I wrote this recent post discussing the unfortunate timing of two significant threats to American security that may materially effect the Democratic Presidential candidates ability to retake the White House in 2008.
However, the damage done to one candidate in particular, John Edwards, by the JFK airport plot uncovered this past weekend, seems to be outsized.
Talk about bad timing. Here's a YouTube clip featuring Edwards' remarks that the global war on terror is 'just a bumper sticker,' pre-dating this weekend's events, including the Democratic candidate 'debate' in New Hampshire. Edwards had re-iterated this theme, which he evidently believed to be a winning slogan.
His continued diminishment of this real threat was lampooned in this humorous video clip, also from YouTube.
And, here, Rudy Giuliani rebuts Edwards' foolish remark with his own sentiments.
Perhaps the most telling measure of the longer-term effects of Edwards' attitude toward this real global conflict was seen on Bill O'Reilly's program last week. I happened to catch a few minutes of it one evening, during which he cited polls that had Edwards losing 8 percentage points of support in recent surveys of Democratic Presidential contenders.
At this rate, Edwards may need to start sharing a bus with co-contender Dennis (The Menace) Kucinich to save on campaign funds.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Monday, June 4, 2007
Some Insights on Birth Control and Abortions
For years, liberal acquaintances have informed me that the Repubican party has been captured ny the religious right. Apparently, all issues boil down to abortion, in the eyes of these liberals, especially for their arch-nemeses, the aforementioned rightist splinter group.
I'm not an active Republican by any means. I'd rather not register with either party, but, in order to vote in a primary, I am forced to do so. Thus, my identification as more conservative than partisan.
Recently, Kudlow & Company, Larry Kudlow's week nightly program on CNBC, featured the results of a Gallup poll which found nearly-identical percentages of Democratic and Republican voters would cast their vote for President on the single-issue of abortion. If memory serves, that percentage was roughly 18%. Thus, not only was the Republican party not 'captured' by these single-issue zealots, but the Democrats were hostage to the opposite sentiment, to the same degree.
Thus, a column in a recent Wall Street Journal caught my attention. Ms. Riley, the article's author, cast the piece through the eyes of Dr. Atul Gawande, who recently guest-wrote an op-ed piece in the People's Daily (a/k/a New York Times). It discussed the widely-available knowledge about birth-control methods, and their usage. How then, it asked, to accuont for the 1.3 million US abortions, over half of which were performed on women over the age of 25?
According to Ms. Riley, surveys record that 75% of American women,
"think abortion is morally wrong in at least some circumstances. The most common exceptions- rape, incest and life of the mother- are in fact the least common reasons women have abortions. So what gives?"
Riley quotes Kay Hymowitz, author of "Marriage and Caste in America," as writing,
"There isn't really a bright line between wanted and unwanted pregnancies."
Ultimately, Ms. Riley comes to a rather chilling conclusion,
"Whether they're suburban professionals with two sons who really want a daughter or poor inner-city women who hope their boyfriends will stay around if there is a child in the picture, women will often subvert their better judgment to fulfill a biological urge.
This is not the sort of sentiment that sits well with feminists- or with anyone, for that matter, who believes women are the ones thinking with their heads instead of their hormones."
It turns out that six in ten US women who have abortions are already mothers, and more than half intend to have more children. As Riley points out,
"These women know exactly how one gets pregnant, and how one does not."
Which leads Ms. Riley, and us, to the logical conclusion. Abortion has become an expensive, morally questionable form of birth control used by women who hope things will develop, over nine months, into a situation in which they feel comfortable bearing a child. But when circumstances do not comply with their hopes, they opt to terminate the pregnancy instead.
When you depart from the purely emotional arguments about "a woman's body," etc., and look at the facts, you rapidly realize that the issue is not about young, inner-city, uneducated women who have accidentally 'made a mistake.' Rather, it appears that our moral retreat on the question of how our society views the sanctity and right of each life to be protected has resulted in many women callously choosing to become pregnant, realizing that they can wait quite a few months and simply abort the child.
I'm not a single-issue voter, and I certainly don't intend to begin now, with this issue. However, I find the facts troubling. As part of a broader loosening of moral consistency in America, beginning in the late 1960s, our current dilemma vis a vis abortion, when electively used as birth control, seems to me to send entirely the wrong signal in a society which, in so many other areas, alleges to value life and protection of the weak. Of what value are so many governmentally-financed aid programs for surviving children, when our society actively supports the ability and means of women to abort other children before birth for no more reason than inconvenience?
I'm not an active Republican by any means. I'd rather not register with either party, but, in order to vote in a primary, I am forced to do so. Thus, my identification as more conservative than partisan.
Recently, Kudlow & Company, Larry Kudlow's week nightly program on CNBC, featured the results of a Gallup poll which found nearly-identical percentages of Democratic and Republican voters would cast their vote for President on the single-issue of abortion. If memory serves, that percentage was roughly 18%. Thus, not only was the Republican party not 'captured' by these single-issue zealots, but the Democrats were hostage to the opposite sentiment, to the same degree.
Thus, a column in a recent Wall Street Journal caught my attention. Ms. Riley, the article's author, cast the piece through the eyes of Dr. Atul Gawande, who recently guest-wrote an op-ed piece in the People's Daily (a/k/a New York Times). It discussed the widely-available knowledge about birth-control methods, and their usage. How then, it asked, to accuont for the 1.3 million US abortions, over half of which were performed on women over the age of 25?
According to Ms. Riley, surveys record that 75% of American women,
"think abortion is morally wrong in at least some circumstances. The most common exceptions- rape, incest and life of the mother- are in fact the least common reasons women have abortions. So what gives?"
Riley quotes Kay Hymowitz, author of "Marriage and Caste in America," as writing,
"There isn't really a bright line between wanted and unwanted pregnancies."
Ultimately, Ms. Riley comes to a rather chilling conclusion,
"Whether they're suburban professionals with two sons who really want a daughter or poor inner-city women who hope their boyfriends will stay around if there is a child in the picture, women will often subvert their better judgment to fulfill a biological urge.
This is not the sort of sentiment that sits well with feminists- or with anyone, for that matter, who believes women are the ones thinking with their heads instead of their hormones."
It turns out that six in ten US women who have abortions are already mothers, and more than half intend to have more children. As Riley points out,
"These women know exactly how one gets pregnant, and how one does not."
Which leads Ms. Riley, and us, to the logical conclusion. Abortion has become an expensive, morally questionable form of birth control used by women who hope things will develop, over nine months, into a situation in which they feel comfortable bearing a child. But when circumstances do not comply with their hopes, they opt to terminate the pregnancy instead.
When you depart from the purely emotional arguments about "a woman's body," etc., and look at the facts, you rapidly realize that the issue is not about young, inner-city, uneducated women who have accidentally 'made a mistake.' Rather, it appears that our moral retreat on the question of how our society views the sanctity and right of each life to be protected has resulted in many women callously choosing to become pregnant, realizing that they can wait quite a few months and simply abort the child.
I'm not a single-issue voter, and I certainly don't intend to begin now, with this issue. However, I find the facts troubling. As part of a broader loosening of moral consistency in America, beginning in the late 1960s, our current dilemma vis a vis abortion, when electively used as birth control, seems to me to send entirely the wrong signal in a society which, in so many other areas, alleges to value life and protection of the weak. Of what value are so many governmentally-financed aid programs for surviving children, when our society actively supports the ability and means of women to abort other children before birth for no more reason than inconvenience?
Sunday, June 3, 2007
War Clouds on The Horizon For Democratic Presidential Candidates
Just as it seemed the liberal Democratic Presidential frontrunning candidates- Hill, Obama Bim Baden...gee, is there anyone else?.......were safe running to the left on defense and terrorism, two events this past week have made the water suddenly very unsafe for them.
Exhibit number one was this past week's Russian test of an anti-anti-ballistic missile defense system missle. So much for post-Reagan progress on arms control. Putin is off the reservation now.
No, it's not George Bush's "fault." Nobody can control another country's leader. Putin and his coterie are still smarting from their nation's fall from superpower status. Thus, their bet on militarism and economic blackmail, via oil and gas, to attempt to regain that status.
Say goodbye to the end of the arms race, my friends.
Exhibit number two is the just-announced apprehension of those terrorists involved in planning the total destruction of New York's JFK airport, along with a substantial portion of nearby Queens.
Yet again, we are reminded that terrorism lives, and is seeking to strike on our shores again.
Doesn't voting to withdraw from Iraq look silly when old and new enemies abound, are active, and demonstrate the continued danger of simply maintaining peaceful, healthy global trade and economic interdependence?
What idiot would vote to pointlessly retreat behind the non-existent "protection" of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
Heck, we can't even keep our own TB-infected citizens out of our own country.
My own expectation is that these recent events will bring home to American voters that we are never "safe." That now is no time to vote for liberal pansies and appeasers.
Fate has a way of making some candidacies irrelevant, despite their own best efforts. Nixon lost his gubernatorial bid amidst the media coverage of the Cuban missile crisis. Kerry ran for peace during a hot, vital war against terrorism, attempting to invoke his own checkered and uncertain military service as his qualification.
I'd guess that by November of 2008, a candidate who is well-credentialed, strong on defense, and likable, will be leading in the race to replace George Bush.
I'm guessing that person will be either Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani. I don't think any prominent Democratic candidates will be able to tack back from the far left, where they headed to win their own party's nomination, to the center on defense, with any credibility left.
In fact, it occurred to me yesterday that you have to go back to Harry Truman to find a Democratic President of whom that party is still proud, and was not soft on defense. Johnson's abysmal mismanagement of both the Vietnam War, and the economy, amidst his wrong-headed, southern-white-guilt inspired social policies, earned him a place near Carter in the pantheon of failed Democratic Presidents. Clinton was lucky war did not find him as he dismantled our defenses and ignored the rising threat of global, Islamic-fringe-driven terrorism.
It could well be a rerun of the candidacies of (drumroll, please): McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry.
Exhibit number one was this past week's Russian test of an anti-anti-ballistic missile defense system missle. So much for post-Reagan progress on arms control. Putin is off the reservation now.
No, it's not George Bush's "fault." Nobody can control another country's leader. Putin and his coterie are still smarting from their nation's fall from superpower status. Thus, their bet on militarism and economic blackmail, via oil and gas, to attempt to regain that status.
Say goodbye to the end of the arms race, my friends.
Exhibit number two is the just-announced apprehension of those terrorists involved in planning the total destruction of New York's JFK airport, along with a substantial portion of nearby Queens.
Yet again, we are reminded that terrorism lives, and is seeking to strike on our shores again.
Doesn't voting to withdraw from Iraq look silly when old and new enemies abound, are active, and demonstrate the continued danger of simply maintaining peaceful, healthy global trade and economic interdependence?
What idiot would vote to pointlessly retreat behind the non-existent "protection" of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
Heck, we can't even keep our own TB-infected citizens out of our own country.
My own expectation is that these recent events will bring home to American voters that we are never "safe." That now is no time to vote for liberal pansies and appeasers.
Fate has a way of making some candidacies irrelevant, despite their own best efforts. Nixon lost his gubernatorial bid amidst the media coverage of the Cuban missile crisis. Kerry ran for peace during a hot, vital war against terrorism, attempting to invoke his own checkered and uncertain military service as his qualification.
I'd guess that by November of 2008, a candidate who is well-credentialed, strong on defense, and likable, will be leading in the race to replace George Bush.
I'm guessing that person will be either Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani. I don't think any prominent Democratic candidates will be able to tack back from the far left, where they headed to win their own party's nomination, to the center on defense, with any credibility left.
In fact, it occurred to me yesterday that you have to go back to Harry Truman to find a Democratic President of whom that party is still proud, and was not soft on defense. Johnson's abysmal mismanagement of both the Vietnam War, and the economy, amidst his wrong-headed, southern-white-guilt inspired social policies, earned him a place near Carter in the pantheon of failed Democratic Presidents. Clinton was lucky war did not find him as he dismantled our defenses and ignored the rising threat of global, Islamic-fringe-driven terrorism.
It could well be a rerun of the candidacies of (drumroll, please): McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
John Edwards, Crusader for the Poor & Unions
Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards' antics are just too hilarious for words sometimes. Take this past week.
First we learn that, while promising legislation to shut down offshore fund managers, Edwards actually worked for one for at least the past year. That's right. Edwards worked for Fortress, LLC, the prominent hedge fund that has recently begun allowing public investment into itself.
Edwards earned some $400,000+ last year at Fortress. When asked to explain this association, he said that he wanted to learn how hedge funds related to poverty. You can't this stuff up. Nobody would believe it.
This weekend, in the Wall Street Journal, it was reported that Edwards, who likes to style himself as the "son of a millworker," rather than the former class action lawyer that he is, went to bat to strip workers of their rights in North Carolina.
At issue is union pressure on Smithfield Foods. The Democrats, led by Edwards, are attempting to force the company, whose employees have thus far resisted union organizers, to replace a secret ballot with the 'card check.' This latest liberal Democratic idea allows unions to simply count every signature gathered publicly as a 'vote,' thus using thuggery and intimidation to organize workers.
Of course, the goal of this is higher union wages at Smithfield. The Journal article recounts how this strategy backfired on UNITE, a textile union, when they organized Fieldcrest Cannon in 2002. The resulting union demands on the company, as it emerged from bankruptcy, left it no choice but to close its operations in the North Carolina county in question.
So much for trying to hold back global economic tides.
Further on, the article provides an interesting statistic,
"From 1997 to 2005 the 10 states with the highest rates of union membership- which include California, New York and Michigan, among others- had slower growth than the bottom 10 states. North Carolina is among just five states with union membership rates below 5%. ....Further unionizing the workforce will likely only make the state look more like the old Northeast and Rustbelt than the New South."
It's sort of comical to put these two stories together. Here's John Edwards, multi-millionaire class-action, corporate-shakedown attorney, raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars from the type of company he publicly lambastes. Then he turns around and supports an erosion of workers' rights which will likely lead to more of them being jobless, as their unions raise wages too high for companies like Smithfield Foods to continue operating in North Carolina.
As the Journal piece notes, for better or worse, Edwards has lashed himself to big labor for this election. It's going to be interesting to see how Edwards tries to tack back from this socialist stance, should he somehow actually win the Democratic nomination for President.
First we learn that, while promising legislation to shut down offshore fund managers, Edwards actually worked for one for at least the past year. That's right. Edwards worked for Fortress, LLC, the prominent hedge fund that has recently begun allowing public investment into itself.
Edwards earned some $400,000+ last year at Fortress. When asked to explain this association, he said that he wanted to learn how hedge funds related to poverty. You can't this stuff up. Nobody would believe it.
This weekend, in the Wall Street Journal, it was reported that Edwards, who likes to style himself as the "son of a millworker," rather than the former class action lawyer that he is, went to bat to strip workers of their rights in North Carolina.
At issue is union pressure on Smithfield Foods. The Democrats, led by Edwards, are attempting to force the company, whose employees have thus far resisted union organizers, to replace a secret ballot with the 'card check.' This latest liberal Democratic idea allows unions to simply count every signature gathered publicly as a 'vote,' thus using thuggery and intimidation to organize workers.
Of course, the goal of this is higher union wages at Smithfield. The Journal article recounts how this strategy backfired on UNITE, a textile union, when they organized Fieldcrest Cannon in 2002. The resulting union demands on the company, as it emerged from bankruptcy, left it no choice but to close its operations in the North Carolina county in question.
So much for trying to hold back global economic tides.
Further on, the article provides an interesting statistic,
"From 1997 to 2005 the 10 states with the highest rates of union membership- which include California, New York and Michigan, among others- had slower growth than the bottom 10 states. North Carolina is among just five states with union membership rates below 5%. ....Further unionizing the workforce will likely only make the state look more like the old Northeast and Rustbelt than the New South."
It's sort of comical to put these two stories together. Here's John Edwards, multi-millionaire class-action, corporate-shakedown attorney, raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars from the type of company he publicly lambastes. Then he turns around and supports an erosion of workers' rights which will likely lead to more of them being jobless, as their unions raise wages too high for companies like Smithfield Foods to continue operating in North Carolina.
As the Journal piece notes, for better or worse, Edwards has lashed himself to big labor for this election. It's going to be interesting to see how Edwards tries to tack back from this socialist stance, should he somehow actually win the Democratic nomination for President.
Frisco Nan's Fiscal Promise-Breaking
Last week's tussle over pork being stuffed into the Iraq funding bill provided voters with a clear view of how Frisco Nan (Pelosi), the House Speaker, has already broken her promises for better fiscal management of the budget.
Her main man, Pennsylvania Rep John Murtha, was caught threatening Mike Rogers, a Republican, with a total elimination of any funding requests for his district, because Rogers challenged a specious earmark project in Murtha's district.
According to the House's own rules, this type of intimidation and coercion is supposed to be illegal. So much for the Democrats new broom sweeping clean.
In fact, they had to lard the Iraq funding bill with quite a bit of pork, in order to tempt some of their own party to vote for it, despite it being vetoed the first time around.
As I wrote in my prior post, here, the Congressional Democrats are on record now breaking promises, left and right. Mostly left, of course.
Seriously, they've tried to unplug the funding for the war in Iraq, but without actually taking responsibility. They've now returned to earmarking, and even last minute insertions of them, a la Tom Delay- something they vowed to 'clean up' if they won control of the Lower Chamber.
Honestly, you can't make stuff up that's as good fodder for election campaigns as these actions by the liberal House Democrats.
Another reason to have bright hopes for a return to Republican control of at least one House next election, if not both, even by slim margins.
Her main man, Pennsylvania Rep John Murtha, was caught threatening Mike Rogers, a Republican, with a total elimination of any funding requests for his district, because Rogers challenged a specious earmark project in Murtha's district.
According to the House's own rules, this type of intimidation and coercion is supposed to be illegal. So much for the Democrats new broom sweeping clean.
In fact, they had to lard the Iraq funding bill with quite a bit of pork, in order to tempt some of their own party to vote for it, despite it being vetoed the first time around.
As I wrote in my prior post, here, the Congressional Democrats are on record now breaking promises, left and right. Mostly left, of course.
Seriously, they've tried to unplug the funding for the war in Iraq, but without actually taking responsibility. They've now returned to earmarking, and even last minute insertions of them, a la Tom Delay- something they vowed to 'clean up' if they won control of the Lower Chamber.
Honestly, you can't make stuff up that's as good fodder for election campaigns as these actions by the liberal House Democrats.
Another reason to have bright hopes for a return to Republican control of at least one House next election, if not both, even by slim margins.
Congressional Democrats Run to the Left on Iraq
This past week's Congressional buckling under to President Bush's refusal to sign an Iraq funding bill with a withdrawal timetable has accomplished what conservatives (like me) expected all along.
Frisco Nan, Reid, and their cohorts showed their true colors, trying to force a withdrawal from Iraq, without actually taking responsibility for it. It backfired, they couldn't override the veto, and had to back down.
But they are on record as having now voted, clearly and decisively, to cut and run in the face of global terrorism.
Additionally, it forced Hillary to run left, in order not to be outflanked by Obama Bim Baden and Chris Dodd. All three are on record now as having voted to gut support for our armed forces, and try to pretend we are a continental island in a troubled world.
Was 9/11 that long ago, that these Democrats think American voters won't recall that this type of thinking didn't work before? I continue to believe that they have badly misunderstood American voter sentiments, i.e., whether or not we should be in Iraq, we are, so let's win this time. Unlike the liberal Democrats' sabotage of our Vietnam policy during the Nixon administration.
Thanks to President Bush's fortitude, the Republicans now have the gift of a big, fat target at which to aim in the 2008 elections. The liberal Democrats are now "out" as soft and spineless on Iraq and the war on terror. This should result in GOP seat gains, and maybe a return to majority, in both Houses during the next election.
Frisco Nan, Reid, and their cohorts showed their true colors, trying to force a withdrawal from Iraq, without actually taking responsibility for it. It backfired, they couldn't override the veto, and had to back down.
But they are on record as having now voted, clearly and decisively, to cut and run in the face of global terrorism.
Additionally, it forced Hillary to run left, in order not to be outflanked by Obama Bim Baden and Chris Dodd. All three are on record now as having voted to gut support for our armed forces, and try to pretend we are a continental island in a troubled world.
Was 9/11 that long ago, that these Democrats think American voters won't recall that this type of thinking didn't work before? I continue to believe that they have badly misunderstood American voter sentiments, i.e., whether or not we should be in Iraq, we are, so let's win this time. Unlike the liberal Democrats' sabotage of our Vietnam policy during the Nixon administration.
Thanks to President Bush's fortitude, the Republicans now have the gift of a big, fat target at which to aim in the 2008 elections. The liberal Democrats are now "out" as soft and spineless on Iraq and the war on terror. This should result in GOP seat gains, and maybe a return to majority, in both Houses during the next election.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
More On The Faux Global Warming Hysteria
Saturday's Wall Street Journal featured an interview by Kim Strassel with Robert E. Murray, CEO of Murray Energy.
It's a great article. Through his interview with Ms. Strassel, Murray exposes the hidden surprise that the liberal left, and large business CEOs, have in store for the average American.
Stratospheric energy costs amidst dwindling energy supplies. Welcome to Jimmy Carter's world of energy supply mismanagement, Part 2.
Basically, Murray notes that coal is one of the major fuel sources that allows Americans to consume energy at a relatively low cost. But it is number one on the global warming police's hit list of energy sources.
According to Murray, the result of attempting to squeeze coal out of America's energy mix will only result in: lost jobs, regional recessions, much higher energy costs, and actual supply shortfalls.
Murray then goes on to skewer those large companies- GE, DuPont, Alcoa, Caterpillar, Shell, ConocoPhillips, BP, Entergy- whose CEOs have jumped on the CO2 cap trading program. Their argument is that if they don't participate in the design of the program, they'll only suffer more.
Murray argues that, by joining in, these influential CEOs have given up the war without a fight. He wrote a letter to the CEO of Duke Power, outlining his points, and his contention that, ultimately, after the short-term effects of selling cap credits had worn off, Duke's growth and profitability would suffer, as America's capacity to generate power waned.
Jim Rogers, Duke's CEO, replied, in part,
"Legislation is coming. We can help shape it, or stand on the sidelines and let others do it."
I must say, I agree with Mr. Murray. Contributing to wrong-headed legislation will backfire on these companies. By jumping on the bandwagon now, they could potentially delay the eventual realization that this entire hysteria is a growth-curbing, standard-of-living destroying mistake foisted upon us by the liberal left. Having muzzled much of academia's sources of disagreement, they will use these companies' participation as evidence of even big business' capitulation.
Ten years hence, when our economic growth has slowed because of a foolishly self-imposed CO2 limit, jobs are scarce, and incomes have stalled, these companies will be held responsible, along with the liberal Democrats who initiated this hoax.
To read more about my own views, go here, as well as reading my pieces labelled 'global warming.'
The only good news is likely to be that, as the price paid for 'addressing' imagined human sources of global warming hits home to voters, the Democrats could find themselves out of quite a few gubernatorial, House and Senate seats, not to mention the Presidency, for some time.
It's a great article. Through his interview with Ms. Strassel, Murray exposes the hidden surprise that the liberal left, and large business CEOs, have in store for the average American.
Stratospheric energy costs amidst dwindling energy supplies. Welcome to Jimmy Carter's world of energy supply mismanagement, Part 2.
Basically, Murray notes that coal is one of the major fuel sources that allows Americans to consume energy at a relatively low cost. But it is number one on the global warming police's hit list of energy sources.
According to Murray, the result of attempting to squeeze coal out of America's energy mix will only result in: lost jobs, regional recessions, much higher energy costs, and actual supply shortfalls.
Murray then goes on to skewer those large companies- GE, DuPont, Alcoa, Caterpillar, Shell, ConocoPhillips, BP, Entergy- whose CEOs have jumped on the CO2 cap trading program. Their argument is that if they don't participate in the design of the program, they'll only suffer more.
Murray argues that, by joining in, these influential CEOs have given up the war without a fight. He wrote a letter to the CEO of Duke Power, outlining his points, and his contention that, ultimately, after the short-term effects of selling cap credits had worn off, Duke's growth and profitability would suffer, as America's capacity to generate power waned.
Jim Rogers, Duke's CEO, replied, in part,
"Legislation is coming. We can help shape it, or stand on the sidelines and let others do it."
I must say, I agree with Mr. Murray. Contributing to wrong-headed legislation will backfire on these companies. By jumping on the bandwagon now, they could potentially delay the eventual realization that this entire hysteria is a growth-curbing, standard-of-living destroying mistake foisted upon us by the liberal left. Having muzzled much of academia's sources of disagreement, they will use these companies' participation as evidence of even big business' capitulation.
Ten years hence, when our economic growth has slowed because of a foolishly self-imposed CO2 limit, jobs are scarce, and incomes have stalled, these companies will be held responsible, along with the liberal Democrats who initiated this hoax.
To read more about my own views, go here, as well as reading my pieces labelled 'global warming.'
The only good news is likely to be that, as the price paid for 'addressing' imagined human sources of global warming hits home to voters, the Democrats could find themselves out of quite a few gubernatorial, House and Senate seats, not to mention the Presidency, for some time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
