GOOD NEWS! Democrat PR firm recommends dropping global warming

Story here from Steve Milloy’s Green Hell blog.

Excerpt:

A public relations firm advising Democrats on climate legislation says that global warming alarmism needs to be dropped.

According to a memo from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, global warming should not be used as the “primary frame”…

Here’s a quote from the firm’s memo:

Awareness about global warming is broad, and some in the public are seriously concerned about it. But almost no one in our groups expressed such concern; for most voters, global warming is not significant enough on its own to drive support for major energy reform. So while it can be part of the story that reform advocates are telling, global warming should be used only in addition to the broader economic frame, not in place of it.

See, the news isn’t all bad!

My big post on cap and trade is here, so you can learn what the Democrats have planned for us.

What is our exit strategy from the quagmire of this unilateral war?

The world is angry with our policies

Look, even the National Review wants us out of this unilateral war that is making the whole world hate us!

Canada and Mexico, our top two export markets, are embroiled in trade feuds with the U.S., both triggered by American protectionism. As a global leader and a decent hemispheric neighbor — especially during these economic doldrums — the United States immediately should rejoin Canada and Mexico on the road to free trade.

…Obama’s $410 billion omnibus spending plan defunded a pilot program in which about 100 Mexican trucks were allowed to drive goods into the U.S. beyond a 25-mile frontier zone. American trucks were given equal access to Mexican destinations. (Removing goods from one country’s trucks and reloading them onto the other’s for onward travel has boosted transit costs anew. These eventually increase price tags.)

Mexico correctly argues that the North American Free Trade Agreement, which President Clinton signed in 1995, opened U.S. roads to Mexican trucks. However, Washington kept dragging its feet. In 2002, Congress imposed 22 safety regulations on Mexican (but not Canadian) trucks, and it was only in 2007 that the Bush administration started the pilot program. In exasperation at the cancellation of this initiative, Mexico has raised tariffs on 90 American exports worth $2.4 billion, including grapes and toilet paper. This reportedly will kill 40,000 American jobs. Mexico’s backlash against U.S. protectionism interrupted its unilateral reduction of average industrial tariffs from 10.4 percent in 2008 to a projected 4.2 percent in 2013.

Even worse, June 1 brought word that Canacar — an association of 4,500 Mexican trucking companies — had filed a grievance with the U.S. State Department seeking $6 billion in damages because of the pilot program’s termination and the resulting brick wall that arose in front of big rigs at the border.

“We want reciprocity,” Canacar attorney Pedro Ojeda told the Wall Street Journal. “The U.S. has notoriously not kept its commitments.”

I mean trade war, of course.

The world is angry with America

Andrew Roth writes:

China has now retaliated with a “Buy China” provision in their own stimulus bill. Canada has complained and all Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has done in response is pledge “cooperation.” No, we don’t need pledges. We need to revoke “Buy American.” We need to kill it.

Here is a list of countries that are angry with Obama’s short-sighted protectionism.  He wants to isolate America from the rest of the world by refusing to sign trade deals with them.

Canada ($600B) passes resolution to counter “Buy American” policy.

The European Union ($639B) calls it the “worst possible signal.”

Japan ($204B) warns the United States, and Australia ($32B) threatens retalitory measures.

After slamming the “Buy American” policy, India ($43B) raised tariffs.

Singapore ($43B) is concerned with “Buy American.”

The president of Brazil ($62B), a former labor activist, criticizes Buy American and has threaten to challenge the U.S. at the WTO.

France‘s ($72B) Nicholas Sarkozy wants a “Buy France” provision for french auto companies.

Big Labor opposes free trade, and Big Labor helped to get Obama elected.

So now we get a trade war.

ACORN sues whistleblower for exposing their secrets

Let’s learn about ACORN

In case you don’t know anything about ACORN, Michelle Malkin can introduce this organization. (post dated June 20, 2008)

Excerpt:

The radical left-wing, government-subsidized group ACORN uses your tax dollars to engage in voter fraud, enrich itself as part of the mortgage counseling racket, and serve as an activist branch of the Democrat Party.

There’s more. Ashley Eiler e-mails about a new report: “The Consumers Rights League just released a collection of whistleblower documents from an ACORN staffer that raise some new concerns about how the organization has established policies for its housing counselors to use undocumented / under-the-table income for processing loan applications from low-income individuals. In addition to pushing these and other exotic loans, the documents reveal that ACORN has engaged in some apparently illegal activities by commingling government funds from its tax-exempt offshoot entities to fight political battles against corporate lenders. ”

Who has close ties to this suspicious group? Is it Dick Cheney?

Obama’s close relationship with ACORN

Michelle Malkin can tell you all about Obama’s close ties with ACORN. (post dated June 25, 2008)

Excerpt:

Who in Washington will fight to ensure that your money isn’t being spent on these radical activities?

Don’t bother asking Barack Obama. He cut his ideological teeth working with ACORN as a “community organizer” and legal representative. Naturally, ACORN’s political action committee has warmly endorsed his presidential candidacy. According to ACORN, Obama trained its Chicago members in leadership seminars; in turn, ACORN volunteers worked on his campaigns. Obama also sat on the boards of the Woods Fund and Joyce Foundation, both of which poured money into ACORN’s coffers. ACORN head Maude Hurd gushes that Obama is the candidate who “best understands and can affect change on the issues ACORN cares about” — like ensuring their massive pipeline to your hard-earned money.

…For excellent background on Obama and ACORN, see Stanley Kurtz’s NR piece here, plus City Journal pieces here and here. Also here and here.

This article has some startling numbers on ACORN’s operations.

How is ACORN funded?

ACORN is funded by taxpayer money, and Obama’s porkulus bill included 4.19 billion dollars for his former employer. (post dated January 26, 2009)

Excerpt:

House GOP leader John Boehner’s office reports that the left-wing voter fraud/illegal alien/housing entitlement racketeers at ACORN “could get billions” more in federal taxpayer funding from the Democrats’ stimulus bill.

Remember, these guys are accused of voter fraud, and they are being asked by Obama to go door-to-door to assist with the US census. I’m sure they will not use that opportunity to commit more voter fraud. Not at all.

ACORN sues whistleblower

Remember that whistleblower that I mentioned earlier? Michelle has the latest news.

Excerpt:

The White House is on a witch hunt against inspectors general who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars.

And now, taxpayer-subsidized ACORN affiliate Project Vote — where President Obama cut his teeth as a community organizer and learned Leftist intimidation tactics up close and personal — is going after whistleblower Anita MonCrief and an anonymous “John Doe” defendant for posting invaluable documents that reveal the money-shuffling racket.

Obama. ACORN. Project Vote. Corrupt birds of a feather bully together.

The scoop: Project Vote has filed a federal lawsuit against MonCrief for blogging about her experience and knowledge of the non-profit 501(c)(3) organization’s partisan and political activities, including coordination with the Obama campaign. Project Vote seeks compensatory damages and exemplary damages “of at least $5 million” and all costs and attorney’s fees on trumped-up charges of “trademark infringement” and publication of “trade secrets.”

Should we be surprised that the left is willing to bully and intimidate people for exposing them?

ACORN was instrumental in causing the current recession by suing banks so that they would be forced to make loans to people who would never be able to pay the money back. Remember, Democrats caused this recession and Republicans tried to stop them.

Does the academic left use rational arguments or intimidation in debates?

Muddling Towards Maturity has found yet another interesting post for us. This post is by David French, who writes at the National Review.

The full post:

Late yesterday afternoon, I happened to catch a short-but-insightful lecture by one of my favorite Christian apologists, Ravi Zacharias. In the midst of an interesting discussion about the allure of Eastern mysticism in Western culture, he made a fascinating statement (I’m paraphrasing): In the battle of ideas, stigma always beats dogma. In other words, through stigmatization, one can defeat a set of ideas or principles without ever “winning” an argument on the merits.

I was instantly reminded of not just my own experiences in secular higher education, but also the experiences I see and hear every day while defending the rights of students and professors. Why convince when you can browbeat? Why dialogue when you can read entire philosophies out of polite society? That’s not to say there aren’t intense debates on matters of public policy, but all too often we see social conservatism not so much engaged as assaulted.

I fear that we like to comfort ourselves by saying something like, “kids see through this heavy-handed nonsense.” This is simply wishful thinking. Most people don’t like to be labeled as “bigots,” and they often assume that such overwhelming ideological consensus is the product of considered thought. If “everyone” seems to believe something (especially when “everyone” includes all of your professors and other academic authorities), then mustn’t it be true?

Here’s a question for conservative parents and teachers: Are we really equipping young people to face the challenges of college if we teach them arguments? Or should we instead be primarily preparing them to face scorn and hate with inner toughness and good cheer? After all, when a professor calls you a “fascist bastard” for defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, what is he doing if not trying to defeat dogma with stigma?

Below, I’ll give my thoughts on this.

My thoughts on the academic left

First of all, from a practical point of view, never take anything except math, engineering or computer science at the university, unless you are really passionate about some other field. Everything else is so politicized that you may be forced to assent to things you do not believe in order to pass. There is not a shred of open-mindedness or tolerance for other viewpoints in today’s leftist campuses. It’s just fascism all the way.

Secondly, young conservatives and Christians need to get used to staying calm while ideas that they don’t agree with are shouted in their faced in the typical vulgar, abusive manner that secular leftists seem to find so fetching these days. The best way to do that is to watch as many debates as possible in advance and get used to sitting still and disagreeing while someone else explains their point of view.

Thirdly, other points of view are only annoying if you have lousy reasons for your own point of view. If you put the time in learning your arguments and evidence, and the best that could be argued against you from the other side, then there should be no problem. Just repeat what Jay Richards said after his debate with atheistic journalist Christopher Hitchens: “a sneer is not an argument, an insult is not evidence”. Richards has a Ph.D from Princeton University… Hitchens does not.

Fourthly, we need to start making it common knowledge that atheism does not ground morality and that is a worldview that is responsible for at least a hundred million deaths in the last 100 years alone. That point must be made over and over – when someone claims to be an atheist it should be immediately put to them that meaningful morality is not rationally grounded by their worldview. Don’t let them make any moral judgments without challenging them on the foundations of morality.

Example of what students can expect from left-wing fascists on campus

Don Feder has a list of campus violence incidents against conservative speakers in a OneNewsNow article.

Here are a couple of the incidents in his list:

When she attempted to speak at Penn State in 1999, black conservative Star Parker was forced from the stage. Parker described the experience as “very frightening” and said she “feared for my life.” Parker’s hatefulness was her contention that single mothers are better off with jobs than on welfare, based on her own experience.

At Emory University in 2006, David Horowitz gave a lecture as part of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. To show their outrage at the comparison of radical Islam to fascism, protestors behaved like fascists. A mob of over 300, from groups like Amnesty International, Veterans for Peace, and Students for Justice in Palestine, waved signs and shouted, “Does George Bush respect anybody’s rights?” and “Why don’t you talk about fascism in America?” mixed with chants of “Racist, sexist, anti-gay, David Horowitz go away!” (They can’t reason. But they sure can rhyme.) “Are we going to talk about who killed JFK?” one protestor demanded. (The Zionist-CIA-Karl Rove-AIG Executives cabal?). Horowitz (who had to be escorted off stage) observed, “This is exactly what the fascists did in Germany in the 1930s.” True, but at least they weren’t hypocrites claiming they were motivated by concern for minority rights.

This is the tolerant, open-minded left. The same tolerant left that brought secular-socialist mass-murdering regimes into power in Russia, Italy and Germany. And they kill millions in many ways. You will never find right-wing advocates of free market capitalism and human rights treating their opponents like this. We don’t take positions based solely on emotions, so there is no need for us to use violence to win an argument.

Do affirmative action policies help or hurt quality of service?

Commenter ECM sent me an article from a newspaper in Annapolis, Maryland, written by a professor at the Naval Academy. The author is a professor of English, and he doesn’t think that affirmative action provides taxpayers with good quality service. Quality of service is very important because the Navy keeps us safe from harm. They have an important job, so shouldn’t we be hiring the best candidates?

Excerpt:

Midshipmen are admitted by two tracks. White applicants out of high school who are not also athletic recruits typically need grades of A and B and minimum SAT scores of 600 on each part for the Board to vote them “qualified.” Athletics and leadership also count.

A vote of “qualified” for a white applicant doesn’t mean s/he’s coming, only that he or she can compete to win the “slate” of up to 10 nominations that (most typically) a Congress(wo)man draws up. That means that nine “qualified” white applicants are rejected. SAT scores below 600 or C grades almost always produce a vote of “not qualified” for white applicants.

Not so for an applicant who self-identifies as one of the minorities who are our “number one priority.” For them, another set of rules apply. Their cases are briefed separately to the board, and SAT scores to the mid-500s with quite a few Cs in classes (and no visible athletics or leadership) typically produce a vote of “qualified” for them, with direct admission to Annapolis. They’re in, and are given a pro forma nomination to make it legit.

Minority applicants with scores and grades down to the 300s with Cs and Ds (and no particular leadership or athletics) also come, though after a remedial year at our taxpayer-supported remedial school, the Naval Academy Preparatory School.

By using NAPS as a feeder, we’ve virtually eliminated all competition for “diverse” candidates: in theory they have to get a C average at NAPS to come to USNA, but this is regularly re-negotiated.

Try and reflect on the fact that when quality goes down in an area where performance means life or death, the consequences for NOT hiring the best could be disastrous.

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

%d bloggers like this: