Showing posts with label Romney ahead. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Romney ahead. Show all posts

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.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Battle of the Plans

News Corp: Who’s the all time leader for donations?

Political donations by News Corp., its employees and their families were evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA THE A
LL-TIME LEADING RECIPIENT, according to a report from the Sunlight Foundation.

The transparency watchdog noted Tuesday that DEMOCRATS RECEIVED 51 PERCENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS WHILE REPUBLICANS RECEIVED 49 PERCENT, despite the firm's highly publicized links to the GOP, such as a $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association in August.

News Corp. is the parent company of The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and Fox News, among others. The firm is currently under scrutiny in both the U.S. and U.K. over allegations its subsidiary News of the World hacked into voice mail accounts and bribed public officials

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2011/07/surprise-obama-all-timerecipient-of.html

This took me by surprise, but certainly lessens the credibility of those who loath Murdoch and his empire.

Obama generated twice as many campaign contributors as new jobs

Here's an interesting couple of numbers that emerged during this past week: According to Jim Messina, his campaign manager, THROUGH THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2011, PRESIDENT OBAMA NOW HAS 552,000 CONTRIBUTORS TO HIS 2012 RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
And the BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS ANNOUNCED THAT DURING THE SAME TWO QUARTERS, THE U.S. ECONOMY GENERATED 260,000 JOBS….


http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/obama-generated-twice-many-campaign-contributors-new-jobs#ixzz1SfFv0qWp

An interesting way to look at it. I wonder if all those new job holders contributed?

Election 2012: Romney 43% Obama 42%

In a very early look at Election 2012, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama are essentially even.

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey SHOWS ROMNEY ATTRACTING 43% OF THE VOTE WHILE OBAMA EARNS SUPPORT FROM 42%. IN APRIL, OBAMA HELD A FIVE-POINT EDGE OVER ROMNEY. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/election_2012_romney_43_obama_42

This is actually much worse than it looks for Obama. People know who Obama is at this point, so the 15% undecided are likely to split heavily to Romney if he is the GOP nominee.

House GOP passes ill-fated 'cut, cap, and balance' legislation

HOUSE REPUBLICANS ON TUESDAY APPROVED AN AMBITIOUS BUT LEGISLATIVELY ILL-FATED PLAN TO ENACT DEEP SPENDING RESTRAINTS THAT COULD CLEAR THE DECKS FOR A COMPROMISE OVER THE DEBT LIMIT.

The so-called “cut, cap and balance” measure passed on a party-line vote, 234-190, as nine Republicans — including presidential candidates Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and Ron Paul (Texas) — and five Democrats defected.

DEMOCRATS EXCORIATED THE GOP FOR ADVANCING THE BILL, WHICH THE WHITE HOUSE HAS THREATENED TO VETO.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/172431-republicans-approve-cut-cap-and-balance

In the meantime, the President’s plan, errr the Democrats plan, Oh that’s right, they don’t have a plan.


Ryan Dissects the Gang of Six Plan

House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), who also sat on President Obama’s deficit commission (and voted against its final report), has released an initial analysis of the $3.7 trillion deficit-reduction proposal unveiled by the Gang of Six on Tuesday. THE PLAN, WHICH RYAN POINTS OUT “IS NOT A BUDGET,” IS WOEFULLY SHORT ON DETAILS (e.g., it instructs Congress to “encourage greater economic growth” and “spend health care dollars more efficiently”), but the House Budget chair does his best to tease out the plan’s shortcomings and unanswered questions, as well as its “potential for worthwhile budget and tax reforms.”

On the positive side, RYAN PRAISES THE PLAN FOR ACKNOWLEDGING THE NEED FOR TAX REFORM AND HE APPROVES OF MANY OF ITS RECOMMENDATIONS, for example: lowering the top marginal tax rate to 29 percent, transitioning to a territorial tax system, and requiring any unexpected surplus in revenue be used to further reduce rates, rather than fuel new spending. However, RYAN ARGUES THAT THE LATTER PROPOSAL, WHILE “LAUDABLE,” FALLS SHORT BECAUSE IT APPEARS TO LACK AN ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM, SUCH AS A FIRM CAP ON TOTAL SPENDING AND REVENUE…..
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272274/ryan-dissects-gang-six-plan-andrew-stiles

Democrats seem to be falling all over themselves in praise for this, but the devils in the details. This is a worthwhile read to see what is going on.

MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer’s cheap shot backfires

MSNBC's The Contessa Brewer, you may remember just yesterday said the attack on Rupert Murdoch at a hearing encapsulated what the British were feeling.

Today, THE CONTESSA "EDUCATED" A CONSERVATIVE REPRESENTATIVE THAT IF CONGRESS DOES NOT RAISE THE DEBT RAISING, THE COUNTRY WOULD BE "REVERTING INTO A DEPRESSION." REP. MO BROOKS (R-AL) SAID HE DISAGREED WHICH PROMPTED THE MSNBC HOST TO ASK HIM IF HE HAD A DEGREE IN ECONOMICS.

"Yes ma'am, I do. Highest honors," Rep. Brooks responded.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/20/msnbc_to_gop_congressman_do_you_have_a_degree_in_economics.html

This is not unusual. The Progressive movement defers to expertise unless they don’t like that particular expertise.

The next climate debate bombshell

Get ready for the next big bombshell in the man-made warming debate. The world’s most sophisticated particle study laboratory—CERN IN GENEVA—WILL SOON ANNOUNCE THAT MORE COSMIC RAYS DO, INDEED, CREATE MORE CLOUDS IN EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE. MORE COSMIC RAYS MEAN A COOLER PLANET. Thus, the solar source of the earth’s long, moderate 1,500-year climate cycle will finally be explained….

….WHEN WILLI DANSGAARD AND HANS OESCHGER DISCOVERED THE 1,500 YEAR CYCLE IN THE GREENLAND ICE CORES IN 1984, THEY KNEW IMMEDIATELY THAT IT WAS SOLAR-POWERED.. …

THE IPCC, FOR ITS PART, ANNOUNCED THAT THE SUN COULD NOT BE THE FORCING FACTOR IN ANY MAJOR CLIMATE CHANGE BECAUSE THE SOLAR IRRADIATION WAS TOO SMALL…

. …THE IPCC APPARENTLY WANTED TO DISMISS THE SUN AS A CLIMATE FACTOR—TO LEAVE ROOM FOR A CO2 FACTOR THAT HAS ONLY A 22 PERCENT CORRELATION WITH OUR PAST THERMOMETER RECORD. Correlation is not causation—but THE LACK OF CO2 CORRELATION IS DEADLY TO THE IPCC THEORY.

HENRIK SVENSMARK OF THE DANISH SPACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE ADDED THE NEXT CHAPTER in the climate cycle story, just before our book was published. HIS CLOUD CHAMBER EXPERIMENT SHOWED NATURAL COSMIC RAYS QUICKLY CREATED VAST NUMBERS OF TINY “CLOUD SEEDS” when our mix of atmospheric gases was bombarded with ultra-violet light. Since clouds often cover 30 percent of the earth’s surface, a MODERATE CHANGE IN CLOUD COVER CLEARLY COULD EXPLAIN THE WARMING/COOLING CYCLE….

…Last year, Denmark’s University of Aarhus did another experiment with a particle accelerator that fully confirmed the Svensmark hypothesis: cosmic rays help to make more clouds and thus could cool the earth.

THE CERN EXPERIMENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE BIG TEST OF THE SVENSMARK THEORY. It’s a tipoff, then, that CERN’s boss, Rolf-Dieter Heuer, has just told the German magazine Die Welt that he has forbidden his researchers to “interpret” the forthcoming test results. In other words, the CERN report will be a stark “just the facts” listing of the findings. Those findings must support Svensmark, or Heuer would never have issued such a stifling order on a major experiment.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/38627

A big part of the AGW hypothesis is that the warming noted from 1975 to 2000 had no other scientific explanation. However, if the solar wind was powerful (it was) than there would be fewer clouds and hence warmer weather.