Showing posts with label national security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label national security. Show all posts

Thursday, June 9, 2011

Sarah Palin: Another 'WTF' Obama Foreign Policy Moment

Giving Away the Farm
*
Obama foolishly believes that the U.S. can buy cooperation, if not friendship, from other nations by "giving away the farm." When what he wants to give away is our missile defense, it is no longer a laughing matter, but a deadly serious issue. Governor Palin's commentary on this question was posted early Thursday morning on her Facebook Notes page:
Another “WTF” Obama Foreign Policy Moment

As Governor I fought the Obama Administration’s plans to cut funds for missile defense in Alaska. So imagine how appalled and surprised I was to read this article by former Clinton CIA Director James Woolsey, appropriately titled “Giving Away the Farm,” concerning President Obama’s latest bizarre actions relating to missile defense.

President Obama wants to give Russia our missile defense secrets because he believes that we can buy their friendship and cooperation with this taxpayer-funded gift. But giving military secrets and technologies to a rival or competitor like Russia is just plain dumb. You can’t buy off Russia. And giving them advanced military technology will not create stability. What happens if Russia gives this technology (or sells it!) to other countries like Iran or China? After all, as Woolsey points out, Russia helped Iran with its missile and nuclear programs. Or what happens if an even more hardline leader comes to power in the Kremlin?

We tried buying off the Kremlin with technologies in the 1970s. That policy was a component of “detente,” and the hope was that if we would share our technologies with them, they would become more peaceful. Things, of course, didn’t work out that way. The Kremlin took western technologies and embarked on a massive military building program. History teaches that peace comes from American military strength. And a central component of that has always been technological superiority. Why would President Obama even dream of giving this away?

Members of Congress saw how foolish President Obama’s gambit was, so they put a section in the defense appropriation bill that specifically forbids the federal government from spending money to share these technologies with the Kremlin. President Obama actually threatened to veto the defense appropriation bill over this section of the law! Fortunately, the House passed the bill with a veto-proof majority, a whopping 322 to 96. Attention now turns to the Senate.

Why is it that President Obama seems to work so hard to give things to our enemies, while at the same time asking friends and allies like Israel to make sacrifices?

During these tough economic times when we are facing massive deficits and a competitive global economy, does President Obama really want to give away technologies that the American taxpayer paid lots of money to develop? Giving away our missile defense secrets won’t make us safer. What it will do is create a situation where we are facing an arms race with ourselves. Russia gets access to our technologies, and we are forced to spend even more money because of the need to stay ahead. Does this make sense to you? Me neither. File this under “WTF.”

- Sarah Palin
- JP

Friday, August 13, 2010

Gov. Palin: Wikileaks is 'aiding/abetting the enemy'

*
Sarah Palin condemned Wikileaks on Twitter Friday morning for 'aiding/abetting the enemy':
Wikileaks staff-whomever's calling the shots there is unconscionably aiding/abetting the enemy;don't contribute to this. Speak out. Do right

Wikileaks: w/freedom comes responsibility.Free press protection gives no license to aid enemy;consider our own troops sacrificing for you...
The individual tweets are here and here.

- JP

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Seth Lipsky: The Palin Doctrine

*
In a New York Sun editorial, Seth Lipsky says that in her speeches and writings on national security and foreign policy, the 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate is staking out a Palin Doctrine. We've excerpted editor Lipsky's first four paragraphs:
One of the things that’s starting to emerge on the Republican side of the political struggle is a world view that can be called the Palin Doctrine. It’s remarkable that none of the other leading figures in the party has come to be associated with a particular foreign policy trajectory. Can one think, say, of a Pawlenty Doctrine or a Daniels Doctrine or a even a Perry or a Schwartzenegger or a Romney Doctrine? They each have their own bona fides, but developing the outlines of a coherent foreign policy view isn’t one of them.

Governor Palin, by contrast, has been starting to give us a glimpse what could be expected of her in foreign affairs. This has been occurring in public appearances and broadcasts and, most pointedly, in a posting on June 30 her Facebook. So while the left has been mocking her for a supposed lack of depth or learning, she has been filling in, line by line, a picture of her foreign policy views, ranging over topics from the Navy (she’s for an expansion of the fleet), to a view of the war (she’s a hawk), to a view of the dollar (she’s against a weak dollar strategy), to a view of Israel (unflinching support).

This isn't the first time talk of a Palin Doctrine has been in the news. As far back as September 2008, the phrase occurred in, among other places, a column by Arianna Huffington who likened Mrs. Palin’s to “Dick Cheney. With lipstick.” She noted, however, that the governor’s doctrine was still “under construction.” In the two years since then, the Alaskan has honed an increasingly cohesive and detailed world view. We’ve already noted her remarks in respect of the dollar, delivered in a speech in Hong Kong and on her face book page, as well as her willingness to breast the politically correct line on Israel.

One of the features of the Palin Doctrine is that the governor opposes what she calls an “enemy-centric” foreign policy. In marking this point she has picked up on the phrasing of one of the most sophisticated critics of President Obama’s foreign policy, Senator Alexandr Vondra of the Czech Republic. A one-time hero of the anti-Communist struggle, Mr. Vondra is a former Czech envoy in Washington and a former foreign minister...
Read the full NY Sun editorial here.

- JP

Friday, July 9, 2010

Quote of the Day (July 9, 2010)

*
Quin Hillyer:
" To her great credit, Sarah Palin is absolutely right on target in her insistence on maintaining a strong defense... Good for her. The GOP Class of 1994 in Congress had too many members who did the same thing Palin warns against: letting their admirable enthusiasm for lower deficits/balanced budgets get in the way of a commitment to putting national defense first... Hear, hear. Praise for Palin. Conservatives, and all Americans, should listen. "
- JP

Friday, July 2, 2010

John Noonan: Sarah Palin takes the lead on defense spending

*
President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress have been on a fifteen-month spending spree which has thrown trillions of dollars down the rat hole and quadrupled the already-too-high deficit of the Bush administration. Consider this metaphor:

Democrats are like the drunkard who wakes up with a bad hangover after a drinking binge. He goes to the liquor store to buy more booze, but his credit card is declined and his checking account overdrawn. To raise money for the purchase of more booze, the drunk pawns the gun collection he inherited from his father, the expensive electronic security system with its ten video cameras that once protected his house, and all the padlocks that had secured the doors. A couple of shady characters who had entered the pawn shop to sell some choice items they had stolen from another house in the neighborhood take note of who the drunk is and where he lives. His home is now a prime target for these thieves who plan to bust in and steal his remaining valuables. But why should the drunk worry? He now has a little cash in his hand to blow at the liquor store.

Every time the Democrats get power, they spend like the foolish drunk in the above scenario on all things except those essential to our nation's security, which they allow to atrophy. Ronald Reagan had to rebuild America's military forces after Jimmy Carter had cut critical weapons systems and destroyed the morale of our troops. Reagan's policy of peace through strength, one which Sarah Palin advocates three decades later, helped to restore our national security and bring freedom to millions of Eastern Europeans as the Iron Curtain came crashing down and the Soviet Union disintegrated. Likewise, George W. Bush inherited from Bill Clinton a military which was dependent on obsolete weapons and and a broken intelligence infrastructure. Like Reagan a decade before him, Bush had to rebuild our military. Had he not done so, America would not have been able to strike aback after the 9/11 attacks and thus prevent them from reoccurring.

Democrats never learn from history. They are in power again, and once again they are killing off essential military assets. With the help of Vichy Republicans, they have drastically curtailed production of some of our most effective weapons systems while completely eliminating others. Some of the systems we must now rely on are hand-me-downs from the Reagan years. Our military is being asked to fight two wars at a time when our nation is faced with an unprecedented array of threats. Sarah Palin sees history about to repeat itself and makes the case for making our house secure again:
It takes a lot of resources to maintain the best fighting force in the world – especially at a time when we face financial uncertainty and a mountain of debt that threatens all of our futures.

We have a federal government that is spending trillions, and that has nationalized whole sections of our economy: the auto industry, the insurance industry, health care, student loans, the list goes on – all of it at enormous cost to the tax payer. The cost of Obamacare alone is likely to exceed $2.5 trillion dollars.

As a result of all these trillion dollar spending bills, America’s going bust in a hurry. By 2020 we may reach debt levels of $20 trillion – twice the debt that we have today! It reminds me of that joke I read the other day: “Please don’t tell Obama what comes after a trillion!”

Something has to be done urgently to stop the out of control Obama-Reid-Pelosi spending machine, and no government agency should be immune from budget scrutiny. We must make sure, however, that we do nothing to undermine the effectiveness of our military. If we lose wars, if we lose the ability to deter adversaries, if we lose the ability to provide security for ourselves and for our allies, we risk losing all that makes America great! That is a price we cannot afford to pay.
John Noonan is a foreign policy advisor for The Foreign Policy Initiative, a think tank which is focused on the strategic challenges faced by the United States and its allies. He has served as an officer in the Air Force and has extensive hands-on experience with missile systems. In a recent commentary, Noonan explains why Sarah Palin is right about the need for the U.S. to reverse the dangerous course the Democrats are steering with our national security:
I've spoken with a few military leaders who, rather dourly, think America is headed down the same road as the British circa the Suez Crisis, where overextension of a strained British armed forces, massive foreign debt, and the draining weight of a new welfare state swiftly unraveled the mightiest empire in history. In the 50s, the British had America on hand to fill the power vacuum. Today there are no benevolent powers to fill the void should America abdicate its unique role in world affairs, only eager and unstable actors like Russia and China, whose belief in their own territorial destiny borders on religious.

Some argue that our military power is directly reliant on our economic power, but the relationship is more symbiotic. Our economy thrives because of the security provided by the U.S. military. That's never been more true than today, a time when our Armed Forces serve as vanguards of realms like space and cyberspace, without which the modern, globalized economy could not exist. The period of Pax Romana was ushered in on the might of Roman legions who controlled the empire's highways, while the peace and prosperity of the Pax Brittanica was derived from the free and safe sea lanes guarded by the Royal Navy. America's security responsibilities are multi-dimensional and far more complex than those of imperial Rome or Britain. Providing the international community with stability and security is a responsibility that we abandon at our own peril

Democrats have made a lot of noise of late about reducing the military budget in order to demonstrate fiscal discipline, but Palin reminds her readers that defense is the main Constitutional duty of the federal government. There is certainly room for improvement in efficiency and procurement, which is a morass even in the best of times, but reduction of forces is a bad idea for a nation at war. The Navy appears to be their main target, but our Navy remains the protector of trade routes and the basic extension of American power around the globe.
The problem with abandoning America's position as the world's most formidable superpower, Noonan warns, is that doing so will leave a void, one which China stands ready to fill. From our vantage point in Texas, it seems that Democrats have no problem with such an outcome. The question we believe needs to be asked is, what could possibly go wrong?

- JP

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Quote of the Day (July 1, 2010)

*
Ed Morrissey:
"Sarah Palin’s critics sometimes poke fun at her regular messaging from her Facebook platform for a supposed lack of depth and heft. Her comprehensive look at military and foreign policy yesterday provides a rebuttal to those critiques, as well as a direct challenge to Barack Obama’s assertions of 'smart power.' Palin blasts Obama for his 'enemy-centric' foreign policy and criticizes Democrats who seek to score points on fiscal responsibility at the expense of the military... Democrats have made a lot of noise of late about reducing the military budget in order to demonstrate fiscal discipline, but Palin reminds her readers that defense is the main Constitutional duty of the federal government. There is certainly room for improvement in efficiency and procurement, which is a morass even in the best of times, but reduction of forces is a bad idea for a nation at war."
- JP

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Sarah Palin: 'I want my message out'

*
On Facebook Wednesday, Sarah Palin debunked yet another media falsehood and published her notes from the speech she delivered in Virginia Sunday:
Peace Through Strength and American Pride vs. “Enemy-Centric” Policy

Earlier this week, I spoke at the Freedom Fest in Norfolk, Virginia; and, evidently, the media was asked to leave – not by me, that’s for sure. I want my message out, so despite reporters making up a story about “Palin people kicking us out” (uh, the “Palin people” entourage would consist of one person – my 15-year-old daughter, Willow – and I have no doubt she could take on any reporter, but I know for certain she didn’t “kick ‘em out” of the event). Anyway, here are some of the key issues I spoke about.

DEFENSE SPENDING

It takes a lot of resources to maintain the best fighting force in the world – especially at a time when we face financial uncertainty and a mountain of debt that threatens all of our futures.

We have a federal government that is spending trillions, and that has nationalized whole sections of our economy: the auto industry, the insurance industry, health care, student loans, the list goes on – all of it at enormous cost to the tax payer. The cost of Obamacare alone is likely to exceed $2.5 trillion dollars.

As a result of all these trillion dollar spending bills, America’s going bust in a hurry. By 2020 we may reach debt levels of $20 trillion – twice the debt that we have today! It reminds me of that joke I read the other day: “Please don’t tell Obama what comes after a trillion!”

Something has to be done urgently to stop the out of control Obama-Reid-Pelosi spending machine, and no government agency should be immune from budget scrutiny. We must make sure, however, that we do nothing to undermine the effectiveness of our military. If we lose wars, if we lose the ability to deter adversaries, if we lose the ability to provide security for ourselves and for our allies, we risk losing all that makes America great! That is a price we cannot afford to pay.

This may be obvious to you and me, but I am not sure the Obama Administration gets it. There isn’t a single progressive pet cause which they haven’t been willing to throw billions at. But when it comes to defense spending, all of a sudden they start preaching a message of “fiscal restraint.” Our Defense Secretary recently stated the “gusher” of defense spending was over and that it was time for the Department of Defense to tighten its belt. There’s a gusher of spending alright, but it’s not on defense. Did you know the US actually only ranks 25th worldwide on defense spending as a percentage of GDP? We spend three times more on entitlements and debt services than we do on defense.

Now don’t get me wrong: there’s nothing wrong with preaching fiscal conservatism. I want the federal government to balance its budget right now! And not the Washington way – which is raising your taxes to pay for their irresponsible spending habits. I want it done the American way: by cutting spending, reducing the size of government, and letting people keep more of their hard-earned cash.

But the Obama administration doesn’t practice what it preaches. This is an administration that won’t produce a budget for fear that we discover how reckless they’ve been as fiscal managers. At the same time, it threatens to veto a defense bill because of an extra jet engine!

This administration may be willing to cut defense spending, but it’s increasing it everywhere else. I think we should do it the other way round: cut spending in other departments – apart from defense. We should not be cutting corners on our national security.

THE U.S. NAVY

Secretary Gates recently spoke about the future of the US Navy. He said we have to “ask whether the nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines, and $11 billion carriers.” He went on to ask, “Do we really need... more strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?”

Well, my answer is pretty simple: Yes, we can and, yes, we do because we must. Our Navy has global responsibilities. It patrols sea lanes and safeguards the freedoms of our allies – and ourselves. The Navy right now only has 286 ships, and that number may decrease. That will limit our options, extend tours for Navy personnel, lessen our ability to secure our allies and deter our adversaries. The Obama administration seems strangely unconcerned about this prospect.

OBAMA’S FOREIGN POLICY INHERITANCE

When George W. Bush came into office, he inherited a military that had been cut deeply, an al Qaeda that had been unchallenged, and an approach to terrorism that focused on bringing court cases rather than destroying those who sought to destroy us. We saw the result of some of that on 9/11.

When President Obama came into office, he inherited a military that was winning in Iraq. He inherited loyal allies and strong alliances. And thanks to the lamestream media pawing and purring over him, he had the benefit of unparalleled global popularity. What an advantage! So their basic foreign policy outlines should have been clear. Commit to the War on Terror. Commit to winning – not ending, but winning the war in Afghanistan. Commit to the fight against violent Islamic extremism wherever it finds sanctuary. Work with our allies. Be resolute with our adversaries. Promote liberty, not least because it enhances our security. Unfortunately, these basic principles seem to have been discarded by Washington.

THE WAR ON TERROR

His administration has banned the phrase “war on terror,” preferring instead politically correct nonsense like “overseas contingency operations.” His Homeland Security Secretary calls acts of terrorism “man-caused disasters.” His reckless plan to close Guantanamo (because there’s no place to go after it’s closed) faces bipartisan opposition now.

The Attorney General just announced that a decision about where to try terrorists like 9/11 master mind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would not be announced until after the mid-term elections. Is there something he’s afraid to tell us?

The President’s new National Security Strategy does not even use the word “Islamic” when referring to violent extremism. Does he think the ideology of those who seek to kill Americans is irrelevant? How can we seek to defeat an enemy if we don’t acknowledge what motivates them and what their ultimate goals are? President Obama may think he is being politically correct by dropping the term, but it flies in the face of reality. As Senator Joe Lieberman noted, refusing to use the word Islamic when describing the nature of the threat we face is “Orwellian and counterproductive.”

AFGHANISTAN

In Afghanistan, it is true that President Obama approved deploying additional forces to the conflict – most, but not all the troops requested by commanders on the ground. But it took months of indecision to get to that point, and it came at a very high price – a July 2011 date to begin withdrawal.

This date was arbitrary! It bears no relation to conditions on the ground. It sends all the wrong signals to our friends and to our enemies. We know our commanders on the ground are not comfortable with it.

As that great Navy war hero, Senator John McCain recently put it: “The decision to begin withdrawing our forces from Afghanistan arbitrarily in July 2011 seems to be having exactly the effect that many of us predicted it would: It is convincing the key actors inside and outside of Afghanistan that the United States is more interested in leaving than succeeding in this conflict.”

Does the President really believe the Taliban and al Qaeda won’t be empowered by his naming of a starting date for withdrawal? They now believe they can beat him simply by outlasting us. What sort of effect does he think this will have on the morale of our troops – and of our allies?

ALIENATING OUR ALLIES

It’s not the only area where the Obama administration has failed our allies. They escalated a minor zoning issue in Jerusalem into a major dispute with our most important ally in the Middle East, Israel. They treated the Israeli Prime Minister shabbily in Washington. When a Turkish sponsored flotilla threatened to violate a legal Israeli blockade of Hamas-run Gaza, the Obama Administration was silent. When Israeli commandos were assaulted as they sought to prevent unmonitored cargoes from being delivered to Hams terrorists, the Obama Administration sent signals it might allow a UN investigation into the matter – an investigation that would be sure to condemn our ally Israel and bemoan the plight of Hamas. Loyal NATO allies in central Europe were undermined by the cancellation of a missile defense program with virtually no warning. At the same time, Russia and China are given preferential treatment, while remaining silent on their human rights violations.

CODDLING ADVERSARIES

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration reaches out to some of the world’s worst regimes. They shake hands with dictators like Hugo Chavez, send letters to the Iranian mullahs and envoys to North Korea, ease sanctions on Cuba and talk about doing the same with Burma. That’s when they’re not on one of their worldwide apology tours.

Do we get anything in return for all this bowing and apologizing? No, we don’t. Yes, Russia voted for a weak sanctions resolution on Iran, but it immediately stated it could sell advanced anti-aircraft missile to Iran anyway, and would not end its nuclear cooperation. In response to North Korea’s unprovoked sinking of a South Korean Navy ship, China warned us not to take part in military exercises with our ally.

And while President Obama lets America get pushed around by the likes of Russia and China, our allies are left to wonder about the value of an alliance with the U.S. They have to be wondering if it’s worth it.

AN “ENEMY-CENTRIC” FOREIGN POLICY

It has led one prominent Czech official to call Obama’s foreign policy “enemy-centric.” And this “enemy-centric” approach has real consequences. It not only baffles our allies, it worries them. When coupled with less defense spending, it signals to the world that maybe we can no longer be counted on, and that we have other priorities than being the world leader that keeps the peace and provides security in Europe, in Asia and throughout the world.

Together with this enemy-centric foreign policy, we see a lessening of the long, bipartisan tradition of speaking out for human rights and democracy. The Secretary of State said she would not raise human rights with China because “we pretty much know what they are going to say.” Democracy promotion programs have been cut. Support for the brave Iranians protesting their government was not forthcoming because President Obama would rather try to cut a deal with their oppressors.

When the world’s dictators see the United States unconcerned with human rights and political freedom, they breathe a sigh of relief, because they know they have a free hand to repress their own people.

This goes against the very ideals on which our republic was founded. There is a long bipartisan tradition of speaking out in favor of freedom – from FDR to Ronald Reagan. America loses something very important when its President consigns human rights and freedom to the back burner of its international priorities.

A DIFFERENT VIEW OF AMERICA

We have a President, perhaps for the very first time since the founding of our republic, who doesn’t appear to believe that America is the greatest earthly force for good the world has ever known.

When asked whether he believed in American exceptionalism, President Obama answered, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Amazing. Amazing.

I think this statement speaks volumes about his world view. He sees nothing unique in the American experience? Really? Our founding, and our founding mothers and fathers? Really? And our history over the past two and half centuries?

Really? He sees nothing unique in an America that fought and won two world wars and in victory sought not one inch of territory or one dollar of plunder? He sees nothing unique in an America that, though exhausted by conflict, still laid the foundation for security in Europe and Asia after World War II? He sees nothing unique in an America that prevailed against an evil ideology in the Cold War? Does he just sees a country that has to be apologized for around the world, especially to dictators?

President Obama actually seems reluctant to even embrace American power. Earlier this year when he was asked about his faltering Middle East peace process, he said “whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.” Whether we like it or not?! Really? Mr. President, this may come as news to you, but most Americans actually do like it. And so do our allies. They know it was our military might that liberated countless millions from tyranny, slavery, and oppression over the last 234 years. Yes, we do like it. As a dominant superpower, the United States has won wars hot and cold; our military has advanced the cause of freedom and kept authoritarian powers in check.

It is in America’s and the world’s best interests for our country to remain the dominant military superpower, but under President Obama’s leadership that dominance may be slipping away. It’s the result of an agenda that reeks of complacency and defeatism.

(I went on from there to talk about our need to end the negative, defeatist attitudes of those in leadership. I spoke further on American exceptionalism, and Willow and I ended a great evening with some great patriots. Sorry the media chose to report anything other than what actually happened at the event.)

- Sarah Palin
- JP

Friday, May 28, 2010

Jim Hoft: 'Shameless' Obama disses Gov. Palin during news conference

*
President Obama, taking to heart the wisdom of his White House Chief of Staff to "never let a good crisis go to waste," used the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico to try to score political points against Sarah Palin. Gateway Pundit Jim Hoft noted Thursday:
Shameless after weeks of golfing, photo ops and vacationing, Barack Obama took a “drill, baby drill“ swipe at Sarah Palin during his press conference today on the mismanaged Gulf oil spill disaster.
Obama's exact quote was:
“The fact that oil companies now have to go a mile under water and then drill another three miles below that in order to hit oil tells us something about the direction of the oil industry. Extraction is more expensive and it is going to be inherently more risky. And so that’s part of the reason you never heard me say, ‘Drill, baby, drill!
Gov. Palin fired back on Twitter:
"Ahh, that's much of the problem,Mr.President;Drill ANWR&unlock land for safe onshore devlpmnt/energy securty"
Touché.

- JP

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Sarah Palin Was Right #32: Majority of Americans Still Want Offshore Drilling

*
In the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, Sarah Palin published an op-ed online to explain why she still supports offshore drilling:
"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."
She was immediately attacked and ridiculed by the anti-Palin left, but according to the results of an IBD/TIPP poll taken after the rig explosion and subsequent oil spill, a solid majority of the American people agree with Gov. Palin, not the naysayers:
Preliminary results of an IBD/TIPP Poll of 795 U.S. adults, taken from April 30 to May 5, show that a large majority — 59% — approve of "oil exploration and drilling in America's national territorial waters." Just 31% said they disapprove.

[...]

The cold reality is we need oil. A retreat from drilling would be economically unwise. BP's mess must be put into perspective.

"We get more than a fifth of our domestic production of oil here in the U.S. from off the Gulf Coast, over a million barrels a day," says the American Enterprise Institute's Steve Hayward. "If we don't continue that ... we'll be importing more oil to make up for it, even if consumption stays flat."

Today, the U.S. uses about 21 million barrels of oil a day. But we produce only about a third of that. The rest is imported. All told, including Mexico, a third of our oil and gas comes from the Gulf.

Simply, there is no ready-to-use energy source now available to replace millions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of gas.
IBD's editors explain the significance of the poll results. The DOE tells us that by the time two more decades have elapsed, the world will need 23% more oil than it is using today. We simply can't continue to depend on foreign sources to provide the United States with the oil we will need to meet domestic demands. For the sake of our own security, we must expand our home-grown domestic energy sector.

Average Americans understand that we will need more oil and natural gas, and the only way to get is to drill for it. That we must do so responsibly almost goes without saying, but in light of the Gulf spill, it has to be said. Average Americans also understand this, as does Gov. Palin, who has always argued that we must explore and produce with the greatest of care and respect for the environment.

- JP

Friday, April 30, 2010

Sarah Palin: Why We Can Still Believe in Domestic Drilling

*
Sarah Palin used her Facebook Notes page Friday to respond to her critics and explain why she still supports offshore drilling in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon explosion:
Domestic Drilling: Why We Can Still Believe

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
- JP

Friday, April 16, 2010

Sarah Palin: 'Whether we like it or not?'

*
Sarah Palin took to her Facebook Notes page Friday morning to excoriate President Obama once again:
Mr. President, is a strong America a problem?

Asked this week about his faltering efforts to advance the Middle East peace process, President Obama did something remarkable. In front of some 47 foreign leaders and hundreds of reporters from all over the world, President Obama said that “whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.”

Whether we like it or not? Most Americans do like it. America’s military may be one of the greatest forces for good the world has ever seen, liberating countless millions from tyranny, slavery, and oppression over the last 234 years. As a dominant superpower, the United States has won wars hot and cold; our military has advanced the cause of freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan and kept authoritarian powers like Russian and China in check.

It is in America’s and the world’s interests for our country to remain a dominant military superpower, but under our great country’s new leadership that dominance seems to be slipping away. President Obama has ended production of the F-22, the most advanced fighter jet this country has ever built. He’s gutted our missile defense program by eliminating shield resources in strategic places including Alaska. And he’s ended the program to build a new generation of nuclear weapons that would have ensured the reliability of our nuclear deterrent well into the future. All this is in the context of the country’s unsustainable debt that could further limit defense spending. As one defense expert recently explained:
The president is looking to eliminate the last vestiges of the Reagan-era buildup. Once the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are “ended” (not “won”), the arms control treaties signed, and defense budgets held at historic lows while social entitlements and debt service rise to near-European levels, the era of American superpower will have passed.
The truth is this: by his actions we see a president who seems to be much more comfortable with an American military that isn’t quite so dominant and who feels the need to apologize for America when he travels overseas. Could it be a lack of faith in American exceptionalism? The fact is that America and our allies are safer when we are a dominant military superpower – whether President Obama likes it or not.

- Sarah Palin
We can see Sarah's spine from our houses.

Update: Ed Morrissey comments.

- JP

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Sarah Palin: Energy security now!

*
Sarah Palin, in an op-ed posted Wednesday on her Facebook Notes page, used the occasion of the first completed development well at the Point Thompson oil field to call for more domestic drilling as a means of increasing U.S. national security:
Alaska Steps Forward Towards Energy Security

Congratulations are due Exxon and the State of Alaska’s Department of Natural Resources for completing the first development well at Point Thomson in northern Alaska. This is a huge field full of domestic crude, and it’s time to drill for it!

This week we’ve witnessed great progress toward more energy security for Alaska and our entire nation. What began as hefty trucks and hard working men and women heading up an ice road last year, to the commencement of drilling at Point Thomson, this progress has finally led to Exxon’s announcement today of completion of its first development well to produce oil and gas. Our “tough stance” with big oil and perseverance in insisting that Alaska’s resources be developed instead of warehoused while foreign countries are busy developing their oil and gas reserves has paid off to the benefit of everyone involved.

Drill here, drill now... energy independence is a national security issue that can’t be ignored any longer.

- Sarah Palin
- JP

Thursday, December 31, 2009

Sarah Palin Was Right #24: Gary P. Jackson on Energy Security

*
Gary P. Jackson, in an op-ed for The Cyrpress Times, says that the Christmas Day attempt to blow an airliner and the three hundred souls aboard to Kingdom Come highlights not only our troubling homeland security issues, but the matter of energy independence (or energy security) as well. This is an issue that Sarah Palin has been trying to warn the nation about for years:
"Of course, Sarah’s message on energy independence isn’t just an economic one. Now it’s true, we send between $700 billion and $1 trillion dollars annually overseas. The problem is many times it’s to nations that not only hate us, but use our own dollars to fund efforts to undermine us as a nation. In other words, they use our dollars to fund terror, worldwide, against the United States, and our allies."
And Jackson points out that the problem of energy security is not limited to just one geographic part of the world:
"There are other nations, such as Venezuela, who are teaming up with bad actors like Iran, and Russia, forming alliances that will further weaken the United States, and her allies. These relationships will also allow Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez to exert power over weaker South American states, thus spreading communism and further destroying what freedoms people in that region have. It will be a disaster."
All of which makes Sarah Palin's advocacy for domestic oil and gas drilling more than just common sense conservatism:
"Back in August the big talk was Petrobas, and the huge deal Obama made with the Brazilian Oil Giant. Obama “loaned” Petrobas $10 billion American tax payer dollars so they could drill offshore, something Obama and his thugs fight tooth and nail against in our own country."

"America is rich in oil, right off our own coast line, but we are told we will literally destroy the world, and all of mankind, plus all of the fishes in the sea, and the polar bears, of course, if we dare to drill for that oil."

"This made me wonder why, if drilling for our oil would be such a disaster, could one drill off the coast of Brazil without such harmful effects..."

"You see literally just days before our most corrupt president in the nation’s history was so generous with our money, his boss, George Soros, became the major stockholder in Petrobas! In fact, it became Soros’ largest holding. Funny how having Soros involved made all of the environmental concerns go away..."
But, as Jackson says, there’s much more, and you can read it all here.

- JP

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Sarah Palin Was Right: Conservative Brother on Profiling

*
Conservative Brother, at Wake up Black America, says "you betcha" to Sarah Palin's "profile away":
Back in November, Sarah drove the appeasers up the wall in an interview conducted by Matt Continetti. Her comments came a few days after the Fort Hood terrorist attack in which the radical Muslim Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 soldiers while wounding 30. These are the comments Sarah Palin made in her interview with Matt Continetti.

Sarah Palin "There were such clear, obvious, massive warning signs that were missed. This terrorist, even having business cards" that identified him as an "SoA" or soldier of Allah." Palin blamed a culture of political correctness and other decisions that "prevented -- I'm going to say it -- profiling" of someone with Hasan's extremist ideology. "I say, profile away". " Such political correctness "could be our downfall." If the upcoming investigations into the attack reveal bad decision-making on the part of senior officials, Palin continued, those officials ought to be fired".

No doubt those on the left considered Palin to be an even further right wing hate monger for her "closed minded remarks", however it appears that Sarah Palin's words have come home to bear fruit.
Read Tyrone's full post here.

- JP

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Quote of the Day (December 29, 2009)

*
Dennis Ingolfsland, on the Underwear Bomber's warning that there are "hundreds more" just like him simmering in Yemen:
"I don't know about you, but I would feel much more at ease if Sarah Palin and that old guy... were running the country."
- JP

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Sarah Palin: A war tax? Is Congress serious?

In another post on her Facebook Notes page, Sarah Palin described calls by two top Congressional Democrats for a "war tax" as "Scary. Nonsensical. Unacceptable." Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin and Sen. Carl Levin of New York have each proposed that a  surtax be imposed on the wealthy to pay for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan:
Congress Never Ceases to Amaze

Really? A tax on national defense? I hear liberal Congressional proposals and I, like most Americans, wonder if they’re serious. We’re going to put a price tag on security?

With Congress and President Obama spending money on everything at breakneck speed, it’s interesting that they are only now getting nervous about spending – but only when it comes to providing the necessary funds to complete our mission in Afghanistan. They don’t need a new “war tax” to fund a strategy for victory in the war zone. They simply need to prioritize our money appropriately.

I find it telling that the Pelosi-Reid Congress is only cost-conscious when it comes to our national defense. Scary. Nonsensical. Unacceptable.

- Sarah Palin
- JP

Friday, November 6, 2009

Sarah Palin Was Right #19: IBD on Domestic Energy Reserves

A recent report from the Congressional Research Service contains some startling information: when U.S. energy resources are counted and then converted to their barrels of oil equivalent (BOE), we are literally sitting on the largest energy reserves in the world. Via Investors.com:
According to the CRS, the U.S. has 1,321 billion barrels of oil (or barrels of oil equivalent for other sources of energy) if you combine its recoverable natural gas, oil and coal reserves. Russia is close behind with 1,248 billion barrels BOE. Other energy-producing nations, including many that export oil to the U.S., lag behind.

Of course, much of our world-leading reserves are off-limits by government edict.
Former Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, commenting on how the current administration's pandering to special interest groups keeps us dependent on foreign sources of energy:
This nonsensical opposition to American domestic energy development continues to this day. Apparently the Obama-Biden administration only approves of offshore drilling in Brazil, where it will provide security and jobs for Brazilians.
The editors at Investors.com point out that the Democrats' idea of exploiting only renewable domestic sources of energy is not only an expensive notion, but in our weakened economy, it is depriving Americans of badly-needed jobs*:
We are dependent on fossil fuel energy and will be for some time. The folks at Peabody Energy say replacing coal would require 2,400 times more solar generation, 40 times more wind power, 250 new nuclear plants, almost double the U.S. production of natural gas, 500 hydro plants the size of the Hoover Dam or halving electricity consumption.

"Our overwhelming coal, natural gas and oil resources represent tens of trillions of dollars in wealth and millions of American jobs," said Sen. James Inhofe, R.-Okla., who released the CRS data.

[...]

Sadly, the report stated that the U.S. has tapped into only 13%, or 21 billion barrels of its oil reserves, with the other 87% still untouched.
Palin reminds us that the U.S. dependency on foreign energy sources is not just economic foolishness, but also as a failure to make this nation a more secure one:
Through this massive transfer of wealth, we lose hundreds of billions of dollars a year that could be invested in our economy. Instead it goes to foreign countries, including some repressive regimes that use it to fund activities that threaten our security.

Reliance on foreign sources of energy weakens America. When a riot breaks out in an OPEC nation, or a developing country talks about nationalizing its oil industry, or a petro-dictator threatens to cut off exports, the probability is great that the price of oil will shoot up. Even in friendly nations, business and financial decisions made for local reasons can destabilize America’s energy market, since the price we pay for foreign oil is subject to rising and falling exchange rates. Decreasing our dependence on foreign sources of energy will reduce the impact of world events on our economy.

In the end, energy independence is not just about the environment or the economy. It’s about freedom and confidence. It’s about building a more secure and peaceful America, an America in which our energy needs will not be subject to the whims of nature, currency speculators, or madmen in possession of vast oil reserves.
* The U.S. now has double-digit unemployment, according to the Labor Department

- JP

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Reaction to Sarah vs.Clueless Joe Biden on energy

Here's some reaction from around the Web to Biden v Palin: The Rematch:

Left Coast Rebel:
"I just caught Biden earlier today talking down to Sarah Palin and her 'drill baby now' mantra. In typical effete, ruling-class snob-liberal M.O., he scoffed at such a simple notion of energy independence."
Sister Toldjah:
"Sarah 2 – Biden 0."
Jim Hoft:
"It’s important to remember that the Obama-Biden energy plan is a non-energy plan. It consists of cutting off domestic production of oil and coal causing prices to skyrocket and implementing costly solar and wind programs that absolutely will not meet America’s energy demands."
Ethel Fenig:
"So you see Vice President Biden, 'drill baby drill' is reasonable, practical advice which will produce thousands of real jobs without taxing for 'stimulus' phony jobs. But apparently that answer is too complicated for the vice president."
Moonbattery:
"Under the radical neo-Marxist administration of Chairman Zero, domestic energy exploration has been halted. Leases to extract oil from Rocky Mountain shale and to explore for offshore oil have been revoked, while billions in loan guarantees have been extended to help Brazilians exploit offshore oil reserves. Why does Brazilian energy development not threaten the environment but American energy exploration does? Another question the Obamunist Cult can't give a good answer to."
VotingFemale:
"Domestic energy development reduces dependence on Foreign Oil, creates domestic jobs, drive down the cost of energy which boosts economic growth, and strengthens US national security. I mean, how hard is that to grasp?"
DaTechGuy:
"Biden speaks to a 'whopping crowd' of media but can’t draw a crowd. Palin is able to answer him via facebook to millions from her keyboard."
Public Secrets:
"Sarah Palin already mopped the floor with him once in their vice-presidential candidates debate last year, so Joe Biden should know better than to look for a rematch."
- JP

Friday, October 16, 2009

Sarah Palin: Drill

Former Governor Sarah Palin has a new op-ed cross-posted on her Facebook Notes page and at NRO, National Review Online:
Drill
Petroleum is a major part of America’s energy picture. Shall we get it here or abroad?

By Sarah Palin

Given that we’re spending billions of stimulus dollars to rebuild our highways, it makes sense to think about what we’ll be driving on them. For years to come, most of what we drive will be powered, at least in part, by diesel fuel or gasoline. To fuel that driving, we need access to oil. The less use we make of our own reserves, the more we will have to import, which leads to a number of harmful consequences. That means we need to drill here and drill now.

We rely on petroleum for much more than just powering our vehicles: It is essential in everything from jet fuel to petrochemicals, plastics to fertilizers, pesticides to pharmaceuticals. According to the Energy Information Administration, our total domestic petroleum consumption last year was 19.5 million barrels per day (bpd). Motor gasoline and diesel fuel accounted for less than 13 million bpd of that. Meanwhile, we produced only 4.95 million bpd of domestic crude. In other words, even if we ran all our vehicles on something else (which won’t happen anytime soon), we would still have to depend on imported oil. And we’ll continue that dependence until we develop our own oil resources to their fullest extent.

Those who oppose domestic drilling are motivated primarily by environmental considerations, but many of the countries we’re forced to import from have few if any environmental-protection laws, and those that do exist often go unenforced. In effect, American environmentalists are preventing responsible development here at home while supporting irresponsible development overseas.

My home state of Alaska shows how it’s possible to be both pro-environment and pro-resource-development. Alaskans would never support anything that endangered our pristine air, clean water, and abundant wildlife (which, among other things, provides many of us with our livelihood). The state’s government has made safeguarding resources a priority; when I was governor, for instance, we created a petroleum-systems-integrity office to monitor our oil and gas infrastructure for any potential environmental risks.

Alaska also shows how oil drilling is thoroughly compatible with energy conservation and renewable-energy development. Over 20 percent of Alaska’s electricity currently comes from renewable sources, and as governor I put forward a long-term plan to increase that figure to 50 percent by 2025. Alaska’s comprehensive plan identifies renewable options across the state that can help rural villages transition away from expensive diesel-generated electricity — allowing each community to choose the solution that best fits its needs. That’s important in any energy plan: Tempting as they may be to central planners, top-down, one-size-fits-all solutions are recipes for failure.

Continue reading my article for National Review by clicking here...
- JP

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Sarah Palin Was Right #10: Ed Morrissey on Energy Security

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey applauds Sarah Palin for her op-ed on domestic drilling, debt and the dollar, agreeing that the former governor "once again showed the risk that the US has in relying so heavily on foreign oil when we have resources at home that could replace a significant amount of it":
"This remains a priority for our economic recovery, and Palin shrewdly seizes the opportunity to raise the issue at a timely moment. We could create tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of high-paying industrial jobs by opening the coastlines for drilling, most of which would be union labor. It would take a few years to start benefiting fully from the production, but we could be well on our way to keeping dollars at home rather than sending them abroad for our energy needs before then. It would make energy less expensive at a time when we need to reduce energy costs to stimulate the economy in a real way."
Morrissey says relatively low pump prices we are currently paying should not blind us to the fact that the need for domestic drilling is just as urgent it was last year, if not more so.

Captain Ed from Minnesota and Citizen Sarah of Alaska will get no disagreement on the need for energy security from this Texan.

- JP