…the national budget was a mere $1.86 trillion when Bush and the GOP Congress converged in 2001. After just six years, Republicans at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue inflated this ever-expanding vessel by 47.3 percent.Neither party stands for freedom or anything close to small government.
2. Christopher Hitchens calls George Tenet’s new book sniveling, self-justifying and a disgrace. The piece is worth reading to get some idea of the mediocrity of the people that rise to power in Washington, D.C.
3. Gerard Baker notes that all the Democrat presidential contenders are against free trade.
The party has shifted in a distinctly protectionist direction since it last held the White House. Its union backers have succeeded in forcing Democrats to focus on the losses from globalisation rather than the gains. Domestically, Democrats are inclined to push back against the tidal wave of deregulation over the past 25 years.
Rising inequality, the pain of jobs lost to the emerging markets of Asia and gathering insecurity about the financial future mean the next Democrat president is not going to waste much time protecting the freedom of modern capitalism.
Not only are the Democrats philosophically inclined toward protectionism, but unions are a pressure group in the in the party base that the party cannot ignore. A Democrat president could undo a lot of free trade progress we saw during the Reagan and Clinton presidencies. The best we could hope for is a Hillary Clinton presidency that is somehow swayed by her husband’s old friends. This is a slim hope:
Even Hillary Clinton, the wife of the aforementioned market-supporting president, has made clear that she departs from her husband’s approach in this area.4. At the Cassandra Page we read this Thomas Sowell quote:
I am so old that I can remember a Democrat, at his inauguration as President, say of our enemies: "We dare not tempt them with weakness."What he remembers is the now extinct Old Left. Another Sowell gem from PrestoPundit:
“Global warming” seems to be joining “diversity,” “gun control,” “open space,” and a growing list of other subjects where rational discussion has become impossible — and where you are considered a bad person even for wanting to discuss it rationally.5. Want a laugh? Read about “soft atheists,” who are disturbed by the “fundamentalist atheists.” These subjectivists are afraid that “outspoken” atheists such as Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens are “rigid and intolerant, which ultimately makes them no different from the religious fundamentalists they condemn.”
6. All the talk about Gliese 581 c being a potentially habitable planet is overblown. According to one astronomer the chances are a thousand to one against. But these are exciting times for astronomy and an Earthlike planet will likely be discovered soon.
7. George Reisman writes about what is really behind the global warming talk.
The objective of the environmental movement is and always has been simply the destruction of energy production. Its further goal is the undoing of the Industrial Revolution and the return of the modern world to the poverty and misery of the pre-Industrial era.Think about that: the Undersecretary General of the UN says it is “our” (not sure who he means) responsibility to bring about the collapse of industrial civilization. It’s mind-boggling.
This goal is not hidden. It is stated openly. In the words of Maurice Strong, Founder of the UN Eco-summits and Undersecretary General of the UN: “Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring [that] about?” —as quoted in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism (Washington, D. C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2007), p. 6.
All we have to do is get the word out on what the environmentalists themselves, in their moments of honesty, say they want.
UPDATE: According to the Converted the Maurice Strong quote is unfairly taken out of context. Here is the full quote:
"What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The groups conclusion is "no." The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders forms a secret society to bring about an economic collapse."
I don't know whether or not Maurice Strong agrees with this fictional group, so I have to concede the point to the Converted.