Daily Archives: October 17, 2015

Arne Duncan, Next Governor of Illinois?

Energy wars: ‘massive’ oil discovery in Israel


For decades, Israel has been searching for oil in its own lands, with the hope of gaining energy independence.

Recent reports from Genie, a US oil-exploration company, suggest oil has been found in Israel. Lots of it.

Cautionary statements from experts have followed: there is a difference between oil in the ground and oil that can be brought to the surface cost-effectively.

And as long as OPEC oil-exporting nations are setting a very low price per barrel, bringing Israeli oil to the surface would be more difficult, financially speaking.

The oil is actually in the Golan Heights, which was taken by Israel, from Syria, in the 1967 war. The ownership of the area is still contested. (Haaretz: “Genie Confirms Report of Possible Big Golan Oil Find,” Oct 11, 2015)

However, given the current war in Syria and the massive chaos there, Syria would certainly be less likely to challenge Israel’s oil claim with meaningful force. Is the Syrian-war escalation in part an effort to pave the way for Israeli oil?

If the initial celebratory announcements about how much oil is under the ground, in Golan, are correct, Israel could be looking at a long-sought, massive upswing in its domestic energy capability.

That’s not all. Genie, the US company that is doing the drilling-exploration in Golan, has some very interesting characters on its strategic advisory board—men who can exert influence on all sorts of geo-political operations.

For example, Rupert Murdoch; and Jacob Rothschild, the chairman of the Rothschild Foundation and the J Rothschild group of companies.

For example, ex-CIA director James Woolsey.

And Dick Cheney.

And Lawrence Summers, former president of Harvard University, former Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton, director of the National Economic Council under Obama. (Will we see the involvement of the Harvard Endowment Fund in this Israeli oil operation?)

And Bill Richardson, former Secretary of Energy under Bill Clinton.

Who would obtain a license to bring up all this oil? Afek Israel Oil and Gas, which is a subsidiary of Genie, for whom the above-mentioned men serve as advisors. In fact, we have this from Genie’s website:

“Afek is characterizing a potentially significant oil and gas resource in Northern Israel pursuant to an exclusive, 3 year petroleum exploration license issued by the government of Israel.”

Mint Press News reports, in “Israel Takes Advantage Of Syrian Civil War To Expand Illegal Golan Heights Settlements,” Oct 13, 2015:

“Israel is taking advantage of the chaos in Syria to expand its illegal settlements in the Golan Heights, just as new oil reserves were discovered in the contested region… Now, Israel hopes to quintuple the size of its settlements over the next five years by adding an additional 100,000 settlers to the region. The plan was proposed by Naftali Bennett, a senior Israeli minister and member of the right-wing Jewish Home party, and, according to a report from The New York Times last week, Bennett is just one of ‘many Israeli leaders and thinkers seizing on the chaos in Syria to solidify Israel’s hold on the Golan.’”

Seizing on the chaos, after the fact? Or promoting and instigating the chaos in the first place, in order to clamp down on the Golan, with oil as the ultimate prize?

Exactly how long ago did the Genie people actually know there was oil under the Golan? Did they delay their announcement, to make it seem as if the Syrian escalation was just an unrelated coincidence?

Depending on the size of the oil find under the Golan, the whole configuration of oil-control in the Middle East could be affected. Who has it, who owns it, who sells it, who buys it, and who sets the price.

Israel’s apparent long-term plan to weaken and disable nations in the Middle East, including Syria, could certainly raise the price of oil from that region, making it cost-effective to bring up all the oil under Golan—however many barrels that turns out to be.

Putin’s recent attacks on Syria also involve an effort to jack up oil prices by “increasing uncertainty” in the region. Long term, Putin wants to extend his influence in the Middle East (e.g., Iran and Iraq), hopefully allowing him to keep oil prices at a level that would bring rescue to the Russian economy, which, as an oil exporter, has been languishing under low-cost oil.

Everybody and his brother wants a piece of the pie. As usual, war is a strategy for getting it, while the war-makers suppress actual (not fake) energy alternatives.

These psychopaths always favor destruction to solutions that can bring tranquility and abundance.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.


Hillary’s Promises



Israel vs Obama


The ‘Gun Control’ Farce


President Obama’s intrusion into the mourning community of Roseburg, Oregon, in order to promote his political crusade for stronger gun control laws, is part of a pattern of his using various other sites of shooting rampages in the past to promote this long-standing crusade of the political left.

The zealotry of gun control advocates might make some sense if they had any serious evidence that more restrictive gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes. But they seldom even discuss the issue in terms of empirical evidence.

Saving lives is serious business. But claiming to be saving lives and refusing to deal with evidence is a farce. Nor is the Second Amendment or the National Rifle Association the real issue, despite how much the media and the intelligentsia focus on them.

If there is hard evidence that stronger gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes in general or reduce murders in particular, the Second Amendment can be repealed, as other Amendments have been repealed. Constitutional Amendments exist to serve the people. People do not exist to be sacrificed to Constitutional Amendments.

But if hard evidence shows that restrictions on gun ownership lead to more gun crimes, rather than less, then the National Rifle Association’s opposition to those restrictions makes sense, independently of the Second Amendment.

Since this all boils down to a question of hard evidence about plain facts, it is difficult to understand how gun control laws should have become such a heated and long-lasting controversy.

There is a huge amount of statistical evidence, just within the United States, since gun control laws are different in 50 different states and these laws have been changed over time in many of these states. There are mountains of data on what happens under restrictive laws and what happens when restrictions are lifted.

Statistics on murder are among the most widely available statistics, and among the most accurate, since no one ignores a dead body. With so many facts available from so many places and times, why is gun control still a heated issue? The short answer is that most gun control zealots do not even discuss the issue in terms of hard facts.

The zealots act as if they just know — somehow — that bullets will be flying hither and yon if you allow ordinary people to have guns. Among the many facts this ignores is that gun sales were going up by the millions in late 20th century America, and the murder rate was going down at the same time.

Among the other facts that gun control zealots consistently ignore are data on how many lives are saved each year by a defensive use of guns. This seldom requires actually shooting. Just pointing a loaded gun at an assailant is usually enough to get him to back off, often in some haste.

There have been books and articles based on voluminous statistics, including statistics comparing gun laws and gun crime rates in different countries, such as “Guns and Violence” by Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm of George Mason University. Seldom do these factual studies back up what the gun control zealots are saying.

Why would an ultimately factual question about the consequences of gun control laws divide people along ideological lines? Only if at least one set of people were more devoted to their vision than to the facts.

This shows up when gun control zealots are asked whether whatever new law they propose would have prevented the shooting rampage that they are using as a stage from which to propose a new clampdown on gun ownership. Almost always, the new law being proposed would not have made the slightest difference. That too is part of the farce. A deadly farce.

So is the automatic assertion that whoever engaged in a shooting rampage was a madman. Yet these supposedly crazy shooters are usually rational enough to choose some “gun-free zone” for their murderous attacks. They seem more rational than gun control zealots who keep creating more “gun-free zones.”

Gun control zealots are almost always people who are lenient toward criminals, while they are determined to crack down on law-abiding citizens who want to be able to defend themselves and their loved ones.

Obama does quick U-turn on prison pork removal


Grassley demanded data on ‘lowest rated’ food


Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican Iowa

The Obama administration did a rapid U-turn on its decision to remove pork products from federal prisons after a few questions from Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley.

The federal Bureau of Prisons’ reversal of the Oct. 1 menu change comes just one week after its spokesman, Edmond Ross, said pork was the “lowest-rated” food among inmates.

“To corroborate the validity of the claim that prisoners indicated a lack of interest in pork products, I am requesting copies of the prisoner surveys and responses that were used to support the determination to no longer serve pork in federal prisons,” the Republican senator wrote to the agency on Thursday, the Washington Post reported. “Please provide any economic evaluations the Bureau of Prisons has relied on that detail the cost of pork as compared to beef, chicken, and non-meat products such as tofu and soy products.”

Pig products were back on the menu within hours of the letter’s publication.

Grassley also happens to be the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the federal prison system.


Ross had no answers for the newspaper when asked to describe the policy shift.

“I’m not cleared to say anything and I don’t have answers for you,” Ross said.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, applauded the original decision to pull pork products from federal prisons, but insisted it did not pressure officials on the issue.

Dave Warner, a spokesman for the National Pork Producers Council, was incredulous when he spoke to the Post Oct. 9, saying, “We find it hard to believe that a survey would have found a majority of any population saying, ‘No thanks, I don’t want any bacon.’”

The federal Bureau of Prisons oversees roughly 200,000 inmates.


The federal Bureau of Prisons quickly reversed its decision not to serve roughly 200,000 inmates pork products after questioning from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa (Image: Southern California Public Radio)



VCDL: McAuliffe Comes After Guns With Executive Orders



Showing once again that he’s a politician and not a statesman, our illustrious governor, Terry McAuliffe, put in place some executive orders dealing with firearms. One of those orders prohibits open carry (and soon, concealed carry) in state agency buildings!

Not only does McAuliffe owe some payback to Michael Bloomberg for a million dollar campaign donation, but McAuliffe also wants to be Hillary’s running mate. He’s puffing up his chest, so he can say on the campaign trail, “I single-handedly saved Virginia from gun violence!”

Of course, he’s doing no such thing, but he is about to set Virginia up for a massacre in one of our state agencies now that’s he’s telling all the criminals, terrorists, and criminally insane that Virginia state agencies are going to be “gun-free zones.”

Forget that all but one of the public massacres over the last decade or two have been in “gun-free zones.” But hey, in the “big scheme of things” how important is a massacre or two in comparison to the absolute necessity that McAuliffe become the next U.S. Vice President? <eye roll>

So, let’s take a look at McAuliffe’s executive orders and see what they really mean or really do:

1. Establish a joint task force to prosecute gun crimes

I had no idea that Virginia wasn’t prosecuting people who committed crimes with a gun! Oh, wait, we ARE already prosecuting them… So what is this about?

It’s about Universal Background Checks and also harassing private sellers.

The Universal Background Check part is all choreography: McAuliffe’s having the Task Force “identify ways to pursue the illegal transfer of weapons.” The Task Force he’s setting up will be pre-programmed to say that Universal Background Checks are needed so that the government knows exactly what guns each person legally owns for the purpose of tracing all guns used in crimes. Of course criminals don’t go through background checks, as they typically buy stolen guns off the street or use straw-purchasers to buy their guns. But this isn’t about stopping crime, it’s about McAuliffe being VP, registering guns, and eventually being able to do confiscations as they are doing right now in California!

On private sales, McAuliffe is signaling that he’s going to harass private sellers by trying to show that they are selling enough guns (some arbitrary number) to make them dealers and then prosecute them for being dealers operating without a license. BATFE already does this, but for McAuliffe you simply cannot have enough government harassment when it comes to gun owners.

2. Authorize the Attorney General to coordinate and bring criminal cases against firearms law offenders

Here we go again: I had no idea that Virginia wasn’t prosecuting people who committed crimes with a gun! Oh, wait, we ARE already prosecuting them… So what is this about?

Grandstanding/politics and nothing more.

3. Establish a tip line for illegal gun activity

We need a special “tip line” in order to contact the police about illegal activity using a gun? And here I thought that’s what 9-1-1 was for! Silly me. So all this time the police were not getting calls about guns being used illegally? Wow.

4. Trace guns used in crime

The police know when it makes sense to trace a gun based on the crime committed, the person(s) involved in the crime, and the exact circumstance of the crime. That way they don’t waste precious police resources (Federal, state, and local) by unnecessarily tracing firearms.

This is just more grandstanding/politics and part of the scheme to push for Universal Background Checks.

5. Encourage judges and prosecutors to seek gun forfeiture in felony and other cases

Here McAuliffe condescendingly deigns to “educate” judges and prosecutors, while asking them to ABUSE their power by ordering the confiscation and destruction of firearms routinely. I hope we have better judges and prosecutors than that, but we’ll see.

When someone loses their driver’s license, does the government confiscate his home or his car? No. He just can’t drive a vehicle on a public street anymore. His wife can still drive and use that car.

The value of someone’s firearms collection rightfully belongs to the person and his family. If someone picks up a bald eagle feather in the woods then gets convicted of the associated felony, he can no longer own his guns. But at least he can give those guns to his wife, son, daughter, uncle, or anyone else. Or he can have those guns sold for him and the proceeds go back to him and his family.

What McAuliffe is doing is asking for a blanket confiscation of firearms, with associated loss of a considerable amount of money to a family.

6. Banning OPENLY CARRIED firearms in state government buildings

We need to do something about all those shootings in Virginia state agency buildings that are in the news every day! Uh, wait, er, you know – I don’t recall there EVER being a shooting in a Virginia state government building.

McAuliffe plans on fixing that situation by creating victim rich environments for criminals, terrorists and the criminally insane to shoot fish in a barrel in new gun-free zones without risk to themselves. Lives, safety, and truth are all expendable when the vice presidency is at stake.

Effective sometime in the next 30 days, or possibly immediately, we don’t know for sure, McAuliffe is prohibiting OPEN CARRY in STATE GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS such as:

  • DMV;
  • The Aviation Museum;
  • ABC;
  • Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Department of Conservation and Recreation; and
  • Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Department of Education Department of Health Housing Development Authority to name just a few.

7. Banning CONCEALED firearms in state government buildings

McAuliffe is going to have the Department of General Services create a proposed regulation to prohibit CONCEALED CARRY in STATE GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS.


VCDL will be watching these bans closely and will advise you on the next steps as necessary. For now, just standby as the VCDL Board of Directors and our attorneys plan our moves.

McAuliffe’s ban on firearms in state government buildings is a dangerous overstep of his powers. He is making law and the Executive branch cannot do that. This sets a bad precedent that even members of his own party in the General Assembly may not be happy with.

VCDL is definitely NOT going to roll over and take these actions lying down. VCDL IS going to fight McAuliffe every step of the way and, as a grassroots organization, we are going to need all of you to help in that fight! Once again – if you haven’t been participating in Lobby Day, thinking others will step in each year to carry your water, NOW is the time to stand with us.

And, Governor McAuliffe – this is for you: Since you believe that guns in government buildings are such a bad idea and endanger the safety of everyone, then I DARE YOU TO STAND ON YOUR PRINCIPLES AND DISARM OR DISSOLVE YOUR SECURITY TEAM! I DARE YOU.

Of course you won’t, because you know that criminals, terrorist, and the criminally insane can strike anywhere and at anytime and that they will urinate on your “gun-free zone” signs when they do so.

You, sir, are a hypocrite who places your life and your aspirations ahead of all else. Get used to the letters “VCDL,” as you will be seeing them frequently in the future.