Saturday, April 14, 2012

A good week for the Republicans

What’s new Today 

Story #1 relates how weak the arrest warrant for Geo. Zimmerman is.  #2 is a prediction that Romney will win in November.  #3 is all about Ann Romney and why the left fears her.  #4 is a vindication of fracking. 





Today’s thoughts

Obama wants a Buffet Rule for taxes.  How about an Obama Rule for taxes?  Every member of the Congress and the top members of the President’s cabinet including the President and Vice President will pay a minimum of 30% of their income in income taxes.



We now have two recent polls where Obama is stuck at 44% and trailing Mitt Romney. 



There’s an 1800 word article on John Edward’s trial that fails to mention he is a democrat, but mentions the word Republicans five times.  That America is what you call an unbiased MSM.







1.   Zimmerman arrest document lacking

I spent twenty years working Colorado law enforcement, followed by nearly two years as an investigator for the Colorado State Public Defender's Office. Ten of my twenty-two years in the criminal justice arena were in the area of criminal investigations, complex and simple.

I just read the arrest affidavit in the Florida v. George Zimmerman case. I'm pretty certain that I would have been laughed out of any judge's chambers in Colorado had I brought in a piece of evidentiary matter so poorly written. The Zimmerman affidavit is so deficient in properly sourced factual information and full of unsubstantiated, unsourced conclusions that I am appalled that a state's attorney would even give it a second look. I don't know what's going on in the Florida Courts. But where I worked as a cop, all summaries of statements from eye- and earwitnesses, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, had to be both sourced and included in a properly assembled arrest affidavit.

Every piece of information in the affidavit must be provable to a jury. This case is terribly lacking, both in supporting evidence and in veracity. To wit, from the document (with pertinent material emphasis highlighted by me):…


I’m pretty sure this isn’t the reaction that the special prosecutor was looking for. 

2.  Its Romney’s to Lose

Call me crazy, but I think Mitt Romney has more than an even chance of winning this election against Barack Obama. If he plays things right -- and I'm pretty sure he will -- I think there's a very good possibility a surge of voter sentiment will put him into office.

Start with an analogy. In 1989, New York voters elected Manhattan Borough President David Dinkins as the city's first African-American mayor. Church bells rang, the newspapers sang hosannas, and everyone congratulated themselves on the wonderful act of tolerance that had put the journeyman Democratic politician into office.

Once things settled down, however, Dinkins’ administration proved to be less than inspirational. Like all Democrats everywhere, he had no sense of the value of money. He went on spending as if there were no tomorrow. As it happened, the country was falling into a recession and revenue was drying up. So he and Democratic Governor Mario Cuomo both responded by raisingtaxes, with the result that one of five jobs lost in the country were in the Empire State. By the end of his term, Dinkins was starting to tinker with one of New York's most sacred covenants --the informal agreement that keeps property taxes very low for homeowners. With the city overwhelmed with crime, even successful middle class people were headed for the exits….

….In short, after four years New Yorkers were wondering if electing Dinkins had been such a great idea. And so in a city where only 10 percent of the electorate is registered Republican, the people of New York closed their eyes and pulled the lever for a former Republican prosecutor named Rudy Giuliani as mayor. The rest is history. To this day there are die-hard liberals in New York who are reluctant to admit they voted for Giuliani in 1993, but that's why we have a secret ballot. Right up until the election Giuliani trailed in the polls and there was never any broad expectation that he might win. But he did.

And that, I suspect, it pretty much the way things could happen in this election. I wouldn't expect to see Romney piling up any lead in the polls. It's almost better that way. If people start expecting Romney to win they may have second thoughts or start feeling guilty about abandoning Obama…


I think it will be a replay of 1980.  Reagan and Carter were close all the way til the weekend before the election when Reagan started to surge as the undecided voters stopped pretending they might vote for Carter.  Expect the same in this election. 

3.  Why the Left Fears Ann Romney

While Rosen made a “fulsome” (i.e., offensive, disgusting, and insincere) apology, others doubled down on her behalf. NOW President Terry O’Neill carefully explained that, if you don’t get paid for your work, it doesn’t count — which is precisely what my liberal Facebook friends have been saying, in an eerie echo of 1960s’ male chauvinist pigs.

The doubling down continued when Judith Warner, who writes for TIME Magazine, agrees that Ann Romney is “out of touch” with most women. You see, Ann Romney comes from an intact family where the man is the primary breadwinner. What could be more appallingly regressive than that...

I am the counterweight to the state. Therefore, I am dangerous. I am subversive simply by existing. My love for my children is a dominant force that works its way into their psyches and that trumps the state-run schools and the state complicit media world. Some mothers, of course, are entirely in sync with schools and media. They happily reinforce the statist message. But those of us who don’t are a powerful anti-statist force and we must be challenged.

The Left’s problem with Ann Romney transcends her husband’s wealth, her (and his) Republican identification, and her decision to work for her children, rather than for a paying employer. The Left’s problem with Ann Romney is that she represents the triumph of the individual. No wonder they hate her so much.


An excellent description of the bankruptcy that the left is trying to sell to the the rest of us.  Rather than being open minded and accepting, the left’s version of all of the above socially is like Obama’s regarding energy or the slogan in the book Animal House.  “All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.” 







4.  The Vindication of Fracking

The environmental left views the incredible rebirth of the American fossil fuel industry, wrought by unconventional methods (fracking and horizontal drilling), with alarm and disgust. The idea that the United States could easily fulfill all of its energy needs by utilizing its great domestic reserves of fossil fuels arouses their collective anger, and they have been battling this technology via every means at their disposal…

But the forces of Enlightenment are fighting back against the environmentalist nature-worshipers, and the former are beginning to win some major victories.

Start with the happy news that the EPA has been forced to back off on its aggressive war on fracking. It has withdrawn its lawsuit against Range Resources Corporation wherein, it had alleged that the company was polluting water wells near Fort Worth, Texas.

Moreover, the EPA will now retest water in Wyoming about which it had earlier raised questions.

Add to this the fact that the Agency has tested well water in Pennsylvania, once found to be polluted, and now (like the state's own similar agency) declares the water to be safe, and you begin to sense that the EPA is being forced to retreat from its reflexive hysterical opposition to the new technology.

It will be interesting to see if the EPA's overall report on the safety of fracking, due out later this year, will reflect this new-found moderation.

One good sign is that the extremist environmentalist groups are beginning to come down hard on the EPA, long considered an agency the belonged to them….

…Two recent reports confirm the efficacy and safety of fracking. The first is a report in ScienceNOW that a team of 16 scientists at the University of Texas, headed by Charles Groat, conducted a comprehensive review of the scientific and regulatory in Louisiana, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The researchers -- not funded by any energy company, by the way -- concluded that there is no evidence that fracking chemicals are contaminating water supplies or anything else, nor did they see any need for additional regulations. They called instead for tighter monitoring of existing regulations -- including strengthening well casing and putting concrete around it, to make sure gas doesn't escape.

Then there is the recent study in Environmental Science and Technology Journal. The report shows that fracking has had a dramatic impact on the level of atmospheric CO2 (a "greenhouse gas" often tied to global warming) production: it turns out to lower it!

Why? Well, fracking (and horizontal drilling) have led to a massive increase in the production of domestic natural gas, driving the prices  dramatically down.  In fact, from 2008 to the present, the price of natural gas has plummeted over 80% from $12 to $2.30 per million Btus (MMBtu). This has led to natural gas being used to generate power formerly generated by coal fired plants. And burning natural gas emits less CO2 than does burning coal.


Fracking is safe, productive and will help renew the country.

No comments:

Post a Comment