John Wayne's Birthday ... Alan Caruba

John Wayne's Birthday

By Alan Caruba

It’s not a national holiday but, for some, it should be. On May 26, 1907 Marion Robert Morrison came into the world in Winterset, Iowa. When he left on June 11, 1979 he was John Wayne, an American icon.

Men of a certain generation or two, fortunate to grow up going to the many movies he made in a long career owe him a great debt.

By his very presence on the silver screen he taught us all what it mean to be a man. Wayne was masculine without having to prove it. He literally embodied the virtues we want in our heroes. As an actor he shared those attributes with the boys who grew up wishing to be like him and the women who no doubt found him attractive.

Though he played many heroic characters, a Marine in World War Two, a Navy Commander, and later a Green Beret in Vietnam, it was his many roles as a cowboy that made us many of us yearn to ride a horse and learn to shoot a six-gun and a rifle.

In his last film, “The Shootist”, he played a man who made his living with a gun, now old and dying of cancer. In the film, John Bernard Brooks, a legend in his own time, was asked how it was he got into so many gun fights. He replied, “I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a hand on. I don’t do these things to other people and I require the same from them.” It was as classic a recasting of the Golden Rule as one could ask for and words to live by.

Wayne was one of a handful of Hollywood actors who made no secret of his patriotism and conservative political views. When one considers the endless rewriting of history, past and present, by Hollywood, Wayne was a refreshing alternative.

In a wonderful little book, “The Quotable John Wayne”, author Carol Lea Mueller gathered together many of the things Wayne had to say over the years on a range of topics. Here are a few quotes:

On liberal ideology and its affects on America’s youth, “They work against the natural loyalties and ideals of our kids, filling them with fear and doubt and hate and downgrading patriotism and all our heroes of the past.”

“This new thing of genuflecting to the downtrodden, I don’t go along with that. We ought to go back to praising the kids who get good grades, instead of making excuses for the ones who shoot the neighborhood groceryman.”

“I became a confirmed reader when I was growing up in Glendale and could read before going to school. I’ve loved reading all my life.”

“I’ve had three wives, six children, and six grandchildren, and I still don’t understand women.”

Wayne respected the epoch of the American West being opened for farming and ranching. “The West—the very words go straight to that place of the heart where Americans feel the spirit of pride in their Western heritage—the triumph of personal courage over any obstacle, whether nature or man.”

“Courage is being scared to death—and saddling up anyway.”

He was an exceptionally good actor who said, “I’ve played the kinda man I’d like to have been.” Later he said, “Nobody liked my acting but the public.”

In a long life, a long career in films, John Wayne embodied values that are being eroded on all fronts in today’s America. Whenever we need a reminder of those values, we can watch a John Wayne film.

© Alan Caruba, 2011

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

Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" his popular blog and thereafter on dozens of other websites and blogs. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. To visit his Facebook page, click here For information on his professional skills, Caruba.com is the place to visit. 

American Gun Owners: You Have Been Warned!

American Gun Owners:  You Have Been Warned!

Obama’s Gun Control

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

************* 

“I just want you to know that we are working on it," Brady recalled the president telling them. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar." (SOURCE)

At Hotair.com there is more.  Here is a snippet from the Washington Post Lifestyle profile:

“On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.

“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”  (SOURCE)

It should come as no surprise to anyone that President Obama would seek to impose gun control regulations on American citizens using the regulatory agencies at his command and by-passing the Congress, altogether.  Obama rules as a potentate rather than a President of a constitutional republic.

Come on, folks.  Everyone should understand this simple fact:  There is no way the political left can get their agenda imposed on America -- without first disarming America.

In an article at the Huffington Post entitled:  “Obama Looking For Ways Around Congress On Gun Policy” the following is reported:

 “Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions of Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say.” (SOURCE)

The HuffPo goes on to say: “For gun control advocates, however, executive action remains a more promising -- albeit more limited -- vehicle for reform than Congress. On Monday, The Huffington Post first reported that the Justice Department was convening meetings with groups from across the ideological spectrum in an effort to chart potential policy changes to Second Amendment law.


The discussions were meant to build a broad coalition around the elements of reform Obama had outlined a day earlier in an op-ed for the Arizona Daily Star, including stronger state-to-state coordination, expedited background checks and greater enforcement of the laws already on the books, especially with regard to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.” (SOURCE)

From an article by John Lott at foxnew.com/opinion comes this: “Indeed, Obama has been a consistent opponent of gun ownership. He enacted a ban on the importation of semiautomatic guns because, “The U.S. insisted that imports of the aging rifles could cause problems such as firearm accidents.” He has proposed much more extensive reporting requirements on sales of long guns. Obama’s nomination of anti-gun Andrew Traver to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives threatens imposing many new regulations. Still further, the Obama administration has actively pushed for the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty and continues to make inaccurate statements about the source of Mexico’s crime guns.” (SOURCE)

As if you needed to be reminded, we have an election coming up in November of 2012.  As one of the Americans described by Obama in his last campaign for President as  “… bitter Americans who cling to their guns and cling to their religion…”.  I am going to remember all this next year, come time to cast my ballot.  I hope you do, too.

J. D. Longstreet

Republican Russian Roulette ... Alan Caruba

Republican Russian Roulette

By Alan Caruba

I have a friend who thinks the ghost of Bob Dole is stalking the Republican Party and Dole isn’t even dead! What he means, of course, is that, at this point, the present batch of candidates are not that inspiring. The Party needs to articulate a distinct, conservative agenda and have the guts to stick with it.

For the record, Dole ran with President Gerald Ford as his vice presidential choice and together they lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976. Later he ran as the GOP candidate for president in 1996 and lost to Bill Clinton.

The latest example of the GOP’s knack for second string candidates is Newt Gingrich.who is a former Speaker of the House. While he was president Bill Clinton ran circles around Newt.

Newt’s most recognizable characteristic is to seek accommodation with opponents of his political views. Instead of staking out a definitive conservation platform, Newt has always been too eager to "get along" with the opposition—shades of John McCain who also lost a campaign to be president.

A patsy, Newt is the smartest kid in the school who no one wants on their team. In essence, he has abandoned Republican issues in his quest for the presidency and forgotten that he is a Republican who is expected to oppose Obamacare, avoid talking nonsense about the environment, and not adopt the rest of the liberal agenda.

Republican voters are hungry for someone who unabashedly opposes the size of the federal government, the billions it borrows and wastes every day, the funding of Planned Parenthood, and comparable issues. They want to build a great big fence on our Southern border. They want us to drill for our own oil.

The flurry of interest that Donald Trump evoked came simply from his willingness to yell at President Obama loud enough to get him to put out another phony birth certificate. Only the hopelessly naïve thought he would actually run.

Conversely, everyone expected Mitt Romney to run, but instead of shedding the millstone of Romneycare, he defended it! It’s a flip of the coin as to who has flip-flopped more on issues, Romney or Obama. Still, if you were a movie director casting the role of president, wouldn’t you pick Romney?

Masseurs Santorum and Pawlenty suffer the Dole/McCain problem. They give all the right, safe answers, but they are not loudly sounding the alarms about four more years of Obama. Ron Paul is trotting out his mixture of good and bizarre notions. If he’s a “serious” candidate, it is only for the lonely Libertarians longing to legalize marijuana and bring Muslim combatants to justice after reading them their Miranda Rights.

Rumor says Michelle Bachmann will get into the race and, having had Sarah Palin on the ticket in the last election, one might think that Republican enthusiasm for a woman candidate might have waned by now. Bachmann’s smart and articulate. She can’t win the White House.

By contrast, a virtual unknown non-politician, Herman Cain, is making a very good initial showing.

Of course, Jon Huntsman, former governor of Utah and ambassador to China, would be every Democrat’s choice as a Republican President if for no other reason than he joined that former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Western Climate Initiative, chasing the illusive global warming and advocating taxes on carbon dioxide emissions. Fortunately for the other candidates, he’s hired John McCain’s former campaign geniuses to craft his campaign. Can you spell l-o-s-e-r?

What Republicans have not noticed is that President Obama has rather neatly fulfilled nearly the entire agenda bequeathed to him by George W. Bush while, at the same time, blaming him for the Recession and everything else.

This isn’t “triangulation.” It is the wholesale absorbing of the other Party’s platform in an era when it is very difficult to tell the two parties apart. Obama is going to have to kill a whole bunch of al Qaeda big shots to keep his poll numbers from falling any further.

If this keeps up Republican political consultants will be praying the economy will be so bad by November 2012 that only crazed Dem-a-robots will vote for Obama, along with the teacher’s and other unions. To them, add 95% of the black vote and 80% of the Hispanics.

If independents decide to stay home, Obama could win. They won't. The Tea Party folk have not gone away.

My bet is that 2012 is like 2010 when the House changed hands. It could just be a total blowout and all the agonizing over the current crop of GOP candidates will seem silly in retrospect.

© Alan Caruba, 2011
*****************
 Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" his popular blog and thereafter on dozens of other websites and blogs. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. To visit his Facebook page, click here For information on his professional skills, Caruba.com is the place to visit.

There is No Palestine ... Alan Caruba

There is No Palestine

By Alan Caruba

Despite a very forthright speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Sunday in which the President stated his “unshakeable” support for Israel and cited evidence of it, the greatest obstacle he must overcome with American Jews in particular and the public in general is a growing distrust of anything he says.

When it comes to the Middle East, Palestine, and the long history of Israel as a nation, past and present, President Obama doesn’t seem to “get it.”

Simply stated, there is no Palestine. In an effort to obliterate the nation of Israel, the Roman emperor Hadrian ordered that its name be changed to Palestine, a Greek word for Philistine, but other than this there never was a Palestine nation, nor is there one now.

To be a nation, it has to have been founded and it has to have specific borders. It has to have a capitol, major cities, an economy and currency of its own, and a stable government. It has to be recognized as a nation by other nations. None of these factors exists for the so-called West Bank and Gaza.

If the so-called Palestinians deserve their own state, why not the Kurds of Iraq and Turkey, and many other groups that could be deemed equally deserving?

What is referred to as Palestine is the wholly-owned creation of the United Nations through its UN Relief Works Agency, a strange invention that has existed solely to maintain the Arabs in the two areas mentioned as permanent refugees for generations. Sustained by millions in “relief” after the areas in question were lost in wars perpetrated against and lost to Israel in 1948 and 1967

There is never any mention of the hundreds of thousands of Jews who, over the course of the wars against Israel, became real refugees, forced to flee to Israel from Arab nations. In 1948, 140,000 fled Algeria, 75,000 fled Egypt, 135,000 fled Iraq, and 265,000 fled Morocco, along with others from Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, and Yemen. They were absorbed by Israel.

The West Bank and Gaza, historically part of Israel, are myths created to regain territory lost in the wars waged against Israel by Jordan and Egypt. In the 1967 war, Jordanians were driven out of Judea/Samaria and out of Jerusalem. The Gaza Strip had been occupied by Egypt. The Golan Heights had originally been ceded to Syria by a British-French agreement and likewise was lost to Syria in war.

The suggestion that Israel “return” to its 1967 borders is ludicrous. Obama might just as well suggest that Texas, the Southwest and California be returned to Mexico. All were prizes of war. All constituted parts of the North American continent settled by British and European immigrants to the New World.

By contrast, Israel became a nation in 1321 BCE, 2,000 years before the rise of Islam. Arabs only began to refer to themselves as Palestinians in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the State of Israel. The only period in which there was Arab control followed the conquest in 635 BCE and it lasted only 22 years. For 3,300 years, Jerusalem had been the Jewish capital. It is mentioned more than 700 times in the Torah, the Jewish Holy Scriptures and not even once in the Koran.

Until recently, the Palestinian Liberation Authority and Hamas were in a state of war with one another, the PLO was the creation of Yassir Arafat and Hamas is the wholly owned creation of Iran, as is Hezbollah. They exist for no other purpose than the annihilation of Israel.

Neither “Palestinian” group has ever accepted any effort to establish a separate state for self-rule, asserting instead that Israel must be destroyed. What has Israel done? It withdrew from its occupation of southern parts of Lebanon, only to be attacked again from there in 2006. It forced Israelis to abandon their homes and businesses in Gaza, ceding the land in an effort to encourage negotiations toward a two-state solution.

There is no Palestine and there never was. The name was imposed by a Roman emperor in retribution for the resistance of Jews against Rome’s control of their land. The name was adopted by Yassir Arafat as the self-proclaimed leader of the Arabs left behind by the wars and living, as is commonly asserted, in “occupied territories.”

Not once has any representative of the so-called Palestinians ever accepted a negotiated path to separate statehood. Instead, the “Palestinians” have sent suicide bombers and rockets into Israel and storm its borders to celebrate the “Nakba”, an Arab word for catastrophe, commemorating the wars waged against and lost to Israel.

The “Palestinians” and Arabs do not want peace. Whatever peace exists between their nations is tenuous at best and the citizens of many of those nations have been in full revolt against the dictators that ran them from Tunisia to Libya to Egypt to Syria to Yemen. The only thing that “unites” them is their irrational hatred of Israel, a hatred shared by many European Union nations and, of course, the United Nations.

In just over 600 days President Obama’s regime will end. He will no doubt link arms with former President Jimmy Carter to become another huge embarrassment to the United States of America.

© Alan Caruba, 2011
*******************
Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" his popular blog and thereafter on dozens of other websites and blogs. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. To visit his Facebook page, click here For information on his professional skills, Caruba.com is the place to visit.

Obama’s Folly: The Illegal War in Libya

Obama’s Folly:  The Illegal War in Libya

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Well, Qaddafi is still alive and kicking -- and fighting the so-called Libyan “rebels” to a stand still. Some refer to it as a stalemate, others as a quagmire.  No matter what you choose to call it, it is a confounded mess! And it is as embarrassing (as all get out) to the Obama Administration, the political left, the leftist media,  and to NATO. 

As we have learned, all to often with Obama, rules and regulation -- and much of the US Constitution -- does not apply seem to him and his cohorts. 

For the life of me, I cannot figure out how we missed that little shortcoming of US law.  But apparently, we did.  And, as a result, Obama just goes ahead and acts as a king would do and issues “commands,” “decrees,” and “edicts.” What’s worse – the Mainstream Media, which lays claim to “watchdog” status for the people, will not call him on it.  They just look the other way, totally disregarding illegal and/or unconstitutional actions of the Obama Administration.

If the actions of the Obama Administration in the Libyan war were ever “questionable”  it no longer matters.  Now they are, under US law – ILLEGAL.

I refer to the War Powers Act of 1973. (You may read the entire act HERE.)

Under the law, Obama had sixty days to report to Congress on his actions involving the US military in Libya.  He refused to do so.  The Congress must now, by the law, take action. 

The most often suggested action is for the Congress to simply cut off funds for US military activities in Libya.  But I am betting that the current Congress hasn’t the collective cajones to carry out the law of the land and discipline the President by turning off the money spigot and forcing him to pull US forces and equipment out of that sand dune circus.

In fact here is a little known stipulation of the War Powers act: 

“SEC. 5. (c)

Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.”

Don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen, though.  There seems to be a strange shortage of testosterone in the halls of Congress today.

However, it seems to me now is exactly the time for the Congress to order President Obama to withdraw all US military assets out of the Libyan theatre of war. That would include the Hellfire missile equipped drones buzzing around over the Libyan sands.  If for no other reason than the US simply cannot afford the cost of such a hair-brained operation.

Look, the painfully plain truth is – we don’t have a clue WHO THE HECK THOSE “REBELS” ARE. 

See, the nagging question is -- are we providing military support for Muslims who will, at some point in the not too distant future, turn out to be terrorists training their weapons on the United States of America.  I would argue there is more than an even chance that YES, that is exactly the threat posed by those we are supporting today in Libya.  Does anyone remember when the US supported the Afghanis against Russia -- only to wind up fighting them today in Afghanistan in a war we have no intention of winning?  Does anyone remember that? 

If this had been President George W. Bush pulling such a stunt, the mainstream media, Obama’s lapdogs, would be all over him with every issue and every broadcast.

But, alas, the leftist propaganda machine, which IS the mainstream media in America, is so biased it would be laughable if it were not doing so much harm to America.

Have you noticed the reduction in the coverage of the war in Libya by the press?  Why, because it has rapidly become an embarrassment to the political left.  They cannot risk this folly of Obama to actually taint him in anyway.  Heavens, no!  The Messiah, the savior of America, must be assisted in obtaining another four-year term in the Oval Office.

Rest easy, you folks in the leftist media.  I don’t think you have much to fear from the GOP in the campaign against Obama over the next eighteen months, or so.  I say that with great sadness. But it is the truth, as I see it. I am fairly certain America must endure six more years of Obama thumbing his nose at US law and the Constitution with no one willing to oppose him.

J. D. Longstreet

Isaac -vs- Ishmael Feud Continues

Obama Favors Ishmael

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

“And so the family feud goes on.  Nothing much has changed since Abraham booted Ishmael out of his camp and anointed Isaac, his son by Sarah, the birthright. The death and destruction we see today, in 2008, can be traced directly back to that incident, thousands of years ago.

It is foolish to even consider brokering a peace between those two half-brothers.  It is the height of arrogance to believe one can bring peace between the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael. 

As a gentle reminder we refer you to the scripture from The Bible: Genesis 17:18,19 “And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shall call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him”. 

From the Koran:

Koran = 19:54 “Also mention in the Book [the story of] Ishmael: He was [strictly] true to what he promised, and he was a messenger [and] a prophet”.

And, again, from The Bible: 

Genesis 16:12 “And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him."

As we watch the continuation of this on-going struggle play out before our very eyes on the TV screens today, we must remember that this is only a continuation the feud between these two peoples who have fought for thousands of years. 

No matter how this discussion(?) ends, the struggle will not end here.  It will go on. No matter what the US does, or what the United Nations does, or what the European Union does, nothing will change.  Only God can end this combat, which is fueled by jealous rage. The Jews and the Muslims have two different philosophies of life and religion.  One leads to freedom and life and the other leads to bondage and death.”  (Read the entire article HERE.)

Last week President Obama broke one of the cardinal rules of life. He stepped between two relatives fighting.  Common sense dictates that one never does that!

As a police officer, back in my misspent youth, I dreaded a domestic violence call worse than any other type of disturbance.  The police officer is required to insert himself into the fray, and get between the two warring parties.  Not only is it dangerous, the officer will be perceived as “taking sides” no matter what the outcome. 

Obama is, today, perceived as “taking sides” especially in Israel, and America is the loser as a result.

To put it frankly, and yes, bluntly, Obama’s “one upsmanship” just plain sucks!”

Rushing to get ahead of Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, before Netanyahu could deliver his speech to a joint assembly of the US Congress was, well, infantile.  It underscores just how incapable our President is when dealing with foreign powers.  Especially, if that foreign power happens to be involved in a tussle with Muslims -- as is Israel.   Obama and his lackeys can dispute it and deny it as much as they like, there is simply no way they will ever be able to whitewash Mr., Obama’s empathy for Muslims.  I mean -- his middle name is that of a Muslim – Hussein. 

Mr. Netanyahu is no pushover and Obama’s attempt to “roll” him will likely blow-up in Obama’s face.  Rest assured, there will be a price to pay for Obama, and the democrats, at the polls.  If nothing else good comes of this fiasco, then the majority of Americans, whose empathy DOES lie with Israel, will be pleased.

Obama’s emboldening of the so-called Palestinians will only lead to more bloodshed in Israel.  The deaths can only be laid at the doorstep of the Obama Administration. 

To think we will have Obama as President for six more years should cause every freedom loving American to shudder.  Especially now that we learn Pakistan has invited China to build a new naval base along Pakistan’s southwestern seacoast – AND -- we learn that Vladimir Putin has decided to become President of Russia –AGAIN.  Can you imagine how easily Putin can, and will, manipulate Obama?

With the US and China headed for an inevitable war do we really want someone who makes such “dumb” mistakes as Obama made last week with Israel?  Surely, you don’t even have to think about it.  God help us all if you do!

J. D. Longstreet    

Oil “subsidy” and “tax breaks” nonsense ... Paul Driessen

Oil “subsidy” and “tax breaks” nonsense

Think repealing oil industry tax incentives will increase federal revenues? Think again. 

Paul Driessen

President Obama frequently says Americans “need to end our $4 billion in annual taxpayer subsidies to oil companies.” The latest Democrat bill would have repealed some $2 billion of what Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and others call “subsidies” and “special tax breaks” for Big Oil.

That’s baloney – shameless demagoguery that will inflict further damage on our struggling economy.

Subsidies are cash payments from government to the private sector. Money is taken from the 51% of Americans who still pay income taxes – and transferred by legislators and bureaucrats to companies and activities that “deserve” or “require” these wealth transfers, because the recipients perform an important service and/or could not remain in business unless subsidized with other people’s money (OPM).

The petroleum industry does not receive “subsidies” to produce oil and natural gas. It doesn’t even get “special tax breaks” or outright tax credits. What are falsely described in these terms are actually tax deductions for costs incurred by companies in the process of exploring, drilling, producing and refining the oil and natural gas that energize this nation’s economy and living standards.

These tax deductions are equivalent or similar to deductions claimed by every US business, large and small, for things like facilities depreciation, equipment, utilities, payroll, and research and development. They are intended to ensure that businesses, like individuals, recover their costs and get taxed only on their net incomes. For oil companies those deductions include:

* Geological and geophysical costs, for exploration to assess prospects prior to drilling;

* Intangible drilling costs – equipment, labor, fuel and supplies associated with drilling expensive wells;

* Expensing “tertiary injectants,” water and chemicals injected into older wells to keep them producing;

* Domestic manufacturer’s deductions of up to 6% of income earned from extracting oil and gas (farmers, manufacturers and other producers can deduct up to 9% of earned income);

* Percentage depletion allowance, allowing for gradual recovery of up-front investments in a petroleum (or iron, gold, limestone, et cetera) deposit that is gradually extracted and depleted. The allowance is not available to “integrated” companies that produce, refine and market oil.

White House, congressional and eco-activist claims that repealing these deductions will generate “billions in new revenues” reflect an abysmal grasp of basic business, economic and behavioral principles.

Thankfully, more Americans are beginning to understand that repealing any or all of these deductions will increase oil companies’ individual project and overall operating costs. That means future bonus bids will decline, wells won’t be drilled, fewer deposits will be profitable enough to develop, and wells and fields will be abandoned prematurely. Oil and gas will be left in the ground, crews will lose jobs, tax and royalty payments will dwindle, and the USA will send billions more overseas for imported oil.

Informed Americans also recognize that, in 2008, oil and natural gas provided 61% of the energy that powers America. Natural gas generates almost a quarter of our electricity. These fuels provided affordable energy 24/7/365, supported 9.2 million jobs, kept millions off welfare and food stamp rolls, and generated billions in revenue for federal, state and local governments.

Wind and solar combined accounted for barely 0.6% of total US energy, and 1.9% of electricity generation, in 2008 – providing expensive, intermittent, heavily subsidized energy 8/6/312 or less.

In subsidies per unit of energy actually produced, gas-fired electricity generation got 25 cents per megawatt-hour in 2007 subsidies; coal received 44 cents (mostly for clean technology research). By comparison, wind turbines got 23.4 dollars and photovoltaic solar received 24.3 dollars per MWh.

One project alone – the $2-billion Shepherds Flat wind farm in north-central Oregon will transfer $500 million in hard cash subsidies, plus a subsidized loan guarantee of $1.1 billion to White House friend Jeffrey Immelt, General Electric and their partners. These OPM subsidies equal 80% of the $2-billion in tax breaks that Senators Reid and Schumer are so exercised about. The contract was GE’s largest in FY 2009. (Ethanol subsidies totaled nearly $5 billion in 2010, more than double the senators’ target.)

Shepherds Flat will be the world’s largest wind farm: 338 gigantic 2.5 MW turbines, 97 miles of new roads and 167 miles of high voltage transmission lines sprawling across 32,000 to 83,000 acres (up to twice the size of Washington, DC) of the scenic Columbia River Gorge area. At best, the turbines may average one-third of the 2.5 MW stamped on their nameplates. At the whim of the winds, the farm will generate electricity at wild swings between zero and the turbines’ combined rated capacity of 845 MW.

That’s about one-quarter to one-half of what a single modern coal, gas or nuclear power plant generates 90-95% of the time, day after day, all year long … from a tiny fraction of the wind farm’s land area.

As is the case with Pacific Northwest hydroelectric, Four Corners coal and Arizona nuclear power, Shepherds Flat will supply electricity for Southern California, so that state can maintain its lifestyle, meet its lofty renewable energy goals and be “green,” by using energy generated in someone else’s backyard.

Building and installing the turbines will require some 1.5 million pounds of rare earth metals (from Mongolian areas devastated by mining and smelting the metals), plus at least 700,000,000 pounds of concrete, steel, copper and fiberglass … accompanied by the fossil fuel energy, pollution and CO2 associated with mining, smelting and manufacturing these materials. The turbines will impact scenery and wildlife habitats, and kill numerous bats, falcons, hawks, eagles, owls, egrets, herons, ducks and curlews.

However, environmentalists, legislators and regulators treat those impacts – as well as noise, human health, airspace, Defense Department and other concerns – very differently from the way they handle hydrocarbon projects. In their quest for “green” energy at any cost, they simply brush these issues aside.

Our taxpayer subsidies are financing all of this, and generating impressive profits for their recipients. GE, for instance, generated over $5 billion in US profits in 2010 – but paid no US income taxes.

Compare this to Big Oil companies, which likewise made big profits last year… but also paid big taxes. ExxonMobil, for example, earned $30.5 billion in profits in 2010, on revenues of $383 billion, and paid $1.6 billion in US income taxes. Its combined lease bonuses, rents, royalties, taxes and other payments to the US Treasury totaled almost $10 billion last year. The company also paid state and local levies.

Overall, a Tax Foundation analysis of Energy Information Agency data shows, the largest integrated oil companies paid $1.95 trillion in corporate income, severance, property, excise and sales taxes, between 1981 and 2008. During that time, those companies’ total combined profits (net of taxes and expenses, and after adjusting for inflation) were $1.4 trillion – or 40% less than they paid in total taxes.

The “green” agenda – to use mandates, subsidies, regulations and taxes to coerce a shift to “renewable” energy and “fundamentally transform” our energy, economic and social structure – is rationalized largely by fears of “dangerous manmade global warming.” It is deceptive, costly, environmentally harmful, and devoid of genuine scientific evidence to support its alarmist claims.

Europe’s catchy “20-20-20” climate action plan (20% renewable energy, 20% reduction in overall energy consumption, 20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions, by 2020) carries a minimum price tag of OPM $300 billion. It may reduce average global temperatures by 0.1 degree F (0.05 Celsius) by 2100 … assuming climate change is actually driven by carbon dioxide, rather than by multiple, complex natural forces.

Only mad dogs, environmentalists, liberal Democrats and RINOs would buy into such nonsense.

____________

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.