Global Warming Hoax Update

From Rasmussen:

…The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely. Twenty-two percent (22%) don’t think it’s likely some scientists have falsified global warming data, including just six percent (6%) say it’s Not At All Likely. Another 10% are undecided…

How much you want to bet that Obama and his Democrats don’t make much of an issue of global warming next year?  On the glad morn of Obama’s election, he told us that his victory was the signal for the oceans to recede…now, unless it is at an environmentalist fund raiser, I bet he doesn’t even mention it on the campaign trail.

The problem with the theory of global warming was that it was a lie from start to finish – a  scam designed to extract power and wealth from average folks and transfer it to the Ruling Class.  This is not the only such scam we have but it is the largest in dollar terms.  Never has so much been stolen from so many to benefit so few.

It will, unfortunately, die a slow, expensive death. So many people have their hands in the pie that getting rid of the pie will provoke desperate rear-guard actions.  But if we win big next year, we can at least start the process of ending this scam, mostly by transferring the funds to other, more worthy environmental efforts.

Will Taiwan Remain Free?

Asia Times has a bleak report about the ability of Taiwan to fight off an attack from China – the bottom line of it being that by 2020 China may have the capability to force a Taiwanese surrender.

The growth of Chinese military sophistication and China’s continual build up of weapons systems designed to counter American power is increasingly leaving Taiwan in a strategically untenable position.  If Taiwan cannot count on rapid and powerful American support, then resistance to any Chinese attack would be exceptionally difficult, and very likely doomed if China deployed all its power.  In the end, all a really firm resistance by the Taiwanese can accomplish – absent US support – is to make a graveyard of Taiwan (while also killing some hundreds of thousands of Chinese in payment).  So, what does Taiwan do?  And what does America do about it?

It is still some years before China can feel certain that a sea-borne invasion of Taiwan could be carried out in the face of US naval intervention – both in the air and undersea, the Chinese military is not even close to being able to stop us from blocking a move to Taiwan.  They can rain down death and destruction, but that is not what China would prefer to do.  Taiwan is very wealthy and China would like to capture it intact (Taiwan’s 23 million people produce $35,700.00 in GDP per person, China’s 1.3 billion produce $7,300.00 in GDP per person).  Raining down death and destruction (or threatening to) can get Taiwan to make a huge amount of concessions…but only a credible threat to leap across the sea and invade would convince Taiwan’s government to surrender.  That, as I said, is some years away…so Taiwan and the United States have a window of opportunity to make plans to deal with this.

The best way to deal with it, in my view, is to make Taiwan a nuclear-armed power.  Taiwan, un-aided, will forever lack the ability to defend itself in conventional war against China – the population disparities are so great that if China attacks, then Taiwan is ultimately doomed, even if they do put up a spirited fight and make the Chinese pay a usurious blood price for conquest (and, of course, the Chinese government is never chary with the blood of the Chinese people…sacrificing a million of them to gain prestige may be seen as all in a day’s work by the Chinese leadership).  Taiwan, aided by us, wins the war against China.  But can Taiwan really count on US aid?  Suppose we have a flabby President at the time?  Suppose our military has been hollowed out by budget cuts to preserve free birth control?  Suppose China’s cat’s paw in North Korea is ordered to engage us in war there just before China attacks Taiwan?  Counting on us is not something Taiwan can do.  So, self defense – but that is only possible for a small State like Taiwan via nuclear weapons.

Taiwan has the wealth and the technical capacity to build nuclear weapons, install them on missiles and deploy those missiles on submarines.  A force of four or five “Dolphin” class submarines, like those Israel has, armed with nuclear-tipped missiles would be sufficient for Taiwan to retain at sea a credible nuclear deterrent (you need four or five so that you can always have two or three deployed).  Israel would probably even be willing to help out, and we can provide clandestine assistance as well, though Taiwan would have to be on its own as far as nuclear weapons development due to our treaty obligations on non-proliferation.  Taiwan, right now, has just enough time to do this before China becomes powerful enough to enforce a surrender.  Faced with the prospect of a dozen or so nuclear weapons being detonated over Shanghai, Hong Kong and other major Chinese cities, the Chinese government simply would not attack – not ever:  it would never repay the cost (monetary, I mean, not blood…as I said, I doubt much that the Chinese government cares how many people die).

The choice is ultimately Taiwan’s – do they wish to be free?  I, for one, will always back coming to Taiwan’s aid because my view is that the United States can never afford having a free people be conquered by external tyranny.  Even at the cost of World War Three, we should fight China if China ever attacks Taiwan.  But Taiwan simply cannot count on my view holding majority support in the United States…or, even if it does, count on the American government at the time being able and willing to assist.  If Taiwan’s people wish to remain in freedom, then their choice is clear…build nuclear weapons and count on the ability to destroy China as their assurance against Chinese attack.

Poll: “Generic Republican” Bests Obama by Five

From Rasmussen:

…The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows the generic Republican with 47% of the vote, while the president picks up 42% support. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) are undecided…

Not the poll numbers of a man who just won a political battle.  Obama is severely damaged political goods.

He can (and likely, will) bounce back from this – and 2012 will be the hardest fought campaign in American history (possibly in world history).  Obama and the liberalism he leads and personifies will not go out without a fight.  No matter how bad things get, they will go after us with all they’ve got.  They will ask and give no quarter.

But, still, anyone who is worried that a robust, conservative message can’t win against Obama is nuts…any coherent alternative can beat him.  Better if its conservative, but the main thing for the 2012 GOP candidate is to not be Obama, just as for the Democrats the prime thing was to not be Bush.

We can beat him and his Democrats – and not just beat them, but crush them down so low that for 20 years they won’t be able to trouble us.  We can win the power necessary to restore American liberty and greatness…all we have to do is fight it out and never quit.

Europe on the Brink

With a slow-motion bank run going on in Greece, this over at CNBC should send some financial shivers down your spine:

Europe is a “train wreck” and on the “brink of a major financial crisis,” Scott Minerd, CIO of the fixed-income firm Guggenheim Partners, told CNBC Tuesday.

“The way Europe is operating right now, it’s what I called recently ‘cognitive dissonance,'” Minerd said, or “basically doing the same thing thinking they’re going to get a different outcome.”

“They keep throwing more and more liquidity at it thinking it’s going to get better and it’s not,” he added. Europe fails to recognize that it has a “structural problem, not a liquidity problem.”…

The structural problems facing Europe are gigantic – aging populations, declining populations, low productivity in many countries (especially those which owe the most), too much welfare/socialism, too much debt…on and on it goes, and it can’t be sustained.

Here’s the bad news – Europe is just a few years ahead of us.  We’ve already got an aging population, we’re just a few years away from having a declining population, our productivity is being hampered (mostly by government regulation), and Obama and his Democrats want to put us all on welfare as they build the United Socialist States of America.  Europe has no way out – they’ll have to go through a really gigantic financial catastrophe in payment for their idiocy.  We still have a few years left to avert that – we’ll still have to pay a pretty steep price, but nothing like what Europe will have to bear.  The choice we make  next year will decide it for us – bad times followed by good, or hideous times followed by a very long, slow climb back to health (if that can be managed, at all).

Think carefully about what you want…

Obamunism! Food Stamp Usage Skyrockets in a Very Strange Way

Hat tip to Zero Hedge, which notes a real oddity about it:

…After last month the data for April food stamp recipients indicated the we may, just may, be reaching an inflection point in the foodstamp participation following a mere 60 thousand jump in those receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), today’s just released data confirmed that the BLS and BEA may have had a hand or two when determining this latest data series. Because the just announced jump in foodstamp usage of over 1.1 million entirely out of the blue…

…But wait, there’s more. Digging into the numbers reveals something pecuiliar: virtually the entire surge in monthly SNAP participation is due to one state alone: Alabama, which saw those living on foodstamps jump from 868K to 1.762MM…

The fact that this many people are on food stamps is bad…but the indication of data manipulation is worse.  I ask the question:  Is the Obama Administration fudging the data to make the economic picture look better, and only correcting the data when it becomes so bad there’s no way around it?

It isn’t just here – almost invariably, each week the previous week’s first time claims for unemployment are revised upwards.  Almost invariably, when new unemployment rate data is released there is a reduction in labor-force participation.  Both of these actions tend to help Obama.  Experts I’ve read indicate that if labor force participation was in line with what we’ve seen over the past ten years, the unemployment rate would be above 11%.  Imagine for a moment what the political picture would look like here in August of 2011 if unemployment was officially at 11% and figured to go higher all through the rest of the year…there would be a stampede for the exits away from Obama.  He’d be a lame duck…Democrats would just be trying to protect themselves, and a genuine (as opposed to fringe) primary challenger to Obama would become possible.

The political facts of life are that even if unemployment is above 7% in November of 2012, it will be hard for Obama to secure re-election.  Every point higher magnifies Obama’s difficulty…and getting above 10% makes it just about impossible for Obama to win, even if we nominated a Paul/Huntsman ticket.  I’m really starting to smell a rat here…a manipulation of data in order to make it appear that things aren’t that bad, thus giving Obama his chance to win.  The data can be adjusted towards reality after the election…and whether Obama has won or lost won’t matter at that point.

Congress should investigate this.  This is what “oversight” is for:  to ensure that the Executive Branch is carrying out its duties in accordance with law. We need to know if we’re being lied to for Obama’s political benefit.

 

Brazilians Smarter Than Americans

From Bloomberg:

Brazil will provide $16 billion in tax breaks and toughen trade barriers to protect manufacturers hurt by a currency rally that’s fueling a surge in imports from China.

The targeted tax breaks and incentives, which amount to 25 billion reais over two years, were announced today by President Dilma Rousseff after a report showed industrial production plunged 1.6 percent in June, the second biggest drop since 2008.

The plan, called “A Bigger Brazil,” will eliminate a 20 percent payroll tax for industries such as shoemakers and software firms hurt by the real’s 48 percent rally since the end of 2008, which has reduced the cost of imports and strengthened decades-old complaints by business about excessive costs…

A bit protectionist, to be sure, but the basic thing is to reduce the cost of creating wealth within Brazil in order to ensure that the free labor of Brazil is not undercut by the slave labor of China.  This is just rational policy.  Free trade is all well and good – but only between people who are mutually free.  Free trade with a tyrannical nation is a contradiction…there will be trade, but it won’t be free:  it will come at a high cost to the free labor of the one and even of the slave labor of the other, as their chains are more securely fastened.

I’ve been saying it for years, and it is another thing I’ll keep saying until everyone agrees with me, because I’m right:  we must ditch “free trade” and turn to “freedom trade”.  The American worker can and will out-compete every other workforce in the world…but he can’t compete with a government which deliberately keeps wages low, allows sub-standard products to be shipped to the United States and connives as the theft of American intellectual property.  As long as China is playing with loaded economic dice, it is asinine for us to allow them to enter our market place.  Let them institute free and fair multi-party elections and then we can trade with them…until that time, keep them out.

Go ahead and try and argue me out of this position, but be warned that you would ultimately be defending a position where US wealth is transferred to a China which is building up a military force for the purpose of challenging us.  Good luck with that.

Out and About on a Tuesday Morning

Putin calls America a “parasite” on the global economy…I’d be offended except this is the opinion of the leader of a kleptocracy presiding over the dying nation of Russia.

We’re broke…but we’re giving out free birth control.  Nothing like having our priorities in order, huh?  You know, really, death and despair really aren’t the answer.

DC residents are America’s biggest boozers…puts a new twist on the “spending money like a drunken sailor” thing.

The Anchoress picks up a timely quote from Chesterton…use it any time you hear a Ruling Class cretin getting upset about the TEA Party or, indeed, any manifestation of popular will:

Our Civilization has decided, and very justly decided, that determining the guilt or innocence of men is a thing too important to be trusted to trained men. It wishes for light upon that awful matter, it asks men to know no more law than I know, but who can feel the thing that I felt in the jury box. When it wants a library catalogued, or the solar system discovered, or any trifle of that kind, it uses up its specialists. But when it wishes anything done which is really serious, it collects twelve of the ordinary men standing round. The same thing was done, if I remember right, by the founder of Christianity.

I got one, too:

Roughly speaking, there are three kinds of people in this world. The first kind of people are People; they are the largest and probably the most valuable class. We owe to this class the chairs we sit down on, the clothes we wear, the houses we live in; and, indeed (when we come to think of it), we probably belong to this class ourselves. The second class may be called for convenience the Poets; they are often a nuisance to their families, but, generally speaking, a blessing to mankind. The third class is that of the Professors or Intellectuals; sometimes described as the thoughtful people; and these are a blight and a desolation both to their families and also to mankind. Of course, the classification sometimes overlaps, like all classification. Some good people are almost poets and some bad poets are almost professors. But the division follows lines of real psychological cleavage.

The next make-believe battle the MSM will say is tearing the GOP apart – a fight between deficit and defense hawks.  Yawn.  Next…

 

 

 

 

How to Cut – Really Cut – Government Spending

It isn’t hard – from Zero Hedge:

…In a nutshell: do to the government, what the privates sector has done to itself in the past 3 years, and fire 15% of the federal government workforce…

…slimming the US government ever so modestly, by just 15%, would generate savings of $117.4 billion a year, or $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years. And no, these are not reductions in future spendings: these are real actionable cuts from the day they are enacted, with fungible cash able to be used for any other, much more needed purposes, up to and including economically stimulative projects, which actually generate jobs for the private sector…

Ah, but that would mean less government employees, and thus less government union members…and so less donations to Democrats seeking power.  It is a nauseating circle of corruption…demands for big government in order to pay for politicians backing big government who will then make government even bigger.

Now, why didn’t the GOP go this rout?  For two reasons:

1.  The TEA Party element is strong, but it is not dominant in the GOP.  It can stop some things from happening, but it cannot yet force through genuinely conservative/libertarian policies.

2.  Even as the TEA Party element rises from strength to strength, we have to deal with the reality that the American people installed an ultra-leftist President in 2008.  Obama simply will not – cannot, in fact – make genuine cuts in spending.  Liberal Democrats had been slavering for years in anticipation of just that day…the day they managed to hoodwink the American people in to voting an ultra-leftist President in to office while ultra-leftists controlled the Congress.  They essentially upped government spending by a trillion dollars annually and this is to be the “new normal”; no liberal is ever going to be allowed to cut in to it.

But what this proposal shows is that without even for a moment altering the basic structure of our government, massive spending cuts are possible.  The government is so impossibly over-bloated that you can make cuts of $100 billion a year and you’ll still have an overwhelming behemoth of government.  All the talk of throwing granny over the cliff is just so much liberal lies…and they simply must know it; no one is actually that stupid.

Get ready for the political fight of your life – 2012 will be the final battle between liberty and Big Government.  One of the two will prevail, and probably prevail for good.

Obama Just Isn’t Liberal, Enough

From The New Yorker:

…Of course, invoking the Fourteenth Amendment has always been a long shot, a last refuge. But Obama’s seeming refusal to hold it in reserve (“like the fire axe on the wall,” in Garrett Epps’s words) is emblematic of his all too civilized, all too accommodating negotiating strategy—indeed, of his whole approach to the nation’s larger economic dilemma, the most disappointing aspect of his Presidency. His stimulus package asked for too little and got less. He has allowed deficits and debt to supersede mass unemployment as the emergency of the moment. He has too readily accepted Republican terms of debate, such as likening the country to a household that must “live within its means.” (For even the most prudent householders, living within one’s means can include going into debt, as in taking out a car loan so that one can get to one’s job.) He has done too little to educate the public to the wisdom of post-Herbert Hoover economics: fiscal balance is achieved over time, not in a single year; in flush times a government should run a surplus, but when the economy falters deficits are part of the remedy; when the immediate problem is what it is now—a lack of demand, not a shortage of capital—higher spending is generally more efficacious than lower taxes, especially lower taxes on the rich…

And now the Carterization of Obama is complete…well, except that he hasn’t had his Killer Rabbit attack.  You see, I remember this – back in 1980 when I was gleefully reading over the liberal angst about Carter’s defeat, there were liberal opinions that Carter’s failure was that he wasn’t liberal enough.  Had he spent more, taxed more, cut defense more, negotiated with our enemies more…had he just gone full blown in to the most extreme liberalism possible, it all would have worked out.  There is a bizarre disconnect from reality in our “reality-based community”…the unwillingness to ever admit that liberalism can get it wrong, or even be unpopular.

One does have to wonder – that was written by Hendrik Hertzberg.  He’s a well-educated man:  at least, his credentials say so.  But does he really believe that there was in what FDR did a stark contrast to what Hoover did?  Does he further believe that what FDR did worked?  Hoover spent bags of money trying to fix the economy (little remembered is how in 1932 FDR ran on a balanced budget platform).  FDR just spent bags and bags and bags.  Hoover didn’t fix the depression, neither did FDR.  Yet here we are in 2011 and here is Mr. Hertzberg, certain that the lesson of the past is that you have to go flat out in spending…don’t do what Hoover did!  And Obama, in Hertzberg’s view, is being too Hooverish and not channeling his inner-FDR.  But Hoover did what FDR did and both FDR and Hoover failed utterly.  How do you get that ignorant about history and yet graduate from the Ivy League and become a commentator for The New Yorker?

Furthermore, a little blogger like me is supposed to stand in awe of all this…that I don’t have an Ivy League diploma and don’t have an editor to carefully review what I’ve written, and so I should accept as from on high such pronouncements.  But that is absurd – I can see what is plain as a pikestaff, Hertzberg, by the evidence in his article, would have difficulty finding the balls on a bull.  There is making a mistake – I’ve done that; I’ll do it again and again, too…but there is a huge difference between “mistake” and “obtuse”.

Never mind.  As long as liberals really think that it is a lack of liberalism which makes for liberal failure, it works out mostly to our advantage.  True, it came back to bite us in 2008 – never imagined someone as leftist as Obama could even get nominated, let alone elected…but everything, I guess, really is possible.  It is highly likely that we will correct 2008’s error in 2012…and Hertzberg and other liberals will then proclaim not a shift to the right to regain America’s trust, but a further shift to the left because those darn morons, the voters, just don’t know what’s good for them.  We should be able to keep the Democrats out of the White House for 20 years on that.

HAT TIPCommentary