Dear Readers,
I have added this post as a way for you to sound-off. If you want to suggest topics, ask my opinion, challenge me to discuss or defend a conservative position, feel free to post it here. I will do my best to reply with my thoughts as soon as possible.
Cheers!
The Carnivore
Monday, January 30, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
The Take Away from the South Carolina Primary
I haven't yet made up my mind who I would like to see get the Republican nomination. There are aspects of each of the remaining candidates that I find appealing but I also have reservations about each of them as well. Of one thing I am absolutely certain - any of them would be better than our current president. Regardless of who ultimately wins the nomination, there is one "take away" from the South Carolina primary that the candidates had better understand: Having a winning argument doesn't matter if you don't win the argument!
I don't believe Gingrich's victory is as much of an endorsement of Newt as it is an indication of what Republican and conservative voters want. They want a fighter; someone who has the conviction and nerve to stand up to the inevitable attacks that will be leveled against them in the general election by Democrats and their propagandists in the media. The cheer of the crowd following Newt's rebuke of John King during the debate for leading off with a question about a statement made by the former House Speaker's ex-wife says it all. We are tired of the "John Boehner's" who go in with the winning argument only to lose heart and come out, tail between their legs having lost the argument.
No one is in a better position to benefit from this lesson than Governor Mitt Romney. Unlike Newt, who has, quite frankly, argued some very unconservative ideas, Mitt has often had the winning argument but couldn't seal the deal. He has allowed himself to be put on the defensive over his business success and capitalism.
The conservative ideals of individual liberty, the free market and limited government are the winning argument. We have the benefit of over two hundred years of evidence on our side. By refusing to allow the media or an opponent to frame a false narrative and having the courage of their convictions to stand by our ideals, any of the Republican candidates can focus on winning the argument and ultimately the White House in November.
I don't believe Gingrich's victory is as much of an endorsement of Newt as it is an indication of what Republican and conservative voters want. They want a fighter; someone who has the conviction and nerve to stand up to the inevitable attacks that will be leveled against them in the general election by Democrats and their propagandists in the media. The cheer of the crowd following Newt's rebuke of John King during the debate for leading off with a question about a statement made by the former House Speaker's ex-wife says it all. We are tired of the "John Boehner's" who go in with the winning argument only to lose heart and come out, tail between their legs having lost the argument.
No one is in a better position to benefit from this lesson than Governor Mitt Romney. Unlike Newt, who has, quite frankly, argued some very unconservative ideas, Mitt has often had the winning argument but couldn't seal the deal. He has allowed himself to be put on the defensive over his business success and capitalism.
The conservative ideals of individual liberty, the free market and limited government are the winning argument. We have the benefit of over two hundred years of evidence on our side. By refusing to allow the media or an opponent to frame a false narrative and having the courage of their convictions to stand by our ideals, any of the Republican candidates can focus on winning the argument and ultimately the White House in November.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
What Are the President's Priorities?
What are President Obama's priorities? One thing is for sure, American jobs, prosperity or energy independence are not among them. A few days after the Iranian government threatened to shut the Straits of Hormuz through which 40% of the world's oil must pass and on the same day that forecasters predicted gasoline to reach $5 a gallon by May, President Obama denied a permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline project. The question is why?
This must have been a gut wrenching decision for the president to have to choose between two of his big constituents - Big Labor and the Radical Environmentalists. "Should I grant the permit to TransCanada for the pipeline which would mean tens of thousands of well paying union jobs or should I bow to the demands of the radical environmentalists?" No voting present here! Clearly the overriding concern for Mr. Obama was throwing a bone to the rabid green crowd. Unfortunately, when called upon to make a decision, President Obama has a knack for coming down on the wrong side.
On the one hand, the pipeline would mean thousands of jobs at a time when we are in a period of prolonged high unemployment. And these jobs would be skilled, high-paying jobs. Furthermore, it would not just create jobs during the construction phase but once completed, it would create many long-term jobs in the way of maintenance, monitoring, and operation of the pipeline in addition to all the jobs in the refineries on the US Gulf Coast that would process the oil into gasoline and other important products. Moreover, it would decrease our dependence on Middle East oil while at the same time further strengthen our economic ties to our good neighbor to the north.
On the other hand, the environmentalists argue that there needs to be further environmental impact studies and that we should not help exploit Canada's tar sands oil, encourage the continued use of fossil fuels, risk harming the delicate ecosystems along the path of the pipeline, and add to greenhouse gases by refining the oil in our refineries. However, these are very weak arguments indeed.
The US Department of State (not known to be a particularly pro-business, conservative, bunch) conducted an extensive, three year environmental impact study that concluded the pipeline would have little, negative impact on the environment including the Ogalla aquifer and the Sandhills region of Nebraska. Furthermore, TransCanada agreed to work with the State of Nebraska to re-route the pipeline to avoid critical wildlife areas and add many more safety features such as additional monitoring systems and shutdown valves. Apparently this isn't good enough.
Additionally, the decision to not allow the pipeline to be build across the US will do nothing to prevent the continued use of fossil fuels or the development of Canadian tar sands oil. Shortly after learning of President Obama's decision, the Canadian government announced it would build the pipeline through Canadian territory in order to sell the oil to China so it will do nothing to lessen the potential for harm to the environment or reduce the amount of greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere. As a matter of fact, I can almost assure you that oil refining in China is far less environmentally friendly than it would be in the US. I would also argue that transporting the crude oil from the west coast of Canada by Chinese tanker is far more likely to present a hazard to our environment than a pipeline as an oil spill at sea has a higher probability of occurrence and would be much more difficult to clean up than a leak from a land-based pipeline.
So to recap, President Obama's decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline has damaged our relationship with Canada, will hurt our economy, and does nothing to safeguard the environment. To think this decision is in the best interest of American and reflects the right priorities from our president, requires what Hillary Clinton once called "A willing suspension of disbelief."
This must have been a gut wrenching decision for the president to have to choose between two of his big constituents - Big Labor and the Radical Environmentalists. "Should I grant the permit to TransCanada for the pipeline which would mean tens of thousands of well paying union jobs or should I bow to the demands of the radical environmentalists?" No voting present here! Clearly the overriding concern for Mr. Obama was throwing a bone to the rabid green crowd. Unfortunately, when called upon to make a decision, President Obama has a knack for coming down on the wrong side.
On the one hand, the pipeline would mean thousands of jobs at a time when we are in a period of prolonged high unemployment. And these jobs would be skilled, high-paying jobs. Furthermore, it would not just create jobs during the construction phase but once completed, it would create many long-term jobs in the way of maintenance, monitoring, and operation of the pipeline in addition to all the jobs in the refineries on the US Gulf Coast that would process the oil into gasoline and other important products. Moreover, it would decrease our dependence on Middle East oil while at the same time further strengthen our economic ties to our good neighbor to the north.
On the other hand, the environmentalists argue that there needs to be further environmental impact studies and that we should not help exploit Canada's tar sands oil, encourage the continued use of fossil fuels, risk harming the delicate ecosystems along the path of the pipeline, and add to greenhouse gases by refining the oil in our refineries. However, these are very weak arguments indeed.
The US Department of State (not known to be a particularly pro-business, conservative, bunch) conducted an extensive, three year environmental impact study that concluded the pipeline would have little, negative impact on the environment including the Ogalla aquifer and the Sandhills region of Nebraska. Furthermore, TransCanada agreed to work with the State of Nebraska to re-route the pipeline to avoid critical wildlife areas and add many more safety features such as additional monitoring systems and shutdown valves. Apparently this isn't good enough.
Additionally, the decision to not allow the pipeline to be build across the US will do nothing to prevent the continued use of fossil fuels or the development of Canadian tar sands oil. Shortly after learning of President Obama's decision, the Canadian government announced it would build the pipeline through Canadian territory in order to sell the oil to China so it will do nothing to lessen the potential for harm to the environment or reduce the amount of greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere. As a matter of fact, I can almost assure you that oil refining in China is far less environmentally friendly than it would be in the US. I would also argue that transporting the crude oil from the west coast of Canada by Chinese tanker is far more likely to present a hazard to our environment than a pipeline as an oil spill at sea has a higher probability of occurrence and would be much more difficult to clean up than a leak from a land-based pipeline.
So to recap, President Obama's decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline has damaged our relationship with Canada, will hurt our economy, and does nothing to safeguard the environment. To think this decision is in the best interest of American and reflects the right priorities from our president, requires what Hillary Clinton once called "A willing suspension of disbelief."
Monday, January 16, 2012
The Good News/Bad News Regarding Unemployment
Since November we have been given encouraging news regarding the unemployment rate. First we learned from the Labor Department that unemployment had dropped below 9%. Then we learned that it dropped to 8.5% in December which was good news indeed especially for President Obama and his re-election chances in 2012. The major newspapers and television stations eagerly reported and then repeated these numbers. Liberal media cheerleading notwithstanding, the bad news is that the numbers are bogus.
The first thing one should notice is that the term "seasonally adjusted" was not used in the reports.
Ordinarily this might not be a problem but in the lead up to the Christmas shopping season large numbers of temporary employees are hired which has only a temporary impact on unemployment. Once the post-holiday returns are made, most of these temporary hires are also "returned" to the ranks of the unemployed. The government and media always adjust their statistics. However, they never give these revisions the same level of coverage. While the good news is reported on page one, "above the fold" of the Washington Post and New York Times, the revised numbers end up weeks later on page A23 beside the story about the dog that swallowed a plastic spoon. Coincidence? I can't say for sure but I believe liberal strategist and commentator Bob Beckel made a very revealing admission on the Sean Hannity Show. According to Beckel, the inflated numbers don't matter. The news has been splashed all over the TV and newspapers and that will be all that Americans will remember come November. I guess the truth isn't all that important as long as what is reported helps President Obama get re-elected.
The other big lie associated with the lower unemployment numbers that were reported is how the numbers were determined. In order to make the numbers look more encouraging, the reports were based on the U-6 instead of the U-3 statistics. The difference is that, unlike the U-3 statistics which are usually reported, the U-6 numbers were reported which includes part-time workers who are underemployed and doesn't count those who need employment but are no longer actively looking for jobs because they have given up in despair. Additionally, on Friday we learned that for the first time, those accepting positions as unpaid interns were no longer counted as unemployed. In the interest of full disclosure, I learned about the unpaid interns on Fox News (gasp from liberal readers!) Did it get reported anywhere else?
Liberals will retort that the economy is recovering. They will admit that it is a slow recovery but it is a recovery which given the mess left by Bush, that is understandable. The problem with this is that it is also not correct. Typically, the deeper the recession, the more robust the recovery is both in terms of growth and employment. But this "recovery" remains anemic with only about 1.5% growth instead of the 5-plus percent one would expect following such a significant downturn. When considering the underemployed and those who have given up looking for work, unemployment has been estimated to be as high as 17%. Given the Obama Administration's anti-business rhetoric, unwillingness to adopt policies that help promote certainty to reassure employers (think temporary tax incentives, threats of tax hikes and no federal budget in nearly 1000 days), and its insistence on restrictive regulations and government interference that kill job creation (remember the opposition to the Keystone Pipeline and Boeing opening a new manufacturing facility in South Carolina?) should anyone put much credence in the employment figures? Or could it be that the economy is improving despite President Obama's policies? I'll leave it up to you to decide.
The first thing one should notice is that the term "seasonally adjusted" was not used in the reports.
Ordinarily this might not be a problem but in the lead up to the Christmas shopping season large numbers of temporary employees are hired which has only a temporary impact on unemployment. Once the post-holiday returns are made, most of these temporary hires are also "returned" to the ranks of the unemployed. The government and media always adjust their statistics. However, they never give these revisions the same level of coverage. While the good news is reported on page one, "above the fold" of the Washington Post and New York Times, the revised numbers end up weeks later on page A23 beside the story about the dog that swallowed a plastic spoon. Coincidence? I can't say for sure but I believe liberal strategist and commentator Bob Beckel made a very revealing admission on the Sean Hannity Show. According to Beckel, the inflated numbers don't matter. The news has been splashed all over the TV and newspapers and that will be all that Americans will remember come November. I guess the truth isn't all that important as long as what is reported helps President Obama get re-elected.
The other big lie associated with the lower unemployment numbers that were reported is how the numbers were determined. In order to make the numbers look more encouraging, the reports were based on the U-6 instead of the U-3 statistics. The difference is that, unlike the U-3 statistics which are usually reported, the U-6 numbers were reported which includes part-time workers who are underemployed and doesn't count those who need employment but are no longer actively looking for jobs because they have given up in despair. Additionally, on Friday we learned that for the first time, those accepting positions as unpaid interns were no longer counted as unemployed. In the interest of full disclosure, I learned about the unpaid interns on Fox News (gasp from liberal readers!) Did it get reported anywhere else?
Liberals will retort that the economy is recovering. They will admit that it is a slow recovery but it is a recovery which given the mess left by Bush, that is understandable. The problem with this is that it is also not correct. Typically, the deeper the recession, the more robust the recovery is both in terms of growth and employment. But this "recovery" remains anemic with only about 1.5% growth instead of the 5-plus percent one would expect following such a significant downturn. When considering the underemployed and those who have given up looking for work, unemployment has been estimated to be as high as 17%. Given the Obama Administration's anti-business rhetoric, unwillingness to adopt policies that help promote certainty to reassure employers (think temporary tax incentives, threats of tax hikes and no federal budget in nearly 1000 days), and its insistence on restrictive regulations and government interference that kill job creation (remember the opposition to the Keystone Pipeline and Boeing opening a new manufacturing facility in South Carolina?) should anyone put much credence in the employment figures? Or could it be that the economy is improving despite President Obama's policies? I'll leave it up to you to decide.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Violent Crime Down in DC in 2011 - Experts Have Difficulty Explaining Why
A few days ago, I saw an article in the news with the above title. I'm not an "expert" but I do follow the news and I can put two and two together. There is an obvious connection but the so called experts are blinded to it by their ideology. Every time a State or city repeals gun bans or allows their law abiding citizens to obtain concealed weapons permits and thus exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, the liberal left makes dire predictions of a resulting "blood bath." And every time, they are proven wrong.
In 2010, the US Supreme Court overturned DC's strict gun ban and suddenly, law abiding citizens of the District could no longer be guaranteed to be defenseless prey for the city's criminal predators. You see, criminals being, well criminals, amazingly didn't comply with the gun ban law. After all, they needed their weapons; call them their tools of the trade. However, they also needed the reasonable assumption that their potential victims would be unarmed. This made the "work" much safer, more productive and I'm sure a lot more enjoyable. Then that pesky Supreme Court had to go and ruin a good thing.
I'm sure eventually the "experts" will determine the "true" cause of the drop in violent crime. They will probably cite their extensive research that shows that, global warming, the thinning of the ozone layer, Wall Street greed, racism, "Big Oil"...blah, blah, blah caused the economically disadvantaged to just give up on their chosen profession. Fortunately, the rest of us have a far better grasp of the obvious.
In 2010, the US Supreme Court overturned DC's strict gun ban and suddenly, law abiding citizens of the District could no longer be guaranteed to be defenseless prey for the city's criminal predators. You see, criminals being, well criminals, amazingly didn't comply with the gun ban law. After all, they needed their weapons; call them their tools of the trade. However, they also needed the reasonable assumption that their potential victims would be unarmed. This made the "work" much safer, more productive and I'm sure a lot more enjoyable. Then that pesky Supreme Court had to go and ruin a good thing.
I'm sure eventually the "experts" will determine the "true" cause of the drop in violent crime. They will probably cite their extensive research that shows that, global warming, the thinning of the ozone layer, Wall Street greed, racism, "Big Oil"...blah, blah, blah caused the economically disadvantaged to just give up on their chosen profession. Fortunately, the rest of us have a far better grasp of the obvious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)