Wizbang

CPAC 2012 Begins

2012-02-09T14:33:28Z

I am here at the beautiful Wardman Marriott in Washington DC this week for the Conservative Political Action Conference or CPAC. We will be seeing a whole host of conservative icons coming to speak… and the presidential candidates will be here too (Sarcasm? What sarcasm?). I’ll be covering as much as I can but there is no way to see, hear, do, and talk to it all, for sure.

The Chairman of the Conservative Action Union (ACU), the host organization for CPAC, is Al Cardenas and in his appearance before the press this morning he promised an exciting event.

Cardenas also noted that this year it seems that the contest for supporters being waged by the four remaining presidential candidates is wide open.

“This year there hasn’t been an effort by the candidates to stack the deck by filling seats with supporters,” Cardenas said.

He noted that in years past they’d get a pile of registrations in batches of hundreds or more making it obvious that an organized effort by a candidate had been undertaken. This year registration was steady with no great batches of registrations made all at once.

Cardenas said that because it was perhaps a more disinterested group of participants this year the campaign for their support in the straw poll is wide open.

“It will be the ultimate focus group of 10,000 or so that will see the candidates and make a decision based on what they see from the four candidates.”

Cardenas mentioned that they had to turn away many exhibitors and exhibit space was filled long ago. Some 200 exhibitors are in attendance from the Heritage Foundation, to Herman Cain, many of conservatism’s most well known groups are here to flog their wares and sell their message to the participants.

So, as I am posting they are starting the day’s events and I’ll be checking back in later with more.

Himalayas not melting. Panic anyway.

2012-02-09T02:25:57Z

Al Gore probably won’t be please by the following story that was published by The Guardian:

The world’s greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.
The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.

Click on the above link to read the entire story. How does the above-cited discovery fit into doctrine of the Church of Global Warming?

The GOP Presidential Message

2012-02-08T21:19:45Z

What should be the GOP’s message in the general presidential race? Over at National Journal, Josh Kraushaar writes,

The GOP could lose a winnable presidential race and fail to gain control of the Senate because of a timid message: “The other guys are worse than us.”

If you were to responsible for presenting the GOP’s message, then what would you say?

Wage Deflation, another accomplishment of Obamanomics

2012-02-08T15:18:48Z

The folks over at ZeroHedge continue to do the digging which the LSM will not.

Their comparison of BLS numbers for employment versus Treasury receipts reveals a disturbing trend.

During a period when BLS reported employment on the rise, Treasury reported less withholding collected from that larger work force.

So, either the BLS numbers are seriously fudged, or wages are deflating.

A “Quality Assessment” Of US Jobs Reveals The Ugliest Picture Yet
By Tyler Durden | ZeroHedge
Over the past week we have repeatedly exposed the BLS’ shennanigans to both keep the headline unemployment rate suppressed and to generate an upward bias in the market courtesy of a “bigger than expected beat” of expectations. Granted, various semantics experts continue to scratch their heads in attempting to explain a collapsing labor force when even Goldman’s Sven Jari Stehn just predicted that it will drop to 63.1% by the end of 2012 (and 62.5% by the end of 2015). Funny then that the US will have no unemployment left when the participation rate drops to 58.5%. And no, the “population soared argument based on revised data” doesn’t quite cut it when the bulk of said surge not only did not get a job, but was not even counted toward the labor force. Yet what the biggest flaw with all these arguments that vainly (and veinly) attempt to defend the US economy as if it is growing, is that they focus exclusively on the quantity of jobs, doctored or not, and completely ignore the quality. We have decided to step in and fill this void.
…
In other words, the US Treasury collected $310 million more in tax withholdings in the first 4 months of fiscal 2011 than in the first 4 months of fiscal 2012.
…
More importantly, between January 31, 2011 and January 31, 2012 the US added 1,953,000 jobs.
…
The 130.456MM workers “employed” at January 31, 2011 created a total of $592.985MM in withholdings, or on average of $4,545.48 per worker over the first 4 months of the fiscal year 2011.
The 132.409MM workers “employed” at January 31, 2012 created a total of $592.675MM in withholdings, or on average of $4,476.09 per worker over the first 4 months of the fiscal year 2012.

That indicates a 1.5% drop in taxable income (wage deflation). Some recovery.

Click over and read the whole thing.

Hat Tip: Aussie Torres on Google +

I endorse . . .

2012-02-08T08:29:20Z

Move over Donald Trump (your hair, too). I have my own endorsement to make. Now that the GOP field of contenders has been narrowed to just three people – Romney, Gingrich and Santorum – I feel comfortable enough to present the hightly-coveted Melmacian endorsement to . . .

Yeah, yeah. luaP noR is still technically in the GOP race. Wake me up when he actually wins a state contest.

Now, where was I?

Oh, yes. As I was saying . . .

I feel comfortable enough to present the highly-coveted Melmacian endorsement for the 2012 presidential race. As my fans already know . . .

Yes, the word “fans” is plural. It only takes two to have “fans”. If you don’t believe me, then ask MSNBC.

Anyway, as my fans . . . and Wizbang! regulars . . . already know, I am absolutley opposed to Barack Obama having a second term in the White House. Contrary to what trolls might claim (before being struck by Olaf’s hammer), my absolute opposition to Obama has nothing to do with his racial/ethnic background. Egads, my daughter is blacker than Obama.

So, who do I want to win? Well, let’s look at the pros and cons of each of the remaining GOP contenders.

[Uh, has luaP noR won a state yet? . . . I didn't think so.]

Romney: Well, he has been the governor of a state, and somehow he salvaged the Olympic Games in Salt Lake City. So, he has executive experience. Yet, that experience is not enough; otherwise Rick Perry would still be the darling of the GOP. Romney doesn’t excite me. He comes across to me as being a default candidate, supported by GOP leaders because it’s Romney’s turn at bat. The GOP tried that in 1996 with Bob Dole, and then in 2008 with McCain. I still don’t know if Romney could win a debate with Obama.

Gingrich: I remember well why Gingrich left Congress. He was bedding his mistress while he worked to get President Clinton impeached. Sure, Clinton was impeached for committing perjury while in the Oval Office. Apparently Gingrich’s wedding vows to his wife Marianne were another kind of lie. Gingrich’s desire for arm candy overrode his duty to his ill wife. If Gingrich were to win the presidential election this November, then the White House wouldn’t have another “First Lady”. Instead, the White House would have a “First Trophy”.

Yet, Gingrich’s affair with (now marriage to) the woman from Stepford, Connecticut isn’t enough to turn me against him. What matters to me is who in Congress is endorsing Gingrich . . .

Who in Congress is endorsing Gingrich? He was the Speaker of the House. If he had been a great GOP leader back then, then the people who worked with him would be endorsing him. So, besides former congressman J.C. Watts, who is endorsing Gingrich?

Santorum: Dr. Huxtable would love Santorum’s sweaters. It’s too bad that the citizens of Pennsylvania don’t, otherwise Santorum may not have been voted out of office. If the citizens of Santorum’s home state didn’t want Santorum to remain in the U.S. Senate, then what reason would they have for wanting him in the White House? Don’t think that people will automatically vote for a native of their state, because in 2000 Al Gore lost in Tennessee.

Still, Santorum has been gaining momentum, what with his recent wins in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri, but is that enough? If the general election were some kind of giant caucus, then perhaps Santorum would have a chance to win it. Sure, he would win the “not-Romney and not-Obama” vote, but moderate and independent voters don’t necessarily want someone who is just not-Romney and not-Obama. They might vote for someone who would clearly do a better job than Obama, if such a person were on the ballot, but what has Santorum said or done to convince moderates and independents that he would be better? Except for a recent Rasmussen poll, Obama leads Santorum in the polls by a margin greater than Obama’s lead over Romney. Santorum has to do more than sell himself to GOP voters. He has to sell himself to the general public, which is something that he has yet to do. Santorum may wear great-looking sweaters, but he is no Dr. Huxtable.

So, who should get the coveted Melmacian endorsement?

The winner already has the endorsements of Slublog and Erick Erickson at Red State. Laura W. at Ace of Spades is impressed by the winner. As I see it, the winner is the one most likely to make a huge impact on the USA’s future.

And the winner is . . .

. . . my choice is absolut. It is . . .

Erick Erickson states, “I would honestly prefer Ace of Spades’ sweet meteor of death than any of the candidates left in the race.”

Slublog states, “This has been an awful primary season. Again. After only a couple of primaries, Republicans have a choice between three politicians who have embraced big government solutions in the past, and Ron Paul. After much thought, I’ve finally decided which candidate I can wholeheartedly support.”

Ace of Spades has published SMOD’s stump speech, which is this:

Howdy! I am an enormous chunk of rock hurtling through space for now, but hoping for a chance to profoundly change the world for the better. I want to stop the partisan sniping and bickering of rivals that characterizes the political process. And I want you to never have to vote for the lesser of two evils ever again.
My platform: Death. To expunge. The annihilation of all life on Earth. Some say I am naive and doomed to failure, since bacteria, certain ocean creatures, and some insects will surely survive my planet-wracking onslaught. I concede that my critics may technically have a point.
But the truth is, I’ve always been a ‘half-a-loaf-of-bread-is-better-than-none’ kind of guy.

My choice of SMOD is quite reasonable. After all, I’m an independent, and the state that I live in doesn’t have open primaries. So, it would do no good for me to endorse any current GOP contender. Besides, SMOD has all the qualities that a Melmacian likes. SMOD is a showy extraterrestrial promising to make a crash landing.

Seriously, the GOP has a problem when the November election is the GOP’s to lose, and yet people prone to favor a GOP candidate are wishing that a meteor would strike the Earth before the November election takes place. That is absolute.

Now, excuse me. Thinking about the current GOP presidential contenders gives me the desire for a drink.

I told you that my choice is absolut. I’m Melmacian. What else would I have been talking about?

Chris Matthews: Obama’s Smile Is Worth Five Or Ten Points In The General Election

2012-02-08T03:46:01Z

Chris Matthews is the epitome of an “in the tank media figure.” Who could ever forget his comments during the 2008 election that forever labeled him with the nickname tingles? Commenting about Obama’s interview with Matt Lauer before the Super Bowl, Matthews said that Obama’s smile was worth five or ten points in the general.

Chris Matthews’ open fondness of Barack Obama ads another layer to the term bromance.

As Stu pointed out during Glenn Beck‘s program this morning, Matthews comments are probably accurate solely because so called journalists like Chris Matthews have failed to do their jobs when it comes to scrutinizing and reporting on Obama while he was a Senator, candidate, and now President.

“The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights”

2012-02-08T04:33:49Z

So writes Adam Liptak of The New York Times, in an article entitled “‘We The People’ Loses Its Appeal With People Around The World.”

In 1987, on the Constitution’s bicentennial, Time magazine calculated that “of the 170 countries that exist today, more than 160 have written charters modeled directly or indirectly on the U.S. version.”
A quarter-century later, the picture looks very different. “The U.S. Constitution appears to be losing its appeal as a model for constitutional drafters elsewhere,” according to a new study by David S. Law of Washington University in St. Louis and Mila Versteeg of the University of Virginia.
… “Among the world’s democracies,” Professors Law and Versteeg concluded, “constitutional similarity to the United States has clearly gone into free fall. Over the 1960s and 1970s, democratic constitutions as a whole became more similar to the U.S. Constitution, only to reverse course in the 1980s and 1990s.”
… There are lots of possible reasons. The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights. The commitment of some members of the Supreme Court to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning in the 18th century may send the signal that it is of little current use to, say, a new African nation. And the Constitution’s waning influence may be part of a general decline in American power and prestige.
In an interview, Professor Law identified a central reason for the trend: the availability of newer, sexier and more powerful operating systems in the constitutional marketplace. “Nobody wants to copy Windows 3.1,” he said.
… These days, the overlap between the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and those most popular around the world is spotty.
Americans recognize rights not widely protected, including ones to a speedy and public trial, and are outliers in prohibiting government establishment of religion. But the Constitution is out of step with the rest of the world in failing to protect, at least in so many words, a right to travel, the presumption of innocence and entitlement to food, education and health care.
… The new study also suggests that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted in 1982, may now be more influential than its American counterpart.
The Canadian Charter is both more expansive and less absolute. It guarantees equal rights for women and disabled people, allows affirmative action and requires that those arrested be informed of their rights. On the other hand, it balances those rights against “such reasonable limits” as “can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

Ah, Canadian law … the same law that has been so easily twisted by discontented Islamists and gay rights activists into a tool of persecution and censorship. Maybe not the best example. Let’s try again.

What about the European Convention on Human Rights? Sure, it “guarantees” a much broader array of rights than the US Constitution but each of those enumerated rights also contains a conditional clause similar to this: “… subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

Given the current battle between the Roman Catholic church and the Obama Administration over HHS’s contraception/abortifactant mandate, is it really a good idea to explicitly give government the power to rescind either the right to privacy or religious freedom in the interest of “public health”?

Still, I suppose it’s nice to see liberals occasionally admit in public just how inadequate they believe our Constitution is. Consider Barack Obama’s infamous 2001 radio interview:

[During the Civil Rights era] the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you. It says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf … the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.

On the other hand I (and most other conservatives) have a different view. The primary objective of our Constitution’s authors was to protect the citizens of the United States from tyranny, oppression, and manipulation at the hands of the Federal Government; or more specifically, to prevent political factions (socioeconomic classes, religious groups, etc.) from using the Federal Government as a tool to terrorize, oppress, or manipulate their enemies. They had no interest in central economic planning or organizing the confiscation and redistribution of wealth. Perhaps they were smart enough to realize that a government cannot accomplish either of these things without threatening or manipulating its citizens.

The simplicity and straightforwardness of our Constitution is its greatest strength. It doesn’t need to be endlessly amended because our courts have established legal precedent for virtually every right that is considered “essential” by contemporary standards yet is not explicitly included in the Constitution. And whatever the courts haven’t covered via judicial rulings, the Legislative branch has enshrined into law through its various Federal discrimination laws and entitlement programs.

I’ll leave you with this exit question: How can anyone argue that a new “progressive” US Constitution consisting largely of post-modern/utopian “fairness” and “equality” gobbledygook will create anything other than the most expensive, extensive, and intrusive government bureaucracy ever seen by man? I ask this considering the dedication with which modern-day liberals and progressives have searched our existing Constitution in order to uncover “emanations” and “penumbras” that always seem to serve their own political interests. How much more fodder will they find in a Constitution that they themselves will have largely crafted?

Maybe Bill Whittle can explain this better than I can:

“She’s never seen a Republican before!”

2012-02-07T18:03:29Z

I needed a pick-me-up after last night’s news… My Uncle Les came through by sending me this Ronald Reagan classic:

Rick Santorum’s Romneycare Smack Down

2012-02-07T17:57:01Z

I think I am an inch away from endorsing Rick Santorum if he keeps this up. I am sure my endorsement will put him over the top, but that aside Santorum has really been standing as the only actual conservative left in the race at this point. His latest triumph occurred in Minnesota where he raked Romney over the coals for Romneycare — something that not enough people are doing.

Santorum’s charge is simple. How can a guy that still to this day defends Romneycare be the one to take the fight over Obamacare to the President? I’ve been saying for three years that Romney is simply unable to be the candidate to refute Obamacare and I am thrilled to see Santorum saying the same.

At his appearance in Rochester, Santorum said, “Gov. Romney is absolutely incapable of making the case against Obamacare successfully.”

“The problem is, we have a candidate who is running and seen by the media as the prohibitive favorite, who is the worst possible person in the field to put up on this most fundamental issue in this campaign, and that is Gov. Romney,” Santorum said. “The plan he put together in Massachusetts is in fact ‘ObamaCare’ on the state level.”

Santorum’s exactly right, too. How can we believe a word Romney says on repealing Obamacre when he still to this day is a huge supporter of Romneycare and its individual mandate? Especially since early in his campaigning for the presidency Romney said that Romneycare was a model for the nation. Especially since one of his chief advisors says that they really aren’t going to repeal Obamacare despite what Romney says on the stump.

Romney simply cannot face Obama on the issue because his record is no different than Obama’s on healthcare. Romney is an anti-Constitutionalist, a big government guy, a statist, whatever you want to call him his record is exactly like Obama’s on the issue. Should we believe what Romney says on the stump that he’ll repeal Obamacare if elected? I say we go by his actual record, not what, in a desperate attempt to win, he claims he’ll do if elected. His words have no veracity. Just look at his record.

Romney has taken notice of Santorum, too, and he’s set his smear machine on over drive to destroy Santorum. Romney has chosen to go after Rick on earmarks, but, as Santorum notes, that is a bit cynical since Romney and those that are acting as his surrogate have been big supporters of earmarks in the past.

“Here’s a situation where someone is now doing well, rising in the polls and instead of Gov. Romney going out and talking about his plans and what he’s going to do, he goes out and throws the kitchen sink and runs negative ads and sends out his surrogates to rip and tear — even though he’s as vulnerable on this issue [earmarks] as anybody,” Santorum said.
He said some of Romney’s surrogates have used earmarks in the past, but did not specifically mention Pawlenty.
“This is the narrative which you’re going to see. Anytime someone challenges Gov. Romney, Gov. Romney goes out and instead of talking about what he’s for … he just simply goes out and attacks and tries to destroy,” Santorum told reporters after his speech. “I don’t think it’s going to work this time.”

The main takeaway here is that Romney has been allowed to skate without having to confront his statist love of Romneycare. It is good that Santorum is finally taking it to Mitt forcefully. Some one needs to, anyway.

Red Light Cameras: Government’s ‘It’s For Public Safety’ Lie

2012-02-06T20:37:54Z

Red light cameras are a mixed bag across the USA. Big cities love them, small cities increasingly less. But one thing is universal where ever they are tried. The whole thing is about revenue generation, not public safety. Most city administrations try desperately to hide their greed behind hoary claims of safeguarding the public, but at least Toledo, Ohio has dispensed with some of that subterfuge and is admitting straight out that making money is a main goal.

Last month Toledo’s finance director told the city council that they were installing 11 new red light cameras with the expectation that the project would “raise” $320,000. What did the city need that new revenue for? More government spending, of course.

Oh, and it’s for the children, too. Toledo Councilman Steve Steel was excited to get the new revenue. “It does restore the biggest thing we were looking for, which was giving kids something constructive to do in a positive atmosphere,” he crowed.

So, now officials will berate you if you stand against these useless devices that are just a means to give government more money to spend on pet projects because, darn it, it’s for the children! WHY do you hate kids, taxpayers?

Unfortunately for Toledo’s city fathers, red light cameras are increasingly failing at both revenue generation and public safety. Many cities that once had them have pulled them out because revenues dropped over time while maintenance costs continued to rise not to mention that some cities have found that the red light cameras actually cause more accidents instead of improving driver safety.

Worse, some cities have played games with the cameras in order to keep revenues flowing into their profligate hands. At least six cities were caught shortening yellow light times in order to catch more drivers running red lights.

But we don’t even have to stray from Toledo to show that new red light cameras won’t bring in a never ending stream of spending cash. Ohio native Maggie Thurber notes that Toledo has already seen revenues fall from other red light camera installations.

The problem, as I’ve detailed previously, is that the more people get used to red light and speed cameras, the less the revenue there is from violations. Since 2009 when the city added speed cameras and negotiated a higher percentage of the fines, the revenue has steadily decreased. This means that the city, in order to continue to collect their targeted budget amounts, must constantly expand the big-brother-type surveillance.

Yet, here they are trying for more red light cameras. Why? Because they imagine a pot o’ gold under every red light in the city. When politicians get dollar signs in their eyes its hard to shake them from the dreamy dream of more cash to spend on their pet projects. If it’s all about bringing in money they can spend. It has zip to do with safety.

Romney vs. Evangelicals?

2012-02-06T19:51:39Z

What are we to make of Romney’s lack of support among so-called “evangelicals”?

Sean Trende is the senior elections analyst at RealClearPolitics. He has written an article titled A Demographic Divide: Could Evangelicals Block Romney?

After explaining the number crunching that he engaged in, Trende describes what he learned:

. . . we see that a large portion of the GOP fight can be explained very well using only demographic variables. This is what I believe Cost picked up on when he found that northern conservatives voted for Romney, while southern conservatives voted against him. In the north, the conservatives tend to be non-evangelical. In the south, they tend to be evangelical (in Florida, they’re split).
Why this is the case is open to interpretation. The simplest answer is anti-Mormon bias, but that seems a bit too easy. After all, the alternatives are a pair of Catholics. The other possibility — and this is a problem with regression — is that religion could be a stand-in for ideology, and that, regardless of self-identification, a self-described conservative evangelical Republican is significantly to the right of a self-described conservative who is non-evangelical. Or it could be some third possibility: Perhaps evangelicals and non-evangelicals alike in heavily evangelical counties vote against Romney for an additional reason.

Now, let’s consider the possible reason for the evangelical opposition to Romney.

The simplest answer is anti-Mormon bias, but that seems a bit too easy. After all, the alternatives are a pair of Catholics.

Here Trende demonstrates his lack of knowledge about the theological differences between self-described evangelicals and Romney.

Evangelicals and Catholics share a common theology, in which there is only one God who exists, only one God who has ever existed, and only one God who will ever exist. According to this shared theology, the one and only God is identified in the Bible by several names, such as El Elyon and Yahweh. According to this shared theology, the one and only God has revealed Himself in three forms - Father, Son and Holy Spirit – with all three being the same God in essence. According to the theology shared by evangelicals and Catholics, there has never been a time when the one and only God wasn’t God.

Now, compare the above-described theology to that taught by Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the LDS Church. In Volume 6 of The Journal of Discourses, Smith states the following:

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. . . for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the vail, so that you may see.
These are incomprehensible ideas to some; but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did . . .
. . . and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, – namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one, – from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. . .
. . . In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it.

The above-quoted teachings of Smith reveal that LDS theology is polytheistic, in contrast to the theology of evangelicals and Catholics. The pro-Mormon website fairlds.org explains that in Mormon theology, Jesus is not the only son of his Father.

In a commentary titled “The fourth Abrahamic religion” Standard-Examiner editor Neal Humphrey states the following:

Mormons routinely avoid public discourse about essential tenets of their faith. On one hand, Mormons describe themselves as Christians just like everybody else. On the other, they prefer to keep private such core beliefs as the sibling relationship between Jesus and Satan, the plurality of gods, how they believe a god named Elohim instructed two demi-gods named Jehovah and Michael to organize (not create) our planet from existing matter, etc.
This style of religion is called a “mystery religion.” We haven’t seen a fully functional mystery religion since Mithraism evaporated 1,500 years ago. Mystery religions have a public and private side. The public or exoteric face of the religion looks culturally normal. The private and esoteric side is the reality.
This is not a negative judgment of Mormonism, just a description. It also explains why when Mormons declare “We believe in the Savior too,” it is insufficient. By contrast, the late President Gordon B. Hinkley was always refreshingly candid in affirming the truth that Mormons do not believe in same Jesus as traditional Christianity.

In short, the LDS faith is a polytheistic faith in which Jesus is one of several deities, in which Jesus and Satan are brothers.

So, whenever Mitt Romney mentions God, he should . . .

In contrast, the theology shared by evangelicals and Catholics is a theology that is monotheistic. Nowhere in evangelical and Catholic theology do Jesus and Satan have a sibling relationship.

If evangelicals factor in theological differences when deciding who to vote for, then they are inclined to favor candidates who are monotheistic, such as Gingrich and Santorum, as opposed to a candidate who is silently polytheistic, such as Romney.

Yet, as Sean Trende points out, evangelicals could have a non-theological reason for favoring Gingrich and Santorum over Romney. The reason could simply be that evangelicals consider Romney to be less conservative than the other candidates.

I, for one, do not think that Romney’s theology should held against him when deciding who should be the GOP nominee. Better a Mormon who can defeat Obama than a Catholic who can’t. After all, Romney, Gingrich and Santorum are running for President of the USA, not president of the National Association of Evangelicals.

Clint Eastwood ‘Half-time in America’ ad invites criticism

2012-02-06T17:34:23Z

And so Mark Wiberg obliges:

Would Dirty Harry ask for a handout? Hell no, he wouldn’t. He could build a car made out of his melted Smith and Wesson handgun, all while eating a sandwich and zinging bad guys with one-liners.
So, bringing in the city of Detroit as some city on the ‘comeback’ after being knocked down, and blah blah blah, was a bit disingenuous as it fails to mention they knocked themselves out. Detroit and the American car industry would not have made it to ‘half-time’ if it wasn’t for the Bail-Out ™. They were carried by the taxpayer to half-time, beaten and bruised by building inferior products, bloated management and union mismanagement and over-the-rainbow promises to it’s retiring workforce. People will debate for years whether the bail-outs work, and I’m no expert. The point of this post is that having cool music and the coolest American film icon in a commercial about American ‘can do’ is a bad idea when you bring a failure of a company like GM/Chrysler/Chevrolet.

He’s got more and it’s worth your time.

H/T to Lex Communis who adds:

Jeepers…”half-time”…as in four years out of eight?
Do you think that’s what the not-so-hidden subtext was?
Gleischaltung worked for the Nazis; it’s bound to work for Team Obama!

Shouldn’t the GOP get equal time?

He Has a Little List

2012-02-06T16:32:51Z

He Claims They Shan’t Be Missed

Or, why does this mal-Administration insist on taking warnings as “How-To” lessons?

One such warning came from the late Robert A. Heinlein, who wrote:

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as “bad luck.”

Which brings us back to the SCoaMF and his (not so little) list, as described by the Sage of Selma.

Are You ‘Them!’?
By Victor Davis Hanson | Works and Days
Until the appearance of Barack Obama on the national scene, I knew of “them” only from an old sci-fi movie in which huge ants (“Them!”) ate people.
But there are new monsters in America, and I am starting to wonder whether I am to be considered among them: those of the uninvolved and uninformed lives, the bar-raisers, the downright mean ones, the never deserving of respect ones, the Vegas junketeers, the Super Bowl jet setters, the tuition stealers, the faux-Christians who do not pay higher taxes, the too much income makers, the tormenters of autistic children, the polluters, the enemies deserving of punishment, the targets to bring a gun against, the faces to get in front of, the limb-loppers, the tonsil pullers, the fat cats, the corporate jet owners, the one-percenters, the stupidly acting, the not paying their fair sharers, the discriminators on the “way you look”, the alligator raisers and moat builders, the vote deniers, the clingers, the typical something persons, the hunters of kids at ice cream parlors, the stereotypers and profilers, the cowards, the lazy and soft, the non-spreaders of money, the not my people people, the Tea party racists, the not been perfect and mistake makers, the disengaged and the dictating, the not the time to profiteers, the ones who did not know when to quit making money, and on and on.
My God, man, how did Barack Obama & Co. conjure up so many demons?

Well, it’s not as if he can run on his record with either his base or his critics. His base has been consistently disappointed and his critics have found he has exceeded most of their worst predictions. When added to his public statement to the effect that if he couldn’t get the economy turned around in three years (which three years ended on January 19th, 2012 with the economy stagnant and the work force at it’s lowest participation rate in thirty years) he’d be a one term president, it’s clear he’s painted himself into a corner.

It seems his plan to get out of that corner he has painted himself into is an enemies list that makes Richard Nixon’s look short and rational.

A lot of the entrepreneurial class has already “Gone Galt” for the duration. Declaring them to be enemies will not improve the situation, and may yet result in “bad luck” that none of us would care to live through.

Expanded from Google Plus where for once, I was one step ahead of the Blogfather.

A reminder as we ponder the Giants win over the Pats in the Super Bowl

2012-02-06T11:36:48Z

The Redskins beat the Giants twice during the regular season.

Carry on.

1992 Revisited

2012-02-06T06:12:26Z

Twenty years ago, we experienced a definitive Presidential race that shared a number of initial similarities to the current 2012 race. The President, George H. W. Bush was a one-term incumbent seeking re-election. We were in the midst of a recession (though a relatively mild one that was essentially over before the primaries even began). And the candidates for opposition party were all considered to be second-string contenders, because none of the party’s assumed “A-list” candidates were interested in running.

The reason the A-list Democrats stayed out of the 1992 race was the stratospheric approval of President Bush immediately following Operation Desert Storm. America won a decisive military victory against Saddam Hussein, and President Bush’s approval ratings peaked at over 90%. He was considered untouchable and unbeatable. No one wanted to endure the humiliation of losing the race in a landslide.

President Bush’s Achilles Heel turned out to be the economy, which had grown soft during the last half of 1991. And there was the “Read my lips: no new taxes” pledge that the Democrats had coaxed him into breaking by promising to use the additional revenue for deficit reduction.

The real surprise of the primary season turned out to be Arkansas governor Bill Clinton. He was relatively unknown outside of his home state, but when the press realized that he had what it took to be a political superstar, they immediately promoted him to the top of the Democrat contenders list. They helped him escape scrutiny over numerous accusations of adultery by providing him with a prime time “60 Minutes” interview on Superbowl Sunday in January 1992, which allowed Clinton to portray himself as a man who struggled with the same weaknesses and faults as every married man, and who was being unfairly victimized by women wanting to take advantage of his sudden surge in popularity.

After Clinton won the nomination he and his running mate, Tennessee senator Al Gore Jr., launched a full-throttle attack against President Bush, blaming him for the current recession and tying the country’s economic woes to his broken pledge to not raise taxes. Yes – as hard as it is to believe these days, twenty years ago the Democrats actually blamed a tax increase for slowing down the economy. “It’s The Economy, Stupid!” became the Democrat battle cry. The press dutifully reported these attacks without seriously scrutinizing them, and began highlighting the struggles of average Americans trying to cope with “the worst economy in fifty years.”

It was when President Bush responded to Clinton’s allegations and attempted to reassure Americans that the economy was slightly off track but no where near the critical state that Clinton was implying, that the press wholly turned against Bush. A questioner at a “town hall debate” surprised the President when he asked him how much a gallon of milk cost. When Bush couldn’t answer the question, the press and the pop culture media pounced and declared him to be a Washington DC elitist who was miserably “out of touch” with America. They were also anxious for “change” after 12 years of Republican control of the White House.

Bill Clinton’s passionate promises to undo the policies that created the “decade of greed,” which were a stark contrast to George Bush’s low-key ‘everything is going to be okay’ approach, left voters dissatisfied with the Republicans. The third party candidacy of Ross Perot split undecided voters and gave the electoral college, and the presidency, to Bill Clinton even though he won only 43% of the popular vote.

Fast-forward to today.

A significant number Republican voters have been dissatisfied with the party’s front runner, Mitt Romney. He is a “loser” from the last presidential election and has yet to attract 50% of the vote in a primary or caucus. The other candidates haven’t fared any better; only one of them (Newt Gingrich) has attracted 40% of primary voters, and Newt is easily the most hated of the Republican candidates by the mainstream media. Rick Santorum and Ron Paul both appeal to core constituencies, though neither of them has shown an ability to attract a broad base that could translate into a majority of voters. Unlike Bill Clinton in 1992, none of the Republican candidates has morphed into a political superstar.

But their opponent is a first-term president desperately trying to overcome an awful economy (by nearly every measure it truly is the worst economy since the end of WWII) as well as a record that includes confusing and unpopular legislation, unfocused foreign policy, and poor overall approval ratings. However, the current occupant in the White House is a Democrat. And not just any Democrat, but one who was swept into power on a wave of news media adulation and pop culture myth-making that promised America a leader who would “fundamentally transform” the nation and redefine politics as we know it.

I think it’s safe to say that the press hasn’t given up on their man just yet; therefore we won’t be seeing them saturate the pre-election airwaves with reports highlighting the plight of retirees who lost a huge chunk of their savings in the 2008 stock market crash and are now having to provide for themselves and their extended family (who moved back home after losing their home to foreclosure) on a 1.5% annual investment return; or of homeowners who have seen their equity value plunge and are now struggling to keep up with mortgage payments on an underwater loan; or white collar workers who have been out of work for two years with no hope of employment in sight; or any of the other tales told by citizens whose situations serve as marks of a severely weak economy.

Whoever the Republican nominee is, I am pretty sure that he will be left alone to carry the full weight of any kind of attack focusing on the current state of our economy. Unlike twenty years ago, the press will be reluctant to talk about our current economic problems; their reporting will be confined only to highlighting occasional good news. The only way this could change is if the economy suddenly took a gigantic turn for the worse, and things got so bad that the press would be ridiculed if they did not devote a reasonable amount of time to reporting it; above all things, the press cannot stand ridicule, so they would probably abandon President Obama in such a case simply out of self-preservation.

The Obama Administration will probably counter a Republican attack with an overall positive message about fairness and responsibility. President Obama will admit that he has made mistakes and that he has not made as much progress as he had hoped he would. But he will also claim that his attempts at reform have been stymied by the system itself, which is inherently unfair and is shielded by its overlords against reform, because real reform would end the lop-sided distribution of wealth by the system which keeps the “1 %” rich and powerful, and the other 99% poor.

The President will ask for four more years to really, really reform the system and create a government that takes care of all its human and natural resources and gives everyone a fair chance, while ensuring that no one earns more than their fair share or damages the planet while making a profit.

But aside from that, the President and the Democrats will characterize the Republican nominee as the kind of man who benefits directly from the old system that rapes the planet and lines the pockets of Wall Street gazillionaires, a la Saul Alinsky’s tactic #12. They will paint the Republican party as the personification of the old system itself. Vote Republican, and you will ensure that the rich remain rich, and the poor remain poor.

And President Obama can be fairly certain, I think, that no one will be allowed to ask him how much a gallon of milk costs.

Whether or not the public accepts President Obama’s re-election pitch, or ignores the Democratic establishment’s “conservatism = racism/destruction/greed” spin and returns a Republican to the White House, remains to be seen.