Friday, August 31st, 2012 and is filed under Issues, News
What happens when you make our soldiers fight with their hands tied? What happens when you engage in social engineering during war time? Morale plummets. CNN News reports:
An internal Army survey that was conducted in 2011 and published this year discovered that only 26 percent of active-duty Army officers say yes–and that one of the two main themes cited by those who say no is that the Army is now adversely impacted by “political correctness” imposed by both outside policymakers and senior Army leaders.
The 26 percent who said the Army was headed in the right direction in 2011 was the lowest percentage who gave that response since the Army began conducting this survey in 2005. […]
The report said that 24 percent of those who believed the Army was not headed in the right direction provided additional comments on why they believed that was the case. “Two themes stood out in these comments,” said the report. The first was concern over the downsizing of the Army and the impact it might have on national security.
The second was the impact of “political correctness.”
Keep in mind that this poll was taken in 2011, before much of the government-induced casualties in Afghanistan. It is undoubtedly worse now. Another reason to thank Barak Obama. Well done, Mr. President.
Friday, August 31st, 2012 and is filed under Blog, Elections
As we head towards the home stretch of this campaign, barring any major game change or permanent convention bounce, this will be a very tight race. I would like to think we could hold on to states like Virginia, Nevada, and Colorado, but what do you think of this possible scenario for a 269-269 tie? With Paul Ryan on the ticket, it’s very likely
Romney could win Iowa and Wisconsin:
Friday, August 31st, 2012 and is filed under Blog, Elections
The balloons have dropped and the convention is over.
For those of us who wanted sharp principles espoused raucously from the podium; for those of us who wanted a red meat take down of Obama; for those of us who wanted substance on policy issues explained from a conservative philosophy, this convention was probably underwhelming.
Then again, for better or worse, the convention was never about winning over the conservative base. Thanks to the repulsive thought of Obama winning another 4 years, we are all already on board. This convention was clearly carefully orchestrated to appeal to Independent suburban married women, and to large extent, they were probably successful.
I’m not going to hide the fact that the touchy-feely ‘Oprahazation’ of politics is not exactly what resonates with me, and most likely, many of our activists. The thing is that as conservatives, we never had any doubts that Romney is a good man and a successful, yet kindhearted, entrepreneur. Our problem is that he is not a good conservative. Obviously, the convention was never designed to assuage that concern. It was simply aimed at those swing voters who are disappointed with Obama, yet believed all the scandalous lies that were said about Romney in Obama’s barrage of negative ads.
To that end, the speech was historically light on substance, yet it brought out the human and emotional side of Mitt. While that did not appeal to me, it probably appealed to the right voters. And that is fine.
Thursday, August 30th, 2012 and is filed under Family Values, News
We’ve warned about this. Once society thinks it’s normal to redefine marriage to include homosexual relationships, there is no limit to what can be included in a “marriage.” A writer in the U.K. Guardian is advocating for three-way marriages. And you know what? She’s right. There’s no reason why a 17-person marriage shouldn’t be called a marriage if a homosexual one is too.
Thursday, August 30th, 2012 and is filed under Blog, Foreign Policy
Gauging by the ubiquitously positive response to Condi Rice’s convention speech from conservatives, I’m probably in the minority feeling disconcerted with her overwhelming reception at the convention.
For much of the last two nights, the convention crowd was lackluster and sleepy, yet from the second Condi stepped out onto the stage, the attendees were on their feet. I understand the desire to cheer a smart, articulate, and accomplished Republican who happens to also be black, especially after incurring libelous allegations of racism from the left on a daily basis. And undoubtedly, the speech itself was solid, well delivered, and touched on some important themes of American leadership throughout the world – themes that have been lost in this era of laser-like focus on economic issues.
Now there are many conservatives pining for a future presidential run or some other prominent place in the party for this rare black Republican rock star. However, has anyone stopped for a moment to cut through the optics and ponder whether her actual policy positions are conservative – whether social, fiscal, or even foreign policy?
Domestic policy is real simple. Aside for free trade and maybe some vague references to free markets, she has never professed conservative views on specific issues that are important to us. In fact, she is pro-abortion, pro civil unions (and ultimately will probably support gay marriage), pro global warming regulations, pro affirmative action, and pro open-borders (something she alluded to last night).
Foreign policy is always more complicated, as it is governed more by prudence than by doctrine. Even though the overarching principle of any foreign policy initiative is American exceptionalism, the murkiness of America’s security interests has long blurred the distinction between divergent foreign policies. For far too long, we’ve been presented between the false choice of Ron Paul’s policy that rejects the entire war on terror and the threat of Iran vs. the neoconservative view of endless intervention in order to promote democracy in any and every Arab country, irrespective of whether that “democracy” is inimical to our interests.
Thursday, August 30th, 2012 and is filed under Elections, News
How unpopular is Claire McCaskill in Missouri? Well, after several weeks of Akin getting pilloried more than any single political figure has been in recent memories, she is only tied with him at 45-44. Also, Romney has opened up a double-digit lead over Obama 53-41. Here is the kicker from the pollster:
Only 37% of voters now say they think Akin should withdraw from the race to 54% who believe he should not. There’s a bipartisan consensus that he should stay in- 57% of independents, 53% of Democrats, and 52% of Republicans think he should continue running. There’s clearly a disconnect on Akin’s candidacy between GOP leaders in Washington DC and actual GOP voters back in Missouri. […]
When you dig in on the undecideds in this race 61% are voting for Mitt Romney to 25% who support Barack Obama. It’s Republicans and GOP leaning independents who don’t like Akin. Ultimately this race will be decided by conservative voters who have to decide if they’re so unhappy with Akin that they want to let Democrats keep control of the Senate. My guess is those folks will ultimately hold their noses and support their party’s candidate.
Thursday, August 30th, 2012 and is filed under Blog, Foreign Policy
Another week, another 2 U.S. soldiers gunned down by Afghan soldiers.
Imagine if a Republican president assumed office 9 years into a mildly successful war and incurred more casualties under his watch due to an aimless effort fraught with egregious rules of engagement. Wouldn’t you expect there to be a body count every night on the news along with gory pictures of the failing, rudderless war campaign?
Well, we actually have a quite a bit of history concerning media coverage of the Iraq war during President Bush’s tenure. And boy did they cover the setbacks during the Iraq insurgency down to the last detail. Despite the good economic times of 2004-07, the media coverage of the Iraq war almost singlehandedly brought down the Republicans in 2006 and had a lingering effect into the 2008 campaign. Even though Bush finally implemented a successful surge in troops, firepower, and rules of engagement, the media never reported on the success in Iraq until Obama became president and was able to reap the benefits of that policy.
Sadly, no such turnaround is taking place in Afghanistan. Soldiers are dying on the battlefield on a daily basis, even as the administration negotiates with the Taliban. No, wait. They’re no longer dying on the battlefield; they are dying unarmed as some of our best soldiers are shot at point blank range during their social work operations training the Afghani army.
In recent months there has been a torrent of Afghan attacks on American and NATO soldiers. Deaths from those attacks have topped 100, 10 of which occurred in the past two weeks. These included some of our best trained special operations soldiers. After years of brave fighting and training, they were gunned down in cold blood with no way of protecting themselves from the ambushes.
Wednesday, August 29th, 2012 and is filed under Blog, News
After several years of relentless lobbying for government to subsidize natural gas-powered cars, T.Boone Pickens has come full circle to embrace the free market. At an energy policy luncheon hosted by Politico, T. Boone Pickens ostensibly said that he learned the lessons of the pitfalls of using government subsidies to promote energy sources:
“You don’t have to have a tax credit; it’s going to happen,” he said. The choices to run 18-wheelers, he said, are between natural gas and diesel — and natural gas is “$2 a gallon cheaper.”
And Pickens strongly suggested that he doesn’t have any plans to try to push his plan anymore in the nation’s Capital.
“I will not go back to Washington again unless it’s for a social event,” he said.
The billionaire and former oil baron also lamented that while his plan initially promoted wind energy, that hasn’t worked out so well.
“I’ve lost my ass” to wind-energy investments, he conceded.
Pickens is supporting Mitt Romney and complained about President Barack Obama’s energy agenda.
“Obama has had four years and done nothing,” he said.
Pickens said that he feels “like Obama is trapped with the environmentalists” who are against fossil fuels. “I think he is with that crowd,” he said.
Wednesday, August 29th, 2012 and is filed under Blog, Taxes
The modus operandi of liberals is to confiscate consumer products that work and saddle us with inefficacious replacements – usually brought to you by their corporate cronies. That’s why they’ve banned Thomas Edison’s light bulb and replaced it with the curly french-fry bulbs supported by those with the best lobbyists. That’s why they seek to ban cars that aren’t paper thin and don’t work on 54.5-miles per gallon of gas. That’s why they have infringed upon our right to purchase ethanol-free gasoline. That’s why they seek to ban the plastic bag and replace it with…who knows?
The main threat to our freedom to choose plastic bags is coming from state and local governments. Many state legislatures are considering bans or taxes on the use of plastic bags in stores, while a number of local governments have already implemented these anti-liberty restrictions. Two years ago, D.C. implemented a 5-cent per bag tax on both paper and plastic bags. Earlier this month, The Beacon Hill Institute, a phenomenal free market think tank, conducted a study on the deleterious effects of this nanny-state tax. Here are the key findings:
- Instead of raising $3.6 million in revenue for FY 2010, the bag tax only raised $1.5 million. That’s because plastic bag use was down 80%. It’s amazing how liberals cannot see a supply-side tax lesson even when it hits them in the face, and even when they are actually pursuing the very effects of supply side tax policy. The more you tax something, the less of it you get. In this case, the desired result was to decrease plastic bag usage. But what happens when you tax success, Democrats? Will you get more of it?
- Economic losses related to the tax are likely to drive sales tax revenues in the city down by $163,500 for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011.
- A rebound in bag consumption among shoppers is likely once the “shock” of the tax wears off. An estimated rebound in bag use by FY 2016 will:
- Cost D.C. residents $5.73 million and lead to greater losses for the D.C. economy.
- Employment losses will rise to 136 net local jobs from 101 in FY 2011, and aggregate real disposable income will to fall further by $8.08 million from $5.8 million in FY 2011.
- Investment declines will increase to $1.58 million from $600,000 in FY 2011.
So how exactly does a plastic bag tax create jobs?
Wednesday, August 29th, 2012 and is filed under News
I always like to joke that America is such a capitalist society that even supporters of big-government socialism find ways to earn profits from venture socialism. Nowhere is that more evident than with ethanol lobbyists. They couldn’t care less that the ethanol mandate is exacerbating the drought. Now they are claiming that if government doesn’t force Americans to use their product, it will hurt investments!
Biofuels groups said Tuesday that political pressure from governors to waive the renewable fuel standard (RFS) this year is starting to strain the industry by sending “instability signals” to investors.
Eight state governors have asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for an RFS waiver in response to the drought. Biofuels groups told reporters that they are starting to worry such efforts could chill investment in advanced biofuels — generally considered those made from non-food products — that many lawmakers support.
“I think just the fact that people are filing waivers kind of creates turbulence in the system,” Brent Erickson, executive vice president with the Biotechnology Industry Organization, said during the conference call.
Talk about venture socialism!