Bent Out Of Shape, Conservative And Proud To Be One

By J P Bender,
reprinted with the express written permission,

Recently Paul Schroeder, a fellow writer on SearchWarp, wrote an article titled, Liberal and Proud To Be One. In my opinion, Paul is a good writer and after reading his article, I left him some feedback (writers like to get feedback).

I wrote him, "Paul - a good article and an interesting read on Liberalism - I was not aware that all Conservatives were Christian fundamentalists (he wrote that in his article).

Paul responded, "Very true but all Christian fundamentalists ARE Conservative!"

Well that very statement needed some retort, so I responded, "Paul – that's an interesting statement –sort of reminds me of the statements made by the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, when he conducted the witch-hunts to ferret out Communists in America. He said at the hearings, of the House of Un-American Activities, " Not all liberal Democrats are Communists, but all Communists are liberal Democrats."

I like the literary standpoint of Paul's article but I disagree with the contents, so I decided to take the liberty of writing my own article as a counter-point. It will not only differ in style but in content.

I would like to point out at the onset of this article that I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat; I am a conservative. I realized that I was a conservative ever since I attended a meeting of the John Birch Society while in college. Ever since its founding in 1958 by Robert Welch, the John Birch Society has been dedicated to restoring and preserving freedom under the United States Constitution.

Conservatism in the United States includes a variety of political ideologies including fiscal, supply-side economics, social, libertaian, bioconservatism, traditionalist and religious, as well as support for a strong military. Modern American conservatism was largely born out of alliance between classical liberals and social conservatives in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, L. Brent Bozell and William F. Buckley, come to mind as the important American conservatives.

President Reagan was widely seen as a symbol of American conservatism, and during an interview he said, "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.

Organizations in the US committed to promoting conservative ideology include the American Conservative Union, Eagle Forum, the Heritage Foundation and the Hoover Institution. US-based media outlets that are conservative include Human Events, The National Review, The American Conservative, Policy Review and the Weekly Standard. Over the years, I have contributed opinions and articles to some of these entities.

In the US, social conservatives emphasize traditional views of social units such as the family, church or locale. Social conservatism may entail defining marriage as relationships between one man and one woman (thereby prohibiting same-sex marrige and polygamy) along with laws placing restrictions on the practice of abortion.

While many religious conservatives believe that government should have a role in defending moral values, libertarian conservatives such as Barry Goldwater advocated a hands-off government where social values were concerned.

Originally, Edmund Burke advocated an ideology of caution in departing from the historical roots of a society, or changing its inherited traditions and institutions. In this ‘organic' form, it included allegiance to tradition, community, hierarchies of rank, benevolent paternalism, and properly subservient under-classes.

By contrast, conservatism can be taken to imply a laissez-faire ideology of untrammeled individualism, which puts the emphasis on personal responsibility, free markets, law and order, and a minimal role for government, with neither community, nor tradition, nor benevolence entering more than marginally. In today's society, the two strands are not easy to reconcile, either in theory or in practice.

In the last few decades, the rise of extremism as a coup for power has relegated politics to the level of trench warfare. It views everything from a strategic viewpoint, dehumanizing the opposition with a barrage of propaganda. A democracy only functions properly when truth and civility are maintained. While tension and disagreement is to be expected, the narrow-minded trench warfare we see today is hostile to everything we believe in.

Liberals have been painted as bleeding hearts whose only purpose is to tax and spend. Conservatives have been charged with bigotry and being in the pocket of big business.

These tiresome, manipulative mantras have been repeated so many times, and with such venom, that they actually distort the real definitions of conservative and liberal - to the detriment of both, and to the betrayal of the people whose welfare and integrity democracy is supposed to maintain.

Conservatism is a political ideology, which places great value on learning from past solutions, tried and true, for answers we need today. It cherishes tradition and resists change. When change is unavoidable, it is accepted slowly and with a fair amount of caution.

While 43 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservative, this figure is misleading. Conservatism is divided into additional disparate parts, including neocons, theocons, and various subsets pointing to leaders of the past, including Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan. Some of these branches are very different from one another, with issues that overlap.

Conservatives are known for wanting to return to traditional religious and ethical absolutes, automatically rejecting the challenges of relativism. Ronald Reagan summed up his philosophy as "limited government, individual liberty, and the prospect of a strong America." No relativism there.

With the influence of so many competing factions today, issues thought to be conservative have expanded to include anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, supporting of big business, lowering taxes, smaller government, protection of gun ownership, and a knee-jerk dislike of anything considered "liberal."

Conservatives tend to defend the status quo. They usually prefer empirical knowledge to rationalism, faith to reason, rugged individualism to victim mentality, and a have a deep distrust of human nature, which needs to be strongly disciplined. For the sake of freedom, they want less laws and regulations, replaced by greater personal responsibility.

The mere thought of equality seems an obvious mistaken idea. People vary according to their talents, skills, perseverance and a host of other variables. They reap what they sow and earn their rewards accordingly. People are expected to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, with neighbor helping neighbor when emergency strikes. Success is considered admirable and hard work encouraged.

Traditionally, conservatives lean toward isolationism and away from nation building and wars of choice. For many, neocons especially, this has changed. As you can see, conservatism supports many great ideas that can be found in Seed-for Thought, such as personal responsibility, self-development, a respect for tradition, and looking to the past for answers relevant for today.

Liberalism, at its best, seeks reform and creativity based on human rights and reasonable assumptions. Conservatism, properly applied, takes a more cautious approach, wanting to preserve what is best from the past, restraining liberalism to a slower, more careful pace, so as not to lose or damage that which is good.

Many ideals that liberalism instituted are now considered traditions that conservatives protect. Those would include the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, which the American flag represents.

Taken together, these two political approaches offer a process of development that is cautiously progressive, learning from the past while encouraging intellectual creativity. Conservatism would preserve a foundation of Western values at their best, on which liberalism could build. The reformist energy of one would be prudently slowed by the cautionary restraint of the other.

Conservatism in the U.S. is actually a reaction to what are perceived to be liberal excesses. In other words, it is not a so much a separate, conflicting ideology. In America, is too rooted in American liberalism, which has provided our traditions, for that. It is an attempt to tone, though it might take decades.

Unfortunately, as in the case of slavery, some problems should not and cannot neatly be put aside for some future resolution. Civil rights cannot be ignored, and resistance to asserting them is tantamount to oppression. Is that radical change or is it living up to our true American ideals?

Nothing is more natural than wanting to safeguard what we have that is good. We shouldn't disrupt or challenge the benefits we've achieved by imposing radical change. This is the essence of conservatism. That what we have and cherish is rooted in the throes of liberal revolution doesn't matter. Once it becomes our staid tradition, it should be treated as such.

In a sense, this can be seen as a reformist point of view, transitioning initial radicalism into a definable nation. Unfortunately, this reformism has not been articulated very well, or even fully understood by those who see long held traditions jeopardized. People respond with anger rather than reason. Taking an adversarial approach, they are more interested in confrontation, distorting the other side as a threatening, purposely choosing opposite views on every issue to further the divide.

Why? I believe it's because politics is seen as an angry struggle for power rather than a civil discourse. It is assumed that no minds can be changed, so only power can keep things the way they are. And besides, how could conservatism advocate reform, when reform means change that they naturally resist? This is the quagmire of conservatism. It comes from the heart.

People don't change overnight. What supports the complacency we suffer from has become a cultural problem, a surrendering to the requirements of a mass society, where the implicit message is to merge with the crowd and do what's expected - right or wrong. As a cultural problem, we need to deal with it culturally. We need to examine what stops us from taking control of our democratic process, from asking pertinent questions and rising above the propaganda that political strategists feed us.

When it comes to the political arena, we must start by facing the truth: The answers to our problems will never be found in liberalism or conservatism. Never. Complete support for one extreme or the other merely fortifies a stalemate that sinks in its own corruption.

Common sense tells us that a healthy life embraces change and tradition, not pit one against the other, so that every victory associates itself with loss. It approaches problems directly for reasonable solutions, as vehicles for political gain.

Can the life of a healthy state be so different? Must it degrade by becoming cynical and inhuman? If it does, it reflects the people who support it, who then carry the blame.

It is time to turn our backs on media propagandists, campaign strategists, think-tank goons, and political pundits. These professional hucksters flourish on the assumption that the majority of people are easily duped. They are not compatriots of freedom, but rather users of freedom who propagate deception.

It is time we no longer delight in scandal and innuendo, as political strategists count on. Behind the media presentation of scandal is a hidden motive designed to draw out attention from something else, and paint everyone of a given party as sharing in guilt. There is no liberalism down, and standardize what we have into a fixed norm. It is nationalizing the results of our original, revolutionary intent and recognizing them as fixed, reliable traditions, a status quo that needs defending. It wants no more change, or very little. When change is inevitable, it should be taken in slow doses that preserve the core of every day life.

What was perceived, as conservative bigotry in the Civil Rights movement of the 60s, was actually a call to slow down so that change could happen without forcing new behavior, and in its own, natural time. We saw these a hundred years earlier, when Abraham Lincoln resisted emancipation, believing that slavery would disappear as a matter of moral course honor in this. When corruption is discovered, take care of it according to the law, announce it on the news in a sane, respectful manner, and avoid the media circus.

It is time we choose to vote according to the worth as candidates, rather than party affiliation or unrelated issues.

It is also time that we embrace the liberal and conservative traditions that we have, merge them into something positive, and make our democratic system the shining example of government that it can be.

Until that happens, I am a conservative and proud to be one.

Opposition to Health Plans Hardens

Despite hardening opposition, Democrats in Congress continue to push government seizure of the American health care system. Rasmussen Reportts a new poll of LIKELY voters, not just of registered voters (but rather those who are likely to actually vote) as being 51% against government health care plans, with only 41% in support. Of those who oppose the plans presently being considered by Congress and the Obama Administration, 41% strongly oppose the measures, while on 23% of those who support them do so strongly.

Both the Senate and the House have Democratic majorities, which explains why both keep pushing on health care despite consistent public opposition. Seventy-two percent (72%) of Democrats favor the plan, while 83% of Republicans and 62% of voters not affiliated with either major party are opposed to it. {emphasis mine}

“This suggests that public opinion about the health care plan is hardening,” says Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports. “Despite the fact that most American believe our health care system needs major changes, most are opposed to what Congress is currently doing about it.”

Yet, despite this national opposition, Democrats are still attempting to wrest more intrusive power for the Federal Government, figuring that once they get this massive spending program in place the likelihood of it being overturned in a future Congress is minimal. A major sticking point for the public seems to be Congress' exemption from its own plans...

Obama's Polls Slide South As Palins Rise

A reported earlier a recent poll shows Mr. Obama's popularity slipped below 50% in the past week. Meanwhile, Mrs. Palins numbers have shown a stark rise in her popularity. Last week, in a Fox News poll, she is shown as having hit the 47% mark...this week, in a CNN (yeah, CNN! Imagine that) poll, she is shown as having 46% approval rating. That puts her within 1 point of Mr. Obama's CNN numbers (47%). That's in a new organization that traditionally has an unfavorable bias against conservatives in general and Mrs. Palin, in particular.

The very same polarization now holds true for Obama, the fresh fellow from the old Chicago Democratic machine who was supposed to bring hope and change to a nation tired of divisive politics and the harsh partisan tone of Washington. Fully 83% of Democrats approve of him, but only 14% of Republicans do. Among independents, who provided the crucial winning boost for the Democratic ticket in November 2008, Obama's support has melted to 42% today, in large part over immense spending and deficit concerns.

That's a fairly accurate showing of just how unpopular Mr. Obama's agenda for this year has been with voters. Additionally, it goes to show WHY Democratic Congressmen in marginal districts have begun to show great concern for their own poll numbers heading into next years campaign season.

If Congress is successful in passing the very unpopular government seizure of health care, as well as the measures for "Cap & Trade" many of the Blue Dog Dem's face defeat. Additionally, the GOP (or Tea Party Movement) may make considerable gains. Especially if the unemployment rate continues to rise (despite temporary seasonal decreaces due to the holiday shopping season). My prediction of Dem losses of 60-100 seats next fall I believe is accurate as well as the loss of as many as 16 seats in the US Senate. We will I believe see GOP/Tea Party gains in various state legislatures as well. However, this doesn't necessarily bode well for the GOP in 2012, as recent history has shown that the GOP leadership seems to have forgotten what the party stands for (out of control spending in 2002-2006). If they have learned the lesson of this past decade...it will be well for them, but if the GOP returns to "Dem Lite", then they will again lose seats in 2012.

EPA Declares CO2 Harmful To Humans

The EPA and the Obama Administration in an effort to circumvent Congress has unilaterally declared that CO2 is harmful to humans. CO2 if you will recall is a NATURALLY OCCURRING gas. By declaring it harmful, the EPA may now begin to regulate (i.e. tax/fine/fee) emissions. This means that in order for you to drive you car, you can, and probably will be fined for doing so.

The EPA said that the scientific evidence surrounding climate change clearly shows that greenhouse gases "threaten the public health and welfare of the American people" and that the pollutants — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels — should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

Bullshit! The "scientific evidence" is far from certain, especially since the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia's emails and data have clearly shown an attempt to block any publication of articles and papers that take a contrary view of the "settled science". Since "Cap & Trade" bills passage has stalled and are likely to go nowhere, the Obama Administration is attempting to do an "end run" around Congress and desires to seize control of energy production in this country. During the campaign, Mr. Obama repeated stated his desire to drive the production of coal, as well using coal as a means of energy production out of business by making it prohibitively expensive to use this for energy. This is a blatant power grab by this administration.

"These long-overdue findings cement 2009's place in history as the year when the United States government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution," said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson at news conference.

The action by the EPA, which has been anticipated for months, clearly was timed to add to the momentum toward some sort of agreement on climate change at the Copenhagen conference and try to push Congress to approve climate legislation.

"This is a clear message to Copenhagen of the Obama administration's commitments to address global climate change," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., lead author of a climate bill before the Senate. "The message to Congress is crystal clear: get moving."

Unfortunately, it seems that the Obama administration won't be happy until it not only controls the production of energy, but that of health care as well. This is nothing more than a bald attempt to completely restructuring the United States into a socialist/statist economic model. If the government controls the production of energy, it will be able to dictate to companies who is permitted to do business and more importantly who is not. Additionally, it will have the ability to dictate who gets health care...and who does not.

The time has already arrived that bureaucrats are deciding upon a political basis who is permitted to work in government by not hiring anyone with a conservative background...in the very near future you can bet they health care (with the passage of the government's plan to seize control of health care) your political party will be a deciding factor if you receive good care...or not. Now the government will dispense energy upon those corporations (by giving thee "exemptions") who are politically approved of, and those who are not. Now, Mr. Obama's enemy list begins to take on whole new meanings.

Tea Party Overtakes GOP in Polling

It looks like the Tea Party is here to stay. In a recent Rasmussen poll the Tea Party passed the GOP in popularity. This indicates a very serious problem within the base of the Republican Party. It does however tie in with another recent poll where in 73% of Republicans believe that their leadership in Washington has lost touch with them.

In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.

For this survey, the respondents were asked to assume that the Tea Party movement organized as a new political party. In practical terms, it is unlikely that a true third-party option would perform as well as the polling data indicates. The rules of the election process—written by Republicans and Democrats--provide substantial advantages for the two established major parties. The more conventional route in the United States is for a potential third-party force to overtake one of the existing parties.

This isn't good news for the GOP leadership. They've been very busy trying to take over leadership of the Tea Party movement, but haven't been very successful in doing so. A large reason for that IS the lack of communication GOP leaders have had outside the DC Beltway. It doesn't help when "leaders" like Newt Gingrich back candidates who are Republican in name only (RINO), such as Dede Scozzafava of NY-23 fame.

Ms. Scozzafava, a very liberal member of the New York Senate, ran for the NY-23 seat. She gained the GOP nomination through back room deals over the first choice of the various County GOP leaders. Billed by the MSM as a "moderate" but her support of the economy killing "Stimulus Package", Government Seizure of Health Care, Card Check (a measure that would permit unionization without a secret ballot), Gay Marriage and Abortion, easily put her in a very liberal political framework.

"Social stands might make people unsettled, but it's the economic issues that are really driving people and donations away. She's alienated the conservative, free enterprise wing of the party," said one prominent New York Republican. "Card check? The stimulus? I can't make a call to anyone on her behalf because of those things."

But when challenged by a fiscal conservative, Doug Hoffman, her base of support melted away and she began polling a distant 3rd. Then finally, withdrawing from the race, one of her supporters, said,

"Dede Scozzafava has placed her Party and her principles over politics and position for years," said Cox, whose spokesman on Thursday insisted he was working hard to support her.

Except that she cast her support to the Democrat Bill Owens, this is seen by most people as what tipped the balance his way to a very meagre victory.

This sort of support by many in Washington leadership circles is seen as what is disaffecting the GOP base and eroding the support of the party from within. Additionally, this is why so many conservatives no long identify with the GOP.

Data from the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that just 55% of conservatives nationwide consider themselves Republicans. Republican voters are paying a lot more attention to the Tea Party movement than anyone else. Forty-three percent (43%) of GOP voters are following news about the movement Very Closely. Another 30% are following it Somewhat Closely.

If this trend continues, as it seems likely, the rise of a third party is not just likely, but this could very well be the genesis of that party. The GOP formed in the last 1840's and early 1850's as the Whig Party began to founder and lose direction. After only 2 presidential election cycles 1852 & '56, the Republican Party was able to capture seats in state legislatures, but in Congress as well as electing Abraham Lincoln to the presidency in 1860. It was just the sort of disaffection within party ranks that gave birth to the GOP...and could very well be it's dissolution as well.

The Stimulus Was A Flop

via BigGovernment.com, By Dan Mitchell,

President Obama claimed a $787 billion Keynesian spending bill would keep the joblessness rate at 8 percent or below, so it’s no surprise that the White House is feeling defensive now that the unemployment rate is 10 percent. The supposedly non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has jumped to the defense of the Administration, estimating that Obama’s so-called stimulus actually generated beween 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs. How can that be, you may ask, when the number of jobs has fallen by more than 3 million? The CBO neatly sidesteps that real-world concern by moving the goalposts, using a slightly more sophisticated version of Obama’s “jobs created or saved” alchemy. The CBO simply estimates how many jobs there are now compared to a make-believe baseline of how many jobs there would be “without the law.” Needless to say, this means there is no objective benchmark. The unemployment rate could jump to 15 percent and total job losses could reach 10 million, but CBO would continue to say, for all intents and purposes, that the results from their Keynesian model are more important than any real-world numbers. This is the fiscal-policy version of the Wizard of Oz, and we’re supposed to ignore reality just as Dorothy and friends were supposed to ignore the man behind the curtain. A previous post included a video explaining why Keynesian economics was theoretically flawed. This video specifically debunks Obama’s $787 billion faux stimulus, notwithstanding CBO’s make-believe numbers.

Budget Deficit Already 25% Higher Than Expected

Late on Friday afternoon, the Obama administration released a report from the Congressional Budget Office saying that the budget deficit for October and November was 25% higher than had been forecast. Late on Friday afternoon is the traditional time for bad news to be released (see the coverage of MT Sen Max Baucus' mistress being recommended as US attorney for MT--what coverage, right?). This is how an administration attempts to bury news they don't want covered.

In October and November, the government spent $292 billion more than it took in, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said. That was even worse than the same period last year, when the government was on its way to posting a record $1.4 trillion deficit for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.

The federal budget has been battered by the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s, as tax revenues have plunged and spending on safety-net programs like unemployment insurance have skyrocketed. The budget deficit was $176.4 billion in October, according to Treasury Department records, and the CBO estimated the deficit for November will have come in at $115 billion.

The CBO gave its figures in billions of dollars and said numbers may not add up to the totals because of rounding. Receipts totaled $132 billion in November, the CBO estimated, down 9 percent from the same month last year. That was partly due to new legislation that gives increased tax write-offs to corporations. Outlays were down $23 billion from a year earlier, the CBO estimated, as the government spent less on federal programs to stem the financial crisis.

The country is in the best of hands...lets spend some more...the only way health care seizure breaks even i the first 10 years if because they are going to collect taxes for four years BEFORE it goes into effect. Expect to see shortfalls on a regular basis from now on. This will be a major part of the push to pass a value added tax which will cause almost an immediate inflationary spiral as businesses pass on the cost of the tax to consumers...which will cause prices to rise (i.e. inflation). Can you say "Hello Jimmy Carter?"

Physicists Ask American Physical Society To Recind Global Warming Statement

Here is the request in full, all emphasis is mine:

Dear fellow member of the American Physical Society:

This is a matter of great importance to the integrity of the Society. It is being sent to a random fraction of the membership, so we hope you will pass it on.

By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen in our cumulative 223 years of APS membership. For those who have missed the news we recommend the excellent summary article by Richard Lindzen in the November 30 edition of the Wall Street journal, entitled “The Climate Science isn’t Settled,” for a balanced account of the situation. It was written by a scientist of unquestioned authority and integrity. A copy can be found among the items at http://tinyurl.com/lg266u, and a visit to http://www.ClimateDepot.com can fill in the details of the scandal, while adding spice.

What has this to do with APS? In 2007 the APS Council adopted a Statement on global warming (also reproduced at the tinyurl site mentioned above) that was based largely on the scientific work that is now revealed to have been corrupted. (The principals in this escapade have not denied what they did, but have sought to dismiss it by saying that it is normal practice among scientists. You know and we know that that is simply untrue. Physicists are not expected to cheat.)

We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 Statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done.

None of us would use corrupted science in our own work, nor would we sign off on a thesis by a student who did so. This is not only a matter of science, it is a matter of integrity, and the integrity of the APS is now at stake. That is why we are taking the unusual step of communicating directly with at least a fraction of the membership.

If you believe that the APS should withdraw a Policy Statement that is based on admittedly corrupted science, and should then undertake to clarify the real state of the art in the best tradition of a learned society, please send a note to the incoming President of the APS ccallan@princeton.edu, with the single word YES in the subject line. That will make it easier for him to count.

Bob Austin, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Hal Lewis, emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara
Will Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics, Hartford
Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil

ClimateGate: A Brief Explaination

Charles Martin on Pajamasmedia.com has an excellent point by point run down of why this issue is so disturbing. In brief, here are the three main points:

The Climategate files held many embarrassing revelations. They appear to show collusion on the part of many of the top names in climate science:

* to subvert peer review and prevent publication of papers that didn’t completely agree with the favored theory;

*to manipulate data, and the analysis of data, to make the best case for the favored theory;

*to avoid releasing their data under the Freedom of Information laws in the U.S. and UK.

It is the last point that the various researchers have been under investigation for in both the US and the UK...as this is crime and is punishable as such. Follow the links and read the whole thing!

Polls Approval Tracking Chart: Heading Toward Negative Territory

Pollster.com's new tracking chart is showing that Mr. Obama's job performance polls have pretty much dipped into negative territory all across the board. It's rather an interesting, highly interactive chart. Follow the link, and by clicking on any of the dots on the chart, you can follow that polling organization's polls for the past year. Nifty stuff.

WaPo: Obama Losing His Luster

The honeymoon must be over, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post has written a rather scathing column over how many Obama supporters believe that they were 'misled' by The One...who has shown more and more, that he is merely 'just another politician', albeit, one who plays political hard ball of the 'Chicago Way.'

Consider the blow suffered by the liberal filmmaker Michael Moore, who issued a plaintive plea to the president on the eve of his announcement that he was sending 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan...Yet Moore is surely right about the disillusionment of Obama's supporters. Even before the surge announcement, support among liberals for Obama's Afghanistan policy had dropped 22 points since July, to 59 percent from 81 percent, according to a Post-ABC News poll. Overall liberal support for Obama had drifted down to 80 percent from 94 percent in the spring -- and, given the noisy complaints from the left last week, that number seems likely to fall further.

It was bound to happen eventually. Obama had become to his youthful supporters a vessel for all of their liberal hopes. They saw him as a transformational figure who would end war, save the Earth from global warming, restore the economy -- and still be home for dinner. They lashed out at anybody who dared to suggest that Obama was just another politician, subject to calculation, expediency and vanity like all the rest. Certainly, Obama gets some blame for encouraging the messianic cult as he stumped for change and hope. "I am asking you to stop settling for what the cynics say we have to accept," he would say as he wrapped up speeches. "Let us reach for what we know is possible: A nation healed. A world repaired. An America that believes again." In other cases, Obama truly has gone back on campaign vows.

It was bound to happen sooner or later. No politician can possibly full fill all of the promises Mr. Obama made on the campaign trail. He literally promised everything to everyone...so many were bound to be disappointed.

North Dakota Democrats Threaten Regulatory Reprisals Against Blue Cross/Blue Sheild

In North Dakota, Democratic States Senators are threatening regulatory action against Blue Cross/Blue Shield of ND.

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) A North Dakota state senator says recent Blue Cross Blue Shield opposition to some aspects of health care reform may prompt a response in the Legislature.

Bismarck Sen. Tracy Potter and Fargo Democratic Sens. Tom Fiebiger and Tim Mathern objected to a Blue Cross letter to policyholders about federal health care reform proposals. Fiebiger and Mathern met with company officials Friday.

The letter opposed any so-called “public option” for health insurance that would be run by the federal government. It said the federal health care package will force private insurance rates to rise.

The senators asked Blue Cross about the cost of the mailing.

Blues spokeswoman Denise Kolpack says it cost almost $22,400 for almost 216,000 letters. She says the cost was kept down because for most customers, the material was included in a regular required mailing.

Potter says the senators will consider drafting new disclosure rules for the Fargo health insurer.

I shouldn't be surprised that this is happening, what should be surprising is that it has taken so long to occur. Last spring, many Democrats were whispering that "by any means necessary" they would get government seizure of health care, and I guess this is the starting bell of government coercion against the insurance industry..."go along with your own destruction...or else."

CRU's Andrew Watson Insults Colleague On BBC

Professor Watson gets quite agitated in this exchange.

Professor Andrew Watson of the University of East Anglia, the University at the center of the Climategate controversy, has come to the defense of his colleagues this week and is claiming that the whole email and data release is much ado about nothing.

But other scientists disagree. One of Watson’s colleagues at the University of East Anglia, Professor Mike Hulme, declared Climategate reveals climate science had become ‘too partisan, too centralized.” Hulme, a climate scientist who was listed as “the 10th most cited author in the world in the field of climate change, does not mince words on the magnitude of the scandal.

Hulme has even suggested that the UN IPCC has run its course. ”

“It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures,” Hulme wrote on November 27, 2009.

“It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the [UN] I.P.C.C. has run its course. “The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production,” Hulme explained.

Lord Monckton's St. Paul, MN Lecture With Slides

I just finished watching an excellent video of Christopher, Lord Monckton of his lecture in St. Paul, MN. He goes through the IPCC report point, by point and essentially refutes all those points of hysteria. He does so with devastating wit. His conclusion on the Copenhagen treaty is three points,

First--Creation of a World Government that will force...

Second--Reparations to be paid to 3rd world countries by shifting enormous amounts of wealth from the "west".

Third--Enforcement...only way to leave the treaty "organization" is with the permission of ALL the other countries that are participating.

traffic light tendency

they call themselves.....Green
because they are too....Yellow
to admit they're..........Reds!

Unemployment...Obama's Problem

Mr. Obama in February had the opportunity to fram his huge stimulus package as a "new" New Deal...instead, he allowed the Democratic majority in Congress to pass a gigantic pork barrel bill that "paid off" various Democratic constituencies. Thus in a period of rising unemployment, Mr. Obama allowed what could have been an opportunity to keep blue collar workers working in desperately needed infrastructure projects...instead allowed billions to be thrown away in in what are essentially bribes.

What was sold as a new New Deal, in the end, was not. The byproduct is unemployment unseen in a quarter century. And Obama clumsily appears on the side of the two bête noires of the day: big business and big government.

Today, his grip on Congress is far, far weaker than it was 10 months ago. The public, nor for that matter will moderate Democrats, will never allow another such bill to be passed because oof the tremendous growth of the deficit this year. Disappointment over the "stimulus package" will kill any further deficit spending for a new jobs bill and constraints on further deficit spending are now at the fore of the American public.

Mr. Obama pitched his jobs summit as a means to find "every demonstrably good idea." Had he actually remembered the basic idea that new jobs mean new voters, I believe that idea has slipped from the party's conscious...A program like the WPA, one of FDR's pet projects would have been possible, but no longer, not with voter's worries of excessive spending, but Mr. Obama never attempted this route. Roosevelt had a great deal more support on both sides of the aisle, however reluctant by conservatives of the eay. Nor did he face the threat of filibusters to the extent today. Additionally, FDR had far more focus on the economy and didn't allow himself to be side tracked by peripheral issues as has Mr. Obama. Also, the "stimulus package" with it specific pork projects was much easier for his opponents to oppose and supporters to justify than a jobs bill would have been.

Furthermore, in the stimulus, at the urging of special interest within the Democratic camp, had very few insfrastructure projects within it's spending than any other area of the economy. According the to Bureau of Labor and Statistic, nearly 2/3's of all jobs lost have been blue collar workers. Thus, Democrats have repeated the Keynesian falacy...FDR's "forgotten man" is still forgotten.

Administration officials say that direct jobs programs are inefficient to administer. Never mind the irony that liberal red tape, like environmental concerns, has undermined the core liberal agenda. But here we are, nearly nine months later, and Obama's way has hardly proven efficient. Only about a quarter of the stimulus has been spent.

Blame rests on the powerful. That's the Democrats. And liberalism is, in Lichtman's words, "a huge casualty."

Thus any possibility of a large scale jobs package will probably fail to pass both houses of Congress...and this will only further anger those workers who are unemployed. This extended period of unemployment may well reach into 2011. If it does...Mr. Obama will only rue the day he allowed Congress to hijack his "stimulus package."

Health Care Overhaul

Here's the only way I'll support the government seizure of health care in this country:

Senators who support a government-run health plan, the so-called "public option," as part of legislation overhauling the health care system apparently are putting their money where their mouths are.

Three Senate Democrats on Friday embraced an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a fierce opponent of a public option, to force all lawmakers to enroll in any government-controlled plan that is passed.

"Sen. Coburn is to be commended for his commitment to the public option," Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said, with more than a drip of sarcasm. Dodd, along with Democratic Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, joined Republican Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Orrin Hatch of Utah in publicly supporting the amendment.

"Seventeen years ago, when I first ran for Congress, I promised I'd pay my own health insurance until Congress passed health insurance for everyone," Brown said. "I've paid it out of my pocket since then. I look forward with great eagerness to join the public option as soon as it's available."

The amendment is one of many that senators are debating as Democratic leaders try to shape a bill that their caucus can coalesce around and overcome Republican opposition.

Coburn's amendment is intended to give pause to lawmakers who say a public option is essential to overhauling the U.S. health care system. By raising the prospect of forcing lawmakers to join any public plan that is passed, Coburn is betting that supporters won't be as sure-footed.

But it comes as no surprise that Dodd, Mikulski and Brown offered their support. The three Democrats helped pass the amendment out of the Senate health committee in August when it was first introduced. Other Democrats, however, weren't as supportive, saying the amendment was flawed because it suggested the public option would be the only plan available.

Sen. Judd Gregg was the only Republican on the Senate Health committee to vote against the Coburn amendment, saying he wouldn't put anyone -- not his constituents or his fellow senators -- in a public plan.

What is genuinely shocking to me is that one of my Maryland Senators, Barb Mikulski is a supporter of this...Way to go Barb!

What To Do About "Global Warming"?

If you're really serious? A recent study has been released showing that there are deposits of natural gas within the continental US that, if properly exploited would last at least 100 years (that's if we built gas-fired eletrical generating plants to replace ALL of the coal-fired plant existant today). Then there's the problem of nuclear power..."greens" (in the persona of Greenpeace) have been opposing nuclear power for more than 30 years. So much so that they have stifled the building of new plants within this country since the 1980's through an overly complicated and expensive regulatory process.

One of the founders of Greenpeace-Dr Patrick Moore--on the other hand, has come to the conclusion that this policy has been, shall we say misguided. His take has been that by refusing to exploit our reserves of uranium and plutonium we have made a huge mistake that has force us to build several hundred coal-fired power plants. The French and the Japanese have taken the initiative to use nuclear power plants to produce 75% of their electrical power generation. We have a lot of ground to make up. We have enough raw materials to last at least 1000 years...WITHOUT ADDING ANY CO2!

I'm only the son of a "rocket scientist" but this is one of those things that begs the question: Why are we not exploiting this NOW? really why?

Keynesian Economics Does Not Work

Watch the video.

CBC Is Reporting ClimateGate, When Will American Media Do So?

What I find truly disconcerting is that the Canadian national government controlled network will report on this, yet, NONE of the major American media will. Why are they hiding this? Is it bias? Why?

Obama Land, Promises Not Kept

Coming soon to a White House near you.!

Take Back That Oscar!

For Immediate Release
December 3, 2009
Contact: Tom Kise
(916) 425-1314 or tkise@blackrockgrp.com

Los Angeles, CA — Today, Roger L. Simon and Lionel Chetwynd, both members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and Oscar nominees, called on the Academy to rescind Al Gore’s Oscar in light of the Climategate revelations.

Simon, also the CEO of Pajamas Media and PJTV, said the following during his and Chetwynd’s co-hosted Poliwood program on PJTV:

I personally call for the Academy to rescind this Oscar.

[In] the history of the Academy … not to my knowledge has an Oscar ever been rescinded … I think they should rescind this one.

Climategate began on November 19th, when a whistleblower released a series of documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. These documents exposed a coordinated effort among climate scientists to distort the facts regarding man-made “Global Warming.”

To view all of these documents, visit: http://www.climate-gate.org/.

Al Gore Is Wrong Again!

Al Gore has been found wanting once again. The former Vice President, and "global warming expert", who once claimed to have founded the Internet has been disproved yet again. A Dutch climatologist who has undertaken a decade long study of Mount Killiminjaro in Kenya has concluded that the mountain's melting ice cap was a natural occurrence and not as Mr. Gore has famously claimed due to "global warming".

Newspapers and news sites in the Netherlands today extensively broke the news of the findings of a research team led by Professor Jaap Sinninghe Damste — a leading molecular paleontologist at Utrecht University and winner of the prestigious Spinoza Prize — about the melting icecap of the Kilimanjaro, the African mountain that became a symbol of anthropogenic global warming. Professor Sinninghe Damste’s research, as discussed on the site of the Dutch Organization of Scientific Research (DOSR) — a governmental body — shows that the icecap of Kilimanjaro was not the result of cold air but of large amounts of precipitation which fell at the beginning of the Holocene period, about 11,000 years ago.

The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to be part of “a natural process of dry and wet periods.” The present melting is not the result of “environmental damage caused by man.”

The Dutch professor studied a number of different markers including a biomolecular markers in the sediment found at Lake Challa, at the foot of the mountain. He and his team reconstructed the variations as well as the intensity of rain fall in that portion of Africa over a 25,000 year period. They concluded that a cycle with a period of roughly 11,500 years of wet and dry periods occurred in central east Africa. In the last dry period which occurred approximately 12,800 and 11,500 years ago the mountain peak did not have and ice cap. Sometime during the end of that dry period a serious change in the climate took place as a result in solar radiation. The resulting increased rainfall made the formation of the famous ice cap possible. The start of a new dry period resulted in the disappearance of the ice cap recently. .”

DOSR calls Al Gore’s iconic use of the melting cap of Kilimanjaro “unfortunate” — since it now seems to be mainly the result of “natural climate variations.”

The journal Nature published the highly technical article by Professor Sinninghe Damste’s team.

The website of Elsevier magazine — the Netherlands’ most circulated political weekly — broke the news as follows: “Dutchman discredits Al Gore’s climate evidence"

(emphasis mine)

So, Al is wrong again...imagine that!

It's Gonna Snow!

Here in Maryland, at the merest hint of snow, people panic. They rush out to the grocery store and buy 24 rolls of toilet paper, 5 gallons of milk and 10 gallons of water...why? I haven't a clue. If we get flurries, businesses and schools close. Forget driving, you're taking your life into your hands by getting out on the roads. They're aren't the best of driver in perfect weather..."oh leaf blew across the road, must hammer on my brakes!", or my favorite...getting to the top of the freeway on ramp only to see some moron has STOPPED! because "he can't merge into traffic".
This weekend it MIGHT snow, yet the grocery stores are noting an increase in people purchasing staples to weather out the looming blizzard. (we're expecting flurries!) Having grown up in Florida, before I moved back north, I could count on the thumb of one hand the number of times I'd driven in the snow.
That was the year my daughter was born in north Florida, we had a genuine winter storm. It lasted a good 24 hours and arrived on December 23, 1989. Where I lived in Tallahassee, we received six inches of snow. SIX! IN FLORIDA NO LESS! What's even funnier, is where my parents lived, in Panama City on the Gulf Coast, they got eight...I have some great pictures of the rug rat in a too big snow suit lumbering around the front yard...my neighbor, spent most of the day making a snowman. Of course all the kids on the street had their picture taken next to it.
I had a blast that night (at the time I was managing a Dominos Pizza) I made far more money pulling people out of ditches "...oh honey, let's go look at all the pretty liiiights..." (picture airhead saying this). Now , you'd expect that in Florida, but here in Maryland, where is does indeed snow every winter...you get much the same reaction. I was lucky, I lived in Michigan for several years and took the trouble to learn how to drive in snow...my prescription? Find a large empty parking lot and do donuts, etc to learn how my truck acted on slippery pavement. That thought doesn't seem to have occurred to many people here though.
So, living off of a rather busy road, I'm genuinely looking forward to the antics of my neighbors this weekend. It should be highly amusing!

“Poor Al Gore: Global Warming Completely Debunked By the Internet You Invented.”

ClimateGate Explained...

Here is about as concise an explaination of ClimateGate as I've seen todate.

by Gary in Seabeck

#215Dec. 2, 2009 - 12:38 PM EST

An easy explanation of what ClimateGate means,

ClimateGate emails and computer programs were taken from a main server at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. It is not known if this was a theft or the actions of a whistleblower, disgusted with what the lead scientists at CRU were doing.

ClimateGate exposed the cabal of 20 – 30 scientists (not just at CRU) that peer reviewed each others papers, strong-armed scientific journals to only print their views, and then sat on the IPCC panels as authors judging which published studies go into the IPCC final reports. This is why they always keep shouting “peer reviewed studies, peer reviewed studies, peer reviewed studies”. They owned the peer review process.

ClimateGate exposed that this small group has been adding positive corrections to the raw global temperature data, inflating the amount of published temperature rise over the last 50 years. Both CRU in the UK and NASA-GISS in the US add these biases. At CRU, the programmers did not even know what and why some corrections were added every month. Only since satellite monitoring for comparison have the amounts of biasing leveled off.

ClimateGate exposed the leaders of this cabal instructing each other to delete emails, data files, and data analysis programs ahead of already filed Freedom Of Information Act requests for raw data and computer codes, clearly a crime.

ClimateGate exposed the “trick” about the Hockey stick figure and other studies that performed proxy construction of past temperatures. After all, reconstruction of the last 1,000 years of climate is the first step in predicting the future with super computer programs as explained below:

Everything about all 21 super computer programs used by the IPCC to determine future global warming rely on best-determined past sensitivities to solar and volcanic effects (climate forcings) from the proxy temperature record.

1. The elimination of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age (the handle of the hockey stick) was necessary so that past solar effects could be minimized, thereby allowing almost all of the warming in the last 75 years to be blamed on Greenhouse Gasses. Raw data (like tree-ring thickness, radioisotope of mud layers in a lake bottom, ice core analyses, etc.) are used as a proxy for reconstruction of the temperature record for 1000 AD to 1960 AD. To ensure desired results, statistical manipulation of the raw data and selecting only supporting data, cherry-picking, was suspected and later proved to make the hockey stick graph. Look closely at the plot here where the hockey stick is one of the plots:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/16/cern_cloud_experiment/

2. The slope of long-term 10-year running average global temperature using thermometers from 1900 to present (the blade of the hockey stick) was maximized with the sloppy gridding code, Urban Heat Island effects, hiding the declines, and even fabricating data (documented in the leaked source code comments revealed with ClimateGate). This ensured that the Greenhouse Gas sensitivity coefficients in all 21 of the super computers was maximized, and that maximizes the temperature result at year 2100 based on Greenhouse Gas increases. This thermometer data was used to replace the tree ring-divergence after 1960 and plot this over the climate history data of (1) above giving the false impression that the reconstructed 1000 AD to 1960 AD results are more accurate than they are.

3. Because tuning of the super computer programs uses back casting, the computer outputs could always replicate the 20th Century (by design); therefore it was assumed that the models had almost everything in them. Because of (1) and (2) above, nearly all climate change predicted by the models was due to CO2 and positive feedbacks and hardly any of the climate change was for other reasons like solar, understood or not.

4. Over the years, when better numbers for volcanic effects, black carbon, aerosols, land use, ocean and atmospheric multi-decadal cycles, etc. became available, it appears that CRU made revisions to refit the back cast, but could hardly understand what the code was doing due to previous correction factor fudging and outright fabricating, as documented in the released code as part of ClimateGate.

5. After the IPCC averages the 21 super computer outputs of future projected warming (anywhere from 2-degrees to 7-degrees, not very precise), that output is used to predict all manner of catastrophes. (Fires, floods, droughts, blizzards, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, insects, extinctions, diseases, civil wars, cats & dogs sleeping together, etc.)

So shut-up or be called a denier,
live the way we tell you to live,
pay more for everything, and
just send money for my research on the effects of global climate change on horseshoe crabs (which have been around for about 440 million years through all possible temperature ranges).

I hope that this makes the ClimateGate controversy easier to understand.

How to Fix Health Care: Lasik Surgery For The Medical Debate.

via Instapundit.com:

MSM In The Tank On ObamaCare

When supportes of Mr. Obama's plans for the government siezure of health care begin to complain about the coverage, you know it has to be a bit untruthful. Here's what Mickey Kaus of Kausfiles reader sent him the following analysis of media coverage of the CBO's recent report on ObamaCare:

Most of the coverage I’m seeing today of the new CBO report on health reform’s effects on premiums is .totally in the tank for the Obama administration. CBO’s report argues (contrary to a recent paper by Jonathan Gruber, the Obama administration’s favorite health economist) that health reform will INCREASE the cost of private health premiums. There’s no other way to read the thing. Yet the NYT ["No Big Cost Rise in U.S. Premiums Is Seen in Study"] and Wash Post ["Senate health bill gets a boost"] and especially Ezra Klein ["Congressional Budget Office: Reform Will Bring Down the Cost of Health Insurance"] are all saying the report vindicates the Democrats on cost. That’s insane. (The WSJ’s ["Some Health Premiums to Rise"] is the only news account I’ve seen that reports it straight.).

How are reporters distorting this? Mainly in two ways.

1) They’re emphasizing that health reform will leave employer-based premiums largely unaffected. This is supposed to be a huge accomplishment. But health reform does virtually nothing to alter employer-based health care—it’s focused on the individual “nongroup” market—so to say it will have virtually no impact on employer-based premiums is like saying it will have virtually no effect on global warming.

[2) They’re] emphasizing that health reform will lower premiums for the majority of participants in the nongroup market by up to 60 percent. It will do nothing of the sort. It will INCREASE premiums in this market by 10 to 13 percent. That it will do so for good reasons (regulatory changes will require insurers to provide more actual insurance to customers) may justify the increase, but it doesn’t contradict it. Premiums will be higher because of health reform. The bill alleviates this for more than half of all participants in the new exchanges by extending income-based subsidies that will reduce the out-of-pocket cost of premiums by up to 60 percent as compared to what purchasers would pay without health reform. But that shouldn’t be mistaken for lowering the actual cost, which will still be borne by the nearly half of all purchasers who don’t receive subsidies. [E.A. emphasis if Mr. Kaus']

P.S.: Klein seems particularly disingenuous, discussing the report as if premiums would rise only because newly empowered individuals would choose to buy better policies.

This kind of stuff does nothing to reassure most people that that the MSM is actually doing their job. Personally, I don't have a problem with agenda driven reporting...as LONG THE AGENDA IS OPENLY ADMITTED TO!!!! But the NYT, WaPo, LaT and ChTrib, et al; attempt to hide behind a facade of impartiality. They didn't vet Mr. Obama during the campaign, and now are repeating that with this government's blatant attempt to seize health care.

Hide the Decline Video

Via powerlineblog.com: Minnesotans for Global Warming, are doing their best to make sure the scandal doesn't fade quietly away. Here, M4GW performs "Hide the Decline

Why Unemployment Will Remain Above 10%

In a Reuters.com blog post, James Pethokoukis offers a quote from Wachovia economist John Silvia:

In recent years, permanent layoffs have surpassed temporary layoffs and this is reflected in the rapid rise in the mean duration of unemployment. In addition, the disparity of unemployment by education levels signals that the demand of employers for more highly educated workers does not fit well with the available supply of workers. Current policy initiatives have perverse economic effects. Health care mandates will likely raise the cost of labor and thereby discourage hiring.

Second, the increase in the minimum wage has clearly negatively impacted hiring teenage workers evident in the recent increase in teenage unemployment rates. Cap-and-trade will likely increase the cost of energy and transportation for employers and thereby reduce any funds left to hire workers. At present, the uncertainty about potential micro policies is more than offsetting any positive impact on jobs from the fiscal stimulus.

Mr. Silva is correct in his summation. I live in Metro Baltimore. Most of my neighbors are small business owners and the 3 reasons they give for not hiring more people at the moment is

1. Government seizure of health care...and the soon to skyrocket costs associated with it.

2. Possible passage of cap and trade that will immediately raise the costs of doing business with it's associated new taxes and fees.

3. Rise in the minimum wage that puts pressure on all those who make (even slightly more) than that to get raises.

When you add these three things together what do you get? An economy that will spiral further into depression. Unfortunately, "the powers that be" in the Obama Administration are following a Keynesian model of economics that says you must spend more, more, more! in order to leverage an economy out of depression. Unfortunately, this is a flawed model. FDR's efforts at Keynesian economics stifled the economic rebound in 1934/5 when it was just beginning to emerge from the Great Depression (WW2 got the world out of the depression, not Keynesian Economics). Nor will that model work now, especially as it targeted the wrong areas of the economy. The recent Congressional Budget Office Report, states that

"Economic output and employment in the spring and summer of 2009 were lower than CBO had projected at the beginning of the year. But in CBO’s judgment, that outcome reflects greater-than-projected weakness in the underlying economy rather than lower-than-expected effects of [the stimulus]."

Had the "stimulus package" actually been targeted at infrastructure projects on the whole, it might have been much less of a failure than it has. Unfortunately, the vast bulk of it has been spent of issues that have had zero direct impact on the economy (direct payments to states, medicare supplement payments, etc). Thus it's impact has been...negligible, unlike what the Administration claimed when it stated that it needed this package to offset growing unemployment.
Additionally, a spin off effect of that has been to suck funds from the non-government credit market by taking funds that would have gone to business in the form of loans, both to small business (which needs loans in order to produce goods and services) as well as large companies (who need it for the same things, just on a much larger scale). Thus, those funds were syphoned off into long term government bonds and are now as unavailable to business as if they didn't exist.

Unemployment will continue to rise until late 2010, and won't reach the peak employment levels of 2007/8 until 2013 or later.

GOP's Leadership Challenge

Unfortunately, the the leadership of the GOP in Washington has become part of the problem. They have long since merely become "Dem Lite" and that is the root of the problem. This is the reason for profligrat spending of the first half of this decade, they thought that if they spent like Democrats, the country would continue to let them remain in power. That they could buy their way to a permanent majority, forgetting that while one party may remain in control of Congress for decade, NO party has ever had a "permanent" majority. This is the major reason why the GOP lost their "permanent" majority in Congress. They became arrogant and forgot why they were originally elected back in 1994.

Now, we have an administration that seems bend upon passing every Democratic initiative and getting them firmly in place BEFORE they lose the next election. The rationale seems to be that if they can get huge new entitlements and taxes in place...they will become permanent. Unfortunately, most politicians like what they do and the perc's that come with their office. So the don't really want to "lose the next" election at all...hence, the shock this past summer during the August recess. And this is why the government's overt attempt at seizing health care in this country is beginning to fail. Because Congressmen and Senators are beginning to hear from constituents that they have literally never heard from before.

Every Congressman and Senator has a "core" of supporters, and opponents within their constituencies. These are the people who contineually call and either praise or complain. Starting this summer, those offices began to hear form constiuents that they have never heard from before...and those voices are becoming more insisent and louder as the debate goes on. But I digress.

The GOP leadership, especially in Congress, but those in the RNC as well as the associated think tanks have become somewhat divorced from what their constituent base really want. This is reflected in the NY-23 race where a "RINO", Ms. Scozzafava was selected despite what many precinct leaders wanted. It was an ugly, back-room deal, because she had a supporter who worked in the RNC offices, who guaranteed that she would get immediate financial help from the RNC...this blew up...because of the internet. We The People now have a way to circumvent the national news media's (now extinct) ability to "channel" news and information. (Just look at Climategate...no major new source, other than Fox has really covered this story in the US). Because of this, Scozzafava was exposed for her left wing positions on pretty much everything.

Now, in order for the GOP to continue as a national party...the RNC needs to but out of local party matters. It's, frankly, not within their perview. Eventually, I suspect that the national leadership will begin to bend to that of the state and local parties that make up the 50 state constiuencies of the GOP...either that, or it will go the way of the Federalist and Whig parties.

The Democratic party has a much more difficult problem...it's constiuent special interests are eventually going to tear that party apart. Because many have agendas that are not compatible with the aims of the party at large...each one wants specific things...and some (gay marriage, union aims, etc) in the party's best interests...we live in interesting times, and I sit back on enjoy watching the specticle presented by both sides.