and his minions have done and are trying to do, I’m grateful they have become the catalysts for bringing about the discussions Americans are currently engaging in; conversations we should never have stopped having in the first place.

This is what the Founders meant when they established a system of government that required an informed and involved public. We've gotten lazy in the political sense, and that has allowed the slow creep of liberalism to erode our very Foundations over the years. As discussed above, Barack Obama brings nothing new to the table except for a sudden acceleration of the process; apparently, the liberal Left thought it's time was at hand to complete the transformation process from a freedom-loving, ruggedly independent America into a nanny state filled with limp-wristed dependents, and has revealed their true intentions.

I find it immensely encouraging that Americans across the spectrum are fighting this transformation, and pray that we can beat it back before the damage is irreparable.

There's my two cents.

The Times Square Terrorist Attack

Thank God it failed!

Still, the attack isn't the only thing that failed. Here's the nutshell of what happened.

A Pakistani man who was a naturalized American citizen had been under close watch by the FBI for suspected terrorist ties suddenly disappeared. An SUV showed up in Times Square packed with explosives, but with the wrong kind of explosives, and a timer that was set incorrectly. The bomb didn't go off, and some observant citizens reported the SUV. Authorities secured it, and the hunt was on for Faisal Shahzad. They finally found him on an airplane -- despite being on the no-fly list -- taxiing out of JFK International Airport on the way to the Middle East. Shahzad claimed to be working alone, but several others have been arrested in Pakistan in relation to the failed attack. Oh, and by the way, Shahzad had traveled to Pakistan just months ago, and trained in a terrorist camp.

No one was harmed, but let's examine some of the problems and lessons learned here. First, how did this guy slip his FBI observers? Second, how did he get on the plane after buying a plane ticket with cash, carrying no baggage, being a young Middle Eastern man heading toward the Middle East, and being listed on the no-fly list? Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano refused to answer that second question when asked. Remember how real airport security works? Yeah, if only we'd done that here.

It should be noted that CNN and the liberal Left immediately jumped to his defense, claiming that he was a 'lone wolf' domestic terrorist, simply disgruntled [at Bush] because the bank foreclosed on his house not too long ago. And that's after a whole lotta' Leftists wrung their hands and hoped against hope that the failed attack had been perpetrated by a Teabagger. Victor Davis Hanson points out the obvious:

The jihadist symptoms of Major Hasan were ignored; General Casey lamented the possible ramifications of Hasan's killings to the army's diversity program; the warnings of Mr. Mutallab's father about his son's jihadist tendencies were ignored but the latter's Miranda rights were not; and the Times Square would-be bomber was quite rashly and on little evidence falsely equated with a "white" bomber with perhaps domestic-terrorism overtones (when it looks like there is a Pakistani radical-Islamist connection) — a sort of pattern has been established, one both implicit and explicit.

It's only a matter of time until this pattern is going to get Americans killed. Mark Steyn has a related take on the Left's spirited defense of yet another radical Muslim terrorist:

Whenever something goofy happens — bomb in Times Square, mass shootings at a US military base, etc. — there seem to be two kinds of reactions:

a) Some people go, "Hmm. I wonder if this involves some guy with a name like Mohammed who has e-mails from Yemen."

b) Other people go, "Don't worry, there's no connection to terrorism, and anyway, even if there is, it's all very amateurish, and besides he's most likely an isolated extremist or lone wolf."

Unfortunately, everyone in category (b) seems to work for the government. ...

Why do public officials so reflexively dissemble and misdirect every time? In the end, all they're doing is undermining confidence in the integrity of their own institutions. That doesn't seem a smart move.

Because it would be politically incorrect to do anything else, that's why. Speaking of which, it is interesting that Michael Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York City, stood up (before we knew whodunnit) and suggested that the perpetrator was probably some 40-year old white guy who didn't like the health care bill; after Shahzad was discovered and captured, Bloomberg again took to the microphones to chastise us that we shouldn't allow one little bit of bias or prejudice to allow us to leap to unfair conclusions. When you bottom-line it, the Left is still convinced that old grandmother Tea Party right-wingers are much more dangerous than young Muslim males from Pakistan. This cognitive dissonance would be really funny stuff if American lives didn't hang in the balance!

Jonah Goldberg attempts to be even-handed in his treatment of the situation. Hit the link for his full thoughts, but I really like his conclusion:

This liberal tendency is not just offensive because it assumes that American citizens – including vets – are somehow an under-appreciated terrorist threat. Though that is plenty awful in and of itself.

It is also disgustingly undemocratic. Why? because so many of these people, starting with Obama himself but including former Presidents Clinton and Carter, the Democratic Party, the editorial pages of the New York Times, and much of the rest of the liberal dominated media, use this talk about the “rhetorical climate” on the right as a means to bully it into silence. That’s what Obama did in his recent commencement address and that’s what hundreds of commentators and bloggers have been doing in response to the tea parties.

They’re saying, “You people need to shut up because you’re aiding and abetting terrorists.” They’re also trying to say to independents: “If you think the rightwingers are persuasive, you need to think again. They’re all just mouthpieces and stalking horses for the homegrown terrorists and the mentally deranged.”

And, last, it’s also dangerous. Not because it will breed frustration and anger among Americans who feel unfairly demonized for simply voicing their objections ( though if liberals really believe the nonsense they spew about conservatives, they might ponder that). No, it’s dangerous because it causes the country to look for terrorists where they aren’t while telling them not to look for them where they are.

Yep, that's liberalism, cloaked in political correctness. Or, as it would be more accurately described, that's a suicidal death wish through cultural ignorance to the degree of fatal stupidity.

I'm sure more will come out on this in the next few days, and I'll post the best stuff.

There's my two cents.



Sources:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/05/security-slip-let-nyc-bomb-suspect-plane/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/nyregion/05profile.html?scp=5&sq=shahzad&st=cse
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/04/alleged-bomber-gone-pakistan-ied-training/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/nyregion/05plane.html?hp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/how-did-shahzad-get-plane-if-he-was-no-fly-list
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/04/pakistan-arrests-eight-in-connection-to-times-square-attack/
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/04/video-how-shahzad-almost-got-away/
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/05/pelosi-jost-and-bloomberg-need-to-apologize-to-conservatives-after-pakistani-american-democrat-arrested-in-nyc-car-bomb-case/

The Obama Iteration

Following up on the previous post, I thought Janet Levy's article at American Thinker is a must-read. Here are some excerpts:

The emotionally charged toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad's Firdos Square on April 9, 2003 was an ephemeral moment of unity for Americans applauding the defeat of a tyrannical regime and an enemy of the free world. The rapid victory over Saddam by U.S. forces reinforced, for Americans and the world, America's military supremacy as a force for good against evil. At that time, our nation appeared to uphold Woodrow Wilson's pre-World War I proclamation to "make the world safe for democracy."

Fast-forward to April 6, 2010, when Barack Obama informed the world that the United States would no longer function as a global superpower buttressed by nuclear weapons as a deterrence to war. With one unanticipated public statement from the putative leader of the free world, the security held by the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction vanished from the American arsenal, and confidence in America's ability to defend its citizens vaporized. Obama's proclamation of unilateral nuclear disarmament nullified America's willingness and ability to defend itself and its allies at a critical juncture in history when worldwide nuclear proliferation abounds.

Americans are fully aware of the peril inherent in Obama's commitment "to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." With nuclear-armed rogue nations like North Korea starving and enslaving their own populations and Muslim countries encouraging and celebrating the martyrdom of their children, the implementation of a non-preemptive, nuclear-disarmed American security policy is pure folly.

...

The first step in any national security strategy is to clearly identify the enemy, study its ideology and tactics, and develop an appropriate strategy to target and destroy it. Basic military policy and common sense dictate that victory can be achieved only by first knowing your enemy. ...

Today, Americans are not told that we are waging war against Islamic jihadists who want to destroy us, establish an Islamic government, and replace our Constitution with shari'ah law. Instead, we are told that we are fighting a war against "terrorism." Rather than focus on an enemy with a specific identity or characteristics, we are waging war against a strategy. The media reinforces this delusion with nebulous terminology that confuses and distracts us from a very real threat.

Actions taken by our leaders reinforce the delusion.

Barack Obama is far from alone in this. Even George W. Bush, who was clearly willing and able to fight the terrorism embedded in Islam, almost always refused to equate the two. It's a systematic failure of our entire culture of Washington leadership, and it's been that way for decades. Barack Obama is merely the most recent iteration of that failure:

When Obama took office, his administration further obscured the problem and intensified the confusion about the enemy. No longer was the United States fighting a "Global War on Terror," but the very word "terrorism" was replaced with the absurd term "man-caused disaster." Words such as "jihad," "caliphate," "mujahedeen," and "Islamist" were banished from the official vernacular. Last week, the Obama administration announced that words such as "Islamic extremism" would be removed from the U.S. national security strategy documentation in consideration of the feelings of Muslim nations.

Unfortunately, the Obama Iteration is one of the most egregiously hazardous to America, both through its willing dismantling of America's security apparatus, as well as through constantly poking our allies in the proverbial eye. From Great Britain to France to Israel to Colombia, Obama has insulted, slighted, ignored, or offended pretty much everyone we call an ally, while reaching out to the likes of North Korea, Iran, Russia, and Syria. Last I checked, they all have nothing but death wishes for America and American superiority.

Levy ends with a stark warning:

We have come so far afield of the Reagan doctrine of "peace through strength" that our country is almost unrecognizable. The world has because less safe because of our failure to name the enemy and effectively prosecute a war against them, internationally and inside our own borders. We have downgraded our nuclear capabilities and our ability to respond to attacks and assist our allies. As American power recedes, the vacuum is filled by rogue totalitarian states that have no compunction about using weapons of mass destruction and mass genocide. The Pax Americana, a world peace enforced by American military power and the willingness to use it, may be precipitously coming to an end.

As long as liberals like Barack Obama are running the show, I don't think anyone can reasonably argue otherwise.

That's why it is so absolutely critical -- if we are to return to a place of security, prosperity, and global leadership -- that we dump every single one of them this November. Only by cleaning out the infection can the wound heal. Let's just hope the disinfectant of the next election will be enough to prevent the spread of the infection, and that those who take over will be courageous enough to boldly return America to the last bastion of freedom in the world, a beacon burning brightly on the hill. We should accept nothing less, and future generations of America deserve nothing less.

There's my two cents.

Playing Chicken With Our Pants Down

Is there anyone outside of the White House who doesn't think this is one of the most stupid things that could possibly be done in terms of national security?

Yesterday, the Obama administration released the DoD's official nuclear stockpile figures. For decades, the size and shape of America's atomic arsenal have been deliberately kept secret, and for good reason. There's always been a calculated sense of ambiguity around our nuclear forces and our deterrence strategies, with the logic being that an enemy --if left to speculate about how, when, where, and if we'd use our nukes-- would err on the side of caution and keep his fangs tucked.

Releasing the stockpile tally, which comes in at slightly over 5k warheads, doesn't really endanger national security. But it does provide ample fodder to nuclear disarmament types, most of whom haven't breathed through their noses since yesterday afternoon's announcement. Joe Cirincione, head of the Ploughshares Fund, swiftly took to Twitter with a rather dubious claim: "Good News: US lifts nuclear secrecy. Bad News: We have 5,113 hydrogen bombs ready to use. 1 destroys a city."

When I challenged him on this, Cirincione -- likely unaware that I spent five years in the Air Force as a Minuteman III launch officer -- replied: "Of the 5113 weapons, about half are ready to use in minutes; about half could be used in hours, days, or for some, weeks."

Let's explore that claim. Half of those bombs are in an inactive state, either waiting to be destroyed or cannibalized to support the operational stockpile. Many of the components on our nuclear weapons haven't been built for two decades, which means that three of the four categories of nuclear warheads are dedicated to supporting the operational force.

And then there's the logistical and planning issues of the "ready to use" argument. Every launcher in our inventory would have to be alerted and fully armed with warheads, all 14 subs would have to be flushed out to launch boxes (we keep around 3-4 on alert), and all of our bombers would have to be fully swapped from conventional support roles, nuclear certified, and armed with a full complement of cruise missiles. Targeteers at U.S. Strategic Command would have to build an entire library of warplans to find aimpoints for the bombs, most of which haven't been operationally certified in years. Disposal plants and storage facilities would have to be emptied in the largest exodus of nuclear weapons in history, but not before thousands of warheads would need to be fitted with parts that no longer exist. Submarine and ground launched missiles would require new targeting data, additional fuel, and extra warheads. Thousands of pages of reference documents and target listings would have to be crafted, and all nuclear crews would have to be fully trained on the new procedures. And, if that string of miracles were to occur, we'd still come up short on launchers to actually deliver the bombs. That we have 5k nuclear warheads ready to be used, even in months, isn't just unlikely -- it's impossible. 

After the Cold War ended, the stockpile was kept classified for precisely this reason: politics. Transparency in this sense is not a threat to national security, but the ensuing disarmament fever -- fueled by an ill-informed anti-nuke movement -- certainly could. Our nuclear inventory consists of 5k --soon to be 4600-- bombs for good reason. It keeps the deployed operational force of approximately 800 warheads ticking. So Obama may have declassified the stockpile to build some extra political muscle for his various disarmament initiatives, but instead the president ended up making a superb case for nuclear modernization.

Hot Air adds this commentary:

The number of military assets has long been considered strategic information.  Giving out those numbers would give potential enemies an advantage, if for no other reason than to know how many to eradicate, if possible to do so.  Clearly the Obama administration thinks that the numbers are so massive as to be irrelevant.  That may be true, but it would also be equally true that releasing the number holds no strategic advantage for the US, either.  One can imagine that Iran will use that number to argue against any sanctions for its intransigence on its own development of nuclear weapons.

The question is what purpose does all of this shedding of strategic ambiguity serve.  It's as if Barack Obama's political consciousness has been stuck in amber since his college days in the 1980s.  The only real nuclear threat right now comes from Iran and non-state actors, neither of which has anything to do with the size or strategic planning of our stockpile.  The main threat against the US is the increasing numbers of terrorist attacks that seem to be getting through our counterterrorism efforts with regularity over the last six months or so.

The 1980s are over, as is the Cold War.  We should be focusing not on decades-old disarmament hobby horses but the real threats arrayed against us now.

Unfortunately, good liberals simply can't abide squarely facing a real threat if there's political correctness involved.  In this case, it's a matter of America's military superiority and ability to protect our interests, thus, good liberals must undermine it.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I genuinely fear that Barack Obama's radical Leftist foreign policies will result directly in American deaths before his term is over.  Things like this only support that fear.

If liberals have a suicidal wish to live in a perpetual state of fear and weakness, they should leave America; in fact, I'd love it if they all wandered over to Europe, which is apparently where they want to be because they keep trying to transform America into New Europe.  However, the rest of us much prefer a strong nation with both the will and the tools to obliterate anyone who would attack us.  Peace through strength...it actually works.

There's my two cents.

Well, Golly! There's An Oil Spill Going On Now...!

No kidding, Sherlock!  After ignoring the real disaster of a rapidly expanding pool of oil leaking from a damaged BP oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico for 12 days to speak repeatedly about the mythical disaster of global warming, the Obama administration is finally on top of the oil cleanup.  Of course, they seem to have missed one tiny little detail:

If U.S. officials had followed up on a 1994 response plan for a major Gulf oil spill, it is possible that the spill could have been kept under control and far from land.

The problem: The federal government did not have a single fire boom on hand.

The "In-Situ Burn" plan produced by federal agencies in 1994 calls for responding to a major oil spill in the Gulf with the immediate use of fire booms.

But in order to conduct a successful test burn eight days after the Deepwater Horizon well began releasing massive amounts of oil into the Gulf, officials had to purchase one from a company in Illinois.

When federal officials called, Elastec/American Marine, shipped the only boom it had in stock, Jeff Bohleber, chief financial officer for Elastec, said today.

At federal officials' behest, the company began calling customers in other countries and asking if the U.S. government could borrow their fire booms for a few days, he said.

A single fire boom being towed by two boats can burn up to 1,800 barrels of oil an hour, Bohleber said. That translates to 75,000 gallons an hour, raising the possibility that the spill could have been contained at the accident scene 100 miles from shore.

"They said this was the tool of last resort. No, this is absolutely the asset of first use. Get in there and start burning oil before the spill gets out of hand," Bohleber said. "If they had six or seven of these systems in place when this happened and got out there and started burning, it would have significantly lessened the amount of oil that got loose."

This from the administration that bashed its predecessor's handling of Hurricane Katrina on its very first day in office.  How could this catastrophic failure have occurred?  The answer can be found in the #1 rule of politics: follow the money.

During the 2008 election cycle, individuals and political action committees associated with BP — a Center for Responsive Politics' "heavy hitter" — contributed half a million dollars to federal candidates. About 40 percent of these donations went to Democrats. The top recipient of BP-related donations during the 2008 cycle was President Barack Obama himself, who collected $71,000.

Ah-hah!  While this doesn't excuse the failure, it certainly goes a long way toward explaining it.  Hot Air offers this commentary, which makes a lot of sense to me:

It's funny, because the left still brings up President Bush's "slow" response to Hurricane Katrina. Here we have another disaster, in the same area, and an even slower response. The only difference is that now, the liberal media is dutifully looking the other way.

On top of that, you won't ever hear about Obama being in the pocket of "Big Oil". That was always hurled at President Bush, but never at Obama. Yet here is Obama, taking the largest amount of donations from BP related PACs and individuals. I assume that it's, of course, just coincidence that he dragged his feet in responding to this catastrophe. Now that he has, though, BP should prepare themselves. They may have donated heavily to Democrats and to Obama, but that won't keep them from being thrown under the Obama bus. Loyalty has no home in this White House.

Nor does honesty or truth, but that's something we're seeing on a daily basis now, especially as the lies to various audiences start stacking up.

There's my two cents.

The Capital Gains Tax: Kill It!

Another excellent explanation in real world terms of a topic that isn't exactly common understanding:

History clearly shows us that every time the capital gains tax is reduced, good things happen economically. The opposite is also true.

Recall that the capital gains tax is included in this oft-thundered pledge:

Unfortunately for you and me, he seems to have forgotten that rather unambiguous pledge when he also committed to let George W. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire at the end of this year:

On the other hand, tax increases are still coming. Taxes on incomes, capital gains, dividends, and estates all go up on January 1, 2011. The health care bill raises all sorts of taxes and fees, including the Medicare tax for high earners.

Much as some might desire it, you just can't have it both ways. Either you raise taxes or you don't; either you keep the promises that inspired people to vote for you, or you don't.

When it comes to liberal Democrats, the only tax promise we can count on is that they'll raise taxes whenever they can, on whatever they can, as much as they can. That's why those of us with clear thinking don't even believe their campaign pledges to do anything otherwise in the first place. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Conservatives are people who have been fooled less than twice.

There's my two cents.

Linkage

Surprise: Obama's losing young voters!  Unfortunately for him, that's the only demographic that he's got left...at the moment, that is.
Speaking of stupid immigration insanity...did you know that driver's license exams in Alabama are given in 12 foreign languages?  Of course, that's kind of a bad idea when there's also been a sharp increase in traffic accident fatalities by non-English-speaking (or reading) drivers.
More Urf Day links:
    The Naked Communism of Earth Day
    Earth Day is an assault on mankind
    Obama and Biden celebrate Earth Day by flying two huge aircraft to the same location and forcing loads of other huge aircraft to circle while waiting for them
Grassroots Awaken to Threat of Internet Regulation
Dems pledge to campaign in 2010 on their record of accomplishment (and the GOP rejoices!)
Puerto Rican statehood and rigged elections
One nation: turning students into criminals
Memo to deficit commission: spending is the problem!
Yet another radical judicial activist has been nominated by Obama for high federal court
Barack Obama: Provocateur-In-Chief (h/t Melekiop)
Obama's Katrina: the government knew about the massive oil spill causing major environmental damage, but Obama didn't even visit the site for almost two weeks...!  (and they excoriated Bush for not visiting Katrina the very same day...)

The Alien Rule Of Barack Obama

Last week in the context of the illegal immigration issue I alluded to Barack Obama as almost leading the charge of non-Americans in destroying the nation:

What we have here is a systemic incursion of non-Americans who are forcing their way onto American soil and unleashing violence on innocent American citizens, and Barack Obama is taking their side.  Sounds like he's cranking up the war against a free and prosperous America to a whole new level, doesn't it?

Along the same lines, Robert Weissberg at American Thinker really fleshed out the idea.  This is excellent, especially if you've ever questioned why Barack Obama just doesn't seem to understand or reflect 'normal' American values:

As the Obama administration enters its second year, I -- and undoubtedly millions of others -- have struggled to develop a shorthand term that captures our emotional unease. Defining this discomfort is tricky. I reject nearly the entire Obama agenda, but the term "being opposed" lacks an emotional punch. Nor do terms like "worried" or "anxious" apply. I was more worried about America's future during the Johnson or Carter years, so it's not that dictionary, either. Nor, for that matter, is this about backroom odious deal-making and pork, which are endemic in American politics.

After auditioning countless political terms, I finally realized that the Obama administration and its congressional collaborators almost resemble a foreign occupying force, a coterie of politically and culturally non-indigenous leaders whose rule contravenes local values rooted in our national tradition. It is as if the United States has been occupied by a foreign power, and this transcends policy objections. It is not about Obama's birthplace. It is not about race, either; millions of white Americans have had black mayors and black governors, and this unease about out-of-synch values never surfaced.

The term I settled on is "alien rule" -- based on outsider values, regardless of policy benefits -- that generates agitation. This is what bloody anti-colonial strife was all about. No doubt, millions of Indians and Africans probably grasped that expelling the British guaranteed economic ruin and even worse governance, but at least the mess would be their mess. Just travel to Afghanistan and witness American military commanders' efforts to enlist tribal elders with promises of roads, clean water, dental clinics, and all else that America can freely provide. Many of these elders probably privately prefer abject poverty to foreign occupation since it would be their poverty, run by their people, according to their sensibilities.    

This disquiet was a slow realization. Awareness began with Obama's odd pre-presidency associations, decades of being oblivious to Rev. Wright's anti-American ranting, his enduring friendship with the terrorist guy-in-the-neighborhood Bill Ayers, and the Saul Alinsky-flavored anti-capitalist community activism. Further add a hazy personal background -- an Indonesian childhood, shifting official names, and a paperless-trail climb through elite educational institutions.

None of this disqualified Obama from the presidency; rather, this background just doesn't fit with the conventional political résumé. It is just the "outsider?" quality that alarms. For all the yammering about George W. Bush's privileged background, his made-in-the-USA persona was absolutely indisputable. John McCain might be embarrassed about his Naval Academy class rank and iffy combat performance, but there was never any doubt of his authenticity. Countless conservatives despised Bill Clinton, but nobody ever, ever doubted his good-old-boy American bonafides.

The suspicion that Obama is an outsider, a figure who really doesn't "get" America, grew clearer from his initial appointments. What "native" would appoint Kevin Jennings, a militant gay activist, to oversee school safety? Or permit a Marxist rabble-rouser to be a "green jobs czar"? How about an Attorney General who began by accusing Americans of cowardice when it comes to discussing race? And who can forget Obama's weird defense of his pal Louis Henry Gates from "racist" Cambridge, Massachusetts cops? If the American Revolution had never occurred and the Queen had appointed Obama Royal Governor (after his distinguished service in Kenya), a trusted locally attuned aide would have first whispered in his ear, "Mr. Governor General, here in America, we do not automatically assume that the police were at fault," and the day would have been saved.

And then there's the "we are sorry, we'll never be arrogant again" rhetoric seemingly designed for a future President of the World election campaign. What made Obama's Cairo utterances so distressing was how they grated on American cultural sensibilities. And he just doesn't notice, perhaps akin to never hearing Rev. Wright anti-American diatribes. An American president does not pander to third-world audiences by lying about the Muslim contribution to America. Imagine Ronald Reagan, or any past American president, trying to win friends by apologizing. This appeal contravenes our national character and far exceeds a momentary embarrassment about garbled syntax or poor delivery. Then there's Obama's bizarre, totally unnecessary deep bowing to foreign potentates. Americans look foreign leaders squarely in the eye and firmly shake hands; we don't bow.

But far worse is Obama's tone-deafness about American government. How can any ordinary American, even a traditional liberal, believe that jamming through unpopular, debt-expanding legislation that consumes one-sixth of our GDP, sometimes with sly side-payments and with a thin majority, will eventually be judged legitimate? This is third-world, maximum-leader-style politics. That the legislation was barely understood even by its defenders and vehemently championed by a representative of that typical American city, San Francisco, only exacerbates the strangeness. And now President Obama sides with illegal aliens over the State of Arizona, which seeks to enforce the federal immigration law to protect American citizens from marauding drug gangs and other miscreants streaming in across the Mexican border.

Reciprocal public disengagement from President Obama is strongly suggested by recent poll data on public trust in government. According to a recent Pew report, only 22% of those asked trust the government always or most of the time, among the lowest figures in half a century. And while pro-government support has been slipping for decades, the Obama presidency has sharply exacerbated this drop. To be sure, many factors (in particular the economic downturn) contribute to this decline, but remember that Obama was recently elected by an often wildly enthusiastic popular majority. The collapse of trust undoubtedly transcends policy quibbles or a sluggish economy -- it is far more consistent with a deeper alienation. 

Perhaps the clearest evidence for this "foreigner in our midst" mentality is the name given our resistance -- tea parties, an image that instantly invokes the American struggle against George III, a clueless foreign ruler from central casting. This history-laden label was hardly predetermined, but it instantly stuck (as did the election of Sen. Scott Brown as "the shot heard around the world" and tea partiers dressing up in colonial-era costumes). Perhaps subconsciously, Obama does remind Americans of when the U.S. was really occupied by a foreign power. A Declaration of Independence passage may still resonate: "HE [George III] has erected a Multitude of new Offices [Czars], and sent hither Swarms of Officers [recently hired IRS agents] to harass our People, and eat out the Substance." What's next?          

Tyranny.  Unless the American people STOP him.

There's my two cents.

Oh, By The Way, Did You Know That...

...another terrorist attack on New York was foiled over the weekend:

Saturday at 6:30 p.m., authorities were alerted that a Nissan Pathfinder was billowing smoke in the middle of Times Square, New York City. Upon investigation, they found the car was rigged with explosives including "three propane tanks, consumer-grade fireworks, two gasoline containers, [and] wires and two clocks." No one was hurt, and authorities were able to stop a potentially deadly explosion. New York Governor David Paterson has recently stated that this attempted car bombing was in fact "an act of terrorism."

Both the timing (Saturday night) and location (Times Square) suggest the bomb was intended to do a lot of damage—in fact the gas tanks inside the car were intended magnify the explosion. Fortunately, those in Times Square were safe when several citizens alerted authorities that there was smoke coming from the automobile. This type of "see something, say something" is a vital tool of public safety—lives and property were saved as a result of these reports.

It's not clear yet who was responsible, but an investigation is underway.  Regardless, this makes 31 unsuccessful plots on American soil since 9/11.  While it's (obviously) outstanding that it was stopped, it is once again disturbing that it had to be done by the very citizens who would have been killed with inaction.  Isn't it the government's specified Constitutional function to protect the citizens rather than the other way around?

...more auto regulations are coming:

The aftermath of the unintended acceleration hearings involving Toyota is moving to the front burner again as lawmakers are proposing legislation that would increase auto safety regulations to address all potential sources of unintended acceleration. The bill would also increase the budget of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as well increase the maximum financial penalty Congress could impose on an automaker. Draft legislation titled The Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010 has been introduced in the House by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.).

The Los Angeles Times reports that:

"The bill is likely to face opposition from automakers, in particular over a provision that would remove the existing $16.4-million cap on civil penalties against vehicle manufacturers for violations of safety laws and boost the fine for each violation to $25,000, from the current $6,000.

It would create a new tax of $9 per new vehicle after three years, payable by the manufacturer, to help fund NHTSA and some of the new requirements of the law. The tax could raise more than $100 million a year based on current sales figures.

Beyond fines and taxes, the bill would dramatically overhaul the federal government's ability to oversee rapidly advancing electronics technology that is at the heart of new vehicles. It would create a center for vehicle electronics and emerging technologies. The measure would require automakers to adopt so-called brake overrides, which cut engine power back to idle when the brake pedal is depressed. It would also set separate new standards on the placement of foot pedals, keyless ignition systems and transmission shift controls."

Toyota isn't owned by the government, and yet the government is going to have to find some way (through regulation) to drag the non-Government Motors companies down so their own brands can hope to compete.  As predicted, here's your takeover of the auto industry.

...Americans retain their sanity on taxation for deficit reduction...Washington not so much:

Only 18% of Americans are willing to pay higher taxes to lower the federal budget deficit, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Sixty-nine percent (69%) are not willing to have their taxes raised to deal with deficits that are projected to rise to historic levels over the next decade. Thirteen percent (13%) more are not sure.

But most voters think President Obama's new bipartisan deficit reduction commission is more likely to recommend tax increases than spending cuts to meet the growing deficit, and 78% expect Congress to raise taxes if the commission recommends it.

Normal people know that the key to digging out of our unprecedented debt hole is not to raise taxes, but to cut spending.  Too bad Washington is compose primarily of wackos.

...the Wall Street 'reform' bill has some completely unrelated takeovers in it, including...

    ...the Internet:

Democrats have pushed hard to get the financial-regulation reform bill unstuck in the Senate, mainly playing on class-warfare themes in painting the GOP as the party of eeeeeeevil Wall Street robber barons. However, the House version of the bill contains provisions that would put the Federal Trade Commission in position to start issuing rules on Internet transactions that would not only slow down business growth but also have no relevance at all to the financial collapse that prompted the bill...

Neither the FTC nor the Internet had anything to do with the Wall Street meltdown in 2008.  If this financial-regulation bill is so desperately needed, why did House Democrats lard it up with this power grab at the FTC?  Why does the FTC need any further authority over the Internet, where fraud and abuse regulations apply already?   The Internet economy has been one of the bright spots throughout a dismal period of recent history.  Do we need to attack the one area that shows growth and promise?

    ...and your checkbook:

The next time you make a withdrawal from an automated teller machine, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner might be watching over your shoulder. Boosted by the sweeping, 1,400-page financial regulatory proposal currently making its way through the Senate, Mr. Geithner would have unprecedented, real-time access to a wealth of personal and corporate financial data - all in the name of protecting the public.

The legislation, sponsored by Senate banking committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd, would create the innocuously named Office of Financial Research as a central repository for transaction-related records held by financial companies. ...

Mr. Dodd's legislation would grant the agency director the coercive power of subpoena to obtain records and rulemaking authority to force private-sector firms to maintain their internal financial records in a format acceptable to the government. The legislation also grants sweeping authority to maintain a data center that would collect and maintain "all data necessary" to carry out the director's wishes. Needless to say, the government's history of losing hard drives and laptops filled with sensitive information suggests entrusting more to a federal agency is not a smart idea.

Of more concern is how the proposed law treats government employees with legal access to this gold mine of information. Bureaucrats would be allowed to exploit their knowledge of market conditions as private-sector consultants one year after leaving the agency. Not only would individuals who had such privileged access to confidential information command a high price in the private sector, they also would be equally rewarded while employed at public expense.

You lose freedom, the government gains more power, and the Friends-of-Obama club gets rich.  Hey, that's hope-n-change for you!

Sorry to crap all over your Monday.  I just thought all that was pretty important stuff that you should know, and the mainstream media sure isn't going to report it.

There's my two cents.

The Relationship Between Prosperity And Environmental Stupidity

This is a bit long, but outstanding in establishing the connection between prosperity (via capitalism) and the luxury of environmental stupidity...and vice versa, of course:

Writing on her Facebook page about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Sarah Palin explains why she remains committed to developing domestic oil resources, even though she had a front-row seat to the Exxon Valdez disaster:

Alaskans understand the tragedy of an oil spill, and we’ve taken steps to do all we can to prevent another [Exxon Valdez] tragedy, but we are still pro-development. We still believe in responsible development, which includes drilling to extract energy sources, because we know that there is an inherent link between energy and security, energy and prosperity, and energy and freedom. Production of our own resources means security for America and opportunities for American workers. We need oil, and if we don’t drill for it here, we have to purchase it from countries that not only do not like America and can use energy purchases as a weapon against us, but also do not have the oversight that America has.

There is also an inherent link between energy and environmental conservation. Energy is one of the crucial raw materials for prosperity, and only prosperous societies can minimize their impact on the environment.

Socialist nations have awful environmental records. When the value of property is abolished, land is treated as worthless. The masters of a political economy will bring their boots down on the necks of flora and fauna, as well as people, as they march to the conclusion of their five-year plans. Politicians are extremely skilled at evading accountability. The maximum leaders of a collectivist tyranny don’t worry much about the fate of birds and fish when they’re looking for someplace to bury their industrial failures. Great Leaps Forward leave fields of corpses planted in alkaline soil.

The general poverty of collectivist societies makes their environmental depredations worse. The conservation of nature is a task for high technology, in the hands of people who can afford to preserve vast tracts of unspoiled wilderness. Advanced economies are much less land-intensive than poor nations. Efficient energy production is a big part of the reason why. A college in my home town recently trumpeted the creation of a vast solar farm that would cover a sizable percentage of its energy needs with the angelic purity of harvested sunlight. After the farm was built, the college was horrified to discover it had been necessary to cut down a huge chunk of its wetlands preserve, to make room for all the solar panels.

The lowest income brackets will be hit the hardest by rising fuel prices. The production and distribution of all goods consumes energy. Food is particularly dependent on low shipping costs for large volumes of freight. Adding ten or twenty percent to the cost of food would be devastating to the poor… as would reducing their already dismal employment prospects, by pricing transportation out of reach. Respect for the environment dissipates rapidly in the face of starvation. Look at the desperate poverty in places like India and Africa, and note how little energy those unfortunate souls devote to environmental sensitivity.

Madcap environmentalism is partially to blame for the massive oil spill in the Gulf. As Vladimir at RedState puts it:

We’ve placed promising areas like the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the East Coast, offshore California, offshore Alaska and ANWR off limits. This current spill will provide ammunition for the anti development folks. But since our collective thirst for petroleum will be unabated, that will mean more oil and refined products will have to be imported in tankers, with their accompanying risk of spill.

BP looked for oil in the deepwater off Louisiana, partly because (paraphrasing Willie Sutton) that’s where the oil is, but also, domestically, it’s one of the few places where they had access.

Maybe it’s too risky for oil companies to drink each others’ milkshakes with 5000-foot straws… but where else are they supposed to go? Reasonable sources of energy that could be exploited safely and with minimal environmental impact, such as ANWR, have been swept off the table by fanatics.

There’s a lot of pressure to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which also carries the risk of environmental damage, because the oil must be carried on tankers – that’s what the Exxon Valdez was doing when it ran aground. The Great Wazoos of the environmental movement demand fuel to get their private jets and limos to the next global-warming conference. The best way to meet everyone’s needs would be a sane energy policy that doesn’t send oil companies off to root in Davy Jones’ locker, to avoid disturbing the mosquitoes of northern Alaska.

Ace of Spades considers the risk to media-friendly sea otters from the Gulf oil spill, and notes with exasperation that “cute, fuzzy animals will doom America to energy dependence.” Only a wealthy nation can afford that kind of sentimentality. When people become poor and hungry enough, they’ll roast those cute and fuzzy animals on sticks, and barely notice as they wipe out entire species. The environment has no deadlier enemy than the directors of a total state, fighting to control a bitter, impoverished population.

Class dismissed.

There's my two cents.