Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Recent Rasmussen's Polls Tell a Fascinating....and Hopeful Story....







Last Summer, liberals were shocked at the Gallup Poll that showed there were almost twice as many self-identified Conservatives (40%) in America as there are Liberals (21%), but three recent Rasmussen Polls show where the majority of the American people stand on things even clearer.

In one, titled, Politically Speaking, Populist Isn’t Popular, But Conservative Is, Americans prefer the affiliation “Conservative by a very wide margin, when compared to populist, progressive, liberal or libertarian!

In fact, that poll breaks down like this;


Affiliation   POSITIVE  NEGATIVE

CONSERVATIVE    40%       16%

Progressive     22%       35%

Libertarian     18%       31%

Liberal         14%       39%

Populist         8%       36%


The ONLY affiliation with POSITIVES over 30% is CONSERVATIVE, likewise the ONLY affiliation with NEGATIVES UNDER 20% is CONSERVATIVE!

The affiliation with the 2nd HIGHEST positives was “progressive” with 22% (nearly half that of Conservatives).

The affiliation with the 2nd LOWEST negatives was LIBERTARIAN with 31%.

The affiliation with the HIGHEST negatives was LIBERAL with 39%, followed closely by both “progressive” and “populist” at 35% and 36% respectively.

Populist was the ONLY affiliation with POSITIVES under 10%!

That would seem to be VERY good news for Conservatives and VERY BAD news for the Left...no matter what they call themselves!

Still another Rasmussen Report, titled, 75 Percent Are Angry At Government’s Current Policies, declares that a national telephone survey “shows that 75% of likely voters now say they are at least somewhat angry at the government’s current policies, up four points from late November and up nine points since September. The overall figures include 45% who are Very Angry, also a nine-point increase since September.

“As the economy continues to stumble along, 59% of voters believe cutting taxes is better than increasing government spending as a job-creation tool, but 72% expect the nation’s elected politicians to increase spending instead.

“Looking back, most voters still don't approve of the multi-billion-dollar government bailouts of the financial industry and troubled automakers General Motors and Chrysler.”

Seemingly proving that voters voted in Democrats in 2008 to CUT spending and reduce the deficit, and are angry that they chose to do the reverse!

And in yet a third recent Rasmussen Report entitled, Americans Reject Keynesian Economics, there is even more bad news for left-leaning, Keynesian Liberals.

“John Maynard Keynes would say it’s best to increase deficit spending in tough economic times, only 11% of American adults agree and think the nation needs to increase its deficit spending at this time. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% disagree and say it would be better to cut the deficit.

“In fact, 59% think Keynes had it backwards and that increasing the deficit at this time would hurt the economy rather than help.
To help the economy, most Americans (56%) believe that cutting the deficit is the way to go.”

As far as what’s causing our current problems (too much government SPENDING and intervention), the voters seem very well informed.

That is almost certainly why politically, no matter how you spin it, more Americans are angry at their government, more are opposed to government spending and larger deficits and perhaps most promising of all, by an overwhelming margin favor candidates who affiliate with the term CONSERVATIVE than any other. In fact Conservative and Libertarian had the two LOWEST negatives, while “populist” was the only affiliation to have positives UNDER 10%!

Like that information or not, it would seem to be vital data when pondering the next election, coming up in about nine months.

Friday, February 5, 2010

Is New Jersey a Warning to Oregon?...







With Oregon’s voters recently passing two referendums that hiked both the corporate tax and the income tax on the highest earning individuals there, they may just want to look east to see where those policies inevitably lead.

New Jersey is one example.

Not long ago, New Jersey was, by most measures, “the richest state in the nation,” but over the past half decade that state has seen a mass exodus wealth!

Between 2004 and 2008, more than $70 BILLION in wealth has left the state. That’s a complete reversal from the period between 1999 and 2003 when the Garden State saw an influx of $98 BILLION.

What happened?

The tax structure changed in the mid-2000s, when a “millionaires surtax” was placed on “wealthy individuals.” With that surcharge, high income earners are paying 10% of their taxable incomes to the state alone! Coupled with sky-high property taxes and high sales taxes, the state is simply less and less appealing to those who produce the most.

Incredibly enough, this loss of wealth is occurring even as New Jersey adds population. The reason its losing wealth is that those leaving, the most productive and entrepreneurial are worth an average of 70% more than those coming into the state.

As an IBD editorial noted, “This, of course, should be a lesson for lawmakers everywhere: Keep taxes low. If you don’t, the wealthiest among us, who tend to be the most productive, will find more favorable places to put their talents and energy to work.

“Too many lawmakers never seem to understand this. They keep raising taxes to redistribute the wealth and miss the evidence before their eyes: The rich and the productive increase wealth across the full spectrum of an economy...They create jobs. They drive consumer spending. Wealth – not stimulus spending or any other redistributive schemes – begets more wealth.”

Look away at your own peril Oregon. New Jersey's recent fiscal decline would seem to portend the following for Oregon;

1. Oregon will LOSE a significant number of its businesses and attract few, if any to take their place.
2. Oregon will see a significant loss of its "wealthier" people, its "investor class."
3. Revenues from these tax increases will fall far short of projections, leading Oregon's state government to extend the tax increase to lower brackets to make up for the shortfall.
4.
Oregon's unemployment rate will rise appreciably.
5. Other Blue States may follow Oregon's misguided lead, as it's always easy to get people to raise taxes on OTHERS.

The Left’s Virulent Corruption of Contemporary SCIENCE...






Perhaps the ONLY way to “clean up” the current rash of junk science is to bar those who hold left-wing views from holding positions of responsibility within the scientific community


By now, virtually everyone’s familiar with ClimateGate, the scandal that effectively destroyed the Global warming Movement.

How bad was the scandal that originated out of East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit (the CRU)? The British government concluded last week that the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit violated the nation's freedom of information act, although the violations occurred too long ago for prosecution.

A few decades down the road, most who’ve followed the Anthropomorphic Global Warming Movement (AGW) believe that people will look back and wonder how so many government, corporate and media leaders were taken in by propaganda that was based on such shoddy and dishonest evidence, not to mention being taken in to the point that they advocated devoting trillions of dollars to a cause that turned out to be completely based on flagrant dishonesty and dissembling.

The scandal has gotten so huge, so uncontrollable that the leader of England’s Greenpeace has demanded the resignation of the chairman of the IPCC!

Recently the London Times reported that John Sauven, the head of Greenpeace UK has demanded that Rajendra Pachauri resign as chairman of the IPCC.

As John Sauven, the director of Greenpeace UK put it: “The IPCC needs to regain credibility. Is that going to happen with Pachauri [as chairman]? I don’t think so. We need someone held in high regard who has extremely good judgment and is seen by the global public as someone on their side.”

So even the leadership of Greenpeace UK understands that low scientific standards and reckless disregard for the truth are destroying the credibility of the global warming community, and John Sauven has had the courage and integrity to speak up about it.

Unfortunately, Al Gore, who shared the Nobel Prize with Rajendra Pachauri and the increasingly discredited IPCC, and has a special relationship with and responsibility to environmentalists to clearly state that poor science and flawed judgment have no place in the leadership of the movement to stop climate change, has to date, said nothing.

As a result, no less a figure than Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations has said, "The global warming movement as we have known it is dead," adding, “The movement died from two causes: bad science and bad politics."

Journalists from all over the world have also weighed in with scathing criticisms. David Warren of the Ottawa Citizen recently wrote, “To my survey, there is not a single aspect of the ‘anthropogenic global warming’ hypothesis that has been left standing by recent revelations, and more shoes drop every day.”

SEE: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Resisting+temptation/2515360/story.html

But it’s gotten far worse than that; Sir David King, the British government's former "chief scientist," has even had to abandon his arguably paranoid claim that "highly sophisticated" foreign intelligence services and/or wealthy rightwing Americans were behind the e-mail leak from the University of East Anglia, that touched off the bottomless "Climategate" scandal in November. For as he admitted to the Guardian on Monday (a generally reliably Left-wing newspaper), he had simply failed to follow the story.

All the e-mails were hacked through a single server. They included e-mails saved from as far back as 1996, and various data sets that fatally undermined the credibility of the whole international "anthropogenic global warming" research effort - by illustrating conscious selection of statistics, and direct manipulation of reporting in scientific publications, by major players.

Again, David Warren weighs in, “From what I can see, I doubt Sir David was dishonest. He had simply averted his eyes from inconvenient truths. This is a very common human foible, and scientists are, I insist, human beings. Had he been following the story he would have grasped that everything came through one server, that the information had not been cherry-picked by some nefarious spy agency over 14 years.

“I might almost say the same for the disgraced Dr. Phil Jones, the former boss of the East Anglia operation, now implicated in various cover-ups, attempts to intimidate and silence skeptics, and purposeful breaches of Britain's freedom of information act. I'm sure he "believed" in what he was doing.

“Like communist apparatchiks in the good old days, a global warm-alarmist may "honestly" think he is serving a higher purpose, that he is on "the right side of history," that he must cut a few corners for the greater good, that the end will eventually justify the means. Read Dostoevsky on this. The book is Crime and Punishment, and the character is Raskolnikov. By subtle increments a failure of candour degenerates into major-league crime.”

That’s why it’s no exaggeration at all to claim that not only has the entire edifice of AGW imploded, but its foundation has been completely eroded by the ongoing CRU scandals.

As David Warren’s investigations showed, “Not only all the numbers, but all the assumptions behind "AGW" - not "most," but all - have depended on the manipulation of facts by persons who had an interest in manipulating them. Often the specific incident is small, but the falsehood is cumulative. Investment in the illusion grows, the stakes become too large to forfeit. Yet the reality remains: that we still don't know any more about long-term human influence on climate than Punxsutawney Phil can know by observing his own shadow.

“This should have been obvious to climatologists from the beginning. At the simplest level, they could observe that global temperature estimates depended on a slur of constantly changing thermometer locations and time sequences. NASA's recent admissions are the more pathetic for that reason: from the top down, these were men who should have known better than to think they could fly beyond the end of such a limb.”

Again, as David Warren has noted, “Perhaps now, more people will finally understand what many have known for years: Man-made climate change was never really a problem - but rather, a solution.

“For just as the science of the IPCC has been exposed as fraudulent, so have its apparent motives. The true ones became strikingly evident when the negotiating text for the "last chance to save the planet" International Climate Accord, put forth in Copenhagen in December, was found to contain as many paragraphs outlining the payment of "climate debt" reparations by Western nations under the watchful eye of a U.N.-controlled global government as it did emission reduction schemes.” SEE: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Resisting+temptation/2515360/story.html

But the CRU’s scandals aren’t the only examples of politics, predominantly Left-wing, Big Government politics infecting and debasing science by rewarding those who push “solutions” that advocate the expansion of government.

In 2006, Britain’s once prestigious Medical Journal, Lancet published a study that found that an additional 650,000 people died in Iraq as a result of the U.S. invasion and occupation...it subsequently turned out that the study had been funded by George Soros and that its data were false.

As explained by Dr. Elizabeth Whelan in a must-read column in today's New York Post, Lancet in 1998 published a supposedly scientific, peer-reviewed paper by the now discredited physician, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, which claimed that standard childhood vaccines cause autism.

Despite the fact that Dr. Wakefield’s paper was contested by other scientists, many parents were influenced by it not to give their children vaccines, and a number of children have died as a result. Now, 12 years later, Lancet's editor finally admits the article was junk science and has retracted it. He has not, however, resigned or been fired.

As the great Lawrence Auster wrote, “Our age could be called the Age of Rebellion against Truth. Ideological zealotry - an attitude that often combines material greed with the spiritual kind - has now infected science and medicine as well as other, softer fields. In this instance, it appears that an ideology of "anti-vaccinism" got started somehow, and, in pursuit of it, truth and science and human well-being got thrown out the window.”

Most of those who’ve paid any attention over the past decade have realized that the Lancet has lost much of its former prestige and standing since it’s become infamous for running faked statistics on, among other things, Iraqi casualties.

Recently, Phyllis Chesler, the feminist author of "The New Anti-Semitism," called out the absurd Arabism of the Lancet, as seen in a piece where they blame endemic domestic violence in the "Palestinian Territory" on Israel. In a critique she sent to the Lancet and posted online, Chesler writes:

“Their study is titled: "Association between exposure to political violence and intimate-partner violence in the occupied Palestinian territory: a cross-sectional study." And yes, they have found that Palestinian husbands are more violent towards Palestinian wives as a function of the Israeli "occupation" - and that the violence increases significantly when the husbands are "directly" as opposed to "indirectly" exposed to political violence.”

It would seem that virtually EVERY subject touched by “scientists” who hold Left-wing agendas has been tainted by their penchant for flawed logic and made-up “facts.”

If there’s another solution to this problem other than vetting scientists by the ideologies they hold, it’s difficult to see what that might be.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Chicago Looks to Take What Oregon’s Giving Away...







Ironically enough, in the wake of Oregon’s voters hiking that state’s top personal income tax rate by 22.5% (from 9% to 11%) and its corporate tax rate over 19% (from 6.6% to 7.9%), Chicago’s Democratic Mayor (Richard Daley) noted that Oregon’s mistake “will help our economic development immediately,” adding, “We’ll be out in Oregon enticing corporations to relocate to Chicago.”

Of course, despite the fact that Illinois’ top marginal income tax rate is a mere 3% (1/3 of Oregon’s original top tax rate), Mayor Daley’s city is burdened with sky-high property taxes and a very high (10.25%) sales tax.

Richard Daley is right in saying, “What happened in Oregon is not good news for Oregon. They believe that anybody who makes $125,000 or more [annually] or businesses or anyone who makes $250,000 — they’re gonna start taxing them. They call them ‘rich people,’ ” the mayor said.

“I’ve always thought America stands for [rewarding success]. You finish high school. You work hard, go to college and you hope to succeed in life. I never knew it’s a class war—that those who succeed in life are the ones that have to bear all the burden. I never realized that. It will be a whole change in America that those who succeed and work hard [that] we’re gonna tax ‘em more than anyone else.”

Chicago’s Mayor finished with, “It will help our economic development immediately. You’d better believe it. We’ll be out in Oregon enticing corporations to relocate to Chicago. I’ll be very frank. I make no bones about that. If those states want to do that, so be it,” he said.

SEE: http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/2017137,mayor-daley-trade-shows-012810.article

Daley’s stance shows that even many hardcore, mainstream Democrats eschew the Obama administration’s flirtation with Carteresque Keynesianism.

Sunday, January 31, 2010

Irony – Tiller's Killer Gets LIFE!...









In a weird irony, Scott Roeder (pictured above), the anti-abortion activist who shot and killed Dr. George Tiller, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life, after his “justifiable homicide” defense failed.

He’ll be sentenced on March 9th, 2010 to a sentence of life....and be eligible for parole after 25 years!

So, in the end, this sad trial highlights the illogic of both extremes on this issue...those who support abortion up through the last day of pregnancy (ie. those who support the killing of even the fully formed and viable outside the womb innocents) still oppose the Death Penalty for those who murder, while ironically enough, the most radical of those who seek to defend the LIFE“the Army of God” of the unborn (for instance, those in ), are willing to kill to do just that.

As I said, I can respect the Catholic Church's stance on LIFE because it’s consistent – the RC Church opposes BOTH abortion and Capital Punishment because it holds that “ALL life is sacred.”

As for me, I am consistent too, in that I DON’T accept that ALL life is sacred. I accept abortion on demand up through the time when the child is fully formed in the womb (about 20 weeks) and I support the killing of those who commit heinous crimes, such as murder, repeat child-rape, etc.).

Not at all surprising is the fact that this case also demonstrates the dysgenic effect of violent crime, which is yet another reason to support the Death Penalty. In the overwhelming amount of violent crimes (almost certainly well over 95% of the time) the victim is far more educated, accomplished and valuable to society than is the perpetrator.

In this case, Scott Roeder, was a relatively unaccomplished and deeply troubled individual. In the six months before his arrest, he'd worked for an airport shuttle service, a party-rental shop, a convenience store and a property management enterprise.

After Scott Roeder's arrest, his ex-wife, Lindsey Roeder, claimed that Roeder had been suffering from mental illness and that at about the age of 20 he'd been diagnosed with possible schizophrenia. So a marginally employable man, with a history of mental illness kills a physician.

See the glaring disparity there?

Can you see how that disparity diminishes the productive capacity of any country that doesn’t excise such dysgenic acts with a swift and horrifying response, one that would serve as a deterrent to others? Such penalties do so and without question, as fully 7 of the 10 nations on earth with the lowest violent crime rates are Arab-Muslim countries where some of the most horrific punishments are meted out.

You can peruse the world crime rates by scrolling about six or eight posts back.

Acknowledging Yet ANOTHER Mistake...







Yesterday the Obama administration acknowledged that scheduling the 9-11 Trials in downtown Manhattan was an ill-conceived idea.

It took a lot of doing, with NY Senator Charles Schumer and Mayor Mike Bloomberg having led that fight from New York.

Security concerns, cost concerns and the logistics of having to lock down America’s financial hub, all make lower Manhattan a very poor venue for such a trial.

On January 27th, Bloomberg said that he wanted the trial moved, a change from November when he said he supported holding it in lower Manhattan.

In comments made earlier this week, he said security for a trial in lower Manhattan could cost as much as $1 billion!

Bloomberg said yesterday that he spoke with “high level” officials in the Obama administration, and told them it “would be better to do it elsewhere.”

“They understand and they’re trying to do something,” the mayor said yesterday on his weekly radio show. “I pointed out again, that it would be phenomenally expensive and very disruptive to people who live in the area and businesses.”

The original idea of trying the 9-11 suspects “within view of the scene of their crime” was a romanticized, emotion-driven decision...the kind this administration has made on the economy since it took office a little over a year ago.

You know what would be a good venue for these trials? The state-of-the-art court rooms they built at Guantanamo Bay!

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Some Democrats Call For Obama to Extend the Bush Tax Cuts...






Now this is a surprising and positive development – some Democrats are calling on the administration to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Some (mostly Blue Dog) Democrats want President Barack Obama to extend Bush’s across-the-board income tax rate cuts now scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, arguing that a tax increase could hinder economic recovery.

"I think there is a certain logic to leaving well-enough alone for now, given the fragility of the economic recovery," said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D., Va.). "It's a question of prudent judgment and timing."

Much of this is being driven by the fact that a number of Democratic strategists, looking toward midterm elections, see political disaster in heading into the November elections with looming tax increases on the horizon. Tax increases would almost certainly be a huge wedge issue for Republican opponents as Democrats try to defend their majorities in both Houses.

Rep. Harry Mitchell (D., Ariz.), a second-term congressman who held on to his seat in 2008 with 53% of the vote, wrote Obama last week asking him to extend the lower capital gains and dividend rate, and estate tax rates.

“Given the unique economic difficulties we face as a nation, this is the wrong time to raise these taxes. We need to retain these tax cuts that encourage investment that stimulates growth and job creation,” Mitchell wrote.

In the wake of the Scott Brown victory in MA., this certainly looks like a no-brainer, but then again, this administration has been pretty brainless on the economy, so far. With GOP victories in Virginia, new Jersey and Massachusetts, it looks like any kind of major healthcare reform is on hold, Cap and Trade is all but dead and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire looks tenuous at best.
American Ideas Click Here!