Tuesday, April 06, 2010

Speak oft and carry a big shtick

Obama loves the meaningless pronouncement. For instance, his hollow executive order to “prevent” federal funding of abortion, in a word, won’t – but it was cover enough to excuse holdouts to vote for ObamaCare. Thank goodness he doesn’t alter the status quo with his announcement not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations. The NYT fails to see it that way and thinks words are stronger than sticks:
It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the Cold War. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons, or launched a crippling cyberattack.
Really? Our nukes aren’t going away. It’s only Obama’s word that prevents us to use nukes in specific contingencies. As Mary Poppins says, that’s a pie crust promise ‘easily made and easily broken’. That should be ambiguous enough for our enemies. After all, he's my president and I don’t trust him. Furthermore, this promise expires when he is replaced as president – unless Obama finds it convenient to move up the expiration date.

This isn’t a sop for our enemies – they’re not stupid. There is someone else Obama is trying to cover; perhaps Stupak’s buddies in Congress beholden to lefty constituents. Those constituents will see through this every bit as much as Stupak’s right to life constituents saw through Obama’s executive order. From the WSJ:
To many arms-control advocates, the review is likely to be a
disappointment. "It's a status quo document, I think, in virtually every
respect," said Bruce Blair, president of World Security Institute and
co-coordinator of Global Zero, a disarmament group.

Cross-posted at Anatreptic

Monday, April 05, 2010

If they cheat, maybe their cause isn't just

Greenpeace has become an oxymoron:
The politicians have failed. Now it's up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It's not working. We need an army of climate outlaws
This green warrior is a little late calling forth the eco-outlaws. Activists have long been spiking trees, bid tampering land lease auctions, committing arson to name a few eco-crimes in vogue. Or does he fit the definition of someone who keeps doing the same thing but expecting different results?

What is new is the rash of law breaking designed to perpetuate the religion of environmentalism or cash in on the eco-duped. For instance Phil Jones, former director of the East Angilia Climate Unit would be facing charges for violating freedom of information laws (ed.: if not for the statute of limitations). He was trying to hide information that didn't support the eco-theology. The EU is embroiled in fraudulent carbon credits. Every day it seems, a new eco-fraud story appears:

It might sound like common sense. But the misspelling of an expert’s name in a multibillion-dollar environmental lawsuit filed against Chevron is what tipped off Chevron’s lawyers to the fact that the reports may have been fudged, a fact that has now been conceded by the expert himself...

The disclosure comes in the midst of a huge lawsuit accusing Chevron of causing widespread environmental damage in the Ecuadorean rain forest. In 2004, the plaintiffs hired an American biologist named Charles Calmbacher to help oversee soil and water tests in Ecuador.

Reports signed by Calmbacher showed high levels of toxins at two sites and estimated the contamination would cost more than $40 million to clean up at these sites alone.

But in a sworn deposition last week, Calmbacher said he didn’t write the reports submitted over his signature, which said the sites were highly polluted and needed remediation.

“I concluded that I did not see significant contamination that posed immediate threat to the environment or to humans or wildlife around it,” Calmbacher said, according to a transcript provided by Chevron.
Eco-fraud is certainly run by "Green" outlaws - perhaps not the types Mr. Green Warrier is enlisting, but he ignores them at his peril. The politicians at Copenhagen did fail to enact his agenda - but I submit they were in fact influenced a great deal by the unraveling of outlaw eco-huckster schemes.

Update: Rewrote the post to better express my point.

Update II: Here it is April 6, and I woke up to 12 inches of white global warming. I know it's only weather when it snows and Global Warming when it doesn't but just saying...

Cross-posted at Anatreptic

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

While you were occupied by ObamaCare...

The Democrats destroyed the free-flow of private capital from the U.S:
On March 18, with very little pomp and circumstance, president Obama passed the most recent stimulus act, the $17.5 billion Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (H.R. 2487), brilliantly goalseeked by the administration's millionaire cronies to abbreviate as HIRE. As it was merely the latest in an endless stream of acts destined to expand the government payroll to infinity, nobody cared about it, or actually read it. Because if anyone had read it, the act would have been known as the Capital Controls Act, as one of the lesser, but infinitely more important provisions on page 27, known as Offset Provisions - Subtitle A—Foreign Account Tax Compliance, institutes just that. In brief, the Provision requires that foreign banks not only withhold 30% of all outgoing capital flows (likely remitting the collection promptly back to the US Treasury) but also disclose the full details of non-exempt account-holders to the US and the IRS. And should this provision be deemed illegal by a given foreign nation's domestic laws (think Switzerland), well the foreign financial institution is required to close the account. It's the law. If you thought you could move your capital to the non-sequestration safety of non-US financial institutions, sorry you lose - the law now says so.
So be prepared to prepared to lose 30% of your capital if you want to invest it overseas. The Dems have to get someone to buy those T-bills to extend the debt.

This is a big deal, because your government effectively gets to control your foreign investments. One more thing - It's highly likely you first read about this takeover in a blog. The legacy media continues to cover for our DemoMarxists.


Cross-posted at Anatreptic

Friday, March 26, 2010

Constitution means whatever liberals say it means

Interestingly Charles Lane becomes a strict constructionalist when it comes to interpreting the constitutionality of healthcare:
On the merits of the issue, I agree with health reform’s supporters that one’s decision not to buy health insurance has economic ripple effects. Basically, it turns you into a free-rider and that imposes costs on everyone else in the risk pool. As Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky recently put it: “There is no constitutionally protected freedom to be able to refuse to be insured or to avoid paying for the benefits provided.”
Do you think Charles would be consistent and conclude that there is no constitutionally protected freedom to be able to have an abortion?

I didn't think so.

But, Chemerinsky is right - there is no constitutionally protected freedom to be able to refuse to be insured or to avoid paying for the benefits provided - if you think in terms of enumerated rights. It wasn't necessary when the constitution was written and first ratified. The constitution doesn't grant rights. It puts limits on Government's intrusion on our rights. From the text it is clear that making a citizen buy health insurance isn't in the purview of Congress's power. Professor Chemerinsky begs to differ, citing the commerce clause and the potential impact if "society" winds up picking up a future tab for an uninsured (where is it written that we must pay?) The commerce clause argument is a stretch when we are dealing with someone who refuses to participate in commerce. And what about the significant chunk of folks who are self insured; the ones who don't have insurance because they will pay their own way? Chemerinsky's argument is only vaild in terms of the modern court's willingness to stretch the constitution to acheive liberal ends. It will be interesting to see how the courts rule this time.

Lane's and Chemerinsky's argument to compel people to purchase insurance hinges on covering the individual liability they potentially pose. For young people, that would normally result in a low premium. With Obamacare, however, a massive amount of a young person's premium is just wealth transfer to pay for someone else's healthcare. Wouldn't the term "free-rider" apply here? But wait, isn't this why Lane and Chemerinsky say it isn't fair for someone not to buy insurance?
Cross-posted at Anatreptic

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Repeal Obamacare

You might have a winning campaign issue when 55 percent of the people support it.Let's develop this.

Cross-posted in Anatreptic

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Trouble for Bennett

Utah Republicans held their caucus tonight. If the turnout at other precincts was anything like the one I attended, then Republican Senator Bob Bennett has cause to worry - but that depends on whether Bennett's opposition is better organized than the ones who showed up at my precinct. Mick fills you in on the details of Bennett's problems here.

At my precinct, we had nearly four times as many people show up than in 2008 - and that was a presidental election year. The extra folks showed up to vote against Bob Bennett - or vote for delegates that will vote against Bob Bennett. They were not organized, however, and ironically they managed to dilute their votes so that the two delegates we did elect will be Bennett supporters. This happened because our precinct chose to elect the two nominees that came in first and second in vote count out of a slate of nominees voted on simultaneously. About eight candidates were nominated - only two were supporters of Bob Bennett. If you supported Bob Bennett (I did for the same reasons Mick noted), you only had two choices. The opposition had six choices and thus they managed to get Bob Bennett two delegates.

Bennett opponents could have easily insisted on majority rule but they didn't. Thus these anti-Bennett folks became a case study for Mick's point about operating on anger:

...there are plenty of places on the Internet, cable television and radio that you can go to hear people rant and rave about this. I don't want to--I want to win. Winning takes a clear strategy, extensive planning and a disciplined execution.

At this precinct, none of the anti-Bennett nominees for delegate knew anything about the other candidates running against Bennett. Not one could name an alternative candidate who they would vote for instead of Bennett. With the exception of Merrill Cook, who doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of being taken seriously again, all of the other declared candidates are political novices. That shouldn't necessarily be a disqualifier but it should give one pause considering how the novices at my precinct managed to elect delegates opposed to their view.

Bob Bennett got lucky in my precinct but the numbers were against him. If his oppostion in other precincts was not as disarrayed, he may be sitting out the primary.

More bad news for Bennett from Dave Kirkham:

My Tea Party buddies texted me all night from their own precincts as Bennett supporters fell. EVERYWHERE, Bennett was toxic. In our straw poll, Bennett came in 3rd. Maybe there is hope after all.

I attended the Tea Party rally Kirkham organized last April at the Salt Lake Federal Building. Bennett was loudly boo'ed then - almost a year ago. Something to consider for those politicians who think that dissatisfaction was a one time flash in the pan.

Cross-posted at Anatreptic

Monday, March 22, 2010

What hath Congress wrought?

The health care bill, now passed by both House and Senate democrats, will end the health care debate just like the Missouri compromise ended the debate on slavery. Pelosi and company think they have passed a bill, soon to be law, that will be irrevocable. Before the election of Scott Brown, I may have conceded, but now the democrats have willfully voted against the majority interest of this nation. In so doing, they have set the themes for the 2010 and 2012 campaigns. In their haste the democrats have:
1) Established 50% plus 1 rule. They have killed the need for a super majority in the Senate. What they have built with 50% +1 support can be undone by the same.
2) In their effort to lie about the health care costs, they enacted economy killing taxes that will be implemented years before "benefits" will be seen. Unlike Social Security and Medicare, the democrats have not built a constituency to support Obamacare, instead they have placed the burr of disatisfaction under the saddle they have just laid on the middle class.
3) They have succeded in energizing an opposition who will use points 1 and 2 above.

Cross-posted in Anatreptic

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Matheson still undecided?

I called congressman Jim Matheson's office yesterday afternoon. Actually I called three offices before I could get through to the one in St. George. His staffer said he still hadn't declared how he would vote on the health care bill. He isn't my congressman but the lady asked me how I wanted him to vote anyway. She recorded my opposition and my home town. I only live twenty-five minutes from his Salt Lake office. He votes yes at the peril of people like me swarming his district as volunteers for his opponent - not to mention the influence we will already exert on friends and family living in the district.

I expect Matheson will vote no. He voted no last time and the bill hasn't improved. I speculate Nancy Pelosi already knows he is a firm no and has asked he keep mum so the margin of votes in play seems larger.

Cross-posted at Anatreptic

Friday, March 12, 2010


Yesterday the AP reported a CBO finding that the Senate health care bill would actually reduce the deficit:

In a bit of bookkeeping, the Congressional Budget Office on Thursday released its final cost estimates for the bill the Senate passed on Christmas Eve. That 10-year, $875 billion plan would reduce the federal deficit and cover 31 million people who'd otherwise be uninsured. The Senate bill is the foundation of the proposal that Obama wants Congress to pass in the next few weeks. But the numbers will change yet again with the new version.

The AP failed to mention the fantastical ground rules the CBO was operating with to arrive at such happy news. Somehow though the public opinion is being informed despite the perfidy of the AP:

Two-out-of-three voters (66%) also believe the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats is likely to increase the federal deficit. That's up six points from late November and comparable to findings just after the contentious August congressional recess. Ten percent (10%) say the plan is more likely to reduce the deficit and 14% say it will have no impact on the deficit.

Underlying this concern is a lack of trust in the government numbers. Eighty-one percent (81%) believe it is at least somewhat likely that the health care reform plan will cost more than official estimates. That number includes 66% who say it is very likely that the official projections understate the true cost of the plan.

AP - All Propaganda. Just another reason why the legacy media is being bypassed.

Cross-posted in Anatreptic

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Why Don't Ask Don't Tell Won't Change

This photograph was taken during the time President Clinton was wrangling with Senator Sam Nunn about homosexuals serving in the military. Senator Nunn was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The photo was on the front page of my local paper - it probably made the front page of most papers in the nation. It devasted Clinton's efforts to allow gays to openly serve in the military. What was once just a military policy, that could have been overturned by the president, became the law of the land.

The reason the law won't be overturned anytime soon has nothing to do with what the Generals or Admirals think (there are probably enough now who would support overturning the ban, if not for the law, just to curry favor with a liberal president). The reason the law will remain in place is parents don't want their eighteen year old sons and daughters sleeping next to a homosexual. Those parents vote. Incidentally, I'm with the parents on this one.

Cross-posted in Anatreptic