Archive for July, 2009

The Public Isn’t Buying Obama’s Smooth Talk

July 31, 2009
By Suzanne Fields

Barack
Obama was a rock star on the campaign trail and his aura went undimmed
in his first few months of office. But then he began taking too many
curtain calls. The applause subsided, but he kept coming back to center
stage to try harder to wow us. He forgot what every star must learn,
that you’ve got to know when to get off that center stage. If you don’t
have anything new to say, shut up. This applies even to presidents.

He’s reaching for applause lines with the same ol’ same ol’. So his
poll numbers begin to shrink. He pushes, and pushes, a flawed health
care scheme without having anything new to add. Then he goes off script
to accuse the Cambridge, Mass., cops of behaving "stupidly" in the
arrest of professor Henry Louis Gates, and loses the applause of fans
in the second balcony.

When Obama replaced George W. Bush as the top banana, his speech if
not his politics was dramatically refreshing. We were relieved to
listen to someone who wouldn’t muff his lines, miss a cue or garble the
English language. Even those who disagreed with what the new president
had to say appreciated his speechifying skills. We became a collective
version of Moliere’s "Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme," delighted to discover
a leader who could speak prose.

But we also discovered that a golden-tongued devil could deceive us
with the alchemy of smooth talk at a time when we need straight talk.
Great rhetoricians inevitably betray a weakness, small though it may
be. That’s why the poet John Milton gave Satan the best lines,
sprinkled with vivid similes and sparkling metaphors, in "Paradise
Lost." All the better to deceive. By comparison, God in His heaven is
plain to the point of boring, but the smart reader gets the divine
meaning.

Nobody likes being deceived. When the Congressional Budget Office
said Obama’s health care numbers were wrong and his scheme would cost a
lot more than we had been told, some of us grew suspicious. When the
accountants at the celebrated Mayo Clinic said the cure was worse than
the disease, more of us decided that we didn’t want the president’s
medicine. When the Blue Dog Democrats vowed not to be rushed to such an
important decision, a lot more of us began to listen closely to other
sides.

The Clinton administration knew Hillarycare would be a tough sell,
so they kept it secret while they worked on it. That scheme crashed,
anyway, when we discovered that it would make health care worse, not
better but more elusive. The Obama administration has gone to the other
extreme, turning it over to Congress where everybody wants to get an
oar in, and we’re frightened on a daily basis. Meanwhile, the president
keeps repeating his defensive rhetoric, defying the drip, drip, drip of
hard, cold facts. His health care scheme promises change, but it’s hard
to see how both quantity and quality of care will not be compromised.
Can the president deliver both? He no longer sounds like a man who
thinks he can.

The frightening facts are sometimes subtle and can’t be found in
presidential press conferences. Will the new emphasis on bureaucratic
control mean that the medical schools will attract mediocre applicants
from a diminished pool of bright young men and women, who are willing
to enter a profession that will tie them up in a tangle of endless red
tape? Does it mean that the scientists who’ve produced miracle drugs
through a capitalist system, which rewards accomplishment, will take
their inventiveness somewhere else? As old people increasingly
outnumber the young, will health care be increasingly perceived as an
expensive burden to be avoided?

There’s another wrinkle that’s difficult to straighten out. The push
to require giving insurance to people regardless of pre-existing
medical conditions may lead young men and women to opt out of paying
for health insurance, until they find themselves with a medical
condition that requires expensive care. They’ll risk gambling that they
can pay for it themselves when they need it.

The president likes golf because the greens provide refuge from the
public. Just as he wants to get away from us, more of us feel the urge
to get away from him. Too many press conferences and speeches without
anything new to say bores us, too. While he works on his backswing and
short putts, he might think about the tough questions that so far he
can’t answer. He can take his time getting back to us.

checkTextResizerCookie(‘article_body’);

Copyright 2009, Creators Syndicate Inc.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/31/a_shooting_star_dims_97709.html at July 31, 2009 – 10:03:38 AM CDT

Advertisements

Leave a comment

A Tale of Two Constitutions

American Freedom

 

By Nathan Tabor
Under Obama we witness examples of selective application of the US Constitution’s First Amendment

Obama, the remaking of America, the reverie for a police state

 By Toby Westerman
Nationalized health care, Obama’s attempt to remake/reinvent America into a socialist utopia.

A Constitution in Full Crisis II

 By JB Williams
Re-installing a Constitutional Fed

Leave a comment

Obama-Care, Euthanasia, and The Boiled Frog Syndrome

By Jim O’Neill  Wednesday, July 29, 2009

We’re going to be covering quite a bit of ground in this article: 
I’ll be discussing “Glen Beck’s Common Sense,” Ezekiel Emanuel (Dr.
Death), Collectivism, AARP, Sorelian myths, the Fascist Left, and The
Boiled Frog Syndrome, among other things—so let’s get started.

Roger Kimball wrote in his book “Tenured Radicals,” “I regret to
report that the situation is far worse than [you] are ever likely to
have imagined.” Kimball was referring to the Radical Left’s takeover of
our educational system—especially in the humanities departments of our
college campuses.  The situation has only progressively worsened since
Kimball’s “report from the front lines” almost twenty years ago.

The far-left radicals didn’t give up after the 1960s, many simply
stayed on at the campuses that they had once so vociferously railed
against.  They stayed and spread their poison— loudly, and vehemently,
or subtly and quietly.  They became professors, and they taught.

They taught a mixture of Marxist, Rousseauian and Nietzsche-esque
ideology, combined with French far-left philosophies.  They taught that
science was absurd, that logic and reason were meaningless, and that
the truth was always relative—heck, everything was relative. 

They put “the people” on a pedestal, but insisted that the individual
person was subservient to the “general will.” They excoriated
capitalism, free enterprise, and individualism; while glorifying a
collective, narcissistic, nihilistic hedonism.  And they taught, oh so
much more.

My point here is that, while many students rejected this radical
indoctrination, many did accept it, and then went on to become
professionals in their various fields—law, teaching, etc.  This has
been going on for decades, and if you’re wondering where all these
people with a far-left agenda come from, there’s your answer. 

Add a thoroughly indoctrinated media/entertainment industry, and it’s
no wonder that the Obamaites had the numbers needed to stage a
bloodless coup, and take over the United States. 

(I should also mention that there were also many people who voted for
Obama simply because they bought his song and dance about
“transparency,” “post partisan politics,” et al.).

At any rate, the end result is that the barbarians aren’t at the
gates – they’re in the castle.  Now that they’re in the castle, how do
they plan on completely restructuring it? 

Fascists like to use war as a means of implementing their social
agendas, but if a war isn’t handy, they’ll use whatever’s available—any
ol’ crisis will do.  As Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel said,
“Never let a serious crisis go to waste.”

Such societal upheavals are called “the moral equivalent of war” –
first coined by the American philosopher William James.  It is a phrase
near and dear to the liberal elite.

Our current “moral equivalent of war” is the economic crisis.  The
Obamaites are using the economic crisis for cover, as they attempt to
push through legislation that will fundamentally change the nature of
the United States.  The Obama-care package that they are trying to
railroad through Congress is all about gaining control.

I don’t agree with Rush Limbaugh about everything, but he is
absolutely correct, when he says that the Obama-care bill isn’t about
health-care at all.  It’s about taking away the individual freedoms of
Americans, and replacing them with subservience to the state. 

How else do you explain the fact that the government is attempting to
add trillions of dollars of debt to an economic system that’s already
at the breaking point?  It only makes sense if you realize that the
current administration is in no particular rush to get America out of
its current economic woes, but instead, is using the crisis to push
through what they really want—control over you and me.  They believe
that it’s for our own good, of course.

Yes, our health-care system needs improvement, but this fascist
takeover under the guise of health-care reform, is most assuredly not
what we want.  This bill will ring the death knell of American freedom,
if it passes. 

Americans who still value their individual freedom will reject this
bill in a heartbeat—once they know what it represents.  No wonder the
Obamaites are in such a rush to push it through. 

The whole Obama-care package reeks from top to bottom.  It’s economic
suicide, and will bury our descendants—for who knows how many
generations—under an onerous debt.  This bill is a not so subtle
attempt to turn our first rate Republic into a second-rate Socialist
welfare collective. 

These things are all a cause for grave concern, and action, but on a
more mundane level, do you know what really got my goat?  It was the
knee-jerk endorsement of the bill by AARP (American Association for
Retired People).  ACORN and the SEIU both endorse Obama-care – but
AARP? 

At first , I thought that AARP had merely done a leftist lapdog act,
and rolled over at the command of the liberal elite, but the more I
looked into it, the more convinced I became that they knew exactly what
they were signing us up for. 

In case you aren’t aware of them, please let me inform you of some facts.

Obama’s “health” czar is Rahm Emmanuel’s brother, Ezekiel.  Dr. Ezekiel
Emmanuel has this sage advice for doctors treating the elderly,
“Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously as an imperative to do
everything for the patient regardless of the cost, or the effects on
others.” Kind of warms the cockles of the heart, doesn’t it?

Not to put too fine a point on it, we’re talking about euthanasia
here folks—i.e killing people deemed unfit to serve society, because of
mental or physical infirmities.  No joke.  The “joke” is that AARP is
endorsing euthanasia for the welfare of its elderly members.

Think I’m kidding, or imaging things?  For some good info, and a
chronological timeline that shows the steady growth of this insidious
idea, check out Tree of Life: http://www.lifetree.org/timeline/index.html

Read the paper Dr Emmanuel co-wrote with Margaret Pabst Battin
entitled, “What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing
Physician-Assisted Suicide?” For even more fun, you’ll want to dive
into his co-author’s “Choosing the Time to Die: The Ethics and
Economics of Suicide in Old Age” or the ever-popular, “Age-Rationing
and the Just Distribution of Health Care; Is There a Duty to Die?”

You might want to look into The Project on Death in America, started
and funded by wealthy Obama backer George Soros, and you won’t want to
miss Anton Chaitkin’s short PDF “The Nazi Euthanasia Program:
Forerunner of Obama’s Death Council.” Among other interesting facts,
you’ll find out about the Hastings Center, which you really should know
about.  http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2009/2009_20-29/2009-24/pdf/74-77_3624.pdf

One of the more interesting members of the Hastings Center is the
animal rights activist Peter Singer.  Here’s a quote from his paper
“Taking Life: Human,” “…the use of the Nazi analogy is utterly
misleading. On the contrary, once we abandon those doctrines about the
sanctity of human life that…collapse as soon as they are questioned,
it is the refusal to accept killing that, in some cases, is horrific.”
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993—-.htm

“The doctrines about the sanctity of human life collapse as soon as
they are questioned.” Really?  Gee whiz, I didn’t know that.  And,
gosh, I could’ve sworn that you sound a whole lot like a Nazi-style
Eugenics nut.  Thanks for setting me straight Doc.

According to Chaitkin, “Singer advocates the killing of handicapped
infants, to stop them from being a burden to parents and a cost to
society. He believes that humans have no right to life above that of
beasts, and that it may be more appropriate to do medical experiments
on disabled, unconscious people than on healthy rats.”

Heinrich Himmler, the man in charge of Hitler’s extermination camps,
was, like Singer, an animal rights activist.  I’m not implying
anything, I’m just saying… I just find it an interesting coincidence,
is all.

Our “health” czar, Dr. Emmanuel, is also a member in good standing of
the Hastings Center.  How’d you like to be “a fly on the wall” during a
chat between Emmanuel and Singer at the Hastings Center?  It would be
an eye opener, no doubt.  Probably a jaw dropper too.

I think I speak for a whole lot of retired people when I say,
“Thanks AARP!  Really appreciate your looking out for us older folks!”
God, what a bunch of duplicitous, back-stabbing weasels.  (Note to
self—cancel my AARP membership – and don’t leave Mom alone with any
people from AARP).

The Fascist Left will tell you “Oh, that euthanasia stuff is just
slippery slope nonsense.  There’s nothing in our health bill about
euthanasia.” Don’t you buy into their B.S. for a second.  This is one
slippery slope they are just dying to slide down (pun noted).

As long as we’re in the neighborhood, I’d like to discuss the
fascist nature of the Left.  The Left, especially the radical Left, is,
and has always been, closely aligned with fascism.

I know, I know, it’s enough to make anyone’s head spin—Marxism,
Communism, Fascism, Statism, Socialism, Progressivism, and so on.  How
do you tell them all apart?  Which is which, and what is what?

The simplest solution is to just put them all under the umbrella
term “Collectivism.” Here’s the Wikipedia definition: “Collectivism is
a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that
stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective,
rather than the importance of separate individuals.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism

All of the “isms” that I listed above will fit into the category of Collectivism. 

The most important thing to know about Collectivism, is that it is
ideologically the polar opposite of Individualism.  Permit me to
rephrase and repeat that: COLLECTIVISM IS DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.  In Collectivism the individual is always
subservient to the good of the collective.  (Sounds like a Star Trek
episode with the Borg hive—“You will be assimilated!  Resistance is
futile!” Yikes).

At any rate, one of the “isms” included within Collectivism, is
Fascism.  Obviously, Fascism can’t be that far apart from Marxism,
Socialism, et al, or it wouldn’t be included with the other
collectivist doctrines. 

The Fascist Left would have us believe that fascist doctrines have
nothing to do with the Left.  “Oh no,” they say, “fascism is, of
course, a reprehensible, conservative, right-wing ideology.”

Well it isn’t right-wing at all, and it is really past time that we
bust this Sorelian myth, once and for all.  A Sorelian myth (named
after French philosopher Georges Sorel –1847-1922), is a fable that is
used to sway the masses.  Whether the myth is true or not is
irrelevant; what matters is—does it work. 

The myth about Fascism being a right-wing ideology has worked just fine, thank you very much.

(In my last article I urged you to read Jonah Goldberg’s book “Liberal
Fascism.” I urge you to do so again, if for no other reason than to
read the chapter “Liberal Racism: The Eugenic Ghost in the Fascist
Machine”—which is, trust me, more engaging than the title might
suggest.)

During the early part of the last century, the Left (called
Progressives, in America) heartily embraced Fascism.  And why wouldn’t
they?  Fascism was clearly nothing but a variant of the Collectivism
that was so near and dear to them.  Communism, Fascism—why quibble,
when they all built a utopia, right? 

So what happened to cause Fascism to be booted out of the “family,” and
out into the cold.  How did it become associated with the right-wing,
for God’s sake?

In a nutshell, here’s what happened.  First, Communist leader Joseph
Stalin stigmatized Fascism as being anathema to the party faithful, and
secondly, Hitler’s atrocities made it untenable for the Left to be
associated with Fascism anymore—at least by that name.  Ahem—at least
by that name.

Stalin put the hex on Fascism, because Mussolini’s Italian fascists
would not toe the Russian party line.  Russian Socialism, being applied
Marxism—straight out of the book—followed the motto “Workers of the
world unite!” Mussolini, being of a more nationalistic frame of mind,
believed that it was much more practical to endorse “Workers of Italy
(not the world) unite!” In other words, Mussolini embraced a
nationalistic, versus a global socialism, and that was ideological
heresy to “Uncle Joe” Stalin.  So he kicked Mussolini out of the fold.

The Communist Party faithful around the world were told that Fascism
was not a “kissin’ cousin” to Communism anymore, but was instead its
polar opposite.  The Fascists went, in a relatively brief span of time,
from being seen as closely aligned with Communist Socialism, to being
deemed a reactionary right-wing force of capitalist greed.  It’s a
Sorelian myth that worked like a charm for Stalin, and it’s still
working today. 

Hitler’s brand of Fascism put the nail in the coffin.  There was just
no way that the Left would let themselves be associated with Hitlerism,
following WWII —although they had largely endorsed his brand of
Collectivism up until that point.

However, today’s Liberal Fascists (who, of course, don’t call
themselves that), are still quite fond of doctrines promulgated by the
Nazis.  (Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed a definite
anti-Semetic slant to Leftist rhetoric, and a decided cooling towards
Israel in the past few years?  Just asking.)

I believe that Glen Beck was trying to make a point along these
lines when he recited the “AmeriCorp Pledge of Allegiance” dressed in
lederhosen.  That’s my guess, at any rate.

Speaking of Beck, his book “Glen Beck’s Common Sense “ is another book that I urge you to read, if you haven’t done so already.

I especially like this passage from his book: “If you bury your head
in the sand, and believe that things will just get better on their
own…then you deserve to see your children wearing the chains of
servitude.”

Beck’s book is a call to action, but he advises us to “leave your muskets at home.” This is sage advice. 

Those of us who value personal liberty, the U.S. Constitution, and
“One Nation Under God,” need to wake up and take committed, passionate
action – NOW – but violence is not the answer, and would be
counter-productive.  We must use the tools that our Founding Fathers
wisely assembled, and entrusted to our care.

A bloodless fascist coup has been successfully staged against the
United States of America.  It is our duty, our right, and our
privilege, to stand up and deny our wanna- be Fascist overlords, the
successful implementation of their plans for us. 

We must act, and we must act now.  The time for being “asleep at the
wheel” is over.  We simply must get involved, or our precious freedoms
are forfeit.  That’s not alarmist hyperbole, I’m just stating the
facts.

There’s a phenomenon known as The Boiled Frog Syndrome, and it goes
like this: If you drop a frog into a pot of hot water, it’ll
immediately jump out, but if you put it into a pot of tepid water, and
slowly turn up the heat by incremental degrees, the frog will simply be
lulled by the warmth into a comatose state, and just lay there until it
dies from the heat. 

Well, America’s like the frog in the pot, and the liberal fascists have
been turning up the heat slowly over several decades—and we’re about to
get cooked alive.  Believe it.

I’ll finish with another quote from Beck’s book:

If we fail to speak up, and speak out against this madness, then we
should be prepared to accept everything we get.  Samuel Adams said that
those who prefer the “tranquility of servitude” had best be prepared to
“crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you.” That advice is as
relevant today as it was back then.  And so are his closing words: “May
your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you
were our countrymen!”

(0) Reader Feedback
| Subscribe

Jim O’Neill Most recent columns

Born in June of 1951 in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, Jim O’Neill proudly served in the U.S. Navy from
1970-1974 in both UDT-21 (Underwater Demolition Team) and SEAL Team
Two.  A member of MENSA, he worked as a commercial diver in the waters
off Scotland, India, and the United States. In 1998 while attending the
University of South Florida as a journalism student, O’Neill won “First
Place” in the “Carol Burnett/University of Hawaii AEJMC Research in
Journalism Ethics Award.  The annual contest was set up by Carol
Burnett with the money she won from successfully suing the National
Enquirer for libel.

Jim can be reached at: Letters@canadafreepress.com


Printed from: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13242

Leave a comment

Backlash: Dem dangers mount


By: Charles Mahtesian and Josh Kraushaar
July 29, 2009 04:40 AM EST

Democrats giddy with possibilities only six months ago now confront a perilous 2010 landscape
signaled by troublesome signs of President Barack Obama’s political
mortality, the plunging popularity of many governors and rising
disquiet among many vulnerable House Democrats.

The issue advantage has shifted as well, with Democrats facing the brunt of criticism about the pace of stimulus package
spending, anxiety over rising unemployment rates and widespread
uneasiness over the twin pillars of Obama’s legislative agenda: his cap-and-trade approach to climate change and the emerging health care bill.

Bolstered by historical trends that work in the GOP’s favor — midterm
elections are typically hostile to the party in power — and the
prospect of the first election in a decade without former President
George W. Bush either on the ballot or in office, Republicans find
themselves on the offensive for the first time since 2004.

None of this is to say that the Democratic congressional majorities are
in serious jeopardy. The GOP has suffered some significant setbacks,
ranging from headline-grabbing personal indiscretions to Sen. Arlen Specter’s party switch, and it continues to be plagued by an inability to present its own new ideas.

Yet the possibilities GOP officials now imagine are a dramatic shift
from the bleak prospects that the 2010 midterm elections presented for
the party at the beginning of the year.

Back then, the newly elected president was fresh off a sweeping victory
and riding a wave of inaugural goodwill. The Republican Party’s
standing had seemingly hit rock bottom in the polls. The enormous
Democratic House majority looked unassailable, and the party’s
advantage in the Senate looked nearly as formidable, with the GOP
forced to defend more Senate seats in total in 2010 than Democrats — a
predicament exacerbated by a handful of Republican retirements in key
battleground states.

“There’s a sense building among Republicans that 2010 is going to be a
far better political environment than 2008 or 2006,” said GOP pollster Whit Ayres.
“Part of that is because we have a Democratic president and a
Democratic-controlled Senate and House that are promoting fiscally
dangerous policies for the future of the country. Part of it is we
don’t have the burden of Iraq as we did in 2006 and don’t have the
economy on the Republicans’ watch as we had in 2008.”

In one sign of the reconfigured landscape, Republican candidates lead
in the polls in this fall’s closely watched gubernatorial elections —
in New Jersey and Virginia. In New Jersey, where first-term Democrat
Gov. Jon Corzine trails his challenger by double digits, a far-reaching
corruption investigation has led to the resignation of one member of
Corzine’s Cabinet and insider speculation about whether Corzine should
be replaced on the ticket in November by a more viable Democratic
nominee.

Corzine, who has shown no indication he’s willing or interested in
stepping down, isn’t the only Democratic governor buffeted by the
political winds. A handful of Democrats whose seats are up for election
in 2010, including Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle and Massachusetts Gov.
Deval Patrick, have recently seen their approval ratings plummet below
40 percent — dangerous territory for an incumbent.

In New York, Gov. David Paterson faces similarly daunting numbers, and
other first-term Democratic governors from Ohio to Iowa to Colorado
have also seen their approval ratings move in the wrong direction. In
Pennsylvania, a recent Quinnipiac University poll reported Gov. Ed
Rendell with the lowest approval rating of his two terms in office.

“What’s hurting the Democrats badly is that people are afraid of the
deficit and spending. They don’t see signs of economic growth, and
people are worried,” said GOP pollster John McLaughlin. “If you look at
the economy right now, voters gave the Democrats benefit of the doubt,
they thought the stimulus would work, unemployment would recede — and
they’re finding out now it’s not the case.”

The
polls tell only part of the story. National Republicans have recently
met with success in persuading a number of top recruits to commit to
2010 races that not so long ago looked considerably less attractive —
the surest signal that potential GOP candidates view the playing field
as less tilted against them than just a few months earlier.

One of them, former state Sen. Steve Stivers — who lost narrowly to
Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-Ohio) in 2008 — announced he’d seek a rematch
earlier this month, citing the growing debt and Ohio’s double-digit
unemployment rate.

Another highly sought-after GOP recruit, state Sen. Alan Nunnelee,
plans to declare his candidacy later this week against Rep. Travis
Childers (D-Miss.), who was elected to Congress in a 2008
special-election upset. His announcement comes amid 11 percent
unemployment in the congressional district, with one county’s rate
running as high as 16.9 percent in June.

“They see the Congress spending at a rate we’ve not seen in years;
they’re making commitments for future generations — and we’re not
seeing any results,” said Nunnelee. “Somebody needs to step up and hold
the Obama administration accountable.”

Former Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) also recently committed to running in
2010, putting aside his gubernatorial ambitions to try to reclaim the
House seat he held for six years. His decision came on the heels of the
energy and climate bill that narrowly passed the House on June 26 — an
exceptionally tough vote for freshman Rep. Harry Teague (D-N.M.), who
represents an oil-and-gas-producing district.

“[Teague’s] cap-and-trade vote is the thing that put my decision over
the hump,” said Pearce. “There are 23,000 statewide jobs in the oil and
gas industry — and if this bill is passed, this will kill many of those
jobs.”

Two notable Republican Senate candidates considered uniquely suited to
running in their Democratic-leaning states — former New Hampshire
Attorney General Kelly Ayotte and Illinois Rep. Mark Kirk — also
committed to running in recent weeks, in states that Obama carried
easily in 2008.

Because of GOP retirements in key battleground states, Republicans will
be fortunate just to hold down their losses in the Senate next year.
Still, if nothing else, the outlook is not nearly as grim as in
January, when Republicans were poised to defend 19 seats to just 15 for
the Democrats.

Now, as a result of Obama’s and Vice President Joe Biden’s resignation
from the Senate, and the appointment of two Democratic senators to
Cabinet positions, both parties are now defending 18 seats each in 2010
— with Democrats defending four seats now held by appointed senators
that suddenly look more competitive than they would have been
otherwise.

“The fact that [Republicans] have a bunch of open seats to hold and an
unfavorable map to deal with will probably serve to limit their gains,”
said Republican pollster Neil Newhouse. “I think [National Republican
Senatorial Committee Chairman John] Cornyn’s efforts will have been a
tremendous success if the NRSC holds their own in the 2010 elections,
setting the table for significant 2012 gains.”

For Republicans, the news isn’t entirely promising. There’s been no
surge in GOP voter registration and little evidence that the party
brand is experiencing a recovery. Last month, a New York Times/CBS poll
reported that the GOP’s favorability ratings remained at a
record-breaking low — 28 percent, down from a high of 59 percent in
November 1994.

“You can’t turn around in a year what, in fact, had accumulated over
the economic policies of the failed Bush policies over the past eight
years,” Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Robert
Menendez (D-N.J.) told POLITICO. “Their top candidates continue to be
largely a throwback to the past and are embracing the out-of-touch
positions Republicans have shown on the economy.”

There are other factors that stand to reset the 2010 landscape once
again and return the commanding heights to the Democrats — particularly
a resurgence of the economy and if Congress can point to significant
legislative accomplishments.

“How the economy is doing a year from now is going to have a major
impact on what the cycle is like for us,” said veteran Democratic
consultant Jason Ralston, who has developed media campaigns for House,
Senate and gubernatorial candidates. “It’s understandable voters are
anxious. The question is, six months to a year from now, do they feel
that the economy has turned the corner?”

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC

Leave a comment

Another New Study Challenges Climate Change ‘Orthodoxy’


Friday, July 24, 2009


By
Patrick Goodenough, International Editor


Indian
students and Greenpeace activists display posters urging Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton and President Obama to act against “global
warming,” during a visit by Clinton to New Delhi on Monday, July 20,
2009. (AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com) – Virtually all
changes in global atmospheric temperatures in the late 20th century
were the result of nature rather than human activity, according to a
new peer-reviewed study, one of whose authors predicted Friday was
“sure to cause a stir.”
 
“It goes against the orthodoxy,” said climate scientist Chris de
Freitas of New Zealand’s Auckland University. The new findings called
into question the politically-correct, politically-motivated
assumptions driving the climate change debate, he said.
 
De Freitas and Australian scientists John McLean and Bob Carter
reported that at least 80 percent of climate variability tracked over
the past half a century could be attributed to internal climate-system
factors including the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Pacific
warming phenomenon and its cooling twin, La Nina.
 
This left little room for human-caused factors like emissions of carbon
dioxide (CO2) and other so-called greenhouse gases. Intermittent
volcanic activity, producing significant cooling, was found to have
been a factor.
 
The paper was published Thursday, following a six-month peer review process, in the American Geophysical Union’s Journal of Geophysical Research.
 
The Australasian trio compared the ENSO and the rise and fall of
lower-atmospheric temperatures between 1958 – when continuous records
of those temperatures began – and 2008, and found that the one closely
correlated with the other, with a lag of around seven months between
the ENSO and the temperature variation.
 
“The sequence of the lagged relationship indicates that ENSO is driving temperature rather than the reverse,” the paper states.
 
The results showed that the oscillations accounted for some 80 percent
of the rise and fall in temperatures, leaving “little room for CO2” as
an attributable factor, De Freitas said Friday.
 
He described the data as established, reproducible, and “out in the open.”
 
The scientists’ finding flies in the face of the assertion by the
United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in a series
of reports, that “global warming” is occurring, is primarily the result
of human activity, and requires urgent action.
 
Advocacy groups warn of catastrophic consequences including rising sea
levels, extreme weather patterns and drought, and governments across
the planet are exploring ways to combat the problem, mostly through
costly cap-and-trade schemes – setting a limit on greenhouse gas
emissions and encouraging trading in emissions permits.
 
A major climate conference in Copenhagen in December aims to produce a
new global agreement which may include binding emission-reduction
targets and deadlines.
 
U.N. climate chief Yvo De Boer told the BBC World Service Thursday that
wealthy nations will have to put at least $10 billion “on the table” in
Copenhagen. “That will allow developing countries to begin preparing
national plans to limit their own emissions, and to adapt to climate
change.”
 
De Freitas, based at Auckland University’s School of Geography and
Environmental Science and with 30 years of climate science under his
belt, does not deny that atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising, but
questions the effect that that is having, and in particular whether it
is dangerous.
 
He said the climate debate has been “degraded” by politics, ignorance,
“end is nigh” alarmist hype, and the argument that the science has been
settled.
 
The notion of “consensus” is unscientific, he added. “Science is meant to be robust debate.”

1 Comment

ObamaCare’s Prescription for Death


 By Daniel Greenfield

imageThe
big lie of those advocating socialized medicine in America is that
government mandate can give everyone the health care they need. The
truth is that every system of medicine shortchanges some to the benefit
of others. The only difference lies in how many options those who are
shortchanged have to get access to health care anyway.

More…

Leave a comment

Freedoms YOU Will Lose With Obamacare

Obama’s Most Urgent Need: A “Contain Joe Biden” Czar

 By John Lillpop
The affable and damn near clown figure Joe Biden

The Trouble with Cass Sunstein

 By Matthew Vadum
Sunstein is a close friend of President Obama, radical legal theorist Cass Sunstein

Why Some PhDs are Jerks

 By Alan Caruba
PhDs who too frequently turned out to be over-educated fools

Reform’s Last Gasp

 By IBD Editorials
Health Care: The clock is ticking down on Democrats’ effort to get health care reform passed

Possible Lessons Learned from Arrest of Professor Gates

 By John Lillpop
President Obama’s attempt to turn the arrest of Professor Gates into a "teaching moment,"

Judging the truth

 By Frank Gaffney Jr.
Role of foreign law in American courts

Government vs. American Capitalism

 By James Raider
Wave of negative wind pushing against the capitalism that has brought America its unprecedented success

Obama’s Health Plan Will End Medicare for Seniors

 By Jerry McConnell
Truth in reporting was once the mainstay mantra of our communications system

Freedoms YOU Will Lose With Obamacare

 By Warner Todd Huston
Really drive home how healthcare “reform” is a barely disguised grab for power by Democrats

Obama Admin Requiring Economy Wrecking, Budget Bloating Project Labor Agreements

 By Warner Todd Huston
PLAs may be great to float the fatcat salaries of union bosses, but they are bad for the American taxpayer

Leave a comment