Sarah Palin: Domestic Drilling: Why We Can Still Believe

Sarah Palin: Domestic Drilling: Why We Can Still Believe

Domestic Drilling: Why We Can Still Believe
 Fri at 1:48pm
We’ve all been shocked and saddened by the tragic events in the Gulf of Mexico. My heart breaks for coastal residents who are facing fears of the unknown impacts of the oil spill.

As an Alaskan, I can speak from the heart about the tragedy of an oil spill. For as long as I live, I will never forget the day the Exxon-Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef and millions of gallons of North Slope crude poured into the waters of our beautiful Prince William Sound. The spill was devastating to so many Alaskans who, like my own family, make their living on the water from our commercial fishing industry. “Heartbreaking” was the word my husband Todd, an Alaska Native and trained oil spill responder, used to describe the scene as we watched it unfold on land and water that we feel is sacred.

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

In the coming days, there will be hearings to discover the cause of the explosion and the subsequent leak. Actions will be taken to increase oversight to prevent future accidents. Government can and must play an appropriate role here. If a company was lax in its prevention practices, it must be held accountable. It is inexcusable for any oil company to not invest in preventative measures. They must be held accountable or the public will forever distrust the industry.

This was the position I took as an oil and gas regulator and as Governor of Alaska when my administration ramped up oversight of the oil industry and created a petroleum-systems-integrity office to monitor our oil and gas infrastructure for potential environmental risks. I took a lot of heat for the stand I took “against the oil industry” (which is how political adversaries labeled my actions). But we took tough action because there was proof of some improper maintenance of oil infrastructure which I believed was unacceptable. We instituted new oversight and held British Petroleum (BP) financially accountable for poor maintenance practices. We also filed a Friend-of-the-Court brief against Exxon’s interests for its decades-old responsibility to compensate Alaskans affected by the Valdez spill, and I took other actions “against” the industry which ultimately helped hold it accountable.

All responsible energy development must be accompanied by strict oversight, but even with the strictest oversight in the world, accidents still happen. No human endeavor is ever without risk – whether it’s sending a man to the moon or extracting the necessary resources to fuel our civilization. I repeat the slogan “drill here, drill now” not out of naiveté or disregard for the tragic consequences of oil spills – my family and my state and I know firsthand those consequences. How could I still believe in drilling America’s domestic supply of energy after having seen the devastation of the Exxon-Valdez spill? I continue to believe in it because increased domestic oil production will make us a more secure, prosperous, and peaceful nation.

Our hearts go out to all Americans along the coast affected by this recent tragedy, especially those who lost family members in the rig explosion, and our prayers go up for a successful recovery. May spill responders be safe.

- Sarah Palin

Unmasking Muhammad: The Malignant Narcisist & His Grand Delusion Allah

Click below for Ebook “Unmasking Muhammad”

http://www.islam-watch.org/SujitDas/Unmasking_Muhammad.pdf

More Obama Terror: ‘US may stop using UN veto on resolutions targeting Israel’

More Obama Terror: ‘US may stop using UN veto on resolutions targeting Israel’

If the US sanctioned brutal and misogynist Iran’s UN appointment to the women’s commission, then the abandonment of our best friend and strategic ally, the Jewish homeland in the Middle East, to jihadist savages is the obvious move. 

Another Obama anti-America, anti-freedom first in US history. J Post reporting:

In an attempt to launch indirect proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinians, the US has given private assurances that it would consider not using its veto power against UN Security Council condemnations of any significant new settlement activity, the Guardian reported.

A Palestinian source quoted by the UK paper said David Hale, a deputy of US Middle East envoy George Mitchell, told Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas last week that if there was “significantly provocative settlement activity,” including in east Jerusalem, Washington may consider allowing UNSC resolutions censuring Israel to pass. According to the paper, the source said “it was understood that meant the US would abstain from voting on a resolution rather than use its veto.”

Bashing Arizona Immigration Law Supporters

Bashing Arizona Immigration Law Supporters

Posted By Mark D. Tooley On May 3, 2010 @ 12:04 am In FrontPage | No Comments

The Religious Left has discerned that Christianity and Judaism demand virtually open borders by the United States, if not by other nations.  So naturally, many liberal church elites have quickly and angrily lashed out at Arizona’s new immigration law, ascribing to its backers the contempt that much of the Religious Left seems itself to have for many average Americans.

Arizona’s Episcopal Bishop Kirk Smith huffily declared:  “Today is a sad day in the struggle to see all God’s people treated in a humane and compassionate manner.”  And he tut-tutted:  “It seems that for now the advocates of fear and hatred have won over those of charity and love. Arizona claims to be a Golden Rule State. We have not lived up to that claim.”

It’s doubtful that the Episcopal Church in Arizona has been very successful in broadening it’s WASPy flock to include many immigrants.  Still, Bishop Kirk presumes to be their spokesman and moral leader on behalf of the Golden Rule:  “We will continue to work as hard as we can to defeat this law and to work toward just and fair laws that protect the rights of all human beings. We all know that our immigration system is broken, but it cannot be fixed by scape-goating the most vulnerable of those among us.”

Not content to defer to the local bishop, the Episcopal Church’s lobby office in Washington, D.C. also irritably chimed in against the Arizona law, bemoaning that the “lack of fair and humane immigration reform opens the door to misguided and divisive state and local attempts to address immigration enforcement.”  Of course, the Episcopal lobbyists want a national amnesty that would override state attempts at immigration enforcement:   “We urge Congress to provide a solution to a broken immigration system that separates families, spreads fear and keeps millions living in the shadows. Every day, members of our congregations see the unacceptable consequences of our broken immigration system.  We urge the Senate and House to enact bipartisan immigration reform that reunites families, protects the rights of all workers, and provides an opportunity for undocumented immigrants to earn legal status.”

Of course, like the rest of the Religious Left, the Episcopal lobbyists simplistically portray their open borders policy as “Christians…[who] are called to embrace the stranger and to find Christ in all who come to us in need.”  And like the Religious Left, they assume that solutions to vast social problems can be solved by sweeping legislation.  “With strong leadership in Congress, we are confident we can solve the broken immigration system.  We encourage members of Congress to join faith leaders to stand up for immigration policies that renew the dignity and human rights of everyone.”

But what if the open borders and amnesty that the Religious Left typically advocates in fact do not “renew the dignity and human rights of everyone” and instead only create more social disruption whose chief victims are ultimately low income native born and immigrants who lack the economic privileges of most Religious Left elites, especially Episcopalians?  In typical fashion, the Religious Left does not ponder unintended consequences and instead assumes that good intentions and political correctness are sufficient.

Evangelical Left Sojourners chief Jim Wallis wants evangelicals to follow the old Religious Left in distilling the Gospel down to the Left’s latest political demands and prejudices. “The law … is a social and racial sin, and should be denounced as such by people of faith and conscience across the nation,” Wallis intoned. “It is not just about Arizona, but about all of us, and about what kind of country we want to be. It is not only mean-spirited — it will be ineffective and will only serve to further divide communities in Arizona, making everyone more fearful and less safe.”

Arizona’s new crack down on illegal immigration may or may not have faults, but will it make lawful Arizonans “less safe?  Security and effective law enforcement are not typical strong emphases for Wallis or the Religious Left generally.  Instead, they often prefer name calling and charges of bigotry. “This legislation feels reactionary and hateful,” claims Church World Service chief John McCullough, who heads the National Council of Churches’ relief arm.  “It is a clear representation of the politics of division and exclusion.”

Even more hyperbolic was National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference chief Samuel Rodriguez, who has also successfully pressed the National Association of Evangelicals to adopt a liberalized immigration agenda.  “Today, Arizona stands as the state with the most xenophobic and nativist laws in the country,” he pronounced, almost as a curse.  “We need a multi-ethnic firewall against the extremists in our nation who desire to separate us rather than bring us together. Shame on you Arizona Republicans and shame on you Senator John McCain for endorsing the legislation.”

Rodriguez claims to represent virtually all Hispanic evangelicals, and naïve Anglo evangelical churchmen obligingly accept his claims, not considering that many Hispanic and other legal immigrants also have concerns about law enforcement, security, and open borders’ impact on their own ability to advance economically.  Instead, the Religious and Evangelical Left idealize immigration as merely a bumper sticker social justice issue dividing forces of light from bigoted forces of darkness.   Contrary to their claims, the Almighty has not directly revealed His preferences for U.S. immigration policy.  But traditional Christian and Jewish moral teachings about human nature and statecraft offer better guidance than the slapdash pseudo-thinking of the Arizona law’s seething religious critics.

Obama-Style Socialism

Obama-Style Socialism

Posted By David Horowitz On May 3, 2010 @ 12:15 am In FrontPage | No Comments

 

Visit NewsRealBlog [1]

Jonah Goldberg [2] has written an important article [3] in Commentary on what he calls the “neo-socialism” [4] of the Obama administration [4]. I like this label. It is both accurate and more palatable than the term “neo-communism” [5] which I have applied to the hard left. But given the twenty-year political partnership between a neo-Communist [6] like Billy Ayers [6] and Obama, and Obama’s coterie of Communist Party mentors [7] and allies, it is at bottom a distinction without a difference.

Neo-socialists are fellow travelers of neo-Communists and  vice-versa. The real division in the modern world is between totalitarians and libertarians [8], and pivot of this division is the inherent conflict between liberty and equality. Since people are born unequal (in talent, capability, brain power and physical beauty and prowess) and since they develop unequally through circumstance, the only way to make them equal is to take away everyone’s liberty [9]. And of course this will not make them equal because those who get to decide who is made equal and at what pace constitute a new and oppressing ruling class.

This truth is the focus of Federalist Paper #10 and is enshrined in the Constitution [10] which is why every leftist is at war with it and is dedicated to rewriting it. So-called progressives are the 21st Century’s true reactionaries who have failed to learn the lessons of the most horrific social experiment ever inflicted on the human race which murdered 100 million people and destroyed the lives of billions. The term “neo-socialism” attaches them to that awful legacy and serves as a warning to present and future generations of the price that will be paid to achieve “social justice” [11] and also of the fact that the pursuit “social justice” is an evil fantasy which can never be realized.

I have two quibbles with Jonah’s excellent piece. First, it was Rousseau (in The Social Contract)  not Babeuf who identified private property as the root of all evil. Second, “social justice” is not a milder socialist impulse — it is in fact a code for communism in the hardest sense. Hayek wrote a brilliant book called The Mirage of Social Justice [12] which argued that 1) there is no such entity as “society” which distributes wealth. Hence the call for social justice is simply a mask — a fake rationale — for distributing wealth politically and thus arrogating to one political faction totalitarian control of everyone else.

Times Square Car Bomb: A Jihad?

Times Square Car Bomb: A Jihad?

Posted By Robert Spencer On May 3, 2010 @ 1:35 am In FrontPage | 2 Comments

Like the Fort Hood jihad massacre and virtually all such attacks and attempted attacks these days, the car bomb discovered in Times Square Saturday was initially dismissed as having nothing to do with terrorism. The New York Times reported: “A federal official said it was not considered a terrorist threat and that the New York Police Department had told the Department of Homeland Security to stand down.”

Soon, however, the weight of evidence became too great for officials to sustain this wishful thinking. New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said: “I think the intent was to cause a significant ball of fire.”’ New York Governor David Paterson declared the incident an “act of terrorism.” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano revealed on Meet the Press that the car bomb was being treated as a “potential terrorist attack.”

Napolitano offered no hint as to which terrorists might have done it: “It’s too soon to tell who was responsible.” New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was just as puzzled: “We have no idea who did this or why.”

Yet for all this official agnosticism, there were a number of clues – and even a group claiming credit. The explosives-laden car was found on 45th Street between 7th and 8th – not far from the offices of Viacom, which owns Comedy Central. Comedy Central, of course, presents South Park, the irreverent cartoon series that recently lampooned Islam’s prophet Muhammad. After the show aired, the jihadist website RevolutionMuslim.com posted this threat against the creators of South Park, Matt Stone and Trey Parker: “We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.”

Theo Van Gogh was brutally murdered by a Muslim on an Amsterdam street in the middle of the day in November 2004 after he made a film, Submission, about the oppression of Muslim women. Younus Abullah Muhammad of RevolutionMuslim.com told journalist Aaron Klein Sunday that the car bomb was “a retaliation for what your government is doing overseas. If you want to continue killing civilians, then you’re going to get many incidents that resemble what happened yesterday.” Not that RevolutionMuslim.com was claiming responsibility: “We do not condone nor condemn terrorism. There is no relation between our organization and these attacks.” However, “there will be a lot more terror attacks in the United States.”

Younus Abullah Muhammad’s denial of responsibility notwithstanding, have authorities questioned the owners of RevolutionMuslim.com about this attempt to explode a car bomb outside Viacom’s offices?

Meanwhile, the Pakistani Taliban rushed to claim responsibility, releasing a video calling the botched attack a “jaw-breaking blow to Satan’s USA.” Sounding much like Younus Abdullah Muhammad, a Taliban spokesman said that the attempted car bomb was revenge for American “interference and terrorism in Muslim countries, especially in Pakistan.” American officials, however, said there was no evidence to back up this claim, and Bloomberg added: “So far, there is no evidence that any of this has anything to do with one of the recognized terrorist organizations.”

Still, even if no Muslim group had anything to do with the car bomb, it was noteworthy that only Muslim groups went on record praising it as a good thing. Recently I have received an increased number of emails and Facebook messages from Muslims telling me that I have completely misunderstood Islam and jihad, and that Islam is in fact the Religion of Peace of fable and fantasy. The only problem with all such messages, and with various windy pseudo-academic “refutations” of explanations by me and others of Islam’s doctrines of warfare against unbelievers and their subjugation under Sharia, is that however good they sound on paper, somehow the last people to be convinced seem to be Muslims themselves – Muslims like Younus Abdullah Muhammad and the Pakistani Taliban spokesman who claimed responsibility for the car bomb.

Somehow Muslims like those two – and there are untold numbers of others like them around the globe — seem to have missed the memo about Islam’s vaunted respect and tolerance for non-Muslims. And Younus Abdullah Muhammad and other Muslims like him can and do point to Qur’anic verses enjoining violence against unbelievers in order to justify bombings and all manner of murder and mayhem – for Muslims are to “fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you” (Qur’an 9:123).

Until such the ways in which jihad violence and supremacism is rooted in Islamic texts and teachings is studied openly by law enforcement and intelligence officials, we will see many more jihad attacks in the U.S. – and some will be successful. For the belief system that motivates them is being neither challenged nor even examined. While officials in this case had to revise their initial dismissal of terrorism as a factor, they have never reexamined or reevaluated their dismissal of any need to understand Islam in order to understand jihadis and how they can be stopped.

And so they are not being stopped, except when we get lucky, as we did Saturday night in Times Square. But our luck is unlikely to hold forever.

Health freedom alert: Congressman Waxman sneaks anti-vitamin amendment into Wall Street reform bill

Health freedom alert: Congressman Waxman sneaks anti-vitamin amendment into Wall Street reform bill

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) Of all the sneaky tactics practiced in Washington D.C., this recent action by Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) is one of the most insidious: While no one was looking, he injected amendment language into the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 (H.R. 4173) that would expand the powers of the FTC (not the FDA, but the FTC) to terrorize nutritional supplement companies by greatly expanding the power of the FTC to make its own laws that target dietary supplement companies.

This is a little-known secret about the FTC and the nutritional supplements business: The FTC routinely targets nutritional supplement companies that are merely telling the truth about their products. Some companies are threatened by merely linking to published scientific studies about their products.

For example, here’s an important article that describes how to FDA criminally extorts money out of supplement companies: http://www.naturalnews.com/024567_h…

The FTC does much the same thing. They target a particular company that’s having success in the natural products marketplace, then they accuse that company of “inferring” that their products have some health benefit. From there, the FTC demands that the company engage in paying a massive fine to the FTC, which the FTC calls “consumer redress” even though none of the money actually goes to the consumers.

If you try to fight the FTC, they haul you into their own special “FTC courts” which are not public courts where you have the benefit of a jury, but rather they are courts where the judges are actually FTC employees and you have no rights. You are essentially guilty until proven innocent, and virtually no one has been found innocent by the FTC.

If the King says you’re guilty, then you’re guilty

The FTC also forces you to sign a “consent decree” which involves you admitting to committing crimes that you have actually never committed. These crimes include the “criminal misrepresentation of a product” by, for example, explaining that walnuts help support healthy cholesterol levels or that cherries ease symptoms of inflammation.

Using these methods, the FTC has extorted tens of millions of dollars out of nutritional supplement companies. More importantly, it has terrorized the industry and put several companies out of business, denying the American public access to products that could improve their health and prevent disease.

Waxman wants the FTC to have even more power over your vitamins

Now Congressman Henry Waxman wants to give the FTC even more powers by allowing the FTC to write its own laws without Congressional approval. This would allow a rogue agency to simply invent any new law it wants, such as requiring nutritional supplement companies to spend hundreds of millions of dollars “proving” the efficacy of a vitamin before they can sell it.

This will allow the FTC to utterly circumvent DSHEA — the law passed in 1994 that provides basic protections to vitamin and supplement manufacturers. This will result in an FTC war on vitamins and supplements that would no doubt see this rogue agency attempting to destroy the entire industry and imprison the founders and executives of all the top supplement manufacturers.

This is how bad things have become in America today: The criminal CEOs of drug companies are allowed to commit felony crimes, engage in routine price fixing fraud and fix their research with fraudulent clinical trials, yet the FTC and FDA do nothing. But when an honest nutritional supplement company says something like, “Walnuts are good for your heart,” they get threatened with imprisonment or have their entire life savings stolen away from them by the FTC through a series of “fines.”

Your help is urgently needed to halt this madness

Join NaturalNews.com and the Alliance for Natural Health to protest this deceptive action by Henry Waxman — a lifelong opponent of natural medicine who is trying to covertly inject this expansion of FTC powers into the Finance Reform Bill.

Click here to sign the online petition now.

This petition is being organized by the Alliance for Natural Health (http://www.anh-usa.org), a health freedom organization we strongly support here at NaturalNews. Read their announcement and call to action on this bill right here: http://www.anh-usa.org/congressman-…

Your help is urgently needed. I don’t send out a lot of “urgent call to action” articles and emails, but this is one that definitely demands our collective attention. Please call, fax or email your representatives in Washington and strongly voice your opposition to any expansion of powers of the FTC over dietary supplements. The FTC is already a loose cannon. We don’t want to now hand it nuclear weapons that could destroy the entire industry.

Protect your health freedoms or you will lose them! The U.S. Congress is literally just one vote away from granting the FTC dangerous new powers to destroy the natural products industry. A vote could take place as early as this weekend.

Attorney Jonathan Emord had this to say about this issue:

“The provision removing the ban on FTC rulemaking without Congressional preapproval contained in H.R. 4173 invites the very same irresponsible over-regulation of the commercial marketplace that led Congress to enact the ban in the 1980s. FTC has no shortage of power to regulate deceptive advertising; this bill gives it far more discretionary power than it needs, inviting greater abuse and mischief from an agency that suffers virtually no check on its discretion.”

You need to see this video

I interviewed Jonathan Emord recently at the Health Freedom Expo in California. Watch Jonathan talk about global censorship of health freedom in this YouTube interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbJS…

I know the audio quality is a little poor (we were at the Health Freedom Expo, and there’s a lot of background noise), but Jonathan Emord’s words are so important for you to hear that I wanted to share this video with you anyway.

Jonathan Emord is also the author of an important new book called Global Censorship of Health Information (http://www.amazon.com/Global-Censor…). The book exposes the truth behind what Emord calls state-sponsored drug monopolies.

Click here to protect your health freedom now.

Mr. Obama, government ain’t me, man

Mr. Obama, government ain’t me, man

Mark J. Fitzgibbons

At his University of Michigan commencement speech Saturday, President Obama again bashed critics of government (and socialism), and said, “government is us.”
Thomas Paine in Common Sense warned about those who confuse government with society:
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expence and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
The government you’re creating may be you, Mr. President, but to quote John Fogerty and Creedence Clear Water Revival, it ain’t me.

America’s Growing Vulnerability to Catastrophe

America’s Growing Vulnerability to Catastrophe

By Steve McCann

The major responsibility of those in government is to be certain that a country is capable of surviving a worst-case scenario such as war, massive economic downturn, or a catastrophic natural disaster.
It has been predicted that California has a 99% chance of a major devastating earthquake in the next thirty years. The central part of the United States extending to the east coast, in an area that has recorded four of the largest earthquakes ever in North America, could experience a cataclysmic earthquake sometime in the next fifty years. The cost of these events may well be in the trillions of dollars.
The economy, so wedded to the world financial structure and socialist economic policies, has a very high probability in the short- and long-term of repeating the scale of financial wreckage that the country has recently undergone.
Yet the current regime in Washington, D.C. does not seem to understand or care that the policies they are pursuing will leave no margin for error in the event of an apocalyptic natural or man-made calamity.
The wealth of the United States has always been its fallback position in order to come through wars and recessions or cope with natural disasters. The country’s enormous gross domestic product (GDP) has allowed the government to spend (by reducing taxes, if necessary, and borrowing) whatever monies were needed to offset the losses incurred from these events and/or to restart the engine of the economy.
This nation has had an unlimited credit card and until recently used it somewhat wisely, compared with what has begun under Obama. As long as the United States maintained a reasonable debt-to-GDP ratio (less than 50%) and kept the annual budget deficit to less than 3% of the GDP, then it always had the ability to survive a contingency of unimagined proportions.
The Obama administration and its fellow travelers in Congress appear to care little for the long-term survival of this country. They are in the process of squandering the nation’s wealth, and thus its well-being, in their headlong determination to “fundamentally change the country.”
This let the consequences (unintended or otherwise) be damned approach to governing will put the United States in a position where it will not have at its disposal the funding and economic activity necessary to recover from whatever catastrophe the country may encounter in the future.
At the end of 2008, the publicly held debt of the U.S. government stood at 40.2% of GDP.  In the four years of the Obama administration, the debt will increase $5.7 trillion (equal to the entire debt incurred by the United States since its inception up to and including 2008). This will result in the country having a debt to GDP ratio of 72% by 2012, a mere two years from now.
It has been acknowledged by a consensus of economists that unemployment, as a result of the Obama agenda, will remain in the double-digit range over the next three to four years. This government refuses to recognize the need for spending reduction, opting instead to adopt new entitlement programs and, as part of its war on wealth, dramatically raise any and all taxes on the citizens and the private sector. That component coupled with the massive new regulations already passed and proposed will result in inflation adjusted negative or stagnant GDP growth.
Without significant repeal of the Obama tax and regulatory policies and changes in the entitlement programs and overall reduction in government expenditures, the current spending proposals and impact of the trillions needed for ObamaCare, Social Security, and Medicare and interest payments will result in the debt-to-GDP ratio exceeding 100% by 2019.
Recently the bond ratings of Greece, Portugal, and Spain have been downgraded (Greece to junk bond status). Not only is the entire European Union threatened with collapse because of the excessive debt and budget deficit policies of these countries, but so is the entire world economy. In the case of Greece, the debt-to-GDP ratio is 125%, and the annual budget deficit is 13.6% of the GDP. Greece can no longer borrow money (except at excessively high interest rates) and must turn to the European Union for a bailout in order to pay debts due within the month.
By comparison, the United States, if it remains committed to the Obama agenda, will experience a debt-to-GDP ratio of 104% and an annual budget deficit of 9.7% of GDP by 2019. This nation will become the next Greece.
The United States, unlike Greece, will not have the European Union or the IMF to turn to. Where, then, will the monies come from if the worst occurs?
How would we pay the recovery costs associated with a catastrophic natural disaster? From whom could we borrow the money without paying a usurious interest rate and forcing the country into further decline? Can we expect our traditional allies, who will find themselves in a similar situation, to come to our aid?
As to a dramatic economic downturn, the traditional tools used to come through a recession or depression will not be available. Would the debt-holders of the United States’ bonds concur with significant tax reductions to spur the economy or would they agree to finance more debt as a stimulus?
Would the United States choose as an alternative hyper-inflation by printing more dollars in order to mitigate the debt in a potential repeat of the devastating experience within the Weimar Republic in the 1920s? This strategy would ultimately plunge the citizenry into a dramatically reduced standard of living and excessive unemployment.
These are the only choices the country will have, yet never in the history of this nation have we had an administration and a Congress so willingly and with no second thoughts place their agenda and philosophy ahead of the survival of the United States. This may well border on treachery of the worst sort, as it violates the allegiance owed by our elected leaders to preserve and protect the long-term welfare and well-being of the people and the nation.
This November, as the American citizens vote, they must ask themselves: Will the person I vote for fulfill his or her sworn obligations to make certain that the United States can survive any and all potential catastrophes?

Sarah Palin Is on a Roll

Sarah Palin Is on a Roll

By Ted Belman

Since resigning from her governorship last July, Sarah Palin hasn’t made a false move. This is surprising for someone who is more passionate than cautious and one reputed to be…well, you know, a dummy.

Her book tour went exceedingly well. She has received thousands of invitations to speak, notwithstanding her $100,000 price tag. She continues to raise huge sums of money for her sponsors and draw sellout crowds. Her policy announcements have been spot-on, whether delivered in her speeches, interviews, or Facebook posts.
Because of her ignominious charge of “death panels” to decry Obamacare, she more than anyone is responsible for the overwhelming majority now opposed to the law. Although Obama’s supporters denied such “death panels” at first, many experts now openly admit to them.
In foreign affairs, she coined the Obama Doctrine as “coddling your enemies and alienating your friends.” This characterization is now commonplace. Palin also decried Obama’s statement that the U.S. would not retaliate with nuclear weapons if it were attacked by WMDs and suggested that the U.S. was asking to be hit. Obama, in his non-response, replied with “I really have no response to that. The last I checked, Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues.” And “What I would say to them is, is that if the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff are comfortable with it, I’m probably going to take my advice from them and not from Sarah Palin.” Palin came back, quick as a flash, sarcastically honoring “the vast nuclear experience that he acquired as a community organizer, part-time senator, and full-time candidate.” Within hours, Obama was retracting his original statement.
Finally, Palin has come down squarely on the side of Israel, Israel’s right to expand, and a united Jerusalem. She fully supports Israel’s right to self-defense and said that we shouldn’t be second-guessing her. Such policies are the polar opposite of what Obama is pushing for, and the former enjoy the support of a large majority of Americans. 
Palin’s energy policy of “Drill, Baby, Drill” and “all of the above” also has broad support. She was the first to attack Obama’s proposed drilling legislation that she characterized as “Stall, Baby, Stall.” This support is rapidly decreasing in the wake of the disastrous explosion or malfunction of an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, which promises a looming environmental disaster for America’s southern coastline. But Palin is sticking to her guns, if you’ll pardon the expression. She didn’t retreat. She reloaded and reaffirmed her support for drilling despite the risks. Sarah Palin lived through the Exxon-Valdez disaster that devastated her home state of Alaska. As fate would have it, she was responsible for finally bringing Exxon to judgment when she was governor after a twenty-year battle. So she knows the devastation firsthand and will do everything she can to minimize the risk. But still, she wants to “Drill baby drill.”
A recent Gallup Poll showed for the first time that more people think that abortion should be illegal under all circumstances than legal under all circumstances. This can be due only to Palin’s unapologetic pro-life stance.
Ever since the presidential election campaign, Palin has been advocating lower taxes, as opposed to higher spending, as the path to job growth. According to a recent Rasmussen Poll, Americans agree with her by a margin of 2:1.
Arizona just passed a controversial immigration law. Obama attacked the new law and called on blacks and Latinos to get out the vote. Sarah Palin, in a recent interview with Sean Hannity, came out in full support of the new law and attacked Obama for not fulfilling the federal responsibility of protecting U.S. borders. She also attacked him for racist comments he had made pitting Latinos and blacks against other Americans. In the interview, Palin effectively contrasted his remarks with her calls to all Americans to solve their problems together. Once again, polls show overwhelming support for the new law.
During the debate on financial reform, Palin came out against institutionalizing “crony capitalism.” When Obama said America is a military superpower “whether we like it or not,” Palin said she was taken aback by his comment. She said, “I would hope that our leaders in Washington, D.C. understand we like to be a dominant superpower. … I don’t understand a worldview where we have to question whether we like it or not that America is powerful.” These positions were well-received.
When Rev. Franklin Graham was disinvited from the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer services for having made politically incorrect attacks against Islam, Sarah Palin was the first, and maybe only, political leader who came out in support of him. She is not a slave to PC and will not mince words when placing blame, just like Graham didn’t. Palin will fight to restore and protect freedom of speech. Americans appreciate this, as they desperately need to be able to candidly criticize any ideology they consider harmful or inferior. 
Many of her detractors cite negative polling numbers to discredit her. They should be ignored Public Policy Polling found in a poll reported on April 15 that
Sarah Palin now lags Obama only 45-47 after showing deficits of eight or seven points in each of the last three months. Both Obama and Palin have increased their base support, but Palin now trails Obama among independents 39-46 versus 35-49 in March.
As this poll demonstrates, Palin is quickly gaining support among independents. Give her another three months, and she will be leading Obama. And do not forget the growing enthusiasm gap as reported by Politics Daily:
While voters are about evenly split about whether they support the Democrat or Republican in this year’s congressional elections, the Republicans have opened up a 20 point “enthusiasm gap” when it comes to how eager they are to go to the polls, according to Gallup’s daily tracking polls conducted between April 1-25.
This growing gap is due to the Palin factor. She energizes her base as no other today can.
The left has done its best to demonize, ridicule, and reduce her, to no avail. The more that fair-minded Americans hear her, the more they are drawn to her. They no longer listen to Obama, but they do listen to her.
Not only are Americans embracing her message, but so are Europeans,
The leader of the Conservative Party in Britain, David Cameron, won the third debate, by all accounts, in the leadup to the British Parliamentary elections. The reason, according to one pundit, was that Cameron went “Palin” and not “Frum.”
There were no mentions of worthy ‘Big Society’ concepts, no vacuous ‘vote blue, go green’ slogans. Time worn, winning Tory messages were pitched; tougher immigration rules, tackling welfare dependency, lower business taxes, sound money and smaller government. Result? Clear win for the Tory leader.
Cameron also supports Israel and favors Britain withdrawing from the EU.
During the next six months, Palin will continue making speeches and supporting candidates of her choice. She will be coming out with a book on policy in the fall and will do another book signing tour. Then she will be off to Europe to visit with political leaders and stir up the people. I predict that huge crowds will embrace her and her message. No doubt, she will also visit Israel with her entire family, where they will be mobbed. It will be a media feeding frenzy.
A strong embrace in Europe and Israel will give her an enormous boost in America.

Ted Belman is the editor of Israpundit.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers