Gov. Bobby Jindal gives a brilliant speech, saying we should, “…grow our economy faster, improve our health care system, explore new sources of energy, and put more Americans back to work” and then completely blows it by calling these ideas "conservative." Rand Paul, in the recent Republican debate, attacked Marco Rubio because his ideas were "not conservative." To all this, I say, "WHO CARES?" An idea or issue position is either a good idea or a bad idea. Sure, most good ideas about public policy are those that "conservatives" would agree with, but saying so is just a distraction, and an overall negative. Over the years, the word "conservative" has become almost as demonized (and misused) as the word "liberal" and we don't have an alternative like "progressive" to fall back on. I wish our candidates would simply drop the word "conservative," quit trying to "out-conservative" one another, and substitute the word "commonsense." Wouldn't it be great to elect a bunch of folks with common sense ideas, for a change?
That’s the trouble with being a caucus-convention-primary state. There are so few around that it is hard to know how best to “operate” within it, and it is quite obvious that Minnesota Republicans do not. How else to explain this intense concern over pledges or promises by candidates to “abide by the endorsement”? Think about it. If the pledge is mandatory, you have just closed the endorsement process, while the primary is OPEN. If the pledge is voluntary, most candidates will not sign on until they are reasonably certain of the outcome of the Convention, which usually happens during, or just before, convention. And any candidate who believes he/she is still the best choice (often the reality) will STILL go to the primary.
Either way, the GOP organization is trying to force the candidates to value (and seek) endorsement, when all that is accomplished is to DE-value it, with some of the best candidates skipping endorsement entirely. The way to make the endorsement have value, so that candidates WANT it, is to make it a valuable part of a winning strategy. If the endorsement carried with it a huge outpouring of volunteer hours, financing, enthusiasm and communication opportunities, candidates would be far more likely to compete for the chance to be endorsed rather than bypassing it. Right now, though, after granting a 60% endorsement, the remaining 40% of delegates usually say, essentially, “He’s not my guy, so I’m done,” while the other 60% say, essentially, “Well, I did my job as delegate and got him the endorsement, so I’m done.” This means the endorsement has almost no real value.
Here’s the reality: Even if the delegates managed to endorse unanimously, there is still one more thing required of them, to guarantee victory in November. Each and every one of them must then go out and somehow convince ONE THOUSAND more voters that this candidate is their best choice. No candidate pledge can ever make that happen, and it would be unnecessary if the delegates brought that value to the endorsement.
All of this uproar about who among Republicans should replace John Boehner as Speaker of the House is not only premature, but worthless until somebody establishes what the true qualifications are for the job. Right now, the belief seems to be that the proper qualification has to do with some sort of ideological test, whether the person is “conservative enough” or “establishment enough” to either “advance the conservative cause” or “get things done,” respectively. That’s simply wrong, and seems to echo too many of the internecine battles we have choosing our candidates, which is ALSO wrong.
What Republicans need, first and foremost, is a Speaker that can SPEAK- intelligently, clearly, persuasively, in quotable bits or lengthy argumentation. That such speaking must also be believable and “common sense” goes without saying. The second requirement, necessitating the first, is a brilliant tactician that can find a way to actually pass legislation using House rules, parliamentary procedure and the management of public perceptions. Note that the ideological content matters little, here. When Republicans actually pass a budget funding everything BUT Obamacare, for example and as they should, they get blamed for shutting down the entire government because the Democrats in the Senate refuse to take up any budget whatsoever, and get away with blaming the Republicans! There should be ways to not only put the blame where it belongs, but to force Democrats to act in the best interests of the country. Wouldn’t THAT be different? Republicans could finally stop being the “stupid Party” that challenges and then rolls over.
I see Obama has won a great “victory” by getting 34 stupid Democrats to uphold his veto of Congressional rejection of his Neville Chamberlain prize. Now isn’t that a convoluted process, regardless of what is actually in this deal? Since when do treaties not follow the Constitutional process requiring a 2/3 approval in the Senate and no action by the House, rather that a 2/3 majority of BOTH houses to reject it? I know, it’s that stupid “Corker Amendment,” but since Republicans don’t seem to have the spine to stand up and stop it, preferring to give Obama his political victory over common sense foreign policy, I offer the free advice to them here.
Look, this is a terrible deal, OK? So the House and Senate should both reject it, since both have Republican majorities. BUT, as part of that rejection, there should be a retraction of the Corker amendment, including language saying that the Corker agreement does not apply because the terms of that amendment, most notably no “side deals,” make it moot and therefore requiring that 2/3 Senate approval. Then, there must be a resolution—NOT veto-able by Obama—to the effect that this is a Treaty, and the appropriate Rules committee should change the rules of consideration in the Senate to define it as such and require a 2/3 APPROVAL, not disapproval. Since the deal will then fail, Obama will have nothing to veto. Then let him scream and fume and do all the adolescent histrionics he is capable of, but at least common sense foreign policy and Constitutional law will have been preserved. Now, where’s that Republican spine?
Numerous politicians and autocrats have extolled the so-called Clean Power Plan and its “public health benefits," but there are a few things we all should know. First, this is not an act of Congress; it is Pres. Obama's EPA vastly exceeding its authority, to serve a radical environmentalist agenda. This "carbon pollution" is not some noxious byproduct of coal burning, but the simple chemical reaction combining coal (C) with oxygen (O2). The ONLY way to reduce CO2 by 32%, as mandated, is to burn 32% less coal and to generate 32% less electricity! We can easily imagine the COSTS of 32% less electricity by the number of people in the coal industry who will lose their jobs, by the number of lives lost from lack of electrical heat or food storage or air conditioning, and economic losses from expensive electricity, not to mention your electric bill. Perhaps we should call this the “Affordable Power Act” and re-use the slogan “if you like your power plant you can keep your power plant.”
But what are the “benefits”? There is ZERO direct public health benefit to reducing CO2. You have 10,000 times the CO2 concentration in your lungs as there is in the atmosphere! The “benefit” here is to reduce global warming, and by EPA's own numbers, that amounts to 0.018 degrees over the next 100 years! Even if their crystal ball is 100% right (highly doubtful), does anyone think there is a negative health effect from 18/1000 of a degree? Yet EPA claims a “cost/benefit ratio” of 1:7! Maybe somebody IS benefiting from this mindless “war on coal,” but it’s certainly not the general public.
Now, let me see I understand this deal correctly. Iran gets immediate relief from the sanctions that were supposed to be holding back their nuclear weapons program. They get to keep, rather than destroy, several tons of weapons-grade material they have already created, useless for "peaceful purposes,” and they get to keep and even enhance their ability to make more. They get a "signing bonus" of something like $150 billion to use any way they want, including purchase of conventional weapons, purchase or development of [nuclear] missile capability, and continued or expanded support for international terrorism, with not even a promise to do otherwise. Of course they DO have to submit to "inspections" of their nuclear sites, but they get to decide which sites are off-limits, to delay inspections up to 24 days, and then they get to name their own inspectors! They do not even have to disclose what progress they have made towards a nuclear bomb, when the whole idea here was to keep them "one year away." And after 10 years even that restriction goes away, which means Iran certainly gets a nuclear bomb 11 years from now, unless they cheat during that time, or unless they have enough material to build one already. Heckuva deal.
Oh, and we get? Ah, yes, a handful of wonderful magic beans.
Apparently, not even our elite universities teach math and logic anymore, at least not in the curricula that our politicians pass through. The candidates are quoted as favoring or opposing Obama’s radical 32% cut in CO2 emissions, imposed from ON HIGH, but all seemingly based on whether electricity bills and employment will go up or down. Republicans (and Obama ’09) insist that electricity bills will skyrocket, while Obama NOW tells us that costs will go DOWN and jobs will go UP—sort of an “if you like your power plant, you can keep your power plant” statement.
But the truth is readily discernible. It needs no weasel words, emotional appeals, tarot card readings nor the defense of outright lies. The laws of chemistry say you cannot cut the emission of CO2 from coal burning—the combination of C and O2—by 32% unless you reduce the amount of coal burned by 32% and the amount of energy produced by 32%. That skyrockets electric bills and costs jobs because less coal will be mined and transported, and more costly electricity will reduce profit margins in business leading to layoffs. Simple and straightforward effects. But think of the outstanding benefits that will accrue from reducing this deadly, global-warming-causing pollutant, they say? By the EPA’s own analysis, even in the highly unlikely case they are correct, this rule fully implemented will reduce global temperatures by a whopping 0.018 degrees. That’s 18/1000 of a degree! I don’t care whether you’re Fahrenheit or Celsius, that’s nothing! The cost/benefit ratio of this edict is therefore astronomically and indefensibly large and denying that—Obama’s greatest ability is denying truth— ought to get you laughed off the news and condemn this stupid rule to the joke book of history, not the regulatory rulebook.
Well, the Supreme Court has definitively settled one matter of law last week (though not two, as you might think). That matter is that these nine justices should never again be allowed to make rulings in the middle of a 3-day drunk.
How else to explain an Obamacare ruling that ignores the clear language, clear intent, and clear initial implementation of the law in favor of the overall supposed intent, clearly belied by its disastrous failure to fulfill that intent? And if gay marriage must be legal because a woman can marry a man and a man cannot, then have we overturned Roe v. Wade because a woman can have an abortion but a man cannot? How drunk do you have to be???
Ralph Waldo Emerson famously said, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds…” When it comes to the homosexual or “LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM” agenda, the radical, anti-normal Left has no problem. The great hive-mind of liberal “thought” has no such problems of logical consistency. In fact, as one commentator put it:
“And isn't it ironic that the homosexual side of the ledger doesn't acknowledge their arguments simultaneously contend sexual orientation, which is invisible, is immutable from birth, but your sex, formerly identified by plumbing, is as changeable as the weather?”
This bunch has been slavering over this Jenner person for celebrating his psychiatric dysfunction –“gender dysphoria”— with actual physical mutilation, while their big issue in the legislature this year was an attempt to BAN psychiatric help -- “conversion therapy”-- for those voluntarily seeking treatment of “unwanted same-sex attraction.” I suppose there is some sort of perverse consistency here, in that if it is perverse enough to offend common sense and sensibility, it is OK. Beyond that, though, you have to admit we “little minds” just do not understand liberal “thought.”
Here’s the headline from the Nigerian News today: “G7 summit: Climate, extremism lead day two talks.” This headline is being trumpeted in many other news reports but with the word “and” substituting for the comma. It is probably most correct with neither.
The climate alarmists keep trying to convince us that the Theory of Manmade Catastrophic Climate Change is settled science. Sorry, but it is not science at all. In scientific terms, it is not even a theory, but an unproven “hypothesis” that predicts manmade CO2 will drive temperatures “catastrophically” higher by the year 2100. It does not become a “theory” until actual data matches those predictions, 85 years from now! So far, though, the first 18 years of “testing” have seen EVERY ONE of the 48 computerized climate models FAIL to predict actual global temperatures (they predict too high) by significant margins. Predictions of more frequent and severe storms have likewise simply failed to appear. Calling it “Climate Change” to claim recent cold years as proof when the “theory” predicts only WARMING is comedy, not science.
For real science, we must defer to Al Gore, who discovers that the historical record—400,000 years of temperature and CO2 levels trapped in ice— shows that “they go up and down together.” The problem for the alarmists is that CO2 goes up about 400 years AFTER temperature rises, not before! CO2 does not cause global warming; global warming causes CO2! Finally, even if these alarmists and their computer models were 100% correct, and we drastically curbed our CO2 emissions by 50% (give up half of your driving, heating and electricity), global temperatures would be a negligible 0.07 degrees lower in 2100! And the costs of avoiding this phony-baloney "catastrophe" far, far exceed any possible benefit, by the alarmists' own reckoning. The only reason we’re still talking about this subject is likely the $22 Billion the US government spent in 2013 “promoting” the idea.