Copenhagen: Danger Will Robinson. . .

Many of you have probably heard us mention the Copenhagen Treaty in passing. This week, the Copenhagen Treaty took center stage when Margaret Thatcher’s former science advisor, Lord Christopher Monchton, warned us that the United States was about to hand over its sovereignty to a world government. Let’s discuss. . .


What Monchton Said

On Wednesday night at an event sponsored by the Minnesota Free Market Institute, Lord Monchton warned that Obama intended to sign something called the Copenhagen Treaty in December of this year. This 200 page treaty, according to Monchton, would create a “world government” which would draft environmental regulations, which each signatory to the treaty would be required to enforce. This “government” also would oversee the transfer of wealth from the West to third world countries, to satisfy something called a “climate debt” based on the idea that the West has caused more pollution than the rest of the world.

Monchton then stated that if Obama signs the treaty, it will take precedence over the Constitution, and that the United States could not withdraw from the treaty without the agreement of all other treaty signatories.

Is he right? Not quite, though there is reason to be concerned.


What Is The Copenhagen Treaty?

Between December 7-18, 2009, the United Nations Climate Change Conference will meet in Copenhagen, Denmark for the purposes of completing a treaty (the Copenhagen Treaty) that will replace the Kyoto Treaty, which expires in 2012.

The Kyoto Treaty (actually the Kyoto Protocol) is an environmental treaty negotiated through the United Nations, which aims to achieve “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” In other words, the treaty aims to force countries to cut their “greenhouse gas emissions” to levels that will not affect the climate. The term “anthropogenic inference” is bureau-speak for “human activity.”

Kyoto was adopted in December 1997 and took effect in February 2005. As of October 2009, 184 countries have signed and ratified the treaty. However, Kyoto does not apply equally. Under Kyoto, only 37 industrialized countries must make cuts -- they must reduce various “greenhouse gases” by 5% from their 1990 levels. These gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, hydroflurocarbons, and perfluorocarbons.

The remaining countries are not required to cut their emissions at all. These are the so-called “developing countries.” This includes both China and India, even though both are heavy polluters. Indeed, as of August 2008, China is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases. India is third, just behind the United States.

It was because the developing countries were not included that the United States government never ratified Kyoto. On November 12, 1998, Vice President Algore symbolically signed the protocol, even though he acknowledged that the protocol would not be acted upon by the United States until the developing nations were required to participate. And indeed, the Clinton Administration never submitted the treaty to the Senate for ratification.

The Bush Administration also refused to submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification.

Many environmentalists thought Obama would submit the treaty to the Senate, but he too has refused. In April 2009, Obama said that “it doesn’t make sense for the United States to sign the Kyoto Protocol because it is about to end.”

The Copenhagen Treaty is an attempt to replace the Kyoto Treaty when it expires in 2012. Obama has not committed to signing that treaty yet.


What Does The Copenhagen Treaty Do?

Does the Copenhagen Treaty do what Monchton states? Unfortunately, I can’t tell you because there does not appear to be any draft of the Copenhagen Treaty available for the public to read. Thus, I have no way to confirm whether or not Monchton is correct in his assertion that the treaty includes the word “government” -- not to mention that negotiations on the treaty are not complete.

Indeed, the Treaty is 200 pages long, and at least 2000 of its parts are in dispute. From comments made by Obama’s chief negotiator, Todd Stern, there are at least two major issues that may result in the total failure of the Copenhagen conference: (1) Obama wants China, India, Brazil, South Africa and other developing nations to cut their own emissions, which is not going over too well with those countries, and (2) negotiations have been deadlocked for months about who will pay to help developing countries go low-carbon (estimated cost: $100 billion a year). The developing nations want the West to pay for this, the West has refused.

We also know that Obama has refused to agree to the limits wanted by treaty proponents. At the G8 conference in July, the G8 industrial nations agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, which they hoped would limit global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels. This is actually less restrictive than the Kyoto Treaty. Thus, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said this was not enough. Nevertheless, this appears to be what Obama is proposing for Copenhagen. (Big business has also signed on to this level of cuts and is actively pushing for adoption of laws that would apply these limits to their smaller competitors.)

Beyond that, there is not much that can be said of the treaty at this time.


So Should We Be Worried?

Of course we should be worried. We should never trust treaties or legislation that is not made available for the public to read. Also, the third world has a history of using these treaties to get goodies from guilt-ridden western diplomats. Further, the environmental/socialist movement has a long history now of using these treaties as attacks on capitalism and as attempts to steal national sovereignty. Likewise, big business has a long history of using such regulations to tie the hands of their smaller competitors.

Yet, there is no reason to panic just yet.

Obama can sign this thing in blood if he wants to, but that doesn’t make it law. Before any treaty can become legally binding under United States law, the treaty must be submitted to the Senate for ratification. When (if) that happens, we will get a chance to see the treaty and assess it -- at which point we can make a rational assessment of the treaty and Obama’s negotiating skills, and we can challenge what needs to be challenged. Shadowboxing against something we cannot read or see is counter-productive.

Also, it’s not at all clear that a treaty can hand over significant legislative control to a foreign body. While it is true that a treaty, once ratified, becomes the same as United States law, it still must comply with the requirements of the Constitution. In other words, a treaty could not be used to do anything that the government could not do on its own -- though this may be small conciliation if it still allows significant legislation to be made. Though, that brings up the next question: can Congress cede its legislative duties to a foreign body? This is unlikely because of the clear responsibilities set out by the Constitution -- though I am unaware of this issue having been resolved before (probably because no one has tried to do this before).

Finally, on Lord Monchton’s point about the United States being trapped once it signs, it should be pointed out that “international law” is based on a false premise -- that it is enforceable. The reality is that international law is voluntary. Those who teach international law will cringe at that, but they are deluding themselves. Treaties are voluntary agreements. Sure they can claim to have “binding effect” and there is a whole pile of confused “law” which you can use to interpret those treaties and the such. . . blah blah blah, but the truth is that there is no organization out there that enforces those agreements. No international sheriff is going to come padlock the doors to the United States. Thus, these agreements are not “binding” or “enforceable” in any real sense of those words. And if the United States chooses to renounce the treaty or to simply ignore it, there is no force that will make the United States live up to the treaty.


Conclusion

So in the end, we should thank Lord Monchton for raising this issue and we should be wary of what is going on in Copenhagen. But at the same time, that is all we should do. The ball is in Obama’s court. If and when he gets a treaty completed and signed, then we should examine it closely and blast him for his failures. In the meantime, keep your powder dry.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Calls Obama A Liar. . .

This week we found out just how high Obama shoveled the Pelosi when he told the public how many jobs his stimulus plan had created and how many more it would create. Not surprisingly, Honest Barack’s projections proved to be laughably bogus (overstated by a factor of twenty-five), and his claims of “verifiable job creation” were flat out false (overstated by a factor of five).

Let’s step into the way back machine. The year is 2008. The horrible Bush economy is wheezing along at a miserable 6.9% unemployment. A whopping total of 10.6 million of Americas 155 million workers are unemployed. It’s hopeless.

But there is a light shining in the tunnel of economic despair. . . Barack Obama. Candidate Obama stood proudly in the town square and promised that he could favor us with five million jobs with one shake of his job-giving beads! Hallelujah! A new age was about to dawn.

Fast forward a few weeks. As Obama assumed the position behind his desk in the Oval Office, he changed the deal. Now he would deliver only 3.5 million jobs, and he would take until January 2011 to do it. The other 1.5 million would have to fend for themselves. Moreover, he would not shake his magic beads until we agreed to pass a little stimulus. The price tag on the stimulus bill was $787 billion (not counting the $152 billion already provided in the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 or the $700 billion spent on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)).

Thus, depending on what you included, Obama’s plan called for spending either $939 billion or $1.649 trillion to create those 3.5 million jobs. That works out to either $286,285 or $471,142 per job. Still, we needed the jobs and the man’s got magic beads. . .

Fast forward again, this time to June 2009. The stimulus passed, the beads were shaken. But something went wrong. Unemployment skyrocketed to 9.8%, with 14.5 million people unemployed!! That’s right, 3.9 million more people were unemployed than before he shook the magic beads! That's 3.9 million people who had jobs under the evil W.

Stay calm, Obama assured us. . . things were starting to work. The stimulus had already created 150,000 jobs. Oh thank God! Of course, those 3.5 million jobs wouldn’t replace the 3.9 million he had lost, but they would certainly help. And even though those 150,000 jobs represented a mere 4% of what he’d promised, to be fair, he’d only spent $719 billion of the stimulus at that point. That’s around $4.8 million per job.

So Obama made another bold promise. He would shake his beads again and create 600,000 jobs within the next 100 days. And these would be permanent, private sector jobs. This claim was backed up numerous times by Joe “The Truth” Biden, who swore on the grave of his dear departed sympathy ploy, that the stimulus was working. In fact, only a heartless, unAmerican fascist pig could possible suggest that the stimulus wasn’t working.

Fast forward to the present, just over 100 days later. Thursday, Team Obama released a report that determined that all of 30,383 jobs have been created by the stimulus. Not 750,000. . . not 600,000. . . not 150,000. . . 30,383. That’s one fifth of what Obama claimed in June, and 1/25th of what he promised. And that makes him a liar.

Further, while the White House claims these jobs cost us only $71,500 each, the actual number is closer to $34 million per job.

I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty sure I can better than that.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Agenda: The Environment

Let's continue our discussion of Obama’s agenda. Obama is not an environmentalist, that's obvious from his lack of passion and his fealty to the unions. Though, he must placate his base, which includes environmentalists. However, as previously discussed, the environmental movement has been partially co-opted by socialists who want to remake the American economy. Hence, his policies are a mix of liberal environmentalism (forced conservation, massive subsidies, pet projects) and down right socialism masquerading as environmental policy.

Obama's environmental policies come in four parts. The first two are premised on liberal environmentalism. The other two are pure socialism.


Part One: Alternative Energies

Obama's stated goal is to ensure that by 2025, 25% of our energy comes from solar, wind, biofuel, and geothermal sources (note the absence of natural gas and nuclear). To achieve this, he proposes:

• Weatherizing one million homes annually.

• Pouring $150 billion into alternative fuel technology.

This is fairly standard liberal environmentalism. Obama believes that by picking "winners" and subsidizing them, he can bend the laws of physics and economics. But reality tells us otherwise. Physics bends for no one and the history of subsidies is a history of waste, fraud, and failure. Indeed, subsidies keep better solutions from emerging, and thus ultimately prove entirely counter productive. But that's the kind of solution you get from the left.

Undeterred, Obama has already spent considerable amounts toward these goals. For example, the stimulus bill included five billion dollars to weatherize low-income homes. This may cover 500,000 homes by the end of 2009, if you believe the estimates. More insidiously, cap and trade, currently D.O.A. in the Senate, includes a provision that would require an environmental inspection for all homes prior to sale, with the homeowner being required to raise the energy efficiency of the home before a sale would be allowed. If this passes, look for home sales to plummet, fixer-uper’s to disappear, and poor people to be priced out of the housing market.

The stimulus also included $18 billion in grants and loans to renewable energy companies, $100 billion in tax credits, and $6 billion to modernize the nation’s electricity grid. The FY2010 budget inclues another $39 billion in spending and $20 billion in tax incentives on renewable energy.

Obama claims this will generate five million "green" jobs, though the history of subsidies says otherwise.

The cap and trade bill also includes a requirement that utility companies produce 20% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

Despite all of this, the Energy Information Administration estimates that all of the above will only increase the share of electricity generated from renewable sources to 15.8% by 2030 from its current 7%.


Part Two: End Dependence on Foreign Oil

Obama next proposes to reduce our oil consumption by 35% by 2030. That would represent an amount equal to what we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela (combined). Here's how:

• Increasing fuel economy (CAFE) standards for vehicle fleets.

• Putting one million plug-in hybrid (American made) cars on the road by 2015.

• Implementing a $7,000 tax credit for buying a hybrid.

Obama’s Dept. of Transporation is drafting rules that will require cars and trucks (not previously included) to be 5% more efficient each year until 2016. They will also require that the amount of ethanol or biodiesel used in the US increases from 9 billion blended gallons to 36 billion gallons by 2022.

As for Obama’s hybrid goal, current hybrid sales rates are approximately 175,000 a year, so he may just get his wish. But none of them are American made.


Part Three: Stop “climate change”

This is where Obama's environmental policy loses touch with environmentalism and drives fully into socialism. Obama's goal here is to save the world from "climate change" by:

• Implementing an economy-wide cap and trade program to reduce “greenhouse gas” emissions by 80% by 2050.

• Developing and deploying clean coal technology.

The undistorted scientific evidence is clear that all of the claims that the Earth is heating up are wrong, the assertions that "carbon causes warming" are false, and the idea that mankind contributes significantly to carbon emissions is an obvious lie. Indeed, as we pointed out before, everything mankind does represents around 3% of all carbon emissions. It is thus logically impossible to rationally conclude that capping carbon will have any effect on global temperatures.

Obama knows this. Yet he's proposing a cap and trade bill, that will severely damage or retard the American economy. Why would he propose a painful cure, that can't work, for a disease that isn't real? Because the socialists in the environmental lobby want to remake the American economy along European-socialist lines.

Not coincidentally, 65% of Americans oppose cap and trade.


Part Four: Punish oil companies and speculators

Finally, Obama proposes a little classic socialism, consisting of class warfare and redistribution. This has never worked before, but, like a typical liberal, he thinks he can make it work. Go figure? Here's his plan:

• Enact a “windfall profits” tax and redistribute the proceeds to poor people in the form of $1,000 energy rebates.

• End tax loopholes (read: deductions) for oil and gas companies.

• Limit “excessive energy speculation.”

• Implement a “use it or lose” it approach to existing oil and gas leases.

Obama’s FY2010 budget ended around $30 billion (over ten years) in tax deductions for oil and gas companies. Beyond that, he hasn’t bothered with any of these promises.


So that’s Obama’s environmental agenda, a mixture of heavy-handed, ineffective and stupid environmental ideas (with obvious “unintented consequences” that they are overlooking) and flat out socialism. That’s why Obama has only a 43% approval rating on environmental issues.


Note: Unless otherwise indicated, everything above comes from Obama’s own website.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Peace In Our Minds. . .

You don’t have to be stupid to be a member of the Norgie Prize Patrol, but it helps. And you don’t have to be naive to handle Obama’s foreign policy, but that helps too. So what happens when you mix liberal and stupid with liberal and naive? You get nuclear war. Let’s quiz the Prize Patrol. . .

For those of you who missed it, the Norgie Prize Patrol has been under fire ever since giving Obama a surprise Norgie. Many critics asked what Obama had done to possibly warrant receiving such an award. Other suggested it was too soon. To you, committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland responds: “We simply disagree. He got the prize for what he has done. Who has done more for [peace] than Barack Obama?”

So what has he done you ask? Well, Jagland is nothing if not prepared to answer that question. First, he singled out Obama’s efforts to heal the divide between the West and Muslim world. Of course, he didn’t seem to know that only 19% of Americans think that our relations with the Muslim world will improve. And he apparently didn’t read the Palestinian memo that said: "All hopes placed in the new US administration and President Obama have evaporated." That’s not good right? Maybe he also missed the fact that Israel is planning to bomb Iran before Christmas?

Hmm. I’m gonna have to call bull on that one Jagoff. What else you got?

Obama also eliminated the Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe: “[This] has contributed to -- I wouldn’t say a safer world -- but a world with less tension.”

Uh, wow.

So the European view is that being unable to defend yourself from a missile attack by a group of nutjobs who want to turn your cities into slag reduces the tension in Europe? You people must love being robbed. Do your sports teams play to lose? Do you all stuffer from Stockholm Syndrome? Do Norwegians pass out blackmail material about themselves on the street -- “ya, this ist me und mein sexy Schnauzer. . . I love beingk blackmailed.” You, my dear Jagoff, are sick. . . seek help.

But even putting your national masochism aside, let me point out that you also are a stupid, stupid man. Obama gave the Russians exactly what they wanted by showing weakness, by submitting to Putin, and by eliminating the missile shield. He crawled, he begged, and I’m pretty sure he cried. . . “can’t we all just get along?” And what did this get him? A proverbial beat down.

This week the Russians announced that they will not allow sanctions against Iran: "There is no need to frighten the Iranians," Putin told reporters in Beijing. So much for Obama’s master plan.

And do you want to hear what this did to your “tensions” Jagoff?

Russian Presidential Security Council chief Nikolai Patrushev declared Monday that Russia reserves the right to use pre-emptive nuclear strikes on both a “large, regional and even local” scale to safeguard Russia from aggression. But lest you think Patrushev was only talking about smoking Poland or Georgia, he specifically singled out Obama’s United States and NATO as foes who still pose threats to Russia. He noted for example, that

“activity on receiving new members into NATO is not ceasing. The military activity of the bloc is stepping up. U.S. strategic forces are conducting intensive training on using strategic nuclear weapons.”

How about them tense apples!

Interestingly, this interview was given at the same time that Hillary Clinton was in Russia prostrating herself at the foot of the Russian bear. Said our naive Secretary of State,

"We have people in our government and you have people in your government who are still living in the past. They do not believe that the United States and Russia can cooperate to this extent. They do not trust each other. And we have to prove them wrong. That is our goal. Our goal is to be as cooperative as we can."

I wonder who in Obama’s cabinet is living in the past? Biden? Rahm? I’m pretty sure I know who it is in Russia. . . some guy called Putin. Apparently, Hillary wanted to meet with this “Putin”, but he blew her off. Oops, sorry, they couldn’t get together. Said a red-faced Hillary:

"I would have enjoyed meeting with Prime Minister Putin and we certainly had intended to do so but our schedules didn't allow us, so I am looking forward to seeing him on a future date."

Yeah, sure Hillary. I’m sure it isn’t a lack respect. I’m sure it’s just that Putin’s schedule is so busy that he just couldn’t make time to meet with the U.S. Secretary of State to discuss nuclear weapons. . . after all, he’s got a lot of socks to sort out before they ease a few tensions on Georgia.

So back to the Norgie. Tell me again Jagoff what Obama did to warrant getting this award? Oh, that’s all you got. Maybe Ms. Aagot Valle, a lefter-wing Norwegian politician who joined the Norgie Committee this year, has something to add?



Aagot Valle, noted idiot.




What do you say about the suggestion that Obama hasn’t earned this award yet madam? “Don't you think that comments like that patronize Obama?” No, actually, I think they patronize you, sweetie. Didn’t you think there would be criticism of your stupid vote?

“Where do these people come from?” The critics? You didn’t expect any criticism for this? What kind of liberal bubble do you live in? Oh, that’s right, Norway -- I’ll bet you read the New York Times too, don’t you? “Of course I expected disagreement and debate.” Clearly not, based on your surprised (and very liberal-bubblish) reaction.

“Of course, all arguments have to be considered seriously. I'm not afraid of a debate on the Peace Prize decision. That's fine.” Great, so lay it on me. Prove this vast army of critics wrong. What say you about this argument that Obama is undeserving? “I take note of it. My response is only the judgment of the committee, which was unanimous.”

That’s it? Well that’s stupid. Just because everyone else made the same mistake doesn’t mean it’s not a mistake. Are you sure you're not afraid of debate?

“What I want now is that we seriously raise a discussion regarding nuclear disarmament.” Sorry toots, no can do. See, when you act like the world’s biggest dumbass, people don’t look beyond your dipsh*tocity and then engage in the debate you hoped they’d have. They talk about how stupid you are. . . and trust me, you got a lot of people talking.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

This Time I Agree With The Democrats

That's right, I agree with the Democrats. Strange huh? Here’s the what and why. Democratic Representative Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) has introduced a bill to require the FCC to prohibit commercials from being shockingly loud, and I support that. Get off my lawn you damn kids!!!

Nobody likes loud commercials. . . nobody. I don’t know anyone who hasn’t complained about them at some point or another. People I know clutch their remotes waiting to mute the commercials. Others complain repeatedly to their cable companies and the networks, but to no avail. This is more than a minor annoyance.


The networks are aware of this. I’ve seen a dozen interviews in which network executives felt compelled to address the sheer volume of complaints they received on this topic. Most lied. I recall an executive for the Sci-Fi Channel (aka NBC, aka USA Network, aka AMC, aka Bravo, etc.) once ludicrously claiming that they had no control over the volume of the commercials. Like helpless sheep they could only play what they were given. Pathetic.

So with the networks refusing to address this issue and with vast armies of people nearing riot stage, Congress stepped in last year with the Commercial Advertising Loudness Mitigation Act (CALM). What this law did was to limit the loudness of commercials to a maximum of the loudest part of the program during which they were shown. But this didn’t work. If the show included a gun shot, a falling plate, or a shriek, the commercials still could be jarringly loud. Advertisers also found ways to cheat by compressing the sound, which gives greater volume without violating the upper limit.

So Congress is stepping in again. Rep. Eshoo (. . . gesundheit) will hold hearings with the intent of giving the FTC the power to prohibit commercials from being “excessively noisy or strident.” Good.

But wait, the industry says, they’ll fix the problem. Yeah sure. According to Mark Richer, president of the Advanced Television Systems Committee, a “nonprofit” (aka “lobbying organization”) whose members include broadcast networks and cable operators, ATSC is working to develop “voluntary standards” to fix this problem:

“We’ve been working for over two years to help broadcasters, cable operators, and others to come up with a uniform strategy so we can minimize the subjective perception of the volume change during commercials.”

Well, if you put it that way, what were we thinking? Clearly, it takes more than two years and the threat of Congressional action to write the following phrase on a napkin: “Let’s not turn up the volume on the commercials”! (Assuming it even needs an agreement. . . or a napkin.)

Sorry Mark, no one’s buying your el toro kaka. Why you ask? Because I can translate lobbying-whore speak into English, and here’s what you said:

“After ignoring this 'problem' for years, we were horrified when Congress started to act. So we created a fake industry group to pretend to create a solution to the problem, in the hopes that Congress wouldn’t act and we could keep doing exactly what we had been doing. But Congress acted anyways.

Fortunately for us, Congress blew it and we found glorious, glorious loopholes. But now they want to plug those loopholes. So we again ask that you not act. Trust us to fix this problem. . . a problem that we not only failed to address for twenty years, but that we lied about and that even now we won’t admit exists.”

That’s what Mark would have said if he wasn’t lacking the shame gene. Oh, and be sure to note his description of the problem as a “subjective perception.” That’s legal speak for “something that stupid people claim to believe in, but we all know isn’t a real problem, wink wink.”

So should we trust the same people who created this problem, have allowed it to grow unchecked for twenty years, and profit from it? Should we trust them to fix that same problem with voluntary standards? Don’t make me laugh.

But I’m a conservative with libertarian leanings. Should I really support regulation? Actually, there’s no inconsistency here. Here’s why:

In a functioning market environment, new companies will move into a market to satisfy consumer demand if the companies in the market fail or refuse. This is called market discipline. But when companies are insulated from competition, there is no market discipline. What you get is called market failure.

Market failure alone does not necessarily warrant regulation, though it should be a prerequisite. But when the market failure is caused by an oligopoly market (like the television industry), regulation becomes much more warranted. And in this instance, there is one more factor that pushes this over the top -- the oligopoly was created by the government.

The government created these oligopolies by rationing bandwidth, by allowing consolidation to the point of oligopoly, and by regulating what channels can (and must) appear on provider networks. This prevents competitors from appearing and allows the existing companies to hide behind the protections of government regulation.

When an oligopoly exists because of government action, then I have zero heartburn with regulating that oligopoly if it is non-responsive to consumer needs. If you want to make your living hiding behind government regulation, then we have the right to tell you what to do.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama"Care" Update

Ever since the Obamacrats produced their health care bill, I’ve been trying to get my hands on it. They won’t release it, because they’re afraid of you. Indeed, despite demands that the bill be available for viewing before it is voted upon, Sen. Baucus (D-Marx) has held this bill tighter to his chest than photos of himself sodomizing a poodle. But details have slipped out. . . this poodle talked.

Here are some of the recent nuggets of which you should be aware. First, my little Obama supporters, don’t expect to get coverage. Secondly, the amount of pain you and your state experience will depend on who your Senator is:

Coverage? You Don’t Get No Stinking Coverage

Most of Obama’s supporters are in for a shock on health care. Like greedy children staring at the big box under the (non-denominational) Christmas tree, they think that with the stroke of a pen, their Lord and Master Obama will provide them with government provided health insurance. Suddenly, keeping that second SUV doesn’t seem like such a hardship!

But guess what children, the box is empty. The Baucus bill provides government coverage by expanding Medicaid. But it doesn’t expand it very far. Under the Baucus bill, anyone making 133% or less of the poverty level will become eligible for free coverage. That’s anyone making $14,440 or less per year. The rest of you have to buy your own.

Yes, you read that right. If you make $14,441 or more, you don’t get coverage! What? That's not what you were promised? Just wait. . . there’s more. You will be required to buy your own coverage. Yep. No more skipping that cost just because you think you’re healthy. If you don’t buy insurance, you will be fined up to $1,900. And if you continue to refuse, you will be sent to jail and fined $25,000. You dirty, disloyal criminal.

But don’t worry, the Democrats feel your pain. They understand this could be a hardship: “For some people it's going to be a heavy lift,” said Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del. They just don’t care. Now that’s tough love!

By the way, ever wonder who will turn you in for not having insurance? Doctors. Isn’t it interesting that the Democrats don’t want doctors turning in illegal aliens because they don’t want to discourage them from getting needed medical treatment. . . but, somehow, that concern goes away when it comes to you?

So how will this play out? Let’s assume you make $15,000 a year. If you can find health insurance at the current private sector rates, you will now need to cough up $4,700 just for the insurance (on average, people spend another $2,500 out of pocket if they actually use it -- so we’ll just assume you can’t afford to use it. . . though you still need to buy it). Sounds like a great deal huh? Oh, it doesn’t? Well, fortunately, you have an out. Just pay the fine rich boy.

So what will Obamacare mean for you? It means that you will get to pay $1,900 of your $15,000 income to Obama so that others can have insurance. Aren’t you glad you voted for this clown? Make sure you write “Yes We Can” on your check. :-)

But don’t worry, at least you’ll get plenty of schadenfreude out of it. The Obamacrats are promising 15 new taxes on health care providers -- because nothing controls costs and encourages innovation better than tax hikes. The insurance industry now is also claiming that the cost of private insurance will go up 49% within 10 years -- that’s another $6,000 a year for a family of four.

Oh, and if your employer does decide to provide health insurance, as unlikely as that may seem, you will be required to enroll in that plan no matter what the cost. At least, you’ll get a tax credit to the extent the cost of the insurance exceeds 13% of your income. . . up to that, you’re on your own.

That's Democratic solutions for you. . .

(Not)Spreading The Pain: Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others

And there is one more really fascinating detail about which you should be aware (thanks to Cheryl for pointing this out). According to the Wall Street Journal, some groups are being exempted from the pain. . .

As mentioned above, ObamaCare works by expanding Medicaid (and by forcing the rest of you to help yourselves). Medicaid is paid for largely by state government, though they do receive some blockgrants from the feds.

According to the Journal, four states will have the federal government pick up the tag: Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island and Michigan. According to Harry Reid (D- NEVADA), these are the states that “are suffering the most.” Did I mention that Harry Reid, who is losing his re-election campaign in a big way in Nevada, represents Nevada? Perhaps that’s just a coincidence? Perhaps it’s also just a coincidence that Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) and Ron Wyde (D-Oregon) sit on the Finance Committee, which drafted this bill?

But wait, there are more coincidences:

• Debbie Stabenow (D-UAW) and John Kerry (D-Masshole) got $5 billion dollars included in the bill to defray the costs of medical insurance for union members. How nice.

• Chucky Cheese Schumer (D-Wall Street) got a higher threshold for New Yorkers and Massholes before the feds start taxing your insurance benefits. So if you live in Kentucky, you get taxed on any plan that costs more than $21,000 a year. Chuck’s friends don’t get taxed until their plans cost $25,000 a year. Strangely, this increased threshold (which applies to only 17 states) applies almost entirely to blue states.

• Bob Menendez (D-Pfizer) of New Jersey got $1 billion in tax credits for New Jersey drug makers, to offset the taxes that Baucus is imposing on. . . drug makers.

And there’s more to come when this sucker hits the floor of the house!

So the next time you hear some self-righteous leftist whine that they are finally going to get theirs or that the Democrats somehow represent the little guy or are somehow ethical, you laugh in their dirty little face and you assure them that they are indeed about to get theirs. . .


Finally, let me state officially that it's time to throw Sen. Olympia Snowe (RINO-Traitorville) out of the Republican Party. Despite the utter immorality, stupidity, and futility of this bill, Snowe decided to betray America because: "when history calls, history calls." Ah yes, the logic of serial killers, dictators, quislings, and RINOs.



[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Agenda: Gays

One of the interesting findings from last week’s Commentarama Poll was that few people understand Obama’s agenda. So let’s see if we can’t flesh that out (assuming there is an agenda). Fortuitously, Saturday night, Obama reaffirmed his agenda vis-à-vis gays.

Prior to the election, Obama backed gay rights in speeches and legislation 18 times, though as a candidate he refused to back gay marriage. This weekend he became only the second President to speak at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign (a gay group). In his speech, Obama repeated the following promises:

• To work with the Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which keeps states from recognizing gay marriages in other states. Right now 29 states have changed their constitutions to ban gay marriage. Six states recognize gay marriage and six more provide some level of spousal rights to gay couples. Though Obama has refused to outright support gay marriage, repealing the DOMA would be the same thing.

• To expand hate-crime laws to include sexual orientation through passage of the Matthew Sheppard Act, which has now been attached to the Department of Defense budget.

• To “reinvigorate enforcement” of hate crimes by the Department of Justice’s Criminal Section.

• To overturn the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that allows the military to expel openly gay soldiers.

• To prohibit work place discrimination based on sexual orientation or “gender identity or expression” (e.g. transgender and cross-dressing), by passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

• To appoint openly gay individuals, like David Heubner, who was appointed as the first openly gay ambassador to New Zealand.

In June of this year, Obama also extended some benefits to gay partners of federal employees, though he did not extend full benefits. The benefits extended will:

• Open up long-term care insurance.

• Allow federal employees to use their sick leave to care for a gay partner or the partner’s children.

• Allow gay partners of foreign-service employees to use medical facilities at overseas posts and get evacuations if necessary.

• Include same-sex partners and their children when calculating family size for overseas housing allocations.

• Extend current anti-discrimination rules in the federal workforce to cover transgender employees.

However, Obama did not extend the most sought after benefits -- health insurance and retirement benefits.

Despite these promises and actions, gay groups remain upset at Obama because he continues to refuse to endorse gay marriage. They are also upset that he did not extend full benefits to gay partners of federal workers. And they are upset that he refuses to set specific timelines for the promises above.

None of this should be surprising. As noted in my article outlining the make up of the Democratic Party, gays are one of the up and coming power tribes within the party, though they don’t control the leadership. Thus, it is in Obama's interest to promise them what they want, but to deliver sparingly, lest they get what they want and stop supporting the other identity tribes. And that is exactly what Obama has done here -- he's handed out a taste only. If he had wanted to, he could have done much more and could have set a time table for the rest. . . but that's not how tribal reciprocity works.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama's Unpopularity Analyzed

Now that el Presidente Obama has won the Norwegian Choice Award (“the Norgie”), it’s time to see what Americans think. . . you know, the people who hired him. Let’s analyze a few polls from Rasmussen, along with our own recent Commentarama poll. You may find this interesting. . .

The Great Polarizer

Obama’s approval rating is hovering right at 50%. But this figure hides the extreme feelings Obama engenders. Indeed, two thirds of Americans feel “strongly” about Obama one way or the other:

• Of the 50% that support Obama, “strongly approve” beats the more tepid “approve” by 32% to 18%. That’s almost 2 to 1.

• Of the 50% that disapprove, “strongly disapprove” beats mere “disapprove” by 35% to 15%. That’s slightly more than 2 to 1.

Thus, on either side, the feelings are rather intense. The reason for this strength of opinion could be that only 30% of Americans think Obama is acting in a bipartisan manner.

Our Commentarama Poll confirms this. While it's not surprising that 86% of you aren’t fans of Obama, it was surprising that 51% of you declared him the worst President ever. That's a surprisingly strong judgment given the total disaster that was Jimmy Carter.

When we asked you who is most happy with Obama, 73% of you indicated that the left was most happy with him, which fits with Rasmussen's finding that 71% of Americans think he’s a liberal (as compared to a moderate or conservative). This also suggests that Commentarama readers aren't convinced he's failed his supporters.

More interesting was your response when we asked who was the most unhappy with Obama. Of the four choices given, 64% of you responded with the center right or far right, and 34% of you responded with “the far left,” but only 2% of you responded with “the center left.” Indeed, the center left was the only choice to receive an insignificant number of votes. Thus, one can reasonably conclude that whatever Obama’s rhetoric, Commentarama readers believe that Obama has governed “center left,” not “far left.”

What We Have Here Is A Failure To Communicate

What is perhaps most interesting from the Commentarama poll was how few of you understand his policy goals. You are certainly a well informed audience and there is no doubt that you’re all attuned to politics. Thus, the idea that you don’t know what Obama’s policy goals are is telling. At the least, this represents a failure on his part to explain himself. But it could also mean that he has no real policies.

And when we say that you aren’t sure what his goals are, we mean it. Check out these numbers:

• 88% of you said you understand his health care reform goals. That sounds good until you realize that he’s been talking about health care reform for months -- even going so far as to outline his ideas in a national speech that most of you watched. Moreover, if you realize that 20% of you refused to answer this question (which we take as "none of the above"), that means only 59% of those who took the poll understand his goals.

• Only 51% of you claimed to understand his environmental goals. Though this falls to 35% when you factor in the “none of the aboves”.

• Only 33% (or 23%) of you claim to understand his goals for fixing the economy. Whatever his goals, 63% of you think this is the area where he’s failed the worst at achieving his goals

• Only 29% (or 20%) understand his education goals.

• Only 29% (or 20%) understand his foreign policy goals.

Perhaps fleshing these out would be a fertile area for future articles? Indeed, it might be a good idea to start breaking down his policy goals item by item? I’ll see what I can do.

Rasmussen: People Don’t Like What They Hear

Whatever Obama’s goals are, Americans do not agree with what they’re hearing from Obama. According to Rasmussen, only 31% of Americans believe the country is heading in the right direction. Here are some of the reasons:

Health Care Reform

• The Obamacrats have been pushing a public option, but 63% of Americans fear this will result in their being forced to give up their insurance coverage. And while Obama thinks getting a public option is more important than protecting existing coverage, only 29% agree with that.

• The Obamacrats promise not to raise taxes on anyone who makes less than $250,000 a year, but 72% of Americans expect such taxes will be raised. And 59% oppose such taxes.

• ObamaCare fines (and jails) anyone who does not buy insurance. Yet, 55% oppose such penalties.

• 54% of Americans favor a middle-class tax cut over new spending on health care.

Environmental Policy

• Obama has only a 43% approval rating on environmental issues.

• Only 35% of Americans favor cap and trade.

• 60% of Americans prefer finding new sources of energy to energy conservation.

Economic Policy

• Obama has only a 40% approval on economic issues, and only 29% of Americans trust Obama on economic issues more than they trust themselves.

• Team Obama assures us that the first stimulus worked and is now pushing for a second stimulus package. However, only 36% of Americans believe the stimulus helped the economy, and 62% oppose a second stimulus package.

• Nancy O’Pelosi is proposing a national sales tax to pay for various spending items, but 67% of Americans disapprove of a national sales tax.

Education Policy

• Good luck finding Obama’s education policy. So far, Obama wants students to spend more time in school. Yet, only 49% agree with him (37% disagree), and 65% would disagree with extending school to twelve months.

Foreign Policy

• Only 43% give Obama positive marks on national security.

• 55% expect the war in Afghanistan to get worse.

• 51% say that Obama has not been aggressive enough with Iran.

• Only 19% think that our relations with the Muslim world will improve.

General Perception

• 60% of Americans view society as fair and decent. But only 41% believe that Obama shares that view.

• Only 40% of Americans rate Obama excellent/good on the issue of ethics, and only 32% believe that he’s more ethical than most politicians.

Conclusion

So what do we make of this? Overwhelming majorities of Americans disagree with Obama on each of the key issues mentioned above. It is therefore no surprise that his popularity is low and that he is such a polarizing figure? If he does not address this disconnect very quickly he runs the risk of becoming a minority President (like Bush II became).

Indeed, when Obama ran, he made the statement that he didn’t just want to be the President of the Democrats, he wanted to be the President of everyone. Yet, he’s governing as if he represented only 40% of the population time and time again.

If he stays that course, he’ll have to change his nickname from “The One” to “One and Done.”


Note: We plan to do more polls in the future. We know that there are a great many more of you that read but who didn’t vote. Please make sure you vote. The more of you that vote the more interesting and representative the results. Also, please feel free to leave comments. We really do want to hear from all of you.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Commentarama Policies: Product Placements

Many of you have probably heard about some recent scandals involving bloggers making endorsements without disclosing that they were paid for the endorsement. Some advertisers have even set up fake "fan sites" just to pimp their products. (Not surprisingly, the government may soon require disclosures for all endorsements.)

Well, Commentarama doesn't do that. We haven't been paid by anyone, and if we ever are -- we'll tell you. So if we speak favorably about our favorite drinks, like Slurm with its rich, full, addictive taste, you know it's really our opinions. [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Vent Away: Nobel Prize for Hopey

"Hope is nature's veil for hiding truth's nakedness."

-- Alfred Nobel

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Don't Believe CBO Health Care Cost Estimate

Just a short one today. By now you’ve all heard that the CBO scored the Democratic “Baucus” health care bill favorably at $829 billion -- just below the original $900 billion “expected price tag.” You’ve also probably heard that the bill will not increase the deficit one penny. Thus, trumpet the Obamacrats and their fellow travelers in the media. Don’t believe it.

The CBO scoring process is not what you think, nor is it what the Obamacrats are portraying. They want you to believe that the CBO independently evaluated the bill and determined its likely price tag to be “only” $829 billion over ten years. But that’s not how scoring works.

The CBO does not do independent work. When Congress presents the CBO with a bill, the Congress also includes a list of assumptions. In this instance, for example, those assumptions include expected tax increases, magic cost savings from improved health, and spending cuts that will never happen -- unless you believe they really are going to cut Medicare payments in half.

The CBO does not determine whether or not the tax increases, spending cuts or cost savings are real. It just plugs them into its scoring model and spits out a total cost for the bill. Thus, while the score may be accurate for what is presented, the real question is how accurate are the assumptions. In programming speak, this is called garbage in, garbage out.

Think of it this way. If a dieter says that they will eat 10 cakes a day for the next three days, but will then reduce their calories below starvation levels for the next month to burn off those cakes, does any rational person believe that the dieter will be able to complete that diet? Of course not. Yet, if the CBO scored this plan, it would simply accept the assumptions and would conclude that this diet indeed balances out perfectly. Welcome to government reality.

However, there actually is a reason to believe that the bill might be as “cheap” as advertised: it doesn’t cover anyone.

From the Obamacrats themselves, even if the bill works as planned, it will only reduce the number of people without insurance from 46 million to 25 million. . . and it takes until 2019 to do this!

Thus, looking at the ten year budget, the only year that really bears the full cost of the program is the final year. Thus, it's 20 year cost will be many times its 10 year cost, not just double. Moreover, another 21 million Americans will remain uninsured. Further, of the 25 million covered, most will become covered because they will be forced to buying their own insurance (under threat of a $1,900 fine and jail (with a $25,000 fine)).

The Democrats note that this could be a hardship on many people: “For some people it's going to be a heavy lift,” said Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del. But then who cares when you have a legacy to put into law.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Liberal Thinking: Follow The Leader

We’ve talked twice now about the difference between conservative and liberal thinking. Today we’re going to put the last piece of the puzzle in place. Then we’ll talk about how this knowledge can help us.

In the first discussion, I pointed out that liberals are short term thinkers, whereas conservatives are long term thinkers. Short term thinkers live for the now, i.e. they value instant gratification and discount the future. Long term thinkers are the reverse, they seek to maximize their gratification in the future and will sacrifice in the present to achieve that goal.

This isn’t necessarily a criticism as both types of thinking have their place. For example, without short term thinkers, no one would set out to Hollywood to become a movie star. . . which, by the way, explains why Hollywood is full of liberals. But when it comes to problem solving, short term thinking is a disaster.

Short term thinkers don’t realize that people will change their behavior in response to the solution offered. If you give a man a fish, more men will choose dependency. If you raise taxes, people will work less. If you make it less profitable to become a doctor, fewer people will become doctors. Short term thinkers don’t realize this. Thus, while short term solutions may solve a problem momentarily, they will almost always make the problem worse in the long term.

In the second discussion, I described how liberal policies are often premised on the idea of changing human nature: “If we can only ban people from saying the wrong things, they won’t have the wrong desires anymore.” Yet, thousands of years of liberal attempts at changing human nature -- from wishful liberal thinking to political correctness to communist reeducation camps -- all failed. The simple fact is that human nature cannot be changed. We are hardwired to want, to need, to hope, to fear, and to feel the whole gambit of emotions. We can hope to “incentivize” people with punishments and rewards, but we cannot change their fundamental natures.

So what’s still missing? Liberals believe that superior people should make all of the decisions for the rest of humanity. Of course, they won’t admit this. To the contrary, they will assert that they strive to keep an open mind, to examine all sides of an argument and be independent thinkers, blah blah blah. Yeah, right, and they’re all moderates too. Consider the evidence. . .

First, with rare exceptions, liberal policies always involve handing off decisions to some higher authority, i.e. an “expert” who is supposedly trained in making the specific decision. Liberals want experts to tell you how to spend your money and how much you can earn. They want “consumer advocates” to decide what loan terms you can accept. They want the government to make health care decisions for you. They want you to stop smoking and they want experts to tell you what to eat. Government experts will invest your retirement for you. Counselors will instruct you on how to raise your children. And so on.

This should be proof enough that liberals innately put their faith in distant experts over average people (sometimes even themselves). They want someone better than us to make all of the important decisions of our lives. Many don’t want the responsibility of making critical decisions. Other simply don’t trust us mere ignorant fools to make these decisions for ourselves and they want these experts to take care of us idiots. Indeed, they don’t call it the “nanny state” because it trusts average people to take care of themselves.

The fact that liberals view these experts as superior people can be seen in their rhetoric, which is simultaneously worshipful of the experts and dismissive of the public at large. These experts are deemed to be of superior intelligence and ability. . . visionary and noble. If you want proof, consider how they idolize their experts, i.e. their “higher authority.”

It is not enough for liberals to respect their leaders. They feel compelled to worship their leaders. They don’t want merely to agree with their leaders, they want to fall blindly in love with their leaders, to give themselves over entirely. How else do you explain the insatiable liberal need to put their leaders on a cult-like pedestal. They want to wear what their leaders wear, to eat the same foods, to own the same pets. They regularly declare their leaders as the most handsome or beautiful or stylish people on the planet. They cry or faint at their leaders’ speeches and describe them as the greatest speeches they’ve ever heard. They compare them to stars or gods. They talk about their leaders being heroic. They are historic. They are greater than all that has ever come before or ever will come again.

And lest you think this was just some fascination with Obama, where journalists brought their kids to his rallies and cheered him uncontrollably and wrote columns describing their sexual fantasies involving him, the same was true with Clinton when he was first elected. Moreover, look at the way they idolized JFK, RFK, MLK, and FDR, and the way they’ve mythologized monsters like Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. It is not enough that these were men with whom they agree, they need to be seen as messiahs. . . shining moments in humanity that promised to bring about Heaven on earth.

Liberals trust these super humans implicitly, no matter what evidence exists to the contrary. They forgive all their sins and failures (at least until it becomes clear they’ve been betrayed by these false messiahs). They refuse to hear anything that contradicts their unconditional love. Indeed, as anyone who has ever argued with liberals has discovered, liberals don’t think -- they repeat what they’ve been told by the people they consider authorities. They will uncritically repeat obvious lies, they will repeat obvious contradictions and logical inconsistencies, and they will even repeat mantra that flies in the face of their own experience. Their leader’s words are gospel and you contradict them at the risk of speaking heresy.

Indeed, if you try to argue with them, your assertions are immediately dismissed as distortions or lies. If you produce evidence contradicting their chosen authority, they will dismiss the evidence as being from a biased source or incomplete. These self-described open-minded individuals will not accept anything as true unless it comes from an approved authority. Finally, if the evidence cannot be refuted in any way, e.g. it comes from liberal sources, they will declare that there must be some mistake and they will drop the matter, sure that their leader has told them the truth. Like cultists, they have inoculated themselves from truth.

So what does this mean? It means that arguing with liberals is difficult. Though, this gives us points to raise in arguments. Point out the long term effects of their solutions and the inability to change human nature. Point out the arrogance of their position, claiming to be superior to “average” people. Know to have sources that they cannot refute, particularly from liberal sources.

Moreover, careful use of this knowledge can help conservatives defuse liberal resistance in the policy arena. For example, conservatives looking to advance a legislative agenda should always include an expert report or two from sources that liberals will accept as authoritative -- like the CBO. They should also include what one might call “placebo experts” in legislation to placate liberals. If you wanted to privatize social security, for example, you could offer to include plenty of “experts” who can advise taxpayers on how to invest (in a non-binding way of course). And realizing that liberals are short term thinkers, conservative legislators should consider including “placebo solutions” that liberals would see as fixing the immediate problem, while the conservatives implement the real, long term solution. Again, committees of experts aksed to examine issues are a great way to buy time and yet placate liberals.

Consider each of these traits the next time you argue with a liberal or you try to sort out something they’ve proposed. Knowledge is power.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Democratic Party Alliance

Last week, we discussed the composition of the Republican Party. Today it’s the Democrats. Whereas the Republicans are unbalanced, the Democrats are dysfunctional. The Democratic Party really is not a party at all, it’s an alliance of angry tribes or gangs. Indeed, they have no guiding philosophy, instead, they have an agreement to support each other’s grievances. This lets them remain competitive in elections, but makes it impossible to govern. Read on. . .

The Democrats like to claim that they are the party of Jefferson, of FDR and of JFK. Technically, this is true, but Jefferson, FDR and JFK would all be horrified at what the Democratic Party has become. Remember Reagan’s famous quote, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, it left me.” He’s right.

At one point, the Democratic Party represented middle class America and its values. It stood for limited government, state’s rights, free trade, and patriotism, and eventually a public safety net. But that changed.

Beginning with Lyndon Johnson, the Democratic Party began to break apart. Instead of a unified party representing working Americans, the party membership began to break into a balkanized collection of grudgeholders. In place of middle class, working Americans, you suddenly had militant unionist, violent peaceniks, privilege seeking civil rights activists and gender-obsessed feminists. The 1968 Democratic Convention riots were merely a hint of things to come.

By the 1980s, the Democratic Party had changed forever. No longer would it defend traditional American values from a liberal perspective. Instead, the Democratic Party became an alliance of hateful tribes, each seeking to have their grievances ensconced into law. If there was a unifying theory to the party, it was the desire to use government power to take from those who have.

In 1992, Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council tried to pull the party back from the brink. They tried to pull the party away from its worst extremes, to get it to recognize the benefits of capitalism and a social policy based on something other than identity politics and spite. But those who hate are blind, and Clinton’s efforts failed.

Today there is no party left and there is no Democratic philosophy, there is only the alliance and the demands of its groups. Under their Faustian bargain, each group within the alliance agrees to vote for the pet projects of the other members in exchange for getting their own pet projects approved. But there is no agreement on a general party philosophy. And if you want proof, ask yourself when was the last time you heard a debate about “what the Democratic Party should stand for”?

As it stands right now, the following four groups dominate the party leadership:

• Unions. The most powerful gang within the Democratic Party are the unions. Even though they account for only 7% of private sector workers (12% if you include government workers), more than 25% of Democratic delegates are union members. Moreover, unions provide the manpower needed for get-out-the-vote campaigns. Of all the unions, the most powerful are the teachers. Hence, you will never see genuine education reform from the Democratic Party. Unions are concerned with overturning right to work laws, bailing out unionized companies, opposition to free trade, and transferring health care obligations to the taxpayer.

• Blacks. The second most powerful group within the Democratic Party is the black lobby, though their influence is fading. When they originally rose to prominence within the party, they did so on the basis of the moral authority of the civil rights movement and on their ability to deliver 90% of the black vote. However, having obtained affirmative action in most matters and having guaranteed the continued flow of public assistance dollars, there is little left that this group seeks to achieve except remaining in power and enriching themselves. They remain powerful because of their ability to deliver large numbers of voters and their ability to agitate their voters by fanning the flames of racism and victimhood. Though their lack of goals, the realization that black voters will vote Democratic even without guidance, and the fact that the percentage of blacks in the population is shrinking are all diminishing their influence.

• Professional Women. This is the third most powerful group within the Democratic Party. This is the group that evolved from the feminist movement. While they claim to speak for “women” they in fact speak for upper class, white, single, professional women. The issues that concern this group now are almost exclusively keeping abortion easily available, ensuring that women gain access to private mens clubs, board room representation, and competing with blacks for set asides.

• Big Business. Fancy meeting you here? The biggest givers to the Democratic Party year after year are bankers, lawyers, technology companies and defense contractors. And even though the Democratic Party repeatedly attacks “the rich,” “Wall Street” and “Big Business,” Big Business’s money is well spent on people like Christopher Dodd, Barney Frank and Joe “the Senator from MBNA” Biden. If you ever want to see an interesting correlation, look at the stocks Nancy Pelosi owns and the legislation she introduces (as compared to the things she says). Big Business actually fits more easily within the Democratic Party, e.g. fewer conflicts, than it does within the Republican Party.

These groups control the leadership, yet they have little power to set the agenda. Indeed, because the Democratic Alliance isn’t large enough to create a consistent majority, the alliance as a whole is subject to being held up by even the smallest member -- in many ways it is like a parliamentary government that can be held hostage by the smallest coalition member. This gives an incentive for each member to hold out in hopes of getting more of their agenda put in place. This, naturally, results in infighting and stagnation. It also means that there is little will to create an agenda beyond the individual grievances because the effort will only result in more hold up attempts. Thus, each group sticks to its most important issues.

This is the reason the Democrats have such a hard time governing. Unlike the Republicans, who have a general intellectual founding and fight at the edges, the Democratic Alliance has agreed to work together to achieve the edges, i.e. each of their pet issues, but they cannot agree on general intellectual principles.

Here are the other groups that form the alliance:

• Jews. A few years ago, Jews would have been listed above. Not only do 87% of Jews vote Democratic, but 13% of the Senate and 9% of the House is Jewish, despite being only 1.7% of the general population. Moreover, they represent some of the wealthiest districts (i.e. donors) in the country. However, a rising anti-Semitism on the left, particularly aimed at Israel, is causing their influence to wane. This group’s primary concerns are ensuring that the United States supports Israel and opposing the mixing of Christianity and government.

• Gays. Although representing only 1-3% of the population, gay advocates have gained significant influence within the party because of their financial strength and their over-representation in government and the media. Gay groups are concerned with gay rights legislation, redefining marriage to include homosexuals, age of consent laws, incorporating gay “tolerance” into education, and obtaining partnership benefits. Their biggest opponents within the party are blacks who are uneasy with homosexuality and who object to the application of the civil rights analogy to gay issues.

• “Environmentalists”/Socialists/Internationalist. In the 1970s and 1980s, environmental groups like the Sierra Club gained significant influence within the Democratic Party. That influence has grown significantly. However, that influence has been hijacked by a new group of faux-environmentalists who are not interested in specific environmental goals, so much as they are interested in pushing socialistic policies and the surrender of United States sovereignty to international organizations.

• America Haters. This group likes to describe themselves as “pacifists,” but they aren’t. Pacifism has a long and principled place in American history. But these people aren’t part of that. Rather than supporting non-violence, this group instead cheers for American failure. They revel in the deaths of American soldiers, knowingly offer aid and comfort to America’s enemies, and clamor for things like war crimes tribunals against American leaders and soldiers. Yet, when the war is against a rightist regime, or is fought by Democratic leaders, this group becomes mysteriously silent. Jimmy Carter and Frank Murtha fall firmly into this group (as do many journalists). The goals of this group appear to be simply to interfere with American foreign policy when being implemented by Republicans, with the aim of eliminating America’s status as a superpower.

• Anti-Christians. This group should not be confused with atheists, as it includes individuals of many faiths as well as some (though by no means all) atheists. This group is obsessed with eliminating all traces of Christianity from the public sphere. And while they claim to be protecting the separation of church and state generally, they rarely complain about state sponsorship of non-Christian religions.

• Public Assistance Recipients. Public Assistance Recipients wield significant influence over the party even though they have no leaders. Their influence derives from three facts (1) they are the largest voting bloc within the party, (2) they have a single, easy to recognize demand -- getting the benefits “to which they are entitled” and ensuring that others don’t get more, and (3) they are loyal supporters of anyone who ensures that those benefits keep flowing but will turn on anyone who threatens to cut them off. Thus, while this group makes no attempts to participate in party leadership, they are extremely successful at getting the party to guarantee their demands.

There are others, but they haven't really gotten any power yet. In any event, this alliance is ungainly and unworkable. With each group having the power and incentive to hold the others up, it becomes virtually impossible for the Democratic Party to act.

Earlier in the year, many wondered why the left remained so angry even after the election of Obama and the clean sweep in the Congress. This is the answer. They were angry because the fighting had only just begun -- they had won the election but now they had to fight with each other to get what they wanted. It also explains why Team Obama doesn’t seem to have a coherent strategy and why his initiatives have faced such resistance even though the party has enough votes to ram through anything it wants.

Consider health care reform. Big business, the unions and the socialists want the government to take over health care, and want the tax payer to pay for it. So they demand a public option. But women, Jews, and gays, whose members are generally much wealthier than the general public and who already have health insurance, are concerned that they will lose the plans they have and will be forced to pay increased taxes to cover others. Thus, they oppose the public option. The Public Assistance Recipients didn’t care until word came out that their benefits (Medicare/Medicaid) would be cut, suddenly they became angry and concerned. Since any one of these groups has the power to paralyze the party, this created a stand off which the Democrats have yet to be able to resolve.

So what does this mean for us? For one thing, it tells us how insidious the Democratic “Party” has become. It also instructs us how to fight them. If you can peel off the right group or two, the entire structure collapses into in-fighting.

And you thought the Republicans had problems!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Conservatopia?

A couple weeks ago, I was asked what a socialist society would look like, and that got me thinking. What would a conservative society look like?

History has given us a plethora of examples of different types of societies. If you want to see communism and its rigid outlawing of private property, look to Russia 1920s, Vietnam 1980s or China’s Great Leap Forward. Pay special attention to the vast armies, secret police, slave labor camps and mass murders.

If you want to see the impoverished, stagnant societies that are created by hard core socialism, look no further than Cuba today or East Germany 1988. Just don’t try to buy bread, use the decaying infrastructure, or speak out against the secret police.

If you want to see social democracy in action, just look at bankrupt England circa 1970s, with its militant labor strife, high unemployment, deflating currency, nationalized industries, decaying infrastructure and a sad, defeated people. Of course, you could look to modern England, Japan or Sweden for the softer version, where nationalization is foresworn (except in critical industries like health care) in favor of heavy, heavy regulation and the acceptance of high unemployment and a burgeoning underclass. Slow but sure collapse is still collapse, but at least you have longer to kid yourself that it ain’t coming.

We’ve seen cleptocracies (Russia, Kenya), theocracies (Iran, Afghanistan), cultocracies (North Korea), and failed states (Somalia).

If you want to see modern liberalism implemented look to modern England, where criminals are treated as victims, minorities are guaranteed equal results, regional hatreds are stoked, religion has been neutered (except for militant Islam), taxes are heavy but spending is heavier, competition nearly forbidden, and a privileged few make sure that no one in the middle class can excel very far beyond the burgeoning underclass of binge drinking, drug addicted, knife wielding thieves. Oh baby sign me up!

But where in the world has conservatism every been tried? Indeed, what time period could we point to as our conservatopia?

Many people cite the 1950s, but that really doesn’t work. The 1950s was a time of heavy taxation, increased regulation, large scale social engineering by the government, and a destruction of individual rights to fight the red menace.

We could argue for the second term of Ronald Reagan. He gave us a strong defense, strong foreign policy, lower taxes, and decreased regulation. Yet, he made only a dent in decades of socialist creep, and despite his best efforts to adjust the Supreme Court, it remained firmly liberal in all of its rulings.

Perhaps the time that was most like our conservatopia occurred between the Republican revolution of 1994 and the election of George W. Bush. That was a time marked by lowered taxes, lowered regulation, fiscal responsibility, increased government accountability, expanded free trade, a reduction in the welfare roles, and a series of reforms to privatize or eliminate government functions. But it was also a time of lowered morality and weak foreign policy.

So what about this. . . the American West of the 1880s. The American West seems to be the one time period when each of the competing conservative groups co-existed. You had libertarians, mixing with capitalists, mixing with religious settlers, all co-existing in a time period of limited government interference with people's lives. The one thing missing was rule of law, but you had a sort of "social sanction" working as a substitute. Not to mention that rule of law was slowly being established by the law and order crowd.

Moreover, unlike the periods mentioned above, this group was free to live according to their own beliefs without having to combat an entrenched modern liberalism. There was no IRS, there were no limits on freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion. Thus, the religious settlers were not told they had to avoid the public square. The capitalists were not regulated and controlled and told who to hire. The libertarians were not told that the state could crawl up their backsides with a flashlight in the name of public safety.

Perhaps that is the period we should point to when people ask, what would a conservative society look like? Perhaps that was our conservatopia? Maybe that’s why westerns remain so fixed in our imaginations today?

What do you think?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

How To Fix Republican Party Dynamics

It’s time for a little controversy. The media loves to portray the Republican Party as a narrow group of extremists. They love to accuse the party of being all white, male, rich, ultra-religious and angry at everything. Of course, none of this true. What the media has done is to pick out the most extreme voices from the various wings of the party and filter them through their own preconceived view of the party as fascist, intolerant, racists, and theologically based.

Hence, idiots like Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson, (D-Fla.) say asinine things like “Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick,” when in fact it will be the Democratic plan that causes people to die for lack of available treatment. And toads like Gore Vidal say:

“Obama believes the Republican Party is a party when in fact it's a mindset, like Hitler Youth, based on hatred -- religious hatred, racial hatred. When you foreigners hear the word 'conservative,' you think of kindly old men hunting foxes. They're not -- they're fascists.”

Never mind that Obama and the Democrats are the closest thing to fascism this country has seen. Never mind that Obama is the first President to try to make people into non-people for legal purposes, or that the Democrats want to send you to jail if you don’t buy health care. They are the party of speech codes, of thought crimes, and forced association. They support confiscating private property for the public good and forced volunteerism in schools. They believe in industrial policy, the doctrine of too big to fail, the bailout, and of government seizing control of private corporations. They declare protesting against the government to be unAmerican, and they are big on indoctrinating children. The Republicans opposed all of this. So who are the fascists?

Who Are The Republicans Really?

Nevertheless, I find myself dismayed at the current state of the party. The party seems incapable of coming up with a coherent set of principles and it seems incapable of making headway with the 60% of voters it should be grabbing. Why is that? It’s called party dynamics.

Let me by cynical for a moment. The Republican Party is made up of six or seven groups that hinder each other. You would think they would be bound together by some common principles, but that’s not entirely true. Let’s look at the various groups and then talk about how they fit together and what this means for the party.

Here are the groups. But before anybody gets upset, realize that I have defined these groups according to the behavior of their leaders, not necessarily their members. And I did this because it’s the leadership that matters, because that’s what people use to judge the party, that’s what drives the agenda, and that’s who the party looks to when trying to satisfy the members of that group.

• Big Business -- This group consists primarily of the representatives of large businesses. In sheer numbers, this group is infinitesimally small, but their ability to donate vast amounts of money to political campaigns has made them extraordinarily powerful. Unfortunately, they hold few, if any, Republican beliefs. Indeed, this group is concerned almost entirely with the issue of business regulation and trade, and they have little loyalty to the United States or the party. They will favor regulations that weaken their competitors and oppose regulations that weaken their own business, all without a thought to the effect on the rest of the country. This group also is notorious for giving equally to Democratic candidates.

• Religious Right -- The other group that dominates the party leadership is the religious right. This group has significant influence far beyond their numbers (polls tend to show 3-6% of the population) because they provide a large number of the volunteers that staff the campaigns. They are concerned primarily with abortion and the relationship between Christianity and the public sphere, though they have recently begun to advocate environmental causes as well. This group tends to advocate increased government involvement rather than decreased government involvement, and often displays a tin ear for politics.

• The Small Business Wing -- Usually standing in direct opposition to the Big Business group is the Small Business Wing. This is a good sized group within the Republican Party, though not nearly as influential as the Big Business group or the Religious Right. This group favors lower regulation and low taxes, though they are not above lobbying to preserve government subsidies.

• Libertarians -- In many ways, this group is the polar opposite of the Religious Right and the Big Business wing. However, this group has all but destroyed its own influence within the Republican Party by leaving to form its own party (where they typically get around 2% of the national vote). This group favors smaller government, isolationism, and limited (or no) government involvement in social matters. In the last few years, this group has been obsessed with drug legalization, Iraq, and fearing the creation of a world government.

• The Country Clubbers -- This is the group that dominated the Republican Party for decades. This group consists of people with no particular guiding philosophy and they were quite happy to be the minority party. They viewed the party largely as a social gathering rather than a political party, and these people tend to be rather moderate/left liberals. This group often expresses embarrassment at the other members of the party and is notorious for endorsing Democratic candidates.

• Foreign Policy Hawks -- This group first appeared under Reagan, after the Democrats went soft on communism, taking on the label of neocons. Their numbers increased again dramatically after 9/11 when the Democrats chose to surrender to the terrorists. Apart from supporting a strong, interventionist foreign policy however, this group typically shares few other Republican beliefs.

• Populists -- This group is relatively new to the Republican Party, and likely won’t stay within the party. This group is marked by a severe anti-intellectualism and is currently awash in all manner of conspiracy theories.

• The Middle Class Values Wing -- Finally, we come to the largest group within the Republican Party. This group easily dominates the party membership, but has little influence within the party because it has no leadership and its members don’t volunteer. This group generally favors smaller government, less regulation, a strong foreign policy and defense, and limited government involvement in social matters. However, this group is not doctrinaire and will go against each of these beliefs whenever it thinks that the particular cause is a good one. Thus, for example, it will favor regulations that it sees as protecting the public and it will support tax increases for pet projects. Moreover, this group cuts a middle ground between the Religious Right and the Libertarians on social issues. Thus, for example, this group generally dislikes abortion and will impose restrictions, but does not favor banning abortion.

This is the group that competes for power within the Republican Party, and therein lie several problems.

Why Is This A Problem And How Do We Fix It?

So let’s talk about the problems posed with this alignment. First, this is hardly a unified group. On almost every issue, there is direct disagreement within the party. You want lower taxes? Big Business doesn’t, the Middle Class Values Wing doesn’t if it means they don’t get a new highway, and the Religious Right doesn’t if it means we need to cut aid to the poor. Want a strong foreign policy? The Libertarians and the Big Business guys don’t. And so on.

Far be it for me to tell the Republican Party what to do, but let me suggest that sometimes less is more. And when some of your members are keeping you from developing your philosophy, particularly where those members have proven themselves not to be loyal to the party, you should cull them:

• Drop the Big Business Wing. They’re whores -- they don’t love you. Trust me on this, they will still give you vast amounts of money even if you stop acting like their lap dogs. And right now they oppose everything that every other Republican group supports.

• Drop the Country Clubbers. They’re in the wrong party, they don’t like you. There is always room for dissent within a party, but there is never room for treason, and these guys are treason personified. Anyone who ever endorses a Democrat should be banned from any representative position with the party.

Further, a party cannot let itself be associated with the crazies or the unacceptables. Just as the party had to force out the racists in the 1980s, i.e. David Duke, the party needs to disassociate itself now with the populists (and the crazier libertarians) before they become associated with the party brand. If the party does not do this, it will lose the middle class, the educated class, and the sane. The populists have discredited every single movement they’ve ever infiltrated, dating back to the 1890. This time won’t be any different.

At the same time, the party needs to bring back its natural allies. In this regard, the party should woo back the Libertarians. Don’t bring back the kooks, but bring back the rational ones. And how to do that is simple. The Republican Party needs to rethink its recent total disregard for civil liberties. The left has handed us a wonderful chance to become the party of free speech, free religion (all religions or even no religion), free association, and rule of law. We can become the sole protectors of private property rights, and the other rights delineated in the Constitution.

The party also needs to learn that because it does contain competing views, taking an all or nothing approach is unacceptable. The party has become unbalanced in its power structure and it must re-learn the art of coalition building and consensus if it hopes to build a stable party and to attract the full 60% of people who consider themselves conservatives. To choose the beliefs of one group over the rest as THE beliefs of the party will doom the Republicans to remaining a minority party.

Indeed, what we need right now more than anything is a leadership (not leader but leadership) (1) that can create a credible strategy for attracting the 60% of voters who fall into the conservative category and can explain the wisdom of that strategy to each of the groups identified above and get them to see that wisdom, and (2) that is not afraid to stand up to these groups when they overreach (and to throw out the ones mentioned above).

We don’t have that right now. In fact, we’re not even close. Most party leaders fall into these categories themselves and can’t see the bigger picture. If they can’t do this, then it’s time we auditioned some new leaders.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...