“It’s easy to say Scott Walker dropped out of the Republican presidential race because he ran out of money. But he ran out of money because of his own limitations as a candidate — limitations that have been in plain sight for quite a while…”
Holy unpreparedness, Batman; it’s shades of Rick Perry in 2012! And though, unlike Perry, we’re truly sorry to see Scott go (not to mention we’re out $500!), he has no one to blame but himself; mainly because Walker’s always been his own closest counsel.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch with the remaining Republican herd, in the interests of objective reporting, we feature John Hawkins offering what he terms…
“Carly Fiorina is surging right now in the GOP Presidential primary and it’s easy to see why many conservatives like her. She’s had a couple of strong debate performances where she’s tossed out good lines, she’s the first woman to lead a Fortune 50 business and she’s portraying herself as an “outsider” in a year when conservatives are justifiably sick of politicians.
Let me paint a different picture of Carly Fiorina and explain why other than Jeb Bush, she’s the candidate I’d least like to see get the nomination…”
So, at least according to Hawkins, as Ricky Ricardo might have said, “Caaaarly…
With all due respect to Hawkins, NRO‘s Jim Geraghty paints a different picture:
“…With no previous elected office, Fiorina has no voting record to evaluate. It’s no surprise that fans of [Chuck] DeVore, a state assemblyman from Irvine with sterling credentials as a retired National Guardsman and Reagan-era Pentagon appointee, feel they were beaten out by a Joanie-come-lately who loaned her own campaign $1 million and outspent him nearly three-to-one.
But on several of conservatives’ biggest issues — gay marriage, abortion, and gun rights — Fiorina took bold, outspoken stances that put her to the right of previous leading California Republicans such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Pete Wilson.
“I’m proudly pro-life,” Fiorina told the California Republican Assembly state convention. “Marriage is between a man and a woman. My husband owns lots of guns. I will defend the rights of the unborn and I will never turn my back on the values we hold so dear.”…”
And would Hawkins really prefer Jim Gilmore, George Pataki, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Chris Christie, Mike Huckleberry or Donald Trump over Carly Fiorina?!? Somehow, we doubt it.
Turning now to our coverage of Francis The Talking Fool’s first visit to Washington, MRC TV‘s Craig Bannister offers further proof the pope’s off his red rocker:
“In an interview with Portugal-based Radio Renascença aired yesterday, Pope Francis declared that the current refugee crisis in Europe is being caused by a “bad, unjust” socio-economic system that worships “the god of money.” (And here we thought it was a blood-thirsty Muslim fanatics…
…decapitating those with whom they disagree!)
…Pope Francis said that refugees from rural areas are being “deforested” and driven into big cities:
“Why are ‘favelas’ (shantytowns) formed in big cities?” It’s the people who come from the country because they have been deforested. They have made a mono-cultivation. They have no work, and they go to big cities.” (What were they…lumberjacks?!?)
Ultimately, the world “is at war against itself, the Pope declared:
“Today, the world is at war, is at war against itself. That is, the world is at war — as I say — a war in parts, piecemeal. But it is also at war against the earth, because it’s destroying the earth, that is, our common home.The environment, the glaciers are melting.In the Arctic, the polar bear goes increasingly northward to survive.” (Undoubtedly due to the polar ice cap being even larger than in 1979, which was a record.)
And when his holiness isn’t condemning the evils of the economic system which has lifted billions from poverty, he’s busy…
…cozying up to Communist dictators with the blood of untold thousands on their hands.
For those wondering where this woefully uninformed shepherd will go next, Shubhankar Chhokra has the answer, courtesy of NRO:
“…“A simple example [of harmful habits of consumption] is the increasing use and power of air-conditioning,” Francis writes. “The markets, which immediately benefit from sales, stimulate ever greater demand. An outsider looking at our world would be amazed at such behavior, which at times appears self-destructive.”
But ironically, Francis probably penned his disapproval in a well-ventilated corner of his residence, Domus Sanctae Marthae, which has air conditioning.
Two years ago, Francis broke with tradition when he became the first pope since 1903 to forgo the papal apartments for newer, more modest accommodations in Domus Sanctae Marthae, an adjacent building erected in 1996 to house cardinals during papal conclaves. In line with Francis’s image as the “people’s pope,” a Vatican spokesman said the pope wanted a more “simple living arrangement.” Simple, yes, but air-conditioned.
The pope isn’t just being a tad hypocritical here – he’s being short-sighted. Air conditioning is an exemplar of modern ingenuity, but it’s also a mechanical thermoregulatory product that’s often put to conservative ends — for instance to preserve important artifacts of the past. In fact, right next to the air-conditioned Domus Sanctae Marthae is the Vatican Secret Archives, which conserves invaluable documents spanning millennia by controlling the microclimate in which they are housed.
And next door to the Archives is the Sistine Chapel, where just a year ago the Vatican installed a new air-conditioning system to preserve the deteriorating, centuries-old frescoes while accommodating existing tourist traffic.Director of Vatican Museums Antonio Paolucci wrote in the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano that officials had to either limit access to the chapel in order to reduce the amount of dust and carbon dioxide brought in from the outside or find a technological solution. The Vatican’s decision to do the latter, according to Paolucci, allowed the Sistine Chapel “to breathe again.”
More valuable than a tool to preserve objects, of course, air conditioning is a tool to preserve lives. Two years ago, the National Bureau of Economic Research published a study concluding that air conditioning reduced heat-related deaths in the United States by 80 percent and could save even more lives in hotter, often poorer countries…”
Wrong? Francis ain’t never been RIGHT…
Our heart aches for our Conservative Catholic brethren.
Moving on, again courtesy of NRO, Victor Davis Hanson wonders…
“The next president and Congress will inherit what President Obama left behind. Whether Democrat or Republican, the president will have no choice other than to try to undo much of what Obama has wrought. But can he or she?
…The tragic mess of 2009–2016 is ending, and soon the cleanup will begin — accompanied by stupefaction as to just how much will have to be thrown away.“
Since we’re on the subject of the stupefying, FOX News reports on Islam’s latest contribution to the advance of science:
Suffice it to say, Anthony questions not only whether young Ahmed actually created his clock, but his motives for engaging said activity in the first place…as do we!
And in the Environmental Moment, courtesy of Jeff Foutch, Dr. Calvin Beiner confirms Progressives, including the present President and pope, are on the wrong side of both science and history, as…
“Abundant, affordable, reliable energy, combined with economic freedom and limited, responsive government according to the rule of law, are indispensable to overcoming poverty. No society has risen out of poverty or can long stay out of it without both.
…Real-world, observational evidence contradicts model-driven predictions of dangerous manmade global warming. Computer climate models, on average, simulate twice the warming observed over the relevant period; over 95 percent simulate more warming than observed, implying that their errors are not random but driven by bias; and none simulated the absence of warming over the last 18 years and 7 months.In contrast to the invalidated climate models, observational evidence—the essence of real science—strongly supports the conclusion that human carbon dioxide emissions contribute very little if anything to global warming, so reducing emissions, at a cost of trillions of dollars worldwide that could otherwise be spent to solve real and much more urgent problems, would have little or no effect on global warming…”
In a related item, the WSJ presents incontrovertible evidence the anthropogenic global warming scam is simply part of Progressives’ plan for…
“…Earlier this month, by a margin of two votes, the California Assembly rejected SB 32, a bill that would have required the state to achieve 80 by 50. Pushing this bill was the state’s Democratic leadership, including Gov. Brown, Senate President Kevin de León, and the state’s U.S. senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. President Obama has repeatedly endorsed 80 by 50. In early 2009, he said he was setting “a goal for our nation that we will reduce our carbon pollution by more than 80 percent by 2050.”
With the exception of Virginia’s former Sen. Jim Webb, all of the candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for president have called for 80 by 50. Mrs. Clinton endorsed 80 by 50 during her first run for the White House. In 2013, Mr. Sanders joined Ms. Boxer to introduce an 80-by-50 bill. In 2014, Martin O’Malley issued an executive order while governor of Maryland endorsing 80 by 50.
All of this overlooks an essential question: What would 80 by 50 mean for individuals? According to the International Energy Agency, the world per capita average for carbon-dioxide emissions is 4.51 tons a year. Residents of California are responsible for the emission of about twice that amount, 9.42 tons a year. Assuming that the state population doesn’t increase, an 80% cut means the average Californian would be emitting 1.88 tons by 2050.
In other words, those future Californians will be asked to emit less carbon dioxide than do current residents of North Korea. In 2012, according to the IEA, the average North Korean was responsible for 1.83 tons of carbon dioxide. Per capita GDP in North Korea: $1,800 a year.
Achieving 80 by 50 on a national basis will be similarly painful. In 2012 per capita carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. totaled 16.15 tons. Achieving 80 by 50 would mean each resident of the U.S.—where per capita GDP is $54,600 a year—would emit 3.23 tons annually.That’s less than Mexicans, who emit 3.72 tons and have a per capita GDP of about $10,400 a year…”
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.