Monday, September 1, 2014


Breitbart is a reliable News source. This just shows the Voter Fraud these Liberal Scumbags will go through to hold Power!

MCALLEN, Texas — A developing federal investigation has brought up allegations that a Hidalgo County Commissioner paid for votes with bags of cocaine while other politicians paid for votes also with cash, cigarettes, marijuana and beer. 

Court records obtained by Breitbart Texas from the arrest of two women accused of buying votes show that during the democratic primaries in 2012, a campaign manager for a Hidalgo County Commissioner who said that during the campaign, he bought $50 worth of cocaine, commonly known as an 8-ball and split it up in order to give it to the two women so they could use it to entice voters. 
Earlier this week Belinda Solis and Veronica Salazar went before U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter Ormsby who formally charged them with vote buying and set their bond at $10,000. 
The two women were part of a large year and a half long FBI investigation into election corruption in Hidalgo County. 
The investigation began in January 2013 when agents met with a campaign manager for a Hidalgo County Commissioner, who told the agents that he bought cocaine so his campaign workers could give it to the voters in exchange for their votes. The court records do not identify the commissioner by name; however they state that he ran during the 2012 primaries. The women were paid campaign workers, also known as politiqueras, who targeted low income areas and elderly individuals enticing them to vote for a particular candidate. 
Over the course of the investigation, agents met with the two women who told the agents that they had received the cocaine from the campaign manager who is only identified on court records as campaign worker 1 and then gave it to the voters. The women also told the agents that they gave cocaine to voters during the school board election in Donna ISD in addition to cash, beer, cigarettes, and marijuana. 
Political corruption primarily by democrats in South Texas has been exposed by federal agencies, shedding light into other cases of vote buying, contract rigging by school boards, bribery money laundering, and other criminal cases. 
Eight months ago, Donna ISD School board president Alfredo Lugo hanged himself after federal agents arrested another group of politiqueras for buying votes using cash, beer and cigarettes and the school board was mentioned.
One of the public figures to be  exposed in recent years is former Hidalgo County Sheriff, Lupe Trevino, who is preparing to serve a 5-year-prison term for taking money from a Mexican drug lord and depositing the cash into his campaign funds. 
In recent weeks, the former Mayor of Progreso, his father and his brother who ran the school board ended up getting sentenced for running a scheme where they controlled all of the contracts that the city and the school board gave out and demanding cash payments from anyone looking to do business with them.


NYT: Democrats Using Ferguson Shooting To Mobilize Voters For 2014

Never Let a Tragedy go to wast. These Liberal  Scumbags are trying to sucker The Black community  to vote over a Non political Issue. This show you how Low these Dirtbags will go to get a vote! These Hacks in the Media are Lying to their audience for a vote....Sad!

Democrats are using the tragic shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri earlier this month to mobilize black voters ahead of the midterm elections. It could impact the races in Georgia, North Carolina, Louisiana, and Arkansas, where black voters represent a significant part of the electorate. African-Americans represent thirty percent of eligible voters in Louisiana and Georgia alone. The New York Times’ Jonathan Martin indicated that African-Americans “played a pivotal role” in 1998 elections. Yet, trying to drive up voter turnout will be tricky since the states that will determine if Democrats keep the Senate are in the south, where Obama is deeply unpopular (via NYT):
With their Senate majority imperiled, Democrats are trying to mobilize African-Americans outraged by the shooting in Ferguson, Mo., to help them retain control of at least one chamber of Congress for President Obama’s final two years in office.
In black churches and on black talk radio, African-American civic leaders have begun invoking the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, along with conservative calls to impeach Mr. Obama, as they urge black voters to channel their anger by voting Democratic in the midterm elections, in which minority turnout is typically lower.
“Ferguson has made it crystal clear to the African-American community and others that we’ve got to go to the polls,” said Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia and a civil-rights leader. “You participate and vote, and you can have some control over what happens to your child and your country.”
The push is an attempt to counter Republicans’ many advantages in this year’s races, including polls that show Republican voters are much more engaged in the elections at this point — an important predictor of turnout.
[T]he terrain is tricky [for Democrats]: Many of the states where the black vote could be most crucial are also those where Mr. Obama is deeply unpopular among many white voters. So Democratic senators in places like Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina must distance themselves from the nation’s first African-American president while trying to motivate the black voters who are his most loyal constituents.
While minority turnout traditionally declines in nonpresidential election years, there have been midterm elections in which Southern blacks played a pivotal role. An example occurred in 1998, when President Bill Clinton was, like Mr. Obama, under fire from Republicans and nearing the end of his White House years.
The last point Martin makes is kind of odd. I would agree that it would’ve been pivotal if the Democrats took back the Senate in 1998, but they didn't. There was no swing in the Senate composition at the end of the night; Republicans held 55 seats and the Democrats had 45. Each party lost and gained three seats.
Democrats took out Republican incumbents in New York, North Carolina, and Indiana, while Republicans gained Democratic seats in Ohio, Illinois, and Kentucky. These elections would usher in Chuck Schumer and John Edwards into the Senate.
In Arkansas, Democrats were able to keep the seat Democratic with Blanche Lincoln and incumbent Sen. Paul Coverdell was able to hold the line for the Republicans in Georgia.
So, what’s so “pivotal” about a draw? Not only that, but a draw that ended with Republicans keeping their ten seat majority.
Also, are Democrats really so desperate that they need to politicize someone’s death? Then again, we’re talking about the political left; seldom do they exude any form of shame. Nevertheless, I think we can all agree that exploiting death to drive up voter turnout is, well, abhorrent. 

Oprah Claims White People Are The Cause Of Racism In America

I have lost all respect for Her and there is no Racism Here what so ever!  I never watched her new network nor will I ever Look for it!

Oprah Winfrey made some shocking comments in a recent interview with BBC, when she alluded that the only reason someone wouldn’t like President Barack Obama is if they were a racist.
When the interviewer asked Oprah if she thought people were against Obama because he was black, she responded, “There’s no question.”
She went on to say that she thinks “there’s a level of disrespect for the office that occurs. And that occurs in some cases because he’s African American. There’s no question about that. And it’s the kind of thing no one ever says, buy everybody is thinking.”
Apparently Oprah isn’t aware that her comments don’t set her apart. Instead, they group her with a slew of Obama supporters that claim that disapproval of the president stems from either religious or racial discrimination. And she clearly hasn’t paid attention to stations like MSNBC or “celebrities” like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
She certainly isn’t alone in her accusations, but continued on to make a statement about racisms in general, stating that “As long as people can be judged by the color of their skin, problem’s not solved.”
So when does Oprah see racism coming to an end?
“There are still generations of people, older people, who were born and bred and marinated in it, in that prejudice and racism,” Oprah said, “and they just have to die.”
That’s right, according to Oprah, when everyone who ever had a racist ancestor dies, America will be set free from all of its problems.
What do you think of Oprah’s shocking comments?

Restricting 'Choice': California Dictates That its Employers Cannot Refuse to Cover Elective Abortions

More government over reach or losing more rights? These Idiots by the looks of it can't stand the Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby, but yet when one of Lefts Laws are upheld or ruled in favor they say Law is Law Period! What a bunch of Hypocrites! 

This "choice" thing with abortion is really the narrowest of one-way streets.
Seven robed men decided in 1973 that a woman has a "privacy" right to "choose" to take the life of a pre-born baby she is carrying, the God-given right to life of the baby be damned. But the radicals in Jerry Brown's government in the State of California have now mandated that all employers in that state, even those with religious affiliations, do not have a choice as to whether they will cover abortions in their health plans. It's funny, but certainly not in a humorous sense, how certain states' attempts to limit the practice routinely make national news, while this blatantly coercive dictate by California has barely been noticed.
The Associated Press did carry a story at its national site (a backup link is here). But it was not widely picked up. Additionally, a Google News search on "California elective abortions" (not in quotes, sorted by date, showing duplicates) returned about 55 items, almost all of which were from news outlets within the state or prolife and religious publications.
Here are excerpts from the unbylined AP item (bolds are mine throughout this post):
Health insurance companies in California may not refuse to cover the cost of abortions, state insurance officials have ruled in a reversal of policy stemming from the decision by two Catholic universities to drop elective abortions from their employee health plans.
Although the federal Affordable Care Act does not compel employers to provide workers with health insurance that includes abortion coverage, the director of California's Department of Managed Health Care said in a letter to seven insurance companies on Friday that the state Constitution and a 1975 state law prohibits them from selling group plans that exclude the procedure. The law in question requires such plans to encompass all "medically necessary" care.
"Abortion is a basic health care service," department director Michelle Rouillard wrote in the letter. "All health plans must treat maternity services and legal abortion neutrally."
Jesuit-run Santa Clara University and Loyola Marymount University notified employees last fall that they planned to stop paying for elective abortions, but said faculty and staff members could pay for supplemental coverage that would be provided through a third party. The two schools said their insurers, Anthem Blue Cross and Kaiser Permanente, had cleared the move with the state.
University employees who objected to the decision and abortion-rights groups lobbied the women' caucus of the California Legislature, which in turn asked Gov. Jerry Brown to clarify and reverse the health care department's determination.
There are at least four unsettling elements to this story beyond what California has done — beyond the fact that Jerry Brown still calls himself a Catholic, which is a joke.
First, why was abortion coverage ever allowed in the first place at these schools?
Second, how did the faculty at two Catholic colleges become so hostile to basic Catholic tenets?
Third, California is now apparently a place where who shouts the loudest gets their way instead of being a state with laws and regulations. There's no other way to interpret the fact that the "women's caucus" was able to force the reversal of a insurance company determinations originally considered perfectly legal.
Finally, the universities' responses, as noted in an August 25 San Francisco Chronicle follow-up item, are far from perfect:
 Both universities issued statements saying they would follow the law, but they did not disavow future court action.
The trouble is that what California has done isn't "the law." Pro-life groups are nobly threatening to do the heavy lifting for them by invoking federal law, but the ultimate outcome isn't looking good:
Antiabortion groups are calling for legal action - and a possible cutoff of nearly $90 billion in federal funding to California - after Gov. Jerry Brown's administration told insurance companies doing business in the state Friday that their policies had to cover all abortions.
... Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, called the state's action "morally obscene" and said the universities should file religious-freedom suits. And other organizations that oppose abortion said California is violating an antiabortion provision of federal law and is at risk of losing much of its federal funding.
"Federal law prevents California from mandating that a health insurance plan include abortion coverage," the Life Legal Defense Foundation, Alliance Defending Freedom and Cardinal Newman Society said in a letter to the state Department of Managed Health Care.
They cited the Weldon amendment, enacted by Congress each year for the last decade. It requires a state to forfeit all federal funds for health, education and labor if it "subjects any ... health care entity to discrimination" because the entity "does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions."
That all sounds promising, but here's the tragic punch line:
Unless the state withdraws its decision, the groups said, they will notify the Obama administration's Department of Health and Human Services, which has sole authority to enforce the Weldon amendment.
"If HHS follows the law, they will cut off funding," said the Life Legal Defense Foundation's legal director, Catherine Short.
"If HHS follow the law?" HHS thinks that whatever it says and does is the law.
What may result from all of this is the administration dictating that abortions must be covered by all insurance plans. Unless a new case goes to the Supreme Court, this may effectively mean that its Hobby Lobby decision will be overturned by fiat.
(Note to readers: Yes, I'm aware that HHS is already attempting to overturn the Hobby Lobby ruling with new, completely phony "religious accommodation" regulations.)
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.


Redistribution and the Lesson the Left Refuses to Learn

Human beings that excel beyond their peers in labor and industry should reap the rewards for their exceptional efforts and talents.
That’s as simple as it gets, and not coincidentally, it’s built into our nation’s foundation.  The ability to reap those ample rewards for effort and talent is the very essence of liberty.  Quoting Thomas Jefferson:
To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association – “the guarantee to every one of a free exercise to his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.”
That is liberty, the idea set firmly in place long ago.  It is this idea and the incentive therein which drives success and greatness.
But in direct defiance to that principle, the government continues pitching the notion that a man isn’t entitled to the fruits of his labor and industry, but only the portion of those fruits which the masses and the representatives governing them might allow through popular votes, however much he might object.  
“What’s wrong with that? That’s democracy!” the left will cry. 
Who cares?  “Democracy” is nothing more than a mantelpiece, bled dry of its practical currency by contemporary politics and redistributive rhetoric to the point that it no longer represents anything of value.  That word may be bandied about as a sacred precept of America, but this is necessary to repeat: democracy is nothing without American principles of liberty set firmly in place.

Liberty is the idea that America should foster.  Democracy alone can be every bit as much evil as good in the absence of liberty.
To illustrate, consider an old maxim that holds extraordinarily true from all angles: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding upon dinner.”  In other words, democracy can very well be mob rule and the absence of liberty.  The lamb in this scenario has no liberty, and no power to change the consensus opinion for the betterment of its own life.  In America, however, the lamb would have an unalienable right to continued life.  An unalienable right to denounce the wolves’ opinion on the subject of dinner.  And the lamb would have the unalienable right to exercise his industry and thereby play a crucial role in a continued coexistence and the future success of all those involved in the discussion.

The main problem for the left, it seems, is that success is often a function of profit.  And according to Karl Marx (whose ideas they adhere to whether or not they’d admit it or even realize it), market transactions should be zero-sum trades, where there is no leftover value to be collected by either party as “profit.”  Marx’s solution to the plague of “profit” was simple.  The State should collect any excess value and redistribute it among the masses, as any excess “profit” would have been wrongfully earned, with one party having exploited the other. 
The problem for the rest of us, however, is that once the government is introduced into this marketplace, the profits of success are nothing more than fodder allowing the government to demonize profits.  The “fruits of industry” become ill-gotten gains that must necessarily be redistributed for the greater good, and most importantly, for the good of the government that has been appointed to administrate the redistribution.
George Orwell actually wrote an incredible book describing this very peculiar social dynamic, but no need for more animal metaphors.  This is actually just a basic observation of human nature, and about the left’s complete misunderstanding of it.
Progressives express shock, for example, that a company like Burger King will be moving its operational headquarters to Canada for a favorable tax treatment.  And despite being an act predicated upon the very founding principles of this country, it is viewed as an unpatriotic to American sensibilities, not an exercise in liberty.
Burger King has apparently deemed American corporate taxation intolerable, and has sought a more favorable situation.  Nothing is more fundamental to American principles or successful industry. 
But there’s a certain undeniable inconsistency in their outrage.
I’ve heard more than a few times from my leftist friends: “If you don’t like the heavy taxation being proposed, then, well, you can just leave.  Go somewhere else.  This is democracy at work,” and blah, blah, blah.  My usual response is, “Well, if I and other producers financing these grand redistributive schemes do leave, who will be left to finance what you seek to build?”
There’s never a good answer for that question.  Generally, the response is something vague about America being such a great place that reasonable people and businesses wouldn’t want to leave in the first place.  But while they’re very quick to tell me that I can leave (knowing that I likely won’t), they’re outraged that Burger King would take its sizable contribution to the government coffers to another country that is vying for its business with lower corporate tax rates!
If, in principle, it’s okay to wave goodbye to more ordinary taxpayers on the basis of disagreement about American tax rates, then why is it suddenly wrong and unpatriotic for Burger King to seek shelter from the crushing weight of American corporate tax rates, which are now the highest in the developed world?
Again, there’s no consistency in the argument.  Anger only arises when they feel the practical outcome of wealth redistribution is impeded by examples that are highly visible.  But the visible examples are only the tip of the iceberg.
For example, Gerard Depardieu made news when he fled France for Belgium in the wake of Francois Hollande’s election as a socialist who “hates the rich” and sought to tax wealthy Frenchmen at a rate of 75%.  He was called unpatriotic by French politicians and media, a fat drunk, on and on.  But Gerard wasn’t alone in leaving.  Others followed suit.  A multitude of rich, young French citizens have fled France’s proposed welfare state to places where they might better enjoy the fruits of their industry.  
Now, Francois Hollande has dissolved France’s government. Socialism, as I predicted, has broken France.
The lesson that we should have learned long ago, though I imagine the American left will still refuse to learn it, is that successful industry, like people, will go where they have more liberty.  And if America now offers less liberty to producers than other nations, we should be neither shocked nor angry when they exercise their right to self-determination.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/09/redistribution_and_the_lesson_the_left_refuses_to_learn.html#ixzz3C73pjZmZ
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Jimmy Carter Tells Islamic Conference that “Principles of Allah” Are Key to…

This Guy is competing with Obama. It looks like he doesn't want to give up being the worst P.O.S  for president without a fight!

Former President Jimmy Carter told the Islamic Society of North America that “the principles of Allah” are the key to peace in the Middle East, according to the Gateway Pundit.


Meanwhile, ISIS forces have slaughters and beheads hundreds of innocent people and children in the name of Allah. In the last ten years, 18,000 terror attacks were committed explicitly in the name of Islam.
From The Book of Faith (Kitab Al-Iman):
Book 001, Number 0029:
It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) breathed his last and Abu Bakr was appointed as his successor (Caliph), those amongst the Arabs who wanted to become apostates became apostates. ‘Umar b. Khattab said to Abu Bakr: Why would you fight against the people, when the Messenger of Allah declared: I have been directed to fight against people so long as they do not say: There is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was granted full protection of his property and life on my behalf except for a right? His (other) affairs rest with Allah. Upon this Abu Bakr said: By Allah, I would definitely fight against him who severed prayer from Zakat, for it is the obligation upon the rich. By Allah, I would fight against them even to secure the cord (used for hobbling the feet of a camel) which they used to give to the Messenger of Allah (as zakat) but now they have withheld it. Umar b. Khattab remarked: By Allah, I found nothing but the fact that Allah had opened the heart of Abu Bakr for (perceiving the justification of) fighting (against those who refused to pay Zakat) and I fully recognized that the (stand of Abu Bakr) was right.
Book 001, Number 0030:
It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah.
Book 001, Number 0031:
It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that he heard the Messenger of Allah say: I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.
Book 001, Number 0032:
It is narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded that I should fight against people till they declare that there is no god but Allah, and when they profess it that there is no god but Allah, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah, and then he (the Holy Prophet) recited (this verse of the Holy Qur’an):” Thou art not over them a warden” (lxxxviii, 22).

Read more: http://youngcons.com/wow-jimmy-carter-tells-islamic-conference-that-principles-of-allah-are-key-to/#ixzz3C72nD18I

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Obama AWOL Again - On Energy Terrorism

Four news stories in four days sum up the Obama presidency and help explain why the world and U.S. economy are in such a mess. President Obama just returned from his two-week beach and golf vacation at Martha’s Vineyard. It took him a month from the time special forces located journalist James Foley to approve a rescue mission – by which time Foley had been moved (and was subsequently beheaded).
Mr. Obama may pursue a sweeping international climate change deal that bypasses Congress. But on dealing with ISIS terrorist butchers months after they swept through Iraq, “We don’t have a strategy yet.”
President Obama has ordered limited air strikes to “contain” (but not defeat) Islamic State terrorists who have shot, crucified and beheaded thousands of men, women and children in Iraq and Syria. However, he still has no plans for protecting the United States from the energy terrorism that jihadists are planning.
The president’s failure to “connect the dots,” to see and prepare for potentially devastating attacks on U.S. and global citizens and energy supplies, is an inexcusable threat to our security. Preparations for massive energy terrorist attacks around the world are increasingly open and obvious. Now that Mr. Obama is back in the White House for a few days, hopefully to deal with real crises literally exploding around the world (from the Middle East to Afghanistan to Nigeria and beyond), let me connect some dots for him.
With Iraqi and other oil fields in jihadist hands, petroleum has become the mother’s milk of Islamic terrorism. Along with drug trafficking and bank robbery, it provides financing to arm, feed, train and pay terrorists on a massive scale that makes Leonardo DiCaprio’s Blood Diamond loot look like child’s play.
Islamic State butchers are raking in an estimated $2 million or more every day by selling oil on the black market, from wells they have seized in Iraq and Syria. “This could fetch them more than $730 million a year, enough to sustain operations beyond Iraq,” Iraq Energy Institute Director Luay al-Khatteeb told CNN in late August. More captured Syrian oil fields could raise ISIS oil revenue to $1.2 billion a year, says Theodore Karasik, research director at the think tank INEGMA in Dubai.
ISIS conquest of Iraqi Kurdistan’s Kirkuk area could boost the terrorists’ oil production from 30,000 barrels a day now to as much as 1 million barrels a day:$20 billion/year, if they can sell their oil at (say) a below-market $55 per barrel to countries that are na├»ve, support terror or ignore human rights.
That could buy unfathomable terrorism – on levels portended by a laptop computer that moderate Syrian forces found in an ISIS hideout. Amid some 34,000 files, it includes manuals on car theft, disguises and bomb making, documents on how to develop biological weapons and “weaponize” bubonic plague, and a radical Muslim cleric’s fatwa justifying weapons of mass destruction, “even if it wipes them and their descendants off the face of the Earth.” With laboratories in Mosul, Iraq and Raqqa, Syria now in ISIS hands, these neo-SS lunatics could well turn their caliphate dreams into Western World nightmares.
Even just a few such attacks would shut down commerce, the way 9/11 and the DC sniper did.
Should the Islamic State somehow conquer the rest of Iraq and other Arab and Muslim lands, it could also cause major oil price increases that would cripple economies worldwide. By then vastly wealthier than Genghis Khan, such an empowered Islamic State could even decide to impose an oil embargo on the U.S. and other nations – as Arab oil exporters did for six months in 1973 and 1974, with devastating effects.
Other terrorist groups are fighting to control oil and natural gas supplies elsewhere. And Qatar – whose oil and gas have made it the richest country in the world, on a per capita basis – is acting as the terrorists’ ATM, bankrolling their activities, while playing the “good-guy” host of the 2022 FIFA World Cup.
So what can America do to prepare? First, recognize the threat and develop a strategy – not just to “contain” ISIS, but to eliminate them. Mr. Obama has already missed golden opportunities, but we have the necessary capabilities. He needs to use them, and find some leadership skills to rally and recruit allies.
Second, secure our southern border. A friendly border control agent chatted me up ten days ago about the $10 poster I was bringing back from Canada. His attentiveness to the Quebec-NY border was gratifying. But meanwhile thousands are still streaming across our Mexican border, with minimal safeguards, despite reports of Korans, prayer rugs and English-Arabic dictionaries being found on these “immigrant” trails. (As to offending Hispanics, they don’t want to get blown up or murdered with bubonic plague, either.)
Third, develop more U.S. oil and natural gas – and persuade Europe to start fracking. The United States consumed 18.6 million barrels of oil a day in 2013, the U.S. Energy Information Administration says. Better vehicle fuel mileage, other energy conservation efforts and the Obama economy have reduced oil importsfrom 12.6 million barrels per day in 2005 to 7.5 million this year. And though America’s oil (and natural gas) production continues to climb, we still importabout one-third of our oil.
Reducing foreign oil dependence can be accomplished via continued energy conservation, switching to natural gas for many applications, burning more coal to generate electricity for hybrid and electric cars, and brewing more ethanol and biodiesel (while ignoring their food, economic and environmental costs). But these will barely make a dent, compared to more drilling and fracking on onshore and offshore federal, state and private lands – plus buying more from our stable neighbor and longtime ally, Canada.
Unfortunately, President Obama has thus far been loath to do any of this. Yes, domestic oil and gas production has risen under his watch. However, the increase has come from state and private lands, while production has fallen significantlyon lands under federal government control.
President Obama and many Democrats in Congress and state governments continue to oppose drilling for oil off our East and West Coasts, and in Alaska and our Western states. They oppose construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which could safely transport 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada (plus Montana and North Dakota oil) to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries, thereby reducing risks of more rail accidents. Many of these same Democrats also oppose hydraulic fracturing, which could greatly increase U.S. oil and gas production for many decades to come.
Tapping into our nation’s vast oil and natural gas supplies would even allow us to export some oil, natural gas and refined products. That would help our allies and trading partners become less dependent on terror-sponsoring oil producers and Russian “oiligarch” blackmailers – until they can get their act together on fracking. Such sales would also reduce our trade deficit and create badly needed American jobs.
History shows that even today’s friendly oil producers can become tomorrow’s adversaries. We were importing 554,000 barrels of oil a day from Iran, at the peak in 1978, before Islamic extremists took the country over and held our diplomats hostage. Our imports from Persia have been zero ever since.
Too many “environmentalists” reflexively oppose all oil and natural gas production, all the time. They refuse to admit that we cannot slash our reliance on these two fuels from 64% today to zero in a few years – and cannot bring new oil and gas supplies online in just a few years, in the midst of a crisis.
Khalid A. Al-Falih, CEO of Saudi Aramco, the world’s biggest oil producing company, recently told an energy conference in Norway that even without terrorist threats the world will need to produce 40 million more barrels of oil a day within the next 20 years – just to replace what we are depleting. Finding enough to supply billions of people striving to rise up out of abject poverty will take far more than that.
Instead of waiting for an energy 9/11 to hit, President Obama and members of Congress are duty-bound to act now on all these steps, and more, to protect America’s national security. They must stop ignoring the imminent and growing threats of energy and energy-funded terrorism that America and the world face – before we run out of time to prepare for and prevent the potential onslaughts.
The president, Secretary of State John Kerry, EPA and too many politicians are focused on overblown dangers from climate change. They need to wake up to the terrorist train that is raging toward us.


Labor Daze: Majority of Americans 'Strongly Dissaprove' of Obama's Job Performance