The Patriot's Trumpet

Last year it Was, “I won—We Don’t Want to Hear Talkin’ From You”

March 23, 2011 – Update below

Perhaps there are real U. S. National interests to Attack Libya. Oil comes to mind. Yes, if anyone destroys the Libyan oil infrastructure, we will feel the consequences along with the countries that are the Libyan market.

Democracy is not a reason. Those rebelling against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi are not Liberty lovers, they are Al Qaida connected and backed. (Do not forget, Iran has millions of genuine Liberty lovers purposefully ignored by Obama.) If Qaddafi falls under this circumstance, Libya becomes part of the growing number of Islamist states.

A fundamental question for We the People, “opinion leaders” and the Congress is does the President have Constitutional authority to wage this military operation?  Here’s the judgment of Illinois Senator Barak Obama in December, 2007:

“In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

Can we find anyone to disagree with (Senator) Obama? Well, yes, President Obama in a letter dated Monday to (Speaker John Boehner) Congress asserted his authority to strike Libya. Sam Youngman writing in the hill reported March 21, 2011: 

President Obama told congressional leaders that he ordered strikes on Libya under his Constitutional authority as commander in chief.

As Democrats and Republicans alike publicly question Obama’s authority to order the strikes, the president sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) outlining the mission and declaring his authority.

At the close of the letter outlining actions the U.S. military has undertaken in recent days, Obama said that he “directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.”

“I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution,” Obama wrote. “I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.”

Boehner said over the weekend that the president has a responsibility to be more clear with Congress and the American people about what the specific goals of the mission are.

Obama said in the letter that the strikes “will be limited in their nature, duration and scope.”

“The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya,” Obama wrote. “United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster.”

“Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime’s air defense systems, command and control structures and other capabilities of Qadhafi’s armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas,” Obama wrote.

 “We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973,” Obama said.

Well golly, gee—I guess everything’s alright then. But wait! B. J. Williams, writing in the American Thinker, proves Obama is wrong. Here’s Mr. Williams compelling argument:

On the eighth anniversary of the day President George W. Bush ordered U.S. troops into Iraq in 2003, with the full support of the U.S. Congress and majority support from the U.N. Security Council, Barack Obama launched a Tomahawk missile assault on the sovereign nation of Libya with no majority support in the U.N. and without even consulting Congress.

Acting alone while Congress was away on recess, solely at the command of the United Nations and without constitutional authority, Barack Obama dropped over $70 million worth of Tomahawk missiles on Libya — a dictatorial maneuver to force a regime change in a foreign land.

Under what authority did Obama green-light this dictatorial assault?  To be certain, Qaddafi is no prize, but what Obama just did is nevertheless unacceptable.  Acting all alone in a truly imperialistic fashion, Obama violated his oath of office, Articles I and II of the U.S. Constitution, and the War Powers Act — all in one mindless, knee-jerk decision.

Article II, Section II of the U.S. Constitution identifies the U.S. president as the commander-in-chief and the civilian oversight of the U.S. military.  But the clause gives the U.S. president no authority to use military might to enforce his political will upon foreign nations.

Article I, Section VIII of the U.S. Constitution bestows the power to declare war solely on the U.S. Congress.  It requires both the commander-in-chief and Congress to commit U.S. troops to combat, without which any deployment of troops is wholly unconstitutional.

The 1973 War Powers Act was put in place to prevent a U.S. president from doing exactly what Barack Obama just did.

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

A U.S. commander-in-chief can order use of military force under only three specific conditions:

1. a declaration of war,
2. specific statutory authorization, or
3. a national emergency created byan attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

The U.S. Congress has not declared war against a foreign nation since WWII.  But when George W. Bush sent troops into Afghanistan and Iraq following the September 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. soil, not only did he consult Congress in advance, but he sought and received specific statutory authorization from Congress before ordering troops into combat.  Bush complied with the Constitution and the War Powers Act under conditions (2) and (3).  He also had a broad coalition of U.N. partners driven by years of U.N. resolutions defied by Iraq.

In the case of Obama and Libya, none of the three necessary conditions exist.

1. Congress did not declare war.
2. Congress was not consulted and did not give specific statutory authorization.
3. The U.S. was not attacked in any way by Libya, which presented no threat to the U.S. or U.S. assets.

As a result, Barack Obama had no constitutional authority to attack Libya with over $70 million worth of U.S. taxpayer-provided Tomahawks, placing American soldiers in harm’s way in yet another war which cannot be justified even by the pursuit of oil.

Obama has acted alone, well beyond the scope and authority of his office and at odds with the national interests of the United States and the Constitution which he took an oath to uphold and defend.

The Washington Times has it right.  Even crook Democrat Charlie Rangel has it right, saying he was angry that Congress was not consulted before the military strikes.

Rangel said that he was undecided on whether the military action against Libya was justified but that he thought that lawmakers and their constituents should have had time to weigh in.  “Our presidents seem to believe that all we have to do is go to the U.N. and we go to war,” Rangel said.

Crazy leftist Dennis Kucinich is asking why the missile strikes are not an impeachable offense.  As we go to press, he stands alone. 

Although the U.N. apparently has command over Barack Obama, this organization has no command authority over U.S. Armed Forces.  Obama used U.S. soldiers illegally and unconstitutionally.  These are the facts…

But where is Congress?

Antiwar liberal and libertarian politicians like Ron Paul have attacked President Bush for years on Iraq and Afghanistan, even though Bush openly sought and received congressional authority for both military actions.

Here we have a clear-cut violation and abuse of presidential powers, and where are all the Code Pink, MoveOn.org, Ron Paul antiwar types?

Who in the U.S. Congress — specifically in the Republican-controlled House — is going to launch a full-scale investigation into Obama’s dictatorial use of military might and begin impeachment proceedings?  Who in the US Congress is going to put a stop to the growing insanity?

We have a runaway government acting against the interests of the United States and beyond its legal authority.  Does anyone have the backbone to stop it and hold Obama accountable?  Will there be an international war crimes trial for Barack Obama?

There is strong criticizm on the left. But, I have not found Republican presidential hopefuls or Congressional leaders objecting. This assult on the Constitutiion will cost us. It is one more hill to climb as We the People work to restore the Constitution and America.

Update:

John Hinderaker, while not naming specific Senators or Congressmen, reports at Power Line Blog significant disatisfaction in Congress because Obama has not sought Constitutional Congressional approval:

Questions about our military action in Libya, and in particular why President Obama did not seek Congressional support for it, are reverberating around the capital. Congressmen and Senators across the political spectrum are complaining about the administration’s handling of the crisis. In particular, the fact that Obama sought the approval of the United Nations, but not Congress, has made many in the latter institution unhappy.

Of course, President Obama isn’t around to answer those questions; he is in South America. Politico asks, “Did Obama Lose Congress on Libya?” National security adviser Tom Donilon stood in for Obama and tried to explain the administration’s failure to involve Congress. Here is part of what he had to say:

First of all, consultation with Congress is important, as I said. Secondly, the administration welcomes the support of Congress in whatever form that they want to express that support.

So Obama has gone from 1) the President has no authority to undertake military action in these circumstances without prior Congressional approval, to 2) the President–as long as it is Obama–“welcomes the support of Congress in whatever form they want to express that support,” after the fact. The arrogant presumption of the Obama administration never ceases to amaze.

What if Obama and his administration arrogantly presumed not to entertain a presidential election in 2012, John?

The Madison Roll Call

AFL-CIO, SEIU, other bussed in union thugs —present.

Leaders and members of Wisconsin AFSCME thugs —present.

Leaders and members of Wisconsin AFT & WEA thugs —present.

Elected Democrat lawless thugs —finally present.

Democrat party activists —present.

What about Code Pink? All anti-American criminals —present.

Or International ANSWER? All anti-American criminals —present.

Dane County Sheriff ready to enforce the law, protect the citizens?

—possibly not present.

Madison Police Dept. ready to serve? —Possibly not present.

The Stalking Began March 17^th. (vulgarity altered by me)Read It Yourself:

Ann Althouse is a Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Among her eclectic interests are blogging, photography, video and politics. Her husband is “New Media Meade.” What-do-you know? Ann Althouse became a player in the battle for Wisconsin. I became acquainted with the Althouse blog February 18^th,, the day the fourteen cowards left their post. What does she do? She reports the truth in word and picture. These days I can’t afford to miss her Site.

Posted by Ann Althouse at 1:43 PM, March 17, 2011

Union thuggery against Althouse and Meade: “We will hang up wanted posters of you everywhere you like to go.”

“We will picket on public property as close to your house as we can every day. We will harrass the ever loving s**t out of you all the time. Campus is OCCUPIED. State street is OCCUPIED. The Square is OCCUPIED. Vilas, Schenk’s Corners, Atwood, Willy Street – Occupied, Occupied, Occupied, Occupied. Did you really think it was all about the Capitol? F**k the Capitol, we are the CITY… We have the numbers and we don’t back down from anyone. We all know each other. We all know each other. We know each other from Service Industry Night at the Orpheum, because we’re regulars at the same coffee shops, restaurants and bars, we know each other from the co-ops, we know each other because we’ve had a million jobs each (and we all worked at CapTel at least once), because we live in every sh**ty townie house in ever-changing groups of 2 – 7 people, because we are young and horny and sc**w each other incessantly, because we’re all on facebook, and because we aren’t anti-social, life-denying, world-sterilizing pieces of human garbage like the two of you. WE WILL F**K YOU UP. We will throw our baseballs in your lawn, you cranky old pieces of s**t, and then we will come get them back. What are you gonna do? Shoot us? Get Wausau Tea Patriots to form an ad hoc militia on your front lawn? That would be f**king HILAROUS to us. You could get to know the assholes on your side in real f**king life instead of sponging off the civil society we provide for you every single day you draw breath.”

The anonymous Stalker was quickly revealed as Jim Shankman of Madison, to Dan Riehl, writing at Big Government. More from Riehl later.

Get Set for the Next Chilling Threats from Shankman —“You are a Target.”

A Communication from Operation: Countertroll to Ann Althouse and “Meade”

Because of their extensive, lifelong, union freeloading (Althouse, the breadwinner of their pathetic, sexual-frustration driven “family” is an AAUP freeloader, a public sectorsecondary education freeloader, a University of Michigan freeloader, a University of Colorado freeloader and, most disgustingly to us, a University of Wisconsin Freeloader),their movement freeloading (they have greatly enhanced their reputation and socialcurrency both within her nauseating Tory brotherhood they represent and across theinternet by wandering around Madison lying about all they see) their repeated lies andgeneral commitment to irresponsible citizen-journalism (how dare they sneak around anongoing citizen protest movement taking pictures of trash minutes before ourvolunteers clean it), their false claims to have infiltrated the movement despite the factthat as a decentralized, participatory and democratic movement #wiunion cannot be“infiltrated” and indeed welcomes the attention of hostile outside observers, theirattempts to incite Tea Party Falangists to act on their sadistic and violent impulsesagainst fourth grade teachers and their students, and their desecration of the statue of Hans Christian Heg Ann Althouse and Meade are hereby put on notice.

NOTICE – YOUR CITY OF MADISON PRIVILEGES HAVE BEEN REVOKED.

MADISON IS A #WIUNION CITY AND WE ARE MADISON.

Did you really think this could go on forever? That you could sit on the steps of ourhouse, walk the streets of our city, lie about us to strangers, tell gun-toting rednecksfrom out of state and the Northwoods how depraved and deserving of punishment weare all while maintaining plausible deniability for any of the consequences that youractions might cause? Did you think you could f**k with HANS and get away with it? This isn’t a one way fight any more. We will take it from the internet right to 2114Chamberlain Avenue. Do you have any idea where you live? Let us spell it out for you.We understand that you like to eat on the square. You like the Baked Potato at the OldFashioned, do you? There were five of us in there last Tuesday. You like to eat atFresco? We’re in the Overture eating, serving, cooking, playing, and performing. Atleast twenty of us have worked for Food Fight. You like to f**k**g drink at FAIR TRADEdo you? At FAIR TRADE? You are citizen-BANNED from Fair Trade. We will Walker youstraight out of the place whenever you show up. We are at every coffee shop on State,open to close, all the time. We will hang up wanted posters of you everywhere you liketo go. We will picket on public property as close to your house as we can every day.We will harrass the ever loving s**t out of you all the time. Campus is OCCUPIED. Statestreet is OCCUPIED. The Square is OCCUPIED. Vilas, Schenk’s Corners, Atwood, WillyStreet – Occupied, Occupied, Occupied, Occupied. Did you really think it was all aboutthe Capitol? F**k the Capitol, we are the CITY.We are hard-drinking, weed-smoking, rude, obnoxious, auto-didactic, uppity f**k**gTOWNIES. We know you hate us. We know you hate us because we ruin yourimaginary, Men’s Magazine, UW Admission’s Pamphlet, Madison Magazine, Isthmus Artsvision of our City. You think that our town should be on perpetual vigil just in case youneed a little peace and quiet. You think we should go down quiet while Walkereconomically rapes us because you want to lead a f**k**g tour group? Sorry babe, notgonna happen. And because you couldn’t even show a modicum of fairness, integrity,or neutrality and because you had the iron f**k**g stones to try to pull this here, onOUR campus, in OUR city, in OUR state in OUR country (and that is about the onlyreason we have any grudging respect for you), now YOU are a target.

Dan Riehl wrote this incredible exchange at Big Government 3/19/2011.

Shankman Warns of ‘Serious’ WI Actions to Come, Denies Issuing Death Threat

The following quotes are taken from my email exchanges with Jim Shankman of Madison, Wisconsin, the individual who has admitted to writing a vicious screed directed at blogger Ann Althouse and her husband, Meade. All bold type used for emphasis is my choice for publication purposes. It was Meade who removed a “solidarity” shirt from a statue of Hans Christian Heg, (see video) an action that appears to have greatly upset Shankman.

“You don’t f**king touch Hans Christian. Ever.”

He has granted permission to publish our recent email correspondence. The full email trail will be posted below. When asked if he wrote a death threat directed to Republican Senators in Wisconsin, Shankman denied it. Some have expressed a feeling that there were stylistic similarities between it and the screed directed at Althouse. To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence suggesting Jim Shankman wrote the death threat.

Shankman initially responded:

I did not post this email.  I have never authored a death threat against anyone as far as I can recall.  I was one of the people holding up peace signs when people had grothmann surrounded (I have pics of myself there).

He then followed up in a subsequent email.

I literally read that email for the first time now. I don’t even know which faction these are coming out of. Like I said, I am a relative moderate among the more militant types within the movement. I’m just not plugged into the industrial sabotage/beating up scabs community.

Along with acknowledging a more “militant” type of protester engaged on the union side of the issue in Madison, Shankman issued a warning of sorts as to what may yet develop as the Left works against the Wisconsin legislation.

What my message is is that people are getting ready for serious actions. Stuff that makes my letter to Althouse look like a childish prank, which in a sense it is. All of us are against SB11, and everyone is willing to go as far as their comfort zone allows to make sure it doesn’t happen. There are a lot of veterans and law enforcement officers at these rallies. People are hearing it said that 9/11 first responders are not real Americans and they aren’t ok with that. People are not down with threats coming out of the militia movement and private security types. I am personally not ok with anonymous threats from people who read lies about me on the internet. I really want both sides to take a look at how far this really has to go, and whether some of us who are serious about taking our country back regardless of their supposed political allegiances can agree to turn our efforts against the apparatus of big government, big media, and wall street before running around beating each other up in the streets.

While taking exception to some of how my initial post characterized him as potentially unambitious, Shankman mentioned his fondness for outdoor adventure and stated that he is currently mostly living off the land, while residing in a card board box in the attic of some friends. As for “making it mobile,” it’s unclear if Shankman intends to modify the cardboard box in some manner, or if he intends to pack it up, taking it along with him as he goes. On the other hand, I suppose one could simply pick up a new box when arriving in a new location and I’m not sure how said box, or mobile home/housing, might hold up to rain, or the often cold Wisconsin weather – depending upon the season, of course.

Also, the piece said that I “didn’t strike you as the type who would strike out for gold” like hans christian. I dunno, gold digging was crazy dangerous but I am really into outdoors adventure stuff and trying to live as much off the land as possible. Right now, i’m staying in a cardboard box structure that I put up in some friends’ attics, and I mean to make it mobile soon enough. When I was younger, I hopped trains around rural Iowa, slept in the graveyard of an unincorporated city, hitchiked(sic) to colorado, etc…

Shankman also elaborated on his preferred economic theory. The reference to Catholicism is particularly interesting in light of circulating speculation that his Mother may be Dr. Kimberly Shankman, Dean of the College at Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas. Last night, I was able to confirm a legal address for Jim Shankman that directly corresponds to the location of the college.

With regards to distributivism, it is very mainstream catholic theology.  You could ask James O’Keefe, who says he is personally inspired by G.K. Chesterton.  Chesterton is the main political philosopher of distributivism.  The last couple pages of What’s Wrong With the World are instructive here. Someone equated distributivism with liberation theology, which is not the case.  Distributivism is the stance that the church endorses AGAINST liberation theology, and you can see this in the theology of pope benedict during his disputes with the liberation theologians.

As for his views regarding violence, he offers the following. Below that, I will post the entire email exchange in the order received and sent. I gave him my email address when we spoke last night and he emailed this evening.

Every tactic I have used is directly out of :”the Citizen’s Guide to Lobbying your Government”. I recommend that the right be diligent in their exposes of their enemies and GET IN THE STREETS AND DEMO against them. I oppose physical violence because it is ineffective, boring, and unequal to the needs of the day. I do not carry weapons and I do not attack. The only position I have taken that can be reasonably conceived as pro violence was my statement that I am not RADICALLY nonviolent. I am REASONABLY nonviolent. I am nonviolent unless attacked. I advocate occupying spaces and making them defensible, updating your friends on best security practices, and keeping in close contact with people you trust.

Shankman initiated contact with this email this evening – subject header: communique from jim shankman:

mr riehl.

I read your piece and thought it was fair overall, although I have a few minor quibbles. First, the picture on the site was a picture of me and anna, I’d rather you used a picture of just me. Also, that pic was from when I’d been inside the capitol building for a few days and didn’t have time to shave. I am usually pretty clean-cut. There are recent pics of me – one with an “I support US UNCUT” sign by lady forward, that I feel would be more appropriate. I can send you any information you’d like.

Also, the piece said that I “didn’t strike you as the type who would strike out for gold” like hans christian. I dunno, gold digging was crazy dangerous but I am really into outdoors adventure stuff and trying to live as much off the land as possible. Right now, i’m staying in a cardboard box structure that I put up in some friends’ attics, and I mean to make it mobile soon enough. When I was younger, I hopped trains around rural Iowa, slept in the graveyard of an unincorporated city, hitchiked to colorado, etc…

With regards to distributivism, it is very mainstream catholic theology. You could ask James O’Keefe, who says he is personally inspired by G.K. Chesterton. Chesterton is the main political philosopher of distributivism. The last couple pages of What’s Wrong With the World are instructive here. Someone equated distributivism with liberation theology, which is not the case. Distributivism is the stance that the church endorses AGAINST liberation theology, and you can see this in the theology of pope benedict during his disputes with the liberation theologians.

And finally, as I believe you know, I do not advocate for big government, big business, big union, or big anything. I advocate for citizens lobbying their government to have their concerns known. Every tactic I have used is directly out of :”the Citizen’s Guide to Lobbying your Government”. I recommend that the right be diligent in their exposes of their enemies and GET IN THE STREETS AND DEMO against them. I oppose physical violence because it is ineffective, boring, and unequal to the needs of the day. I do not carry weapons and I do not attack. The only position I have taken that can be reasonably conceived as pro violence was my statement that I am not RADICALLY nonviolent. I am REASONABLY nonviolent. I am nonviolent unless attacked. I advocate occupying spaces and making them defensible, updating your friends on best security practices, and keeping in close contact with people you trust.

regards,
Jim Shankman

To which I responded:

Thanks for writing, Jim. As I don’t edit Big Government, I don’t do image selection. I only submit text. I appreciate your reaction in that sense. Obviously, given the issue at hand and our political differences, perhaps it was not always easy to strike the tone you may have most preferred. But I’m glad you more or less see the piece as fair. Having been reported on on a few occasions, one rarely does come away fully satisfied in my experience.

Best,

Dan

Replied Shankman:

Thank you.  Do you mind If I distribute our email exchanges unedited?

I did not, simply requesting reciprocity:

That’s fine, provided I may do the same with your approval. – Dan

Replied Shankman:

Of course, and you can post in full or in part anything from this address or the corresponding website whenever you want.

I then asked him about the death threats issued to the WI GOP Senators.

Jim – Some have speculated that you may have also penned the email referenced in the item below. They’ve felt there were stylistic similarities. For my part, I am making no assumptions. Would you care to comment on the issue? Was it, in fact, you? And if not, do you have a reaction to the email? I imagine you saw it in the press. Thank you Dan

To which he replied:

I did not post this email.  I have never authored a death threat against anyone as far as I can recall.  I was one of the people holding up peace signs when people had grothmann surrounded (I have pics of myself there).

To which I said:

Thank you. I assume you’d prefer to not identify them?

He then responded at length:

I literally read that email for the first time now.  I don’t even know which faction these are coming out of.  Like I said, I am a relative moderate among the more militant types within the movement.  I’m just not plugged into the industrial sabotage/beating up scabs community.  If you want to find out who originated it, I’d suggest trying to find out where in Madison it came from and who was around then.  But keep in mind, these threats have been coming from a bunch of different sources. What my message is is that people are getting ready for serious actions.  Stuff that makes my letter to Althouse look like a childish prank, which in a sense it is.  All of us are against SB11, and everyone is willing to go as far as their comfort zone allows to make sure it doesn’t happen.  There are a lot of veterans and law enforcement officers at these rallies.  People are hearing it said that 9/11 first responders are not real Americans and they aren’t ok with that.  People are not down with threats coming out of the militia movement and private security types.  I am personally not ok with anonymous threats from people who read lies about me on the internet.  I really want both sides to take a look at how far this really has to go, and whether some of us who are serious about taking our country back regardless of their supposed political allegiances can agree to turn our efforts against the apparatus of big government, big media, and wall street before running around beating each other up in the streets.

What I’m saying to the right is – there’s demos going on, get to them.  There are 50 state rallies against the Federal Reserve planned for march 28th by anonymous!  Its so easy to show these guys we aren’t going to take it any more.

I wrote:

Okay, thank you. Stay in touch. I’ll be writing this up. – Dan

I then followed up with a lingering question at 8:06 PM ET.

Would you care to comment as to what actions may yet be to come. You meantioned this: “What my message is is that people are getting ready for serious actions. Stuff that makes my letter to Althouse look like a childish prank, which in a sense it is. “

Shankman sent this at 8:14 PM ET.:

Another idea for a story on violence and the movement – look thru the wiseye footage during the assembly filibuster. On i believe the second night around 3am they started all talking about their gun collections (the assembly members, democrats and republicans) it was pretty weird stuff, one of the dems was talking about how he hasn’t been able to get a new hunting rifle since Winchester busted the union and moved its manufacturing overseas because they are apparently terrible now.

and yeah please forward me any questions or whatever. Most of my info is just on the internet a click away.

So, I emailed this at 8:21 PM ET and have yet to receive a response to my last question as regards any potentially ”serious actions” to come.

Ok, thank you, Jim. Be well.

Dan

Sunday, Althouse Posted This Compelling Video Summary

 March 20, 2011

What I think of the threat against me, blogging the protests, and how the recall elections can benefit the GOP.

My side of the conversation that I had on Ed Morissey’s radio show yesterday — video-recorded and edited:

Have We Been Snookered Again?

In his magnificent 2004 novel, State of Fear, Michael Crichton revealed why global warming fanatics and their front line eco-terrorists spin their lie. In order to successfully undermine (excuse me, fundamentally transform) America, they must keep us in a constant state of fear. The serious damage and destruction to the five nuclear reactors is the 2011 example of Crichton’s point. Crichton is no longer here to spin the facts into a thriller novel.

Fortunately we have American Thinker’s J. R. Dunn. A novelist himself, Dunn is not writing fiction today. In his post, The Nuke Scare, Dunn gives us technical but clear facts describing why the worst case scenario will not affect us and will cause little additional damage to Japan. More importantly, Dunn shows that reactor technology in generations beyond those built 40 years ago in Japan. Look:

You’ve got to hand it to the Greens — 6,000+ people dead or missing, but that’s not worth mentioning. That can’t be blamed on anyone (except maybe Mother Gaia).  But a series of nuclear breakdowns that have killed a reported one person and with little further chance of harming anyone? That’s worth screaming about. That can be dropped on somebody.

There are plenty of questions concerning the Fukushima reactor breakdowns.  For one, if I were living in Japan, I would like to think that reactors would be isolated from subduction zones. But that’s not the kind of question the Greens and associated media are asking.  The rhetoric they’re using is designed to make the disaster seem much worse than it is, to find someone to pin things on, and to shift public opinion in the direction of shutting down all nuclear plants no matter what the circumstances. (Germany has already shut down seven of its reactors for the next four months, just in case there’s a magnitude 9 earthquake in Stuttgart.)  Anybody who was around for Three Mile Island back in 1979 or Chernobyl in 1986 will recognize the cycle: first hysteria, then accusations, then more hysteria, then demands to return to the pre-modern era.

First, let’s put the accidents in context: the Fukushima reactors survived one of the worst earthquakes in the historical record without breaking down catastrophically. This is a compliment to the designers (GE, in case anyone was wondering), the construction crews, and the operational teams. If the same had been true of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the accidents that occurred at those sites would have been of interest only to specialists. (Remember that TMI had a critical set of coolant valves put in backwards, while the Chernobyl reactor had no containment structure and was deliberately red-lined with all the safety features shut down, for reasons never adequately explained.)

As for chances of a meltdown, we can quote the capable Dr. Robert Zubrin:

“The reactors in question were all shut down four days ago. The control rods have been inserted, and the cores have been salted with boron. It is physically impossible for them to sustain a fission reaction of any kind at this point, let alone cause another Chernobyl. Only the fission-byproduct decay heat remains, and it is fading fast as the short half-life material… performs its decay reactions and ceases to exist.”  It is at this point as likely that the reactors could melt down as a car with an empty tank and all four tires stripped could win the Indy.

A major point being missed is that the Mark 1s at Fukushima are high-pressure light-water reactors of an obsolete design. They operate at extremely high temperature and pressure — needless to say, this is where things go wrong. The GE Mark 1s were designed in the 1960s and most of them went into operation during the 70s. They are all nearing the end of their operational lives and due for replacement. Despite news reports intended to work up a scandal, they have compiled a pretty good record regarding safety and reliability.

Modern designs are quite a bit different, operating on different principles. For one thing, they’re much safer, particularly as regards the nightmare scenario of a meltdown. Despite what everyone has been told, it’s possible to construct a reactor that can’t melt down. This was demonstrated by the TRIGA reactor (Training, Research, Isotopes, General Atomics) built by a team that included America’s greatest living physicist, Freeman Dyson, and designed in large part by Edward Teller. TRIGA reactors are fueled with uranium zirconium hydride, a compound that acts as its own moderator. Since the fuel loses efficiency as it heats up, it is next to impossible for a TRIGA reactor to melt down. (Dyson has a hair-raising passage in his memoir, Disturbing the Universe, in which he describes deliberately overloading the prototype TRIGA reactor only to have it immediately settle down to standard operating level.)  

Read it all.

Some technical analysts are responsible but few of these get into video or print. I have seen some balance on Fox news. But the over-the-top State of Fear reporting has already turned American public opinion. Turning it back will not be so easy. We only have four critical energy options, Oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear. There is no reason to cut Nuclear from the mix.

Trumpeting Sarah

Commentators and know-it-alls, desperate to have their names in the National conversation, have Sarah Palin in their sights. There are other motivations as well. We will regularly expose Sarah’s attackers at The Patriot’s Trumpet. More importantly, we will “trumpet” her dynamic activities and leadership as she works with us all to restore America. Today is such a time. Her post yesterday pinpoints facts and lays open why we have an “energy crisis.” Read it all right here:

The $4-Per-Gallon President

Is it really any surprise that oil and gas prices are surging toward the record highs we saw in 2008 just prior to the economic collapse? Despite the President’s strange assertions in his press conference last week, his Administration is not a passive observer to the trends that have inflated oil prices to dangerous levels. His war on domestic oil and gas exploration and production has caused us pain at the pump, endangered our already sluggish economic recovery, and threatened our national security. 

The evidence of the President’s anti-drilling mentality and his culpability in the high gas prices hurting Americans is there for all to see. The following is not even an exhaustive list:

Exhibit A: His drilling moratorium. Guided by politics and pure emotion following the Gulf spill instead of peer-reviewed science or defensible law, the President used the power of his executive order to impose a deepwater drilling moratorium. The Administration even ignored a court order halting his moratorium. And what is the net result of the President’s (in)actions? A large drilling company was forced to declare bankruptcy, the economy of the region has been hobbled, and at least 7 rigs moved out of the Gulf area to other parts of the world while many others remain idle. Is it any surprise that oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to fall by 240,000 bbl/d in 2011 alone?

But that’s just the Gulf. There’s also the question of a moratorium on the development of Alaska’s Outer Continental Shelf. It seems the Obama Administration can’t agree with itself on whether it imposed a moratorium there or not. The White House claims that they didn’t, but their own Department of the Interior let slip that they did. To clear up this mess, Gov. Parnell decided to sue the DOI to get a solid answer because such a federal OCS drilling moratorium would violate federal law.

Exhibit B: His 2012 budget. The President used his 2012 budget to propose the elimination of several vital oil and natural gas production tax incentives. Eliminating these incentives will discourage energy companies from completing exploratory projects, resulting in higher energy costs for all Americans – and not just at the pump. According to one study mentioned in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, eliminating the deduction for drilling costs “could increase natural gas prices by 50 cents per thousand cubic feet,” which would translate to “an increased cost to consumers of $11.5 billion per year in the form of higher natural gas prices.”

Exhibit C: His anti-drilling regulatory policies. The U.S. Geological Survey found that the area north of the Arctic Circle has an estimated 90 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas, one third of which is in Alaskan territory. That’s our next Prudhoe Bay right there. According to one industry study, allowing Royal Dutch Shell to tap these reserves in Alaska’s Chukchi and Beaufort seas would create an annual average of 54,700 jobs nationwide with a $145 billion total payroll and generate an additional $193 billion a year in total revenues to local, state, and federal governments for 50 years. This would be great news if only the federal government would allow Shell to drill there. But it won’t. It’s been five years since Shell purchased the lease to develop these fields, but it’s been mired in a regulatory funk courtesy of the Obama Administration. After investing $3.5 billion in exploration programs (a significant portion of which went to ensuring responsible spill response and prevention), Shell announced last month that it has given up hope of obtaining the required permits to conduct exploratory drilling this year. That means no jobs and no billions in oil revenue from the Arctic anytime soon thanks to this Administration. Let’s stop and think about this for a moment. Right now Beltway politicos are quibbling over cutting $61 billion from our dangerously bloated $3.7 trillion budget. Allowing drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas will enrich federal coffers by $167 billion a year without raising our taxes. If we let Harry Reid keep his “cowboy poetry,” would the White House consider letting us drill?

Taken altogether, it’s hard to deny that the Obama Administration is anti-drilling. The President may try to suggest that the rise in oil prices has nothing to do with him, but the American people won’t be fooled. Before we saw any protests in the Middle East, increased global demand led to a significant rise in oil prices; but the White House stood idly by watching the prices go up and allowing America to remain increasingly dependent on imports from foreign regimes in dangerously unstable parts of the world.

This was no accident. Through a process of what candidate Obama once called “gradual adjustment,” American consumers have seen prices at the pump rise 67 percent since he took office. Let’s not forget that in September 2008, candidate Obama’s Energy Secretary in-waiting said: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” That’s one campaign promise they’re working hard to fulfill! Last week, the British Telegraph reported that the price of petrol in the UK hit £6 a gallon – which comes to about $9.70. If you think $4 a gallon is bad now, just wait till the next crisis causes oil prices to “necessarily” skyrocket. Meanwhile, the vast undeveloped reserves that could help to keep prices at the pump affordable remain locked up because of President Obama’s deliberate unwillingness to drill here and drill now.

Hitting the American people with higher gas prices like this is essentially a hidden tax and a transfer of wealth to foreign regimes who are providing us the energy we refuse to provide for ourselves. Like inflation, higher energy prices are a hidden tax on Americans who are struggling to make ends meet. And these high gas prices will be felt in the form of higher food prices due to higher transportation costs. Energy is connected to everything in our economy. Access to affordable and secure energy is key to economic growth, which in turn is key to job growth. Energy is the building block of our economy. The President is purposely weakening that building block and weakening our country.

2012 can’t come soon enough.

– Sarah Palin

Regular Trumpet readers will remember, along with John Hibderaker of Power Line, I called Obama the $7 per gallon President.