Wednesday, January 16, 2008

No Jews For Oil/I Blame the Right, the Left--and American Jews

Photobucket Photobucket
No Jews For Oil
By Ben Shapiro

On January 11, President Bush ended his visit to Israel by visiting Yad Vashem, the country's monumental Holocaust memorial. "I wish as many people as possible would come to this place," Bush said. "It is a sobering reminder that evil exists and a call that when evil exists we must resist it."

That was the day after Bush called for "painful political concessions" from Israel with regard to the Palestinian Arabs, explaining, "There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish a Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people."

Bush is no fool. He recognizes better than any president in recent memory that the Palestinian Arabs do not desire peace -- that they are, in fact, the world's most ardent supporters of anti-Western terrorism. And Bush recognizes that the establishment of a fully operational terrorist state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza would have catastrophic consequences for both Israel and the United States.

So why did Bush abandon his principles and pressure Israel to appease its Islamist enemies? Because four days after Bush's Israel visit, he visited Saudi Arabia and asked OPEC nations to boost their oil output.

The extreme anti-Bush crowd thinks the war in Iraq is about oil. It isn't. But the consistent focus on the Israeli-Palestinian situation is about oil. It has always been about oil. Israel knows it. Bush knows it. And most of all, the Saudis and their Islamist allies know it.

The Saudis have the upper hand with regard to oil. America needs Arab oil more than the Arabs need to sell their oil -- or at least that is what the Arabs would have us believe. And so the Arabs have leverage to push America to force Israel's piecemeal surrender.


I Blame the Right, the Left--and American Jews
By VerityINK

This offers the simplest, clearest, in-a-nutshell view of what is going on between Israel, the middle east, and America that you can find on the Net. If anyone wants to know why President Bush has so ardently backed wrongheaded or unfeasible solutions with the Palestinians, I urge you to read Ben's column.

Who is most responsible for this state of affairs? Well, obviously the root cause is to be found in Islam. With their goal of destroying the Jewish state, and their plans for spreading their power and influence, they would love to hold the west hostage--and, to a certain extent, they have.

On our end, I blame the Right, the Left--and American Jews.

I blame the Right for not developing alternative energy sources. In a country as large as America, it doesn't make sense for people to drastically reduce their driving; to deliver goods and remain employed, that's just not going to be possible. It's not our fault that we are not the size of a Belgium or Switzerland, Sweden or Austria. Actually, we're not even the size of Scandinavia, France, and Spain combined--we're much larger.

We're going to need a source of fuel to power our transportation--and there's not going to be any way around that. All the light rail lines in the inner cities, bus stops, and more-fuel efficient cars in the world will never begin to make up for the gas required by our long-haul truckers, our trains and planes that deliver people and goods--and our vast military, which guards a good piece of the globe.

Now, I don't know if the technology is out there for viable, affordable alternative energy sources (common sense and capitalism lends me to think that someone is not just sitting on this knowledge) but I have to think that it's not yet possible--or that there are under-the-table reasons why it is not being brought to the fore. Either way, the Right needs to get honest and get real about the importance of this issue and take the lead in setting this on fire.

The second group I blame--and probably most of all--are the Leftists/Democrats among us who continually balk at drilling for oil on our own land. They have put up so many restrictions on ANWAR drilling, off-shore drilling, and nuclear power that they have reduced alternative energy and/or our energy independence to nothing more than a bad joke.

The minute oil-rich shale deposits were found out west, these enviro-wacko flipdips started to protest the harvesting of them. The minute ethanol (an admittedly economically questionable alternative fuel) gained traction, these same people set up a hue-and-cry about corn prices (from which it is made.) The instant oil reserves were found off the coasts of Florida and Alaska, they moved to scotch the discovery and any possible benefit to us.

The Kennedys of the world block wind farms off their family compounds and in their neighborhoods, the leading Dem presidential candidates can't make up their minds about how to store nuclear waste by-products, and no Dem senator wants a refinery or nuclear reactor to be built in their state!

The EnviroDems I know all want America to be something other than what it is. They don't want it to be so big, require so many cars, or need so much energy. Their biggest flaw comes from turning a blind eye to the fact that, to be who and what we are, maintain our standard of living, and continue growing our economy, we're going to need vast fuel supplies. They'd much rather reduce everyone to bus stop park n' rides, carpooling, and borrow-a-bike communal lots. They refuse to be realistic about anything else.

I grew up in Colorado and had uncles that worked construction outside of Beattie, NV. They learned to cook for themselves--the nearest store that sold food was 57 miles away--with whom were they going to share-a-ride-to-work? My brother surveyed roads near Aspen and Marble during the summers--where was the light rail he was supposed to take from one point to the next? A family friend delivered furniture for Levitz--how was he supposed to accomplish this on foot?

Do YOU want to bicycle to work in Minnesota in January? Is it safe for a woman to walk home alone at night, any night? Can you pick up your three kids from three different schools on the bus? Can you carry 4 bags of groceries home, deliver teens to soccer practice and pick them up, and run by the dry cleaner after work on the train? American life is what it is--and the sooner the Lefties get real about that, they'll move closer to getting real about a sensible energy solution.

The last group I blame for the sorry state of affairs between the Palestinians and Israel are American Jews--specifically the ones who continually back the Democrat party. Why on earth would you continue to back, and vote for, a party that puts up the staunchest objections and road blocks to the very energy development that might free us from the yoke of oil-dependent control by the Arabs? Knowing that they are only using Israel for a bargaining chip--and one with which they intend to come out ahead (unto Israel's destruction)--why is every Dem presidential candidate assured that the majority of American Jewish support is a given?

Though the Right has been no bargain in producing solutions to our energy dependence on the oil-rich states of the middle east, the Left has been unconscionable in its obstructionism and unrealistic solutions. If you want a president to get determined to save Israel and end our dependence upon those who are wagering for it's death, a vote for a strong, energy-wise, realistic REPUBLICAN president might just do that. The only thing the Left has done is given you a different light bulb to screw in--I hope it doesn't illuminate Israel's demise.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Distribution is vital to any alternative energy. Like you say, everybody everywhere needs access to whatever there is in order for the economy to function, which means existing electric grids and/or the gas pump.
Anything else that is not compatible will take a great deal of time and money. It'd sure be nice to use water, but that's a ways off.
Hemp and even prairie grass yield a much higher energy benefit than corn. Ethanol is a sick joke as it now stands. Farmers should be ashamed for partaking in that farce, unnecessarily driving up other food costs.


8:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Damn strong post! Well said DONAL! Have you ever thought what you'd do if you were King/Queen for a year? Man oh man did this article ever stimulate that line of thought. Energy independance would be my FIRST order of business. I would have SO much happening on all fronts that the new Prez sworn in on my 366th day would be forced to dismantle my work very publically if he didn't like it.


8:54 AM  
Blogger VerityINK said...

Good question, Morgan! Energy independency would be high, high on my list. I'd make it a certainty. I never knew how many other things it influenced.

9:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul you're right. Corn is a terribly inefficient way to get the sugar needed for ethanol AND it requires huge amounts of water in regions that rely on aquifers. From the growing of the corn to the production of the ethanol copious amounts of water are used.

If we ABSOLUTELY INSIST ON INEFFICIENCY we should at least try to be efficient about it. :-)

Simple sugars are what yield the eventual product, ethanol. Sugar cane, oranges, and sugar beets are CHOCK full of sugar! Find out which of these gives us the most bang for the buck and then RUN WITH IT!! Let's stop being schmucks about this! We are NOT the Soviet Union!

This corn-to-ethanol boondoggle is nothing more than a sop to midwest corn growers who love the govt. dollars. The pols love the votes that come with that.

Having said all of that, ethanol is STILL an inefficient fuel! We MUST dril for oil or else figure on putting ourselves in further danger in a region of the world infested with 7th century blood-sucking sand fleas!!!!!!!!


9:07 AM  
Blogger VerityINK said...

Yes, it is. I guess I should've made a clearer point that the Leftists etc. at DU was against ethanol ONLY because President Bush was trying to broker a deal for it with Brazil? or some such--it wasn't because of any VALID reason. They opposed it simply because they viewed it as 'Republican'--and that is the wrong reason to pitch a bitch about something (and, too often, it's the only reason the Left has).

9:41 AM  
Blogger VerityINK said...

Les, your comments are not amusing. Speak to the topic or post elsewhere.

11:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent post Donal. I think a good number of American Jews support Dems because, like the kind of Democrat Ed Koch was/is, the Dems are socialists and to many Americans, Reformist Jews, socialism and big government are seen as the caring and giving entity and social spending and entitlement programs are how a government should function. I can't understand for the life of me why Bush is doing this to Israel and there isn't a single Saudi prince or Saudi cab-driver who gives a fig about any Palestinian. As far as ''fuel efficiency'' and ''energy independence'' , we've all been hearing this mantra for the last thirty plus years and the simple truth of the matter is its all nonsense. We don't need the Saudis anymore than we need Hugo Chavez. There has been a recent find in the Gulf of Mexico, quietly realeased in the media, but not to loudly, of around a supply of one hundered and thirty years. drill in Anwar already, dill all over and under this fruitful land! Hells bells, how did we manage to do it during WW2? Oil ins't a ''shrinking resource'' as the enviro-wackos would have us believe and it isn't the remains of dead animals but a geological process that has been going on pretty much since this little orb started cooling and it will contiue to go on. One thing this nation might consider again is reviving the freight rail lines, not have the govenment in the business of course but rail roads are an excellent way to move a lot of stuff quckly. It was our love of independence, a booming consumer economy after WW2 and the growth of the trucking industy and the more poewrful Teamsters Union that killed the rail roads. J'Mac.

4:43 PM  
Blogger CHOMP said...

Paul, I was planning on buying a couple acres and growing my own "ethanol." Or do I need to raise chickens? How many chickens would I need to run my car? Would cars be sold on how many chickens it would take to propel it for one mile...such as a "200-chicken" car?

Maybe I just better save up for that bicycle. It sounds a lot easier than raising chickens.

I am having to, too, two (pick one) much fun with this one!

7:47 PM  
Blogger CHOMP said...

Donal, you have a way of picking out the most important parts of a story...and explaining them. I have always enjoyed your writing...and this piece did not disappoint! I look forward to your next commentary.

8:12 PM  
Blogger VerityINK said...

Thanks, Sis! I wrote it on a very elementary level because they do not seem to understand the most elementary things. W

e are NOT the size of Denmark or Belgium! Our economy, defense of a good piece of the world, and even the simplest lifestyle here takes what it takes.

Until they get that point, there's no use explaining why light rail can or cannot run between every small town and why we can't all bicycle to work!

7:14 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home