Freedom's Dream Is Not Dead! ... by J. D. Longstreet

Freedom’s Dream is Not Dead!

J. D. Longstreet

**************

Now let’s see: Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, and yes, even Lebanon, to some degree. All these nations are on their way to becoming democratic.

So “war solves nothing”, huh? Care to rethink you position on that? I thought not. When one entrenches oneself into self doubt as deeply as the peaceniks have, it is nigh impossible to extract them. So, we will simply overlook them, as we have always done. They line the fringes of our society, anyway.

No one likes war. But, contrary to what the peaceniks tell us, war does bring change for the better. Ask the Brits, the French, the Germans the Belgium’s, the Jews…. and the list goes on. (The French may still be too arrogant to admit it, but, regardless of what they tell themselves, the remainder of the world knows they exist as a nation only because of the efforts of US and allied servicemen in two world wars.)

War changes things. The Middle East, for better or for worse, is changed forever. The US has a beachhead in the Middle East and we will be there forever. We are not going to leave. As the democracies begin to shape up, and form up, and freedom begins to spread, those who hold the dictator’s reins now will find themselves out of a job. Those who would hold the Middle East back in the 14^th century will find they, alone, are left in the past. The people are going to move on to liberty and freedom. One a people have tasted freedom. It is not possible to strip them of it again.

Now we can only hope that liberty will blossom, and bloom, in the Middle East. If it does it will be the US to thank. The US took a stand in the Middle East when the rest of the world would not. The US alone had a vision of a free people who would seek after democracy. Old Europe, now irrelevant, stood on the sidelines as history passed them by. There they will remain. What they do, or say is of no consequence to anyone but themselves. It is sad to see a continent commit suicide.

In the meantime, America marches on. Ronald Reagan’s dream of America as a great “shining city on a hill” is in deep peril with the current administration of socialists in charge both in the White House and in the Congress. Among conservative Americans, Reagan’s dream still perseveres. We conservatives still believe that Reagan’s dream is, in fact, the last hope of a world, which lost its way. We include America among those nations that have lost their way today. It is truly sad.

J. D. Longstreet

********************

Hey Kids, it's a Depression ... by Alan Caruba

Hey Kids, it’s a Depression

By Alan Caruba

***************************

Here’s the difference between a recession and a depression as defined by Bloomberg Business News:A recession occurs when a nation’s living standards drop and prices increase. This downturn in economic activity is widely defined as a decline in a country’s gross domestic product for at least two quarters.

A depression is defined as an economic condition caused by a massive decrease in business activity, falling prices, reduced purchasing power, excess of supply over demand, and rising unemployment.If this isn’t the beginning of a depression, it sure feels like one. Just check the daily headlines. On Monday, the Financial Times informed readers that “Gloom deepens as 75,000 global jobs go.” Among the companies laying off people were Caterpillar, General Motors, Sprint Nextel, Home Depot, Pfizer, and Texas Instruments. My guess is the General Motors declares bankruptcy by March.

The Financial Times still called it a recession, but we know what it is, don’t we? And if we just look at the 1930s and see how every move the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt made only deepened and prolonged the Great Depression, we will also see what should be done, but won’t be done. Indeed, with every passing day, the Obama administration looks and sounds just like FDR’s.

As to the stimulus bill, here’s what last Monday’s Wall Street Journal had to say about it:

“The stimulus bill currently steaming through Congress looks like a legislative freight train, but given last week's analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, it is more accurate to think of it as a time machine. That may be the only way to explain how spending on public works in 2011 and beyond will help the economy today."

According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, a mere $26 billion of the House stimulus bill's $355 billion in new spending would actually be spent in the current fiscal year, and just $110 billion would be spent by the end of 2010. This is highly embarrassing given that Congress's justification for passing this bill so urgently is to help the economy right now, if not sooner.”

Much, if not most, of the proposed $825 billion “recovery act” will go to various government agencies. Even a cursory review of the 600-plus page document suggests that not much of its billions will create private sector jobs. Those portions devoted to infrastructure projects are not only worthy, but polls indicate are greatly favored by the public. By contrast, the bill includes nutty energy stuff about solar and wind farms, neither of which can produce enough steady, dependable energy to keep the lights on anywhere.

Contrary to the madness that has gripped most of Congress, government spending should be cut. There is enormous waste in government at almost every level except the local level that must answer to people directly.

There should be major cuts in the tax rates from the wealthy to the lowest paid job holders. Putting money back in the hands of people will shorten the duration of the depression by stimulating purchasing, investment, and the risks involved in beginning or expanding a business of any size.

There should be a marked reduction in government regulation of all manner of business and industry in order to avoid increasing the cost of production and facilitate research and innovation

NONE of these options, proven, known, effective, are being discussed by the Obama administration that, in office less than two weeks, is issuing executive orders that will increase the cost of manufacturing cars in the name of fighting “global warming” or “climate change.”Apparently word has not reached the White House that it just snowed in a Middle Eastern desert nation, the United Arab Emirates, for the first time ever! That the world outside (and including) Washington, D.C. is experiencing some serious cold weather.

It’s so cold in D.C. that Al Gore’s Wednesday testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the Earth is warming will likely be rescheduled.

While there is talk of tax cuts, it remains just that, talk.

Meanwhile things are going to hell in a hand-basket, so maybe it would be a good idea to (1) pay attention to the history and lessons of the Great Depression, (2) avoid repeating the same mistakes, and (3) not take your eye off the ball here at home with talk of finding a Mideast peace where none has not existed since the days of Harry Truman and, for that matter, all previous presidents.

The folks in Washington, D.C., being politicians, are all delusional and guess who’s going to pay the price for that? Phone, fax, email your Senators and Representative, and tell them to put the Recovery Act back on the shelf.

Alan Caruba writes a daily blog at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. Every week, he posts a column on the website of The National Anxiety Center, www.anxietycenter.com.

**********************

Conservative+Depression+Recession

A Case Against Global Governance

The Case Against Global Governance Saying NO to a One-World Government

By: J. D. Longstreet

*******************

Is a one-world government inevitable? It certainly looks that way! At least it does if you buy into the theory of how good a one-world government would be for the world. I do not.

Let me be clear about this: I hate the very thought of a one-worldgovernment! Period!

I rather like being an American. I can’t stomach the idea of being forced to give that up to satisfy some centralized one-world government, which couldn’t find it’s rear-end with both hands and a hound dog!

There is a train of thought which goes something like this: If the US,Mexico, and Canada are successful in creating the North American Union (and they are having one success after another, right now) then once the NAU is established, soon afterwards there will be a movement to combine the EU with the NAU. And that, Dear Reader, is about as close to a one-world government as we are likely to get, at least, for the foreseeable future. With the Islamofacists continuing to kick againstthe pricks of the world, a one-world government will be in a constant state of war.

Of course we have options. One is to allow the Islamofacists to be successful and establish their worldwide caliphate and that would be a one-world government. A theocracy, to be sure, but it WOULD be a one-world government. The other option is for Americans to fight like hell to remain an independent nation!

To those of us who oppose a one-world government I suppose it sounds hopeless. Well, plainly put, to some degree, it IS hopeless. Once the juggernaut gets up a head of steam there will be no stopping it. It has already begun with the European Union and the proposed North AmericanUnion. The point is… the “powers that be” are certainly going to try to create that one-world government. (What do you think the “GlobalWarming/Climate Change” movement is all about? Global governance!)

Now, hold on, take a breath and let's see what faces an attempt at a one-world government.First off we know the Islamic nations will not willingly become a part of a one-world government. And… what about the continents of Africa andSouth America? Both are hotbeds of communism and socialism. The only way communism will become a part of a one world government is if they rule! The logical step would be for the Islamofacists, the socialists, and the communists to combine… as they each reflect some of the ideology of the others, anyway.

So, out the window goes the “One World Government" idea. A more realistic idea, of what the global politics would look like, is, I think, a politically bi-polar world…in other words… a Two-Government World.

Seems to me, the only way to have a true one world government would be for the “would-be” one world government to conquer all the nations outside their government and colonize them much as the Western European nations did during the colonization period of world history.

Realistically, any attempt at a one-world government will spur wars, of various intensity, around the globe. The planet would be forever at war. The cost of worldwide wars is staggering and would very soon bankrupt any government trying to bankroll such action(s).

Anyway you parse it, creating and controlling a one-world government, on this little planet, would be akin to herding cats. If you have ever owned just one cat… you know it cannot be done!

For the moment I see it as incumbent upon the citizens of America to do everything they can to defeat the proposed North American Union. It’s the beginning, at least in this hemisphere, of an attempt at that dreaded one-world government. We need to nip it in the bud… NOW!

J. D. Longstreet

**********************

Let The Big Three US Auto Makers Go Belly Up!

Let The Big Three US Auto Makers Go Belly up!

Some of us believe in Capitalism. Some of us believe the American way, in business, is “survival of the fittest.”

Here is a column from a writer who believes, as I do, that business should be allowed to stand on its own. Survive, if it can, or close up shop, if it cannot. The title of the piece is: “Chevy, Ford, Dodge, and Darwin.” Jefferson Weaver writes it. Get to know that name. You will, I predict, be hearing more from him.

The article can be found HERE.

This is another pearl from Jeff. Keep up the good work, sir!

J. D. Longstreet

Dumb, Dumber, Dumbest!

Saying No to the Auto Maker Bail Out!

J. D. Longstreet

*******************************

"The Obama" is off and running. His sharp left turn, which was predicted by even the most semiconscious conservative writers, commentators and pundits, is now apparent for all to see. But, by far, the DUMBEST thing, in my estimation, he has done to date, is ordering the Department of Transportation to develop higher fuel efficiency standards for cars. Car efficiency standards are already creaming the US car makers while, those same car makers are getting a government bailout at the same time. Does that seem the least bit off-kilter to you? Well, it does to me! Is this DUMB, or what?



Like a drowning man, the US auto makers are going under for the third time and, frankly, I am not convinced the life-preserver bailout, thrown from the "Ship of State", will be of any help at all. Actually, I am not convinced the life preserver SHOULD be thrown in the first place!



I am against the bail-out. But then you probably already deduced that. Methinks we ought to allow those car companies to go into bankruptcy and reorder themselves and make another try for survival. If they can, and do, survive, mores the better. Those motorized carriage makers, too weak to survive, ought to close up shop. That is the capitalist way. That is the American way. One could even say it is nature's way.



Have you any idea how many car companies have failed? Do you have any idea how many car makers in America have opened shop, produced cars for several years, and then gone under? A slew of them!



I suppose everyone knows of the Tucker (due to the movie). A friend of mine was ticking them off in his column the other day and he managed to name a number of cars from my childhood that are no longer around. They are long gone. As a matter of fact, I owned at least two of those now non-existent cars. So, just from my, ahem, younger years, there was the Studebaker, the Packard, the Norge, the Kaiser, the Frasier, the Willys, and the Nash. Before that there was another bevy of jalopies that didn't make it. Some of those cars were simply so far ahead of their time that would-be buyers were afraid of buying them. Believe me, it happened back then. I owned a 1957 Packard.. Depending upon your perspective, it was a gorgeous machine with a 275 - 300 horsepower engine (I never was quite sure of the horsepower of that engine.)... with or without the supercharger. Driving a the Studebaker "Golden Hawk" was as close to low altitude flying as was possible in those days.



Here's a look at the Golden Hawk:





Here's a look at the Packard:

Now, if the government continues to insist that American built cars get more and more miles to the gallon of gasoline, we will have surpassed the technology to do so. We may have done so, already. So, in order to reach those standards the car makers will have to resort to downsizing the cars. Down sizing means less weight. Less weight translates into more miles per gallon. Then we will see the return of the little "beer-can" cars. Those were the uncomfortably small cars that you dare not lean against for fear that your body weight might cave-in the quarter panel or the door of the car!



I know of one police department that bought a fleet of those small cars, for patrolling the city, and when they mounted the red/blue lights on the roof, the roof caved in and they had to have all the headliners of their brand new police cars stripped out and reinforcing bars placed in the roof just to hold up the red/blue light! I kid you not! One officer told me he was afraid to drive the cars. He said they were so light that in a hot pursuit, you could hardly control the car, he said it was all over the road. Needless to say, those cars were gone, very soon, and the trusty ole Crown Vic was back.



The small cars, US car makers will be forced to build as a result of government regulations, will not only be ugly, they will also be dangerous. This ought to concern you as a prospective buyer. And I am sure it will. Sales of American cars will drop even more. At some point, the likelihood that the already bailed out car makers will go under anyway, becomes extremely high.



And what about the desires of the consumer? I mean, if you have a large family, you NEED a large car. Senior citizens might need a larger car simply because it is easier to get into and out of for them. The government is going to deny them the car they need and/or want. But, hey... that's what central planning by a socialist government does. Everybody suffers equally! And let's face it, dear reader, the US now has a socialist government.



Some of us, including yours truly, will opt to keep my General Motors 4-door sedan and my Dodge truck. They are both nice and big. Other than maintenance, they hardly ever need repairs. My truck is easy to get into and out of... and... when I need a truck, I have one.They ride smoothly, and, if I am in an accident, I actually have some sheet metal between me and the opposing vehicle. In other words... they are safer.



Then there is the question of whether the bailout is for the car maker or the unions who have been so loyal to the Democrat Party. Many Americans think the bail-outs are really intended to help secure the union workers jobs. That view is prevalent here in the Southland of America where the unions are not so warmly embraced as they are elsewhere. We have automakers here operating car making businesses at a profit.



To sum up... no bail-out for the US car makers. They should be allowed to sink or survive on their own. If that means they will be forced to move more and more of their production facilities overseas, where labor is cheaper, then they should do so. If it means moving their entire production facility to a foreign country, then they should do so. But not one red cent of American taxpayer money should go to them directly and to the unions indirectly. And... the Department of Transportation ought not insist on higher fuel efficiency standards for the cars and trucks they build here in The States. They know, as do we, that higher fuel efficiency standards will cost thousand of workers in the auto industry, and related businesses, their jobs. The government is acting like a cartoon character with one hand out to the US Auto Industry while the other hand, behind its back, is holding a hammer with which to crush US auto makers!



All in all, America has the government it said, by its vote, it wanted. It's far too late to whine and moan about their socialist agenda now that they have the power over your life. Looking as far as I an see down the road, I'd say the socialists are in a position, thanks to the American voter, to solidify their hold on America for, well, eternity. Well, at least until The Union comes apart again as it did in the 1860's. I won't live to see it, but as each day goes by and the government grows bigger, its intrusion into our lives will grow more intense, and that option will begin to look better and better.



I had a male friend stand in my office today and declare that, in his opinion, America has seen her last free election. I agreed with him. Those feelings are stirring again and have been for some time... and not just in the states that were forced back into The Union at bayonet point. This time those feelings are shared by many in various geographical parts of this country. "The Obama" and his cohorts either do not understand, or simply do not care, that what they do in the next four years may determine the survival of the US as a 50 state country or bring on the change that will break her apart into the democratic states which will live or die by the original constitution, as a Representative Republic or Republics, and those states that will suffer as socialist hell holes in the backwaters of a political swamp that was once that "Shining City" on a hill.



J. D. Longstreet

*********************

Conservativ+Obama+USDOT+MPG+Politics+Ruin

Dear Mr. President

"Dear Mr. President"
*********************

Here is an excellent column written by a Southern gentleman to the new President ... Mr. Obama. We found it absolutely terrific and thought you would as well.

Mr. Jefferson Weaver wrote it… and you will find it HERE. Mr. Weaver is one of our favorite writers and we think, after you read this, you will understand why.

Way to go, Jeff. Keep up the good work!

J. D. Longstreet

Coal, Glorious Coal! ... by Alan Caruba

Coal, Glorious Coal!
By Alan Caruba

I began 2009 praising carbon dioxide as the gas, along with oxygen, upon which all life on Earth depends.

Now I praise coal and for reasons the mainstream press and other media will studiously avoid telling you. Coal, as you may recall, is on the Obama hit list because its use, according to the environmental loonies, will doom the Earth to a global warming that is not happening.

The United States is home to huge deposits of coal. It is second only to China in terms of total coal consumption. In 2007, the U.S. used about 1.1 billion tons of coal. According to an authority on energy, Robert Bryce, “That’s the energy equivalent of about 4.2 billion barrels of oil per year or about 11.5 million barrels of oil per day.” By way of comparison, “America’s daily coal ration contains more energy than Saudi Arabia’s daily oil production.” That’s a lot of energy.

Why, then, is the Obama administration and virtually all of the major environmental organizations opposed to coal? We know they oppose any use of oil, but coal, so abundant, so rich in energy would seem to be a great alternative. They oppose it because it emits carbon dioxide when burned (so do forest fires, etc.) and that contributes, they assert, to global warming.

Only there isn’t any global warming any more because the Earth is in a cooling cycle, so there must be another reason. The closest one I can come to is that they either want to return us all to the Stone Age or they are heavily invested in wind and solar industries.

In 2008, climate change alarmists proclaimed April 1^st “Fossil Fools Day” using it to protest energy projects like Duke Energy’s massive Cliffside coal-fired power plant just fifty miles west of Charlotte, North Carolina. How they expect consumer’s to get electricity, fifty percent of which is produced by coal nationwide, is anyone’s guess unless they want to carpet all of North Carolina with solar and wind farms.

Led by a group calling themselves Rising Tide, a spokesperson said, “To survive climate change, we need to end the extraction of fossil fuels, reduce rich people’s energy consumption, localize economies and revolutionize public transportation.” By “rich” they mean YOU.

Obama’s would not be the first administration to try to restrict access to America’s supply of coal, oil, or natural gas from use. Congress has done this for oil by banning drilling in ANWR or off the continental shelf. The Clinton administration closed off the vast coal deposits in Utah’s Grand Staircase-Escalante area and, unfortunately the Bush administration would not revoke this travesty.

President Obama’s choice for Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, is a nightmare for anyone who doesn’t want to pay $8.00 a gallon for gas as the Europeans do. He favors that, but he is on record as saying, “Coal is my worst nightmare” attributing its use to greenhouse gas emissions. During his confirmation hearing, though, Chu was rapidly backpedaling saying mushy stuff like, “I think it is imperative to use coal as cleanly as possible.” He even added that offshore oil and gas production might not be a bad idea. Can we trust this fellow? I think not.

Right now, however, in Europe, Germany is building 27 coal-fired plants by 2020 and Italy plans to increase its reliance on coal from 14% today to 33% in just five years. Throughout Europe, 40 new coal-fired plants are set to be built in the next five years. China can’t build them fast enough and India plans to boost coal production by 50% by 2012 and quadruple it by 2030.

Making sure Americans can’t use their own national resources seems to be a major mission for the federal government. The U.S. Geographical Survey (USGS) has found a “high potential” for oil and gas in Colorado’s Canyon of the Ancients, Washington’s Hanford Reach, and Montana’s Upper Missouri River Breaks.

There are, however, some twenty-seven States in which coal is mined with some 90% of the coal reserves concentrated in ten States. Montana is a big coal state, as is Wyoming. The USGS estimated the U.S. is home to 1.7 trillion tons of identified coal resources. They estimate the total amount when new discovers are included could exceed 4 trillion tons. In other terms, the U.S. has more than a 250-year supply under current use.

But coal is bad, right? Just ask President Obama, any of his so-called environmental and science advisers, and any major environmental organization. This kind of thinking leaves America vulnerable, particularly in light of the fact that a growing population requires the production of more energy, particularly electricity.

What you’re not being told is that, ever since the enactment of the Clear Air Act in 1970, as amended in 1990, the most stringent air pollution law in the world has been in effect. American industry has spent an estimated $350 billion since 1970 to clean the air and each year the cost for pollution control runs about $33 billion.

According to the Electric Power Research Institute, pollution control equipment accounts for up to 40% of the cost of a new power plant and 35% of operational costs. These costs represent about $10 billion of the nation’s electric bills each year and consumers will pay more if the Clean Air Act is amended to be even more stringent. A single “scrubber” in a coal-fired plant can cost more than $100 million to construct and many millions to operate. There are at least 200 of these in operation or soon will be. Someone has to pay for all this clean air and that someone is YOU.

All around the world coal continues to be the energy source of choice. Americans who have plenty of it should, by any rational standard, be thrilled to use it. When our domestic coal is exported, it generates $4.1 billion and presently represents 2.5% of all U.S. exports.

For these reasons, the electricity it produces, the jobs it represents, the value as an export, and the way it does all this without polluting the air, there is ample cause to celebrate coal, glorious, coal.

Alan Caruba writes a daily blog at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. Every week, he posts a column on the website of The National Anxiety Center, www.anxietycenter.com.

© Alan Caruba, January 2009

**************************

Coal+Global+Warming+Climate+Change+Socialism+carbon+hoax