Our # 1 describes the comments made by Newt when they set up the Supercommittee. In #2, two Democratic pollsters want Obama to step aside and not run for reelection. #3 explains why the Democrats and the Republicans don’t seem to be able to come to any agreements. #4 explains why Mitt Romney may just be that generic Republican who keeps beating Obama. #5 looks at the question of whether Muslims in America are the new scapegoat leading to persecution. #6 tells of how Prince Philip is dissing Wind Farms while #7 punches holes in James Hansen’s story.
1. Newt Was Right on the Supercommittee
The Gingrich campaign would like to remind you that back in August, Newt Gingrich called the supercommittee a “dumb idea”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/283674/newt-was-right-supercommittee-katrina-trinko
Prophetic are simply knowing that the democrats and Obama never wanted to come to an agreement, but rather wanted an election point.
2. Obama should Drop Out of the Presidential Race
PRESIDENT OBAMA SHOULD ABANDON HIS RUN FOR A SECOND TERM AND TURN OVER THE REINS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON, two one-time Democratic pollsters wrote in Monday's Wall Street Journal, which appeared online Sunday.
Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen argued that just as Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson decided not to pursue additional runs though they could have, Obama should do the same.
“HE SHOULD ABANDON HIS CANDIDACY FOR RE-ELECTION IN FAVOR OF A CLEAR ALTERNATIVE, ONE CAPABLE NOT ONLY OF SAVING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, BUT MORE IMPORTANT, OF GOVERNING EFFECTIVELY AND IN A WAY THAT PRESERVES THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THE PRESIDENT'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,”Caddell and Schoen wrote.
Caddell, who worked as a pollster for President Jimmy Carter, and Schoen, who was a pollster for President Bill Clinton, argue that Obama will inevitably have to run a negative campaign in order to win reelection, the negative consequences of which will make it difficult for him to govern effectively….
The democrats can’t force him out (it would alienate the black base of the party) and I don’t think he’s willing to drop out on his own.
3. The Political Divide in America
Almost nothing unites the commentariat these days. But IF THERE IS A CONSENSUS ABOUT ANYTHING, IT IS IN THE ALMOST UNIVERSAL CONDEMNATION OF OUR TOXIC POLITICAL CULTURE. We are certainly more polarized than at any time in living memory.
There are broad historical reasons for this, mostly having to do with the ideological realignment of our two predominant political parties into philosophically unified parties of left and right. But the larger story is in THE FUNDAMENTAL INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE COMPETING IDEOLOGIES. A clash of philosophies challenges the foundational moral principles of the respective combatants and represents an attack on the very underpinnings of their most sacred values. It is no less than an assault on basic notions of right and wrong; something in defense of which man will expend his last full measure of living effort. That is why politics has lately become so vicious. THE ADVERSARIES ARE DEFENDING THAT WHICH THEY HOLD MOST DEAR: THE INTEGRITY OF THEIR MORAL SYSTEMS AND THEIR NOTIONS OF TRUTH. It is a war fought at the most visceral level, for defeat means destruction.
THE FIRST SIXTY YEARS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY SAW AN INTERNATIONAL LIBERAL ZEITGEIST THAT ADMITTED OF LITTLE EFFECTIVE OPPOSITION, EVEN IN THE UNITED STATES. Indeed, there was, in our nation, no organized political counter-movement until the late '40s, the consequence of which were an unchallenged predominance of liberal opinion that became so pervasive as to achieve intellectual and social fashion. It became the operating assumption of modern thought.
UNTIL THE '60S, BOTH PARTIES WERE PREDOMINANTLY CENTER-LEFT as they were forced to accommodate their respective right and left wings but bowed to liberalism's dominating orthodoxy. AT THE END OF THE '60S, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BECAME A TRUE PARTY OF THE LEFT WITH A UNIFIED IDEOLOGICAL MESSAGE AND AN ENFORCED PHILOSOPHICAL CONFORMITY. The Republican Party was not far behind, as the fall of the party establishment, represented by the immolation of Richard Nixon, provided an opportunity for a newly resurgent conservatism to reassert, with renewed moral authority, the momentum lost with the defeat of Goldwater in 1964.
BY 1984, THE PARTIES HAD LARGELY REALIGNED ALONG IDEOLOGICAL LINES EVEN THOUGH REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENTARIANS CONTINUE TO EXERCISE A MODERATING INFLUENCE UNKNOWN IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY -- ITSELF DEVOID OF LEAVENING INFLUENCE. This set up the polarization to come. For a time, the parties were led by earlier generations that recalled the days when compromise was still possible because the parties were not ideologically fixed. That generation is now gone, and the national schism in full flower….
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/parallel_universes.html#ixzz1eMOiox8h
A terrific article laying out the history and the problems we now are dealing with. I definitely agree with the contention in the article that the Progressive movement’s icon would be Plato while the right comes to us from Aristotle through 18th Century Philosophers. The author sees the fall of liberal democracies in Europe after 70 years as coming soon and hopes that this will make the American left face reality. I’m afraid I don’t hold this as likely.
4. Is Mitt Romney the Generic Republican that keeps beating Obama?
….For all his other flaws, if Mitt Romney is the nominee, I think it makes turning out the anti-establishmentarians and first-time voters (let alone the independents) who formed Obama’s 2008 winning coalition even harder. That’s because, contra Michael, I JUST DON’T THINK MITT ROMNEY PISSES OFF LIBERALS IN THE WAY GEORGE W. BUSH DID — the way that Herman Cain and Rick Perry do, what with all their smirking and their plain-spoken Southernness. Also contra Cillizza and Michael, I don’t think the flip-side — THAT MITT DOESN’T EXCITE THE CONSERVATIVE BASE — MATTERS ALL THAT MUCH, PRECISELY BECAUSE OBAMA PISSES THEM OFF. Along with self-esteem, spite is another powerful motivator for marginal voters. Mitt just doesn’t catalyze it, Obama does.
In the past few months I’ve had a lot of conversations about the election with liberal and moderate friends and acquaintances — lefty bloggers and MSM reporters, progressive PAC hacks, center-left foreign policy wonks, moderate bankers and blue-collar working stiffs who’ve soured on Obama, and even a pair of anarchist artists who spent time at Occupy San Francisco. I say this not only to catalog how many interesting people I know (“some of my best friends are Obama voters!”) but to report on the defining feature of all these conversations: MITT JUST DOESN’T BOTHER THEM THAT MUCH. THEY BUY THE LINE THAT HE’S A TINKERING TECHNOCRAT AND A COMPETENT MANAGER, AND THEY LIKE THAT HE HASN’T MADE TOO MANY NOISES ABOUT HOT-BUTTON CULTURAL ISSUES. At worst, they figure, he’ll be status quo. And going to the polls means you’ll get status quo either way, why go to the polls at all?
Now, you may read that and despair (though I think this view of Romney is too simple, and manages to give him both too much and too little credit). But there is a reason “generic Republican” has been polling better against Obama than any of the individuated ones. A LOT OF REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES WILL BE GOING TO THE POLLS JUST TO OUST OBAMA, AND A LOT OF DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS JUST WON’T CARE ENOUGH TO STOP THEM.
A pretty good analysis of why Obama is toast. What he inspires is not the left to vote for him, but the right to vote against him. Rasmussen’s poll of strong for and strongly against is about 2 to 1 against Obama.
5. Who are the Real Victims in America?
It has become an ACCEPTED TROPE OF CONTEMPORARY JOURNALISM THAT AMERICAN MUSLIMS ARE UNDER SIEGE AND BESET BY HATRED AND PREJUDICE. But the evidence for this conventional wisdom is lacking. The story line of Muslim persecution in the United States has always been a matter of anecdotes and perception, not facts. That truth was confirmed this week when the FBI released their annual crime statistics report which showed once again THAT HATE CRIMES AGAINST MUSLIMS REMAIN RARE AND ARE FAR OUTNUMBERED BY ATTACKS ON JEWS.
The report is not perfect, since not all parts of the country do a good job compiling the data, but it provides an important snapshot of the state of the nation regarding bias crimes. But the numbers speak for themselves. In 2010, only 13.2 PERCENT OF RELIGION-BASED ATTACKS WERE DIRECTED AT MUSLIMS. By comparison, 65.4 PERCENT OF SUCH CRIMES WERE DIRECTED AT JEWS. This shows a slight increase over the last two years (the raw numbers show 887 anti-Jewish attacks with only 160 anti-Muslim attacks), but is not a statistical fluke. In 2009, the FBI reported that 70.1 percent of religious-based hate crimes were anti-Jewish while only 9.3 percent were anti-Islamic. In 2008, the FBI said 66.1 percent were anti-Jewish while 7.5 percent were anti-Muslim
The USA is a very good country. We may have a lingering anti-Semitism problem, but we generally treat people fairly including the religious group who attacked us on 9/11.
6. Prince Philip disses Windfarms
Once again, Prince Philip has performed an invaluable national service by tilting at windmills — or to be more precise in this case, wind turbines.
In private remarks that found their way into the Press, he apparently said WIND TURBINES WERE ‘ABSOLUTELY USELESS’, COMPLETELY RELIANT ON SUBSIDIES AND THAT THOSE WHO CLAIMED THEY WERE ONE OF THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE FORMS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY BELIEVED IN ‘FAIRYTALES’.
The Prince’s outburst may have been impolitic but many will be cheering his words. Indeed, he understated his case. For the Government’s promotion of wind-farms is simply off-the-wall crazy from every conceivable point of view.
Not only are these turbines hugely expensive to build and operate but also — surprise, surprise — THEY PRODUCE ZERO ENERGY IF THE WIND IS NOT BLOWING.
Conversely, WHEN THE WIND BLOWS TOO HARD THEY HAVE TO BE SHUT DOWN. So wind power has to be supplemented by gas-fired power stations — which push into the atmosphere yet more of the dreaded carbon dioxide that the turbines are meant to help diminish.
This supposedly green development is actually environmentally unfriendly. For the turbines are not just an eyesore, but on many wind-farms THEY HAVE HAD TO BE TURNED OFF AFTER LOCALS COMPLAINED THAT THE NOISE THEY MADE LEFT THEM UNABLE TO SLEEP AND EVEN NEEDING TO WEAR EAR-DEFENDERS IN THEIR GARDENS….
Well at least one member of the Royal family appears to be sane.
7. James Hansen and the Corruption Of Science
It recently came out that James Hansen, one of the two or three most prominent global warming alarmists on whose work the IPCC reports rest, “FORGOT” TO REPORT $1.6 MILLION IN OUTSIDE INCOME, as required by his government contracts. Is that significant? Well, yes: A handful of scientists, including Hansen, have gotten wealthy on climate alarmism. THEY HAVE AN ENORMOUS FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE FAUX SCIENCE THEY HAVE DONE SO MUCH TO PERPETRATE. It is more likely that the Pope would renounce Christianity than that Hansen, Michael Mann, etc., would change their minds about global warming, regardless of the evidence. (I say that because the Pope has far more intellectual integrity than the climate alarmists.)
Beyond that handful of leading alarmists, IF YOU ARE INVOLVED IN ANY WAY IN CLIMATE SCIENCE, YOU HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN ALARMISM. Even minor climate scientists get consulting contracts and are invited to present papers in exotic locales. AND IF YOU ARE NOT AN ALARMIST, YOU HAVE LITTLE OR NO CHANCE OF CASHING IN ON THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN GOVERNMENT GRANTS FOR CLIMATE RESEARCH. Essentially, the closed world of climate “science” has been bought and paid for, largely with our tax dollars. Under these circumstances, it is remarkable that so many real scientists have been willing to forgo financial advantage and blow the whistle on the alarmists’ frauds….
Whenever a scientific study is done that contradicts AGW dogma, the establishment is quick to pronounce the writers as being bought and paid for by the oil companies. In reality for every $1 spent by skeptics, $1000 is available to believers.
No comments:
Post a Comment