Has ‘Peak Oil’ Arrived–Many analysts see a speculation “premium” of at least $25 bbl

Has ‘Peak Oil’ Arrived

Rick Moran
A Vice President of Russia’s largest independent oil company says that oil production in that country has peaked and in the future will begin declining:

Russian oil production has peaked and may never return to current levels, one of the country’s top energy executives has warned, fuelling concerns that the world’s biggest oil producers cannot keep up with rampant Asian demand.

The warning helped on Tuesday to push crude oil prices to a fresh all-time high above $112 a barrel, threatening to stoke inflation in many countries.

US crude oil West Texas Intermediate surged in London trading to $113.06 a barrel, above last week’s record of $112.21 a barrel. It later traded 125 cents higher at $113.01 a barrel.

Leonid Fedun, the 52-year-old vice-president of Lukoil, Russia’s largest independent oil company, told the Financial Times he believed last year’s Russian oil production of about 10m barrels a day was the highest he would see “in his lifetime”.
Russia is the world’s second biggest oil producer. Mr Fedun compared Russia with the North Sea and Mexico, where oil production is declining dramatically, saying that in the oil-rich region of western Siberia, the mainstay of Russian output, “the period of intense oil production [growth] is over”.

Part of Russia’s problem has been nearly 40 years of pumping those Siberian wells at full capacity according to many oil experts. This was a result of the Communists (and later the Russian Republic’s) desperate need for hard currency. That and the fact that the Soviet’s especially used very inefficient means to pump the oil out of the ground.

Now the Russian oil industry is more productive but their primary fields are becoming less viable due to decreased pressure at the wellhead which makes it harder to get the oil that is still down there. Recovery of the remaining oil will be more expensive but at more than $100 bbl it is certainly worth it.

The question about other big fields like the North Sea and Mexico is one of investment in new facilities versus the likely return. There is also opposition in some countries because of the environmental risks. Hence, declining output from those two major suppliers will be significant as the current fields gradually decline.

The Middle East is a different story. The spigot in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States is not wide open despite jawboning from Bush and other western leaders. Analysts estimate that another 2 million bbl could be pumped if the Arabs so chose. Why should they when customers keep bidding up the price of what they’re already taking out of the ground?

If the west goes into recession, demand will fall off and prices will ease – how much is anyone’s guess. At that point, the current solidarity on price of oil producing states may fall apart and it will be every country for itself, pumping more oil to keep market share and profits up.

We are not at peak oil yet, not even close. There are huge reserves in several places around the world including Africa, the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, and South America. The problems today with high prices have much more to do with politics as they have to do with the world running out of oil. Unrest in Nigeria, war or the threat of war in the Middle East, Venezuela playing politics with supply, and a large increase in demand have combined to set the speculators in the commodities markets off on a frenzy. Many analysts see a speculation “premium” of at least $25 bbl – probably more now with this recent spike in oil prices.

The key is to dampen the speculators enthusiasm. Unfortunately, it may take a US recession for that to happen.

Scientist: Earth Cooling, Not Warming

Ethanol, Food Shortages and the Real Cost of Climate Alarmism

04.25.08 Briefing • Steve Elliott, Grassfire.org • Subscribe hereRSS

Ethanol, Food Shortages and the Real Cost of Climate Alarmism
As Americans go to the grocery story and discover rising food prices on the shelves, we have to thank in part Climate Alarmism. The push to turn our food into fuel has played a role in the rise of food prices here in the U.S. and globally. And it’s only going to get worse as American farmers respond to the federal mandate and more and more of our farmland is committed to fuel and not food. With global reports of riots, food prices up 83% and starvation, the political reality surrounding ethanol may change quickly. Read this from the Heritage Foundation: “Second Thoughts On Ethanol”. MOna Charen chimes in with this article that questions at what price will we try to solve the so-called crisis of global warming.

I’m thrilled to announced that our petition opposing the coming $1.2 Trillion global warming tax (vote expected in June) and Al Gore’s climate alarmism just crossed 100,000 signers in just over a week. As we discover the real cost of climate alarmism (oppressive taxes, rising food and gas prices, global food shortages), perhaps 2007 will be remembered as the high point in Al Gore’s climate crusade.

Join over 100,000 citizens and sign the Petition Against Climate Alarmism

Is Oil King or is Food King?
As a friend of mine said recently, the rise in food prices was somewhat predictable, as if the currently popular idea that oil is king inevitably gets challenged by the reality that food is fundamentally more important. He noted to me that the last huge spike in fuel prices (1970s) was followed by a quick rise in food prices as if the markets will not let oil get too far ahead of food in real value.

My interview with Rep. Jones on the border fence
Rep. Walter Jones (NC) recently joined me for an interview to discuss the current status of the border fence. As you may know, Congress and the President recently gutted the Secure Fence Act, removing the double-layer fence mandate and giving DHS final discretion as to where, when and how to build the fence (if any is built at all). Earlier this week, DHS scrapped its highly touted virtual fence as a failure. Maybe it’s time to build the fence that works — the double layer fence. Please listen to my interview and then let members of Congress know what you think.


Food Crisis Starts Eclipsing Climate Change Worries Gore Ducks, as a Backlash Builds Against Biofuels

Google Must Be Held To Account



Google Must Be Held To Account Print
Friday, 25 April 2008
It is one thing for Google Earth to depict the map of the world as is and another thing to manipulate it. It is one thing for any business to market its product and it is another thing to peddle something it does not own.

Google Earth has arrogantly violated the universally upheld norms by arbitrarily taking it upon itself to name the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Gulf. With a few strokes of the keyboard, Google Earth has obliterated from the face of the map a greatly-cherished historical and cultural heritage of an ancient people. One wonders what motivated this blatant action of Google Earth: a simple arrogant exercise of power or capitulation to the financial rewards offered by those who aim to further their world standing at the expense of others.Appeals by hundreds of thousands of Iranians and others to Google Earth to retain the longstanding designation of the waterway as the Persian Gulf and delete the newly-minted Arabian Gulf from the map have gone unheeded, thus far.

Demanding that the name of the Persian Gulf be retained goes beyond the fact that the Persians are rightfully proud of their heritage and strive to preserve the integrity of the historical documents that reference it as such.

For the record, the name Persia has always been used to describe the nation presently known as Iran and its ancient empires since 600 BC. Also, the Persian Gulf is an apt name for the body of water that abuts Iran for over 2000 kilometers while about a dozen recently-created Arab Sheikhdoms and Emirates border the Persian Gulf on the other side.

Without disparaging the Arabs, Iranians wish to retain their non-Arab heritage and strongly resent any attempt at denigrating or changing any aspect of their Iranian identity. Even inside Iran, the Iranian people have been constantly fighting and opposing similar attempts by the brutal dictatorship of the ruling IRI regime. The Persian Gulf occupies a pivotal place in the Iranian history and culture.

The historical and geographical name of the Persian Gulf has been endorsed and codified by the United Nations many occasions and is in use by the UN, its member states, and all other international agencies worldwide. The last UN Directive confirming the name of Persian Gulf was issued on August 18, 1994.

On almost all maps printed before 1960, and in most modern international treaties, documents and maps, this body of water is known by the name “Persian Gulf”, reflecting traditional usage since the Greek geographers Strabo and Ptolemy, and the geopolitical realities of the time with a powerful Persian Empire (Iran) comprising the whole northern coastline and a scattering of local emirates on the Arabian coast.

It is worth mentioning that the name of Persian Gulf has been admitted in all the live languages of the world, and all the countries throughout the world name this Iranian Sea, Persian Gulf. Even our Arab neighbors do not need to alter a historical name to have a gulf of their own, because there has been a gulf in their own name previously mentioned in the historical and geographical works and drawings, which is presently called the Red Sea (Bahr Ahmar).

Iranians worldwide, as well as all people interested in preserving the integrity of historical and cultural records, are deeply affronted by this arrogant action of Google Earth. Acquiescing to practices of this sort is tantamount to appeasement which only serves to whet the appetite of aggressors and violators. Precedence may pave the way for a torrent of infringements on every aspect of every people’s cultural, historical, and other heritage.

It is our hope that all enlightened and fair-minded people who value the preservation of humanity’s diverse heritage raise their voices and compel Google Earth to restore the rightful name of the Persian Gulf to the waterway.

Contributing writer Amil Imani is an internationally known writer and essayist, who has dedicated his time to research on Iran’s noble heritage.

If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this issuer or this article, please email your request to

Dr. Iman Foroutan
Member of the Board and Spokesman
Iran of Tomorrow Movement (SOS Iran)
(714) 280-3579

“The Axis of Idiots” By J.D. Pendry retired Marine Sergeant Major

“The Axis of Idiots” By J.D. Pendry retired Marine Sergeant Major

“The Axis of Idiots”

Too bad we don’t have folks on Capitol Hill willing to speak out like this.    

  J.D. Pendry is a retired Marine Command Sergeant Major who writes for Random House.  
He is eloquent, and he seldom beats around the bush!

Jimmy Carter, you’re the father of the Islamic Nazi movement.  You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You’re the runner-in-chief.

Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us.  You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the U.S.S. Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and Our Embassy Bombings emboldened the killers.  Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.

John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute.  You lied about American Soldiers in   Vietnam.  Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact.  You’ve accused our Soldiers of terrorizing women and children in  Iraq. You called Iraq  the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam.  You’re a fake. You want to run from  Iraq and abandon th e Iraqis to murderers just as you did the Vietnamese.   Iraq, like Vietnam, is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

John Murtha, you said our military was broken.  You said we can’t win militarily in   Iraq.  You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to  Okinawa.   Okinawa, John?  And the Democrats call you their military expert!  Are you sure you didn’t suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume?  You’re a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician.  You’re not a Marine, sir.  You wouldn’t amount to a good pimple on a real Marine’s ass.  You’re a phony and a disgrace.  Run away, John.

Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at  Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of  Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists.  Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate.  History was not a good teacher for you, was it?  Lord help us!  See Dick run.

Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster-sized pictures from  Abu Ghraib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera  quoted you saying that Iraqi’s torture chambers were open under new management.  Did you see the news, Teddy?  The Islamic Nazis demonstrate real torture for you again.  If you truly supported our troops, you’d show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it.  Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a communist victory there.  You’re a bloated, drunken fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs.  To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your wide, gin-soaked rear-end in

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein,  Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy,  Chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam:  Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave  Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers – the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers – cause to think that we’ll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer.

American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one united with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers.  You can’t strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help  Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda  is.  Think about that each time you face
Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.

You are
America‘s “AXIS OF IDIOTS.”  Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us.  Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers.  It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing.  There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists.  Don’t ever doubt that.  Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam.  If you want our Soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.

Yes, I’m questioning your patriotism.  Your loyalty ends with self.  I’m also questioning why you’re stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing.  You don’t deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform.  You need to run away from this war, this country.   Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.

No, Mr. President, you don’t get off the hook, either.  Our country has two enemies: Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within.  Your Soldiers are dealing with the outside force.  It’s your obligation to support them by confronting the AXIS OF IDIOTS.

America must hear it from you that these self-centered people are harming our country, abetting the enemy and endangering our safety.  Well up a little anger, please, and channel it toward the appropriate target.  You must prosecute those who leak national security secrets to the media.  You must prosecute those in the media who knowingly publish those secrets.

Our Soldiers need you to confront the enemy that they cannot.  They need you to do it now.

J. D. Pendry  
Semper Fi

Newt’s Global Warming Surprise

Newt’s Global Warming Surprise

By Marc Sheppard

My esteem for the political intellect of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is second to no one’s.  That said, by appearing in the latest Al Gore propaganda commercial, he joins a disturbingly growing number of ostensibly green-turning Republicans — our president among them — who thereby cast doubt upon their own conservative resolve.

Harder still to reconcile is this: unlike that given by George Bush last week, Newt’s explanation for his apparent duplicity rings excruciatingly hollow and ultimately fraudulent.  Leaving dumbfounded admirers to wonder whether they’ll ever learn why — and why now?


The ad by Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection features Newt sitting on a Loveseat (of all things) with Nancy Pelosi (of all people) with the Capitol Building (of all places) looming large in the background.  After cursory introductions and each confessing that they don’t “always see eye-to-eye,” Newt looks into the camera and states “but we do agree our country must take action to address climate change.” [my emphasis]


Now, while this may have shocked many viewers who thought only the amphibious newt to be green, in reality it didn’t abruptly crawl out of a pond.


During an April 2007 debate on the subject with the insufferable John Kerry [video], Newt opened by effectively ceding the point of anthropogenic global warming to his not-so-jolly green opponent.  Even before Kerry could utter a single word of eco-babble, Newt admitted his thoroughly off beam conviction


“that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere.” 


Actually, outside of the Massachusetts Senator’s emphasis on regulation as a solution, there was surprisingly little discord between the two “debaters.” Declared Newt:  


“I want to suggest that we need a new science- and technology-based, entrepreneurial, market-oriented and locally led environmentalism.”


A concept Gingrich would essentially reiterate a year later when he speaks in the Gore-mercial of “spark[ing] the technology we need,” not raising taxes or other big-government solutions.


To be sure, if the actions of man were ever to be proven contributory, technology would be the preferred GOP response, not taxes. But that’s an extremely big and currently unforeseeable if.  


Which leads to the primary quandary created by the highly regarded conservative’s very presence in such an ad — it broadcasts an acceptance that the actions of man have an impact on climate — a theory never properly tested, much less proven.  Moreover, Newt’s suggestion that climate change is addressable in any manner other than adaptive preparation for its natural inevitability undermines the rational demand for empirical-evidence-before-action while supporting the alarmists’ “debate is over” lie.  How could the savvy political historian fail to foresee the tactical advantages his attendance would hand the loony Left?


And yet, his timing was actually worse than his reasoning.  


Why Now, When the Alarm Bell Grows Faint?


For starters, the “settled science” canard is quickly coming apart at the seams


A growing number (currently hundreds) of scientists — many giants in their fields — have signed a declaration during and since last month’s New York Climate Conference, affirming their positions contrary to the so called “consensus.”  They emphatically reject CO2 as a pollutant, and assert that global climate has always and will always change — independent of the actions of man. And that therefore, any schemes to mitigate anthropogenic carbon are a “dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.” Additionally, such plans “will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.”  And they conclude “that all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 [should] be abandoned forthwith.”


Meanwhile, another silly Earth Week comes to a close. For five straight days television viewers have suffered through a greater than usual number of straight-faced politicians and assorted talking heads addressing carbon and nuclear proliferation with equal alarm.   They’ve also abided countless carbon-footprint-shrinking “tips” and non-stop advertisers selling the gullible on the premise that an imaginary green life is as important as a sparkling white toilet bowl and minty-fresh breath.


All, mind you, while the war, the housing market, energy costs, the overall economy and other real-world issues seem to have put the environment near dead last on most recent polls measuring respondents’ concerns.  Add the fact that a recent Gallup Poll found that “the greenhouse effect or global warming” only tied for 9th place in a list of environmental issues people actually do worry about, and it would appear that only the media, self-serving politicians and the alarmists themselves really buy any of this cataclysmic tipping point nonsense.


In fact, it seems as though the public’s concerns for imaginary problems are inversely proportional to their exposure to real ones.  Bad news for Al Gore, but decidedly good news for the planet.  And considering the lethargy of Sun Cycle 24, news of flat global temps since 1998, forecasts of a potential impending ice-age, installed Euro cap-and-trade systems as corrupt as they are counterproductive and zero probability of capping emissions from developing India or development-overdriven China — it’s quite clear that the alarmists have found themselves on the ropes.


Unfortunately, adding the name Gingrich to a roster of recently greened “Republicans” already including McCain, Schwarzenegger, Warner,  Huckabee, Bloomberg and even – apparently Bush, can only serve to recharge the Big Green Scare Machine’s eco-friendly fuel cells.


Why Single Out Newt When Bush Too Has Freshly Erred?


Yes, Bush is also getting heat for seemingly warming to warmists.  Last week’s official announcement of his plan to achieve flat U.S. Greenhouse Emissions by 2025 elicited cries of too-little-too-late from the left and Benedict Arnold from the right.


But the president gave a fairly compelling explanation for his actions — one well worth considering.


Earlier this month, 17 states exploited last year’s absurd Supreme Court declaration of CO2 as an air pollutant by suing the Environmental Protection Agency to act upon it. As rightly feared at the time, the wrongly decided ruling that the EPA is legally responsible to regulate “greenhouse gas” (GHG) tailpipe emissions has opened the door to the specter of unelected bureaucrats controlling airborne carbon.


A horrifying vision indeed, for as MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen warned us last year:


“Controlling Carbon is a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon you control life.”


On another front, Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works chair Barbara Boxer and her greenie cronies have also been busy trying to force the EPA’s CO2 pollutant status under the existing Clean Air Act.  Such a move would all but assure their green dream of cap-and-trade by regulatory diktat. 


Meanwhile, the Interior Department has been court ordered to decide whether the polar bear should be protected under the Endangered Species Act.  As global warming is being blamed for the reduction of polar ice on which the mammals live and hunt, the confluence of these two so-amended acts could lead to, as Marc Morano — communications director for the minority on Boxer’s committee — suggested at last month’s conference:


“someone running a lawnmower in Miami could, theoretically, be cited for endangering the polar bear.”


It is just such insanity that Bush suggests his plan will curtail.  As explained by the president:


“If these laws are stretched beyond their original intent, they could override the programs Congress just adopted, and force the government to regulate more than just power plant emissions. They could also force the government to regulate smaller users and producers of energy – from schools and stores to hospitals and apartment buildings. This would make the federal government act like a local planning and zoning board, have crippling effects on our entire economy.


Nicely played, actually.  


Considering these facts alongside the pro cap-and-trade postures of all 3 vying for 2009 White House occupancy, one can’t disallow a possible strategy being crafted by this oft-poker-faced administration.


Doesn’t The Ex-Speaker Also Deserve a Chance to Explain?


He does, and he did.


But contrast the president’s to Mr.Gingrich’s explanation, as published on his website


After stating that he doesn’t think there’s conclusive proof of global warming, much less any anthropogenic contribution – a sharp departure from his converse words barely a year old — Newt moves the discussion to conservation and energy policy: [emphasis added]


“There is an important debate going on right now over the right energy policy, the right environmental policy, and making sure we do the right things for our future and the future of our children and grandchildren. Conservatives are missing from this debate, and I think that’s a mistake. When it comes to preserving our environment for future generations, we can’t have a slogan of ‘Just yell no!’

I have a different view. I think it’s important to be on the stage, to engage in the debate, and to communicate our position clearly. There is a big difference between left-wing environmentalism that wants higher taxes, bigger government., more bureaucracy, more regulation, more red tape, and more litigation and a Green Conservatism that wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes to find a way to creatively invent the kind of environmental future we all want to live in. Unless we start making the case for the latter, we’re going to get the former. That’s why I took part in the ad.”


Sorry, but that simply can’t hold warming-ocean water.  The Newt sitting beside Nancy didn’t say that our country must take action to address a cleaner environment for our children and grandchildren.  Nor did he say anything about energy policy — surely no one would deny the benefits of energy independence. No — he stared right into the camera and clearly stated that action must be taken to address climate change.


And just which “debate” does Newt think conservatives are missing from?  The one the Left declares only a “tiny, tiny minority” of “deniers” and “flat-Earthers” refute is over?   The same Left that labels all dissenting scientists, regardless of credentials and numbers, as hacks and oil company shills? And whose de facto leader has refused Mano-a-Mano debates time and time again?


The undeniable truth is that by continuing to seek knowledge rather than declaring the science “settled,” Conservatives are far more involved in the debate than any of their liberal counterparts.


Again, Newt’s innovation-over-bureaucracy argument merits none from me.  But such actions — indeed, any actions — in the glaring absence of proof that global temperatures can be impacted in either direction by mankind’s meddling cannot be the conservative position.  On the other hand, steadfastly questioning the “science” while inexhaustibly fighting the politically correct scientifically-antithetical hype must be.


Bush may just be stalling bad legislation in order to prevent worse policy by fiat, hoping that both climate trends and public opinion continue to cool in the interim.  McCain, while clearly wrong, is running as an independent Republican and likely believes he’s properly playing the part. Other complicit Republicans are just plain wrong.


But somehow with Newt, wrong cuts a whole lot deeper and bleeds a whole lot more. 


The former Speaker owes us all an amended explanation worthy of his intellect, and ours, soon — soon.


Marc Sheppard is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and welcomes your feedback.

The Man Behind Jeremiah Wright

http://www.DiscoverTheNetwork.org Date: 4/25/2008 2:22:28 PM
<!– Individual Profile:

  • Founder of black liberation theology
  • Professor of Systematic Theology at the Union Theological Seminary in New York City
  • Views America as an irredeemably racist nation
  • “What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of Black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” — James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation
  • “This country was founded for whites and everything that has happened in it has emerged from the white perspective. What we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.” — James Cone

Ordained by the African Methodist Episcopal Church, James Hal Cone is a theologian credited most notably with founding and advancing black liberation theology, which combines tenets of Christian socialism and the Black Power movement. He came into the forefront of public consciousness when Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s controversial pastor, named him in 2007 as the preeminent influence on his on theology.

Working from a strong Marxist base, liberation theology teaches that the New Testament gospels can be understood only as calls for social activism, class struggle, and revolution aimed at overturning the existing capitalist order and installing, in its stead, a socialist utopia where today’s poor will unseat their “oppressors” and become liberated from their material (and, consequently, their spiritual) deprivations. An extension of this paradigm, black liberation theology seeks to foment a similar Marxist revolutionary fervor founded on racial rather than class solidarity.

James Cone was born in 1938 and was raised in Arkansas. He earned a B.A. degree from Philander Smith College in 1958; a Bachelor of Divinity degree from Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary in 1961; and M.A. (1963) and Ph.D. (1965) degrees from Northwestern University. He also has been awarded eight honorary degrees, including a Doctor of Divinity from Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary.

Characterizing America as an irredeemably “racist society,”
Cone argues that white people traditionally have exploited Christianity as an opiate of the (black) masses. He asserts that the destitute “are made and kept poor by the rich and powerful few,” and that “[n]o one can be a follower of Jesus Christ without a political commitment that expresses one’s solidarity with victims.”

Influenced by the Christian existential philosophy of Paul Tillich and the Black Power movement of Malcolm X, Cone exhorts black Christians to reject the “White Church,” which he claims has failed to support them in their struggle for equal rights.

Claiming that “black values” are superior to American values, Cone’s writings posit a black Jesus who leads African Americans as the “chosen people.” “This country was founded for whites, and everything that has happened in it has emerged from the white perspective,” he writes. “What we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.”

In 1969, Cone characterized white society as the Antichrist, and the white church as an institution that was racist to its core. Thus he posited “a desperate need for a black theology, a theology whose sole purpose is to apply the freeing power of the gospel to black people under white oppression.”

In his landmark 1969 book Black Theology and Black Power, Cone wrote:

“The time has come for white America to be silent and listen to black people…. All white men are responsible for white oppression…. Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.’ … Any advice from whites to blacks on how to deal with white oppression is automatically under suspicion as a clever device to further enslavement.”

In that same volume, Cone penned these sentiments about universal black goodness and white evil:

“For white people, God’s reconciliation in Jesus Christ means that God has made black people a beautiful people; and if they are going to be in relationship with God, they must enter by means of their black brothers, who are a manifestation of God’s presence on earth. The assumption that one can know God without knowing blackness is the basic heresy of the white churches. They want God without blackness, Christ without obedience, love without death. What they fail to realize is that in America, God’s revelation on earth has always been black, red, or some other shocking shade, but never white. Whiteness, as revealed in the history of America, is the expression of what is wrong with man. It is a symbol of man’s depravity. God cannot be white even though white churches have portrayed him as white. When we look at what whiteness has done to the minds of men in this country, we can see clearly what the New Testament meant when it spoke of the principalities and powers. To speak of Satan and his powers becomes not just a way of speaking but a fact of reality. When we can see a people who are controlled by an ideology of whiteness, then we know what reconciliation must mean. The coming of Christ means a denial of what we thought we were. It means destroying the white devil in us. Reconciliation to God means that white people are prepared to deny themselves (whiteness), take up the cross (blackness) and follow Christ (black ghetto).”

In his 1970 book A Black Theology of Liberation, Cone advanced the notion of a deity that sided with blacks, and against whites:

“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the Black community. If God is not for us and against White people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of Black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the Black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of Black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”

In a 2004 essay, Cone expressed his belief that white racism in America had not diminished at all since the publication of his aforementioned books three-and-a-half decades earlier: “Black suffering is getting worse, not better…. White supremacy is so clever and evasive that we can hardly name it. It claims not to exist, even though black people are dying daily from its poison.”

Also among Cone’s more notable statements regarding race are the following:

  • Blackness … must, without qualification, refer to black-skinned people who bear the scars of oppression; and whiteness must refer to the people responsible for that oppression…. [T]here can be no universal understanding of blackness without the particular experience of blackness.”
  • [Racism is] in– it’s in American culture. As you say, it’s in the DNA. It’s our– it’s white America’s original sin and it’s deep.”
  • Yeah, it’s ugly. Black [lynched] bodies hanging on trees [in the post-slavery era]…. People don’t like to talk about stuff that’s really deep and ugly.… And if America could understand itself as not being innocent, it might be able to play a more creative role in the world today.”
  • The lynching tree is a metaphor for race in America, a symbol of America’s crucifixion of black people. See, whites feel a little uncomfortable because they are part of the history of the people who did the lynching. I would much rather be a part of the history of the lynching victims than a part of the history of the one who did it. And that’s the kind of transcendent perspective that empowers people to resist.”
  • Crucifixion and lynchings are symbols … of the power of domination. They are symbols of the destruction of people’s humanity. With black people being 12 percent of the US population and nearly 50 percent of the prison population, that’s lynching. It’s a legal lynching. So, there are a lot of ways to lynch a people than just hanging ’em on the tree. A lynching is trying to control the population. It is striking terror in the population so as to control it. That’s what the ghetto does. It crams people into living spaces where they will self destruct, kill each other, fight each other, shoot each other because they have no place to breathe, no place for recreation, no place for an articulation and expression of their humanity. So, it becomes a way, a metaphor for lynching, if lynching is understood and as one group forcing a kind of inhumanity upon another group.”

In addition to the previously referenced titles, Cone has authored such books as The Spirituals and the Blues: An Interpretation (1972); God of the Oppressed (1975); For My People: Black Theology and the Black Church (1984); Martin & Malcolm & America: A Dream or a Nightmare? (1992), and Speaking the Truth: Ecumenism, Liberation, and Black Theology (1999).

Cone has taught theology at Philander Smith College in Arkansas, Adrian College in Michigan, and since 1970 at Union Theological Seminary in New York City, where he is currently the Charles Augustus Briggs Distinguished Professor of Systematic Theology.

Over the years, Cone has received such honors as the Paul Robeson Award (from the Mother AME Zion Church); the American Black Achievement Award in the category of Religion (given by Ebony Magazine); the Theological Scholarship and Research Award (from the Association of Theological Schools); the Fund for Theological Education Award (given by the American Academy of Religion); and the Julius C. Hope Champion of Social Justice Award (from the NAACP).


Hillary’s Radical Skeletons

Hillary’s Radical Skeletons

By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | 4/25/2008

Integral to Hillary Clinton’s triumph in the Pennsylvania primary on Tuesday, Jacob Laksin observed in FrontPage Magazine, was convincing Keystone State voters that she “understood the curious ways of more humble folk.” The former feminist liberationist, who channeled dead spirits, belittled those who “stayed home and baked cookies and had teas,” and labored to sue handgun manufacturers for daring to make the Second Amendment possible morphed herself into a gun-toting, whiskey-swilling church lady. Her reinvention as a redneck queen only went so far, though: she did tremendous damage by emphasizing Barack Obama’s ties to anti-American radicals Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. She has, in short, been lucky in her choice of opponents: a mature candidate would have thrown both under a bus at the first opportunity. Obama’s refusal to do so, likening one to his grandmother, has allowed Hillary to present herself as the voice of mainstream moderation.

She is no such thing.

Conservatives, amused at the once-invincible Obama finally facing tough questions, would be ill-served if they allow her to establish her new image as a plain vanilla moderate. From her crusading days in Wellsley College through her choice of minister during her eight years in the East Wing, Hillary has surrounded herself with a consortium of radicals that would make Obama blush (or rather, feel right at home).

The Mobster’s Marxist
The former Goldwater girl would write her 1969 thesis for Wellesley College on the ideas of native Chicago radical Saul Alinsky. Entitled “There is only the Fight, An Analysis of the Alinsky model,” its 92 pages explored the intellectual world of the Marxist organizer. The young Ms. Rodham likened Alinsky – favorably – to Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene Debs, Walt Whitman, and Martin Luther King Jr., stating “each embraced the most radical of political faiths – democracy.” Hillary had one difference with Alinsky: she did not believe street demonstrations were effective avenues to promote their shared, far-Left values. Instead, she affirmed her commitment to working “inside the system,” because she believed all change came about only by acquiring political power. Three years after her thesis, Alinsky revealed the source of some of his methods, “I learned a hell of a lot about the uses and abuses of power from the mob, lessons that stood me in good stead later on, when I was organizing…Everybody owned stock in the Capone mob; in a way, he was a public benefactor.” Alinsky certainly benefited: he consorted with Al Capone and Frank Nitti, among other mafiosi. Alinsky knew a ruthless leader when he saw one, offering Hillary a job at his Industrial Areas Foundation Training Institute.

Peeping for the Panthers

She declined in favor of attending Yale Law School. There, she studied under the infamous Thomas (“Tommy the Commie”) Emerson. Emerson introduced her to Charles Garry, an attorney for the Black Panther Party. When Panthers were put on trial in New Haven, Connecticut, for the torture and murder of Alex Rackley, Hillary monitored the trial – on behalf of the Panthers. (Although this is the subject of an urban legend, the monitoring did, in fact, occur.) Her aim, and that of the students she organized, was to look for “civil rights violations” that could be used as technicalities to dismiss the charges against the Panthers.

“Our Law Firm was a Communist Law Firm.”
Unsuccessful in these efforts, in 1972 Hillary Rodham took her unmarried companion, Bill Clinton, to Berkeley, where she worked as an intern at her hand-picked law firm: Treuhaft, Walker, and Bernstein. The practice, founded by current or former members of the Communist Party USA, had long acted as a legal asset for CPUSA, the Black Panthers, and other Bay-area radicals. Founding partner Bob Treuhaft had been labeled one of the nation’s most “dangerously subversive” lawyers.

Had the future presidential candidate somehow inadvertently joined a Marxist law firm 3,000 miles away from her home college? Treuhaft disclosed, “She did want to work for a left-wing movement law firm. Anyone who went to college or law school would have known our law firm was a Communist law firm.” In fact, Treuhaft and his wife, Jessica Mitford, left the Party, not because of ideological variance with the Communists, but because “It was ineffective.” In 1992, the co-president-elect wrote, “I am an admirer of Jessica Mitford.” While Rodham was doing her internship, Treuhaft feverishly worked at getting charges dismissed in Huey P. Newton’s 1967 murder of a police officer. (Hillary’s apologists often claim she monitored the Rackley trial to protest “mistreatment” of Bobby Seale; ironically, Huey Newton abused Seale far worse than any legal system.)

Not all partners in the firm had cut ties with the Communist Party. Doris Brin Walker remained a member of the CPUSA 30 years after Rodham’s intership had ended. Having just finished a stint as president of the National Lawyers Guild when Hillary reported for duty, Walker longed for a “Second American Revolution.” As Hillary left the firm, Walker successfully defended Angela Davis against multiple felonies resulting from a shootout that left a California judge dead. Walker said she undertook the case at the instruction of the CPUSA. She once mused, “For Hillary to pick the most left-wing firm really at that time in the Bay Area, it’s still a surprise to me that more hasn’t been made of that.”

Hillary did yeoman’s work while learning at the feet of the masters. Associates say Hillary helped draftees get themselves declared conscientious objectors, so they would not serve in Vietnam. They insist Hillary served VA interns seeking to avoid taking a loyalty oath to the United States. Some hint she worked on Black Panther cases, or attended their trials. And she undoubtedly assisted Berkeley student body president Daniel Siegel obtain admission to the bar, which he was denied after he thundered: “The question is not violence versus non-violence; the question is when violence, and how violence, and what violence.” He graciously specified targets: “I can see very little objection theoretically, politically, or morally, or anything else, with burning down the Bank of America and all its 500 branches.” Mr. Siegel now shares his legal wisdom at the bench, thanks to Miss Rodham.

A Check in Every Pot, a Government Babysitter in Every Garage

Hillary’s own views continued to reflect a radical orientation toward economics and the traditional family. She worked on Kenneth Kingston’s tome All Our Children: The American Family Under Pressure, which advocated a guaranteed minimum annual income. In a November 1973 article for the Harvard Educational Review, Hillary proposed liberating children from “the empire of the Father.” In that article, she asserted, “Along with the family, past and present examples of such [unjust] arrangements include marriage, slavery, and the Indian Reservation system.” As if to stick it to her opponents, who publicized this quotation during the 1992 election, Hillary authored her first book shortly after taking office: It Takes a Village to Raise a Child.

At the same time, she would meet the woman who would focus her quest for state socialism: Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund. In 1996, Edelman exhorted Jim Wallis’ leftist religious group Call to Renewal: “Let’s guarantee a job. Let’s guarantee health care and children [sic.] care. Let’s turn this welfare repeal into real welfare reform.” She endorsed full employment, socialized medicine, federally funded babysitters for all, and infinite welfare benefits for those not inclined to forsake indolence. But what will give way in the budget? Defense, of course. Edelman wrote in her1987 book Families in Peril, “We must curb the fanatical military weasel and keep it in balance with competing national needs.”

Government Lawyers for Leftists
To sure up the support of her now-husband, Jimmy Carter named Hillary Clinton to the board of the Legal Services Corporation from 1978-1980. The LSC, purportedly a program to help the poor, has dedicated the time of its taxpayer-subsidized lawyers to serving grassroots leftist organizations, easing restrictions against criminal illegal aliens, and expanding government welfare rolls. Hillary soon became chair of Legal Services, reportedly in a coup against Carter’s preferred candidate. Funding tripled during her reign, reaching its highest ever budget in inflation-adjusted dollars. At that time, LSC opposed California’s Proposition 13, which cut property taxes by more than half, although organizing a political campaign “broke its own rules,” according to Michael Barone. Likewise, the LSC tried to force the New York Transit Authority to hire heroin addicts. In 1978, it filed an amicus brief in the Bakke case, supporting racial quotas in public universities. During her co-presidency in the 1990s, LSC’s budget soared to $400 million; and its case load at the time included such causes as:

  • keeping drug-dealers from being evicted from public housing;
  • getting drug addicts disability benefits;
  • defending illegal aliens convicted of felonies from deportation;
  • suing to get welfare benefits for a criminal illegal alien who had once been deported;
  • demanding bilingual education;
  • opposing Proposition 187, the California voter initiative that would have banned non-emergency aid for illegal aliens; and
  • supporting homosexual adoption.

Clearly, she was within her element.

Hillary’s Pastor Problem

The first major chink in Obama’s electoral armor came with questions of his relationship to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the recently retired pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ and a longtime Obama family friend and confidant. Hillary took the unusual move of exploiting the issue during a Democratic primary, along the way positioning herself as a the voice of centrist reason. As Donna Brazile reminded voters, the Clintons have their own connection to Rev. Wright: Bill Clinton invited Wright to the 1998 White House Prayer Breakfast, and penned a thank you note afterwards for Wright’s attending this event during the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Oh…and Hillary was present, too.

This would be a minor blip, if it were an isolated connection to the Religious Left, particularly as Hillary the Hunter cast herself as a conservative churchgoer while campaigning in rural Pennsylvania. She did not disclose that she spent eight years faithfully attending Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington, D.C., currently pastored by Rev. Dean J. Snyder. Snyder recently praised Jeremiah Wright as “an agent of racial reconciliation” who proclaims “perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear.”

To be clear, Snyder did not serve during the 1990s. However, the previous pastor, the Rev. Dr. J. Philip Wogaman, was equally radical. A year after the Berlin Wall fell, he wrote, “Christian socialism’s critique of the excesses and brutalities and idolatries of the free market still need to be heard.” He had earlier lauded Communist Cuba and China’s “modest but real economic success.” As long ago as 1967, Rev. Useful Idiot wrote in his Protestant Faith and Religious Liberty that:

The USSR is characteristic of the more tolerant Communist arrangements for religion. In Russia there are specific constitutional guarantees of freedom of worship, and some provision has even been made for the upkeep of churches and theological seminaries.

Wogaman’s Russia: the Gothic Archipelago.

Traditional Christians were outraged by Wogaman’s views, on this and much else. As Bill Clinton did, Wogaman accused his critics – Christian columnist Cal Thomas, by name – of instigating the Oklahoma City bombing. “People in the media don’t plant bombs. But if they plant hatred and division, doesn’t that affect the behavior of unstable hearers or readers?” (Apparently Wogaman did not listen to Bill Clinton: Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich were responsible for the bombing.)

Even these were not Hillary’s first ties to religious radicals.

Hillary’s Anti-Feminist, Wife-Abusing Hero (Not Bill)

In her memoir, Living History, the junior senator from New York lauded Yale’s chaplain during her years at the law school, Rev. William Sloane Coffin Jr., for his “articulate moral critique of American involvement” in Vietnam. That critique involved his traveling to Hanoi in 1972. Seven years later, he would make a friendly trip to Tehran, the first modern Islamic theocratic state which had just stormed a U.S. embassy and kidnapped dozens of his fellow countrymen.

His friendly sojourns in countries engaged in kidnapping, torturing, or murdering Americans is not the only part of Coffin’s history that should be troubling to the feminist Clinton. Coffin, who taught Judo in the Army, repeatedly beat his second wife, Harriet, once giving her a hairline skull fracture. Discussing the matter years later, the good reverend related his emotions that night: “I said, ‘What the hell, I’ve got to do this again?’” However, he expressed regret that he “didn’t take quite enough aim.” Harriet’s crime, in the words of one academic, was that she “developed a bad drinking problem and interests in psychology and feminism, and Bill didn’t take to any of that. Harriet became desperately unhappy and tried to force Bill into discussing matters he preferred to avoid.” One of Coffin’s friends described it thus: Harriet longed “to be on a podium with him — a podium of equal height with his. And Bill just doesn’t function that way.” But savaging his wife in order to avoid diatribes on feminism did not cost him Hillary Clinton’s admiration.

Things That Go Boom in the Capitol

Hillary also attacked Obama for his close ties to Bill Ayers, a former Weather Underground member who believes he did not do enough to advance his revolutionary agenda. Hillary helpfully told a live television audience, “What they did was set bombs. And in some instances, people died. So it is – I think it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about.”
Obama, in an otherwise disastrous debate performance last week, pointed out the omnipresent Clinton hypocrisy: “By Senator Clinton’s own vetting standards, I don’t think she would make it, since President Clinton pardoned or commuted the sentences of two members of the Weather Underground, which I think is a slightly more significant act.”

Clinton pardoned Weather Underground members Susan L. Rosenberg and Linda Evans. Police caught the pair of domestic terrorists in 1984, in possession of 740 pounds of explosives and a submachine gun. Rosenberg had been involved in the Brink’s heist that left a policeman dead in Nanuet, a city in Clinton’s adopted home state of New York.

Far from penitent, Rosenberg dedicated a poem to another cop-killer: “To Free Mumia Abu Jamal.” For her part, Evans has taken to organizing. FrontPage Magazine’s John Perazzo writes:


Evans still refers to her fellow Weathermen as “comrades,” and claims that all inmates in American prisons are victims of white racism, imperialism, and “political circumstance.” “The prison industrial complex,” she writes in one of her organizational screeds, “is an interweaving of private business and government interests [with] a monumental commitment to lock up a sizeable percentage of the population.” In March 2002 she helped organize a conference (held in Cuba) titled “Tear Down The Walls,” whose purpose was to make a case for the release of “political prisoners” who had been “incarcerated because of their involvement in political activities which challenged the unjust nature of the US socioeconomic system and its hegemonic policies around the world.” Chief among these “political prisoners” were Evans’ fellow Weather bomber Boudin, Symbionese Liberation Army member Kathy Soliah (aka Sara Jane Olson), and convicted cop-killers Mumia Abu Jamal and Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin (aka H. Rap Brown).

Among those who opposed the pardons, issued on the last day of the Clinton co-presidency, were Hillary’s future NY Senate colleague, Chuck Schumer, and U.S. Attorney in New York Mary Jo White. (White, a Clinton appointee, strongly objected to the Clinton administration’s erection of “The Wall” between intelligence agencies tracking terrorists, reportedly writing in a scathing memorandum years before 9/11: “It will cost lives.”)

Similarly, Bill Clinton pardoned members of the Puerto Rican Marxist terrorist organization FALN in order to bolster his wife’s political fortunes. The FALN was responsible for 130 bombings in nine years, including a number within New York City and Chicago. The Justice Department opposed the pardons, as did FBI Director Louis Freeh. FBI Assistant Director Neil Gallagher said boldly, “They are terrorists, and they represent a threat to the United States.” Although Hillary denied any involvement in the decision, a NYC Councilman, Jose Rivera, had asked her to “speak to the president and ask him to consider granting executive clemency” to FALN members.

One can say a number of things about such a long and distinguished intellectual history of leftism, as well as her open lust for enough power to radically alter the American way of life. One cannot say it is moderate in any sense. Unlike Sen. Obama’s histories with Wright or Ayers, Hillary Clinton’s history of radicalism consists of autobiographical journaling, personal activism, and advocacy on behalf of convicted, murderous terrorists.

It should make one wonder whom she would pardon if she ever wields the pardon pen. Wonder and fear.

Ben Johnson is Managing Editor of FrontPage Magazine and author of the book 57 Varieties of Radical Causes: Teresa Heinz Kerry’s Charitable Giving.