Unthinking Dishonesty

President Barack Obama’s dissembling is legendary. Recall his claim, oft repeated, that if you like your health insurance policy or your doctor, you can keep them. Recall his oft repeated claims that Presidents don’t have the authority to act unilaterally on immigration in exactly the way he acted last November.

Here’s a couple more things he said.

The pattern overall is that the climate is getting warmer. That’s undeniable[.]

Except that the data are unclear on this, in the way that Obama means. It’s indisputable that the climate has not gotten warmer over the last 18 years. It’s indisputable that orbital mechanics and the sun’s cycles play a major role in Earth’s climate change. It’s indisputable that, over Earth’s existence, the sun is heating up. It’s indisputable that, over geologic time frames, Earth is warming. It’s entirely disputable that human activity is having a major effect on climate.

Obama also said,

Our homicide rates are so much larger than other industrialized countries, by like a mile.

Most of that is attributable to the easy, ready availability of firearms, particularly handguns.

No. Today’s homicide rate is half that of the Clinton administration’ time frame, yet handgun ownership has vastly increased since then. In general, gun ownership, and lack of gun control laws are correlated with fewer murders. For instance, in 2011, California, with the most stringent gun control laws in the US (according to the Brady Campaign), had a gun murder rate of 3.25 murders per 100,000 people. Texas, with pretty loose gun control laws, had a gun murder rate of 2.91 per 100,000. Utah, with the loosest gun control laws in the US, had a gun murder rate of 0.97.

Of course, Obama knows these things. He’s too smart, too well educated, too widely read, and too current on the events in the world not to know these things. But lying to get his way is so habitual in him that he just says these things of convenience without the slightest thought.

What could be worse than that? His Democratic Party has said not a word to correct his errors. These men and women also are too smart, too well educated, too widely read, and too current on the events in the world not to know these things. Their silence on the matter demonstrates that they agree with his behavior as much as with his claims.

See, too, the Democratic Party’s silence on Hillary Clinton’s misbehaviors in violating Federal law with her Secretary of State private email accounts and her accepting—quite sizeable—donations from foreign governments while she was sitting in the Secretary of State’s chair, even if the money was washed through her Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation‎.

Remember this in 2016.

Typical

In an ambitious first budget plan, Governor Tom Wolf on Tuesday proposed more than $4 billion in higher taxes on income, sales and natural gas drilling to support new spending on schools and to cut property taxes as part of an effort to overhaul the way public education is funded.

Wolf, a Democrat, is also asking the Republican-controlled Legislature to cut corporate taxes by hundreds of millions of dollars, borrow more than $4 billion to refinance pension debt and inject new money into business loans, clean energy subsidies and water and sewer system projects.

Pennsylvania already is in the hole by some $2 billion, and it’s getting an increase in allegedly mandatory spending, for the upcoming fiscal year, of $1.6 billion.

So he wants to raise taxes overall and to borrow more. Because money grows on trees in the Democratic Orchard.

Wolf’s spending plan would increase overall state spending through the state’s main bank account by about 3% to $29.9 billion from the current year’s approved budget. Counting $1.75 billion in pension obligation payments to the Public School Employees Retirement System and $2.1 billion in school property tax relief receipts, the increase is about 16%….

“Pay” for tax cuts here by raising taxes there. Borrow to cover increased spending. But raise taxes overall, and increase spending. Mandatory spending? No. There is no such thing. Some spending is harder to cut, whether fiscally or morally, than other spending, but none of it is mandatory beyond the bare minimum needed to fund what the state’s constitution—the people’s instructions—mandates is the government’s purpose.

Covering the budget shortfall by cutting spending is anathema. Covering the budget shortfall by also cutting taxes and watching the economy grow from that increase in private sector money, yielding a net increase in revenue to the government, is utterly inconceivable.

How Democratic.

The Fearfulness of the Left

Some of you may recall the Democratic Congressman from Arizona, Raul Grijalva, and his assault on the integrity of scientists and others who have the impudence to question his and his Left’s Orthodoxy on anthropogenic global warming. One of his assault victims was Dr Willie Soon, of the Solar and Stellar Physics (SSP) Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Soon has released a statement regarding this assault and its implications. In part, he says,

I am saddened and appalled by this effort, not only because of the personal hurt it causes me and my family and friends, but also because of the damage it does to the integrity of the scientific process. I am willing to debate the substance of my research and competing views of climate change with anyone, anytime, anywhere. It is a shame that those who disagree with me resolutely decline all public debate and stoop instead to underhanded and unscientific ad hominem tactics.

I regret deeply that the attacks on me now appear to have spilled over onto other scientists who have dared to question the degree to which human activities might be causing dangerous global warming, a topic that ought rightly be the subject of rigorous open debate, not personal attack. I similarly regret the terrible message this pillorying sends young researchers about the costs of questioning widely accepted “truths.”

…I challenge all parties involved to focus on real scientific issues for the betterment of humanity.

Put up or shut up, guys. Of what are you so terrified, that you refuse to debate matters of science? Other than your understanding that you have no case, I mean.

 

h/t Power Line

Who Should Run For What?

Of the Republican candidates, likely and unlikely, for President, who should run for what (I’m ignoring term limits in this little exercise)? I’m also doubling up on some positions because, primaries. Here’s my thumb nailed early list, alphabetically sorted.

Jeb Bush—President

Effective conservative governor. Regardless of his views on Common Core, the race should not be about one issue. Regardless of his views on legalization of illegal immigrants, immigration is a thing that needs to be settled—all three legs. Bush reduced taxes, while balancing Florida’s budgets, by some $19 billion over his time in office. That ain’t peanuts.

Ben Carson—US Senate

Strong Conservative, but he’s not ready for the White House. He wants political seasoning first—as our current President is demonstrating, in spades.

Chris Christie—Governor

Effective governor. He’s not suited for national level politics, though. He, and New Jersey, are better off if he stays home and finishes fixing New Jersey.

Ted Cruz—US Senator

Too polarizing, too much his way or the highway. He’s good for keeping Senate balanced and debating, though.

Carly Fiorina—Vice President

Not ready for the top of the White House; however, she understands and communicates effectively Conservative principles.

Mike Huckabee—Governor

Effective governor, not so effective on the national level. Alternatively, he can go back to being a vocal private citizen commenting on Conservative principles.

Bobby Jindal—President

Effective conservative policies, unafraid of a fight, vastly improved communicator since 2012. He may well not be fully checked out on national level politics, but he’s close enough to take very seriously.

Sarah Palin—US Senate

Strong Conservative, and she would be excellent Senator. She tried for Vice President once; she’s too damaged by McCain’s dysfunctional campaign to have a serious shot at either White House position.

Rand Paul—US Senator

Too polarizing, and his foreign policies views are evolving suspiciously (to my paranoid pea brain). Like Cruz, though, he’s good for keeping Senate balanced and debating.

Rick Perry—Vice President

Effective Conservative governor. I could not love Perry less, loved I not Walker, Jindal, and Bush more. He would be good President, but a President needs a strong Vice President, too. In fact, of these four, any would be good President, any of the other three would be a good Vice President.

Marco Rubio—Vice President

Not ready for the top of the White House, but he knows the Senate; he could elevate the Vice President’s role there very effectively.

Rick Santorum—US Senator

Too socially conservative, occasionally too shrill for national level success.

Donald Trump—Chairman, Sit Down and Shut Up Committee

Country needs an effective man/woman, not an egotistical blowhard. Considering egotistical blowhards, Trump is indistinguishable from Barack Obama.

Scott Walker—President

Strong Conservative, successful Conservative governor. Not afraid of a fight with the Left, knows how to win those fights.

State’s Cynical Distortion

The State Department accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of taking congressional testimony by Secretary of State John Kerry out of context in Netanyahu’s address to a joint meeting of Congress Tuesday.

What Kerry said in Congressional testimony:

[I]f you have a civilian power plant that’s producing power legitimately and not a threat to proliferation, you could have as many as 190,000 or more centrifuges[.]

What Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said:

He [Iran’s Supreme Leader] says, Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount—190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision.
My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires.
Now I want you to think about that. The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy.

Out of context? Not so much, FactCheck.org notwithstanding (their statement, Kerry wasn’t saying that “Iran could legitimately possess” 190,000 centrifuges. He was saying that “a civilian power plant that’s producing power legitimately” could have 190,000 or more centrifuges, simply restates what Netanyahu said Kerry said—that Iran could possess as many as 190,000 centrifuges under the Kerry/Obama deal). The Obama/Kerry deal on offer to Iran would allow Iran to have “peaceful,” “civilian” nuclear power plants “producing power legitimately.”

What’s key here is this. Those centrifuges, busily spinning away to produce fuel-grade uranium for peaceful nuclear power plants, could just as easily be spinning away through additional purification cycles to produce weapons-grade uranium. Netanyahu understands that.

John Kerry and Barack Obama just as clearly understand that; their cynicism and crocodile ire over Netanyahu’s speech aside.

See the centrifuges spin. Spin, Centrifuges, spin.