FJM Blog

By Ken Blackwell

Our voter registration system is a disaster, and I have the scars to prove it. I spent eight years in the partisan cross hairs of election administration while serving as Ohio’s chief election official. No element of election administration is more fraught with controversy than how we register voters.

Every year, states spend millions of dollars on an inefficient voter registration system better suited to the 19th century. The system wastes resources at a time when states and local governments are struggling to make ends meet, and it creates a climate in which fraud by third-party voter registration groups such as ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) can undermine the sanctity of our democratic process.

There is a solution. By using technology to make voter registration more automated, we can save money and get rid of those groups that thrive by gaming the voter registration system.

In August, the bipartisan Committee to Modernize Voter Registration announced its formation and commitment to bringing voter registration into the 21st century. Though I disagree with many of the committee members on various policy issues, I agree we should apply American innovation to the inefficiencies of the registration process.

The costs of voter registration are staggering. Between designing and printing millions of paper registration forms, training staff, hiring temporary workers to process forms, mailing materials to invalid or outdated addresses and maintaining the lists over time (among other expenses), voter registration costs taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars every cycle. In 2008 alone, Los Angeles County spent more than $12 million simply to process all of the voter registration forms and maintain its lists, and the state of Oregon spent nearly $3 for each active voter in its files. In Columbus, Ohio, we spent more than $1 million on this outdated process.

What do taxpayers get for all this money? A system rife with errors and the potential for fraud and partisan disputes in which responsibility for guarding the gateway to our democracy is abdicated to unregulated and poorly trained third-party registration groups like ACORN. These groups submitted millions of voter registration forms, but only about one-third of those forms were from new voters. About one-third were from voters who already were on the list, while another third of the forms were either incomplete or fraudulent.

In addition to creating an environment for fraud, this deluge of registration forms right around registration deadlines overwhelms election officials and takes our attention away from other critical election functions.

The integrity of our election system requires an automated voter registration process that is accurate, permanent and secure. A modernized system would serve voters better and save states money by streamlining the process, substantially reducing or eliminating paper and minimizing administration costs. Voters also should have the opportunity to check online or in person to ensure they are properly registered in advance of the election.

Some states are moving in this direction and already are seeing significant cost savings. Delaware began registering voters automatically at its motor vehicle departments at the beginning of this year and already has cut more than $200,000 in personnel costs from its voter registration system.

In Arizona, which recently started registering voters online, the costs of registration fell from 83 cents for processing a paper voter registration form to 3 cents for processing an online application.

The Internal Revenue Service and state tax boards seem to know where to find us every year, yet the current voter registration system requires each of us to file a new registration form when we move or risk losing our vote. The process is particularly problematic for military and other voters overseas, who frequently change addresses but don’t have the time or ability to update their registrations.

Both the government and individuals must assume responsibilities in the democratic process. Government should be responsible for updating voter rolls as citizens’ addresses or statuses change, but individual voters still will be responsible for showing up to vote - that would not be automated.

Furthermore, a substantially automated system would mean we would verify the eligibility of voters better than we do now. Voters who show up in the databases of social service agencies, for example, already have proved their citizenship.

In addition to saving states money, automating voter registration would get rid of ACORN and ensure that only eligible citizens get on the rolls.

Furthermore, modernization would have the added advantage of making many of the provisions of the burdensome and erratically enforced National Voter Registration Act (the “motor voter” law) obsolete.

Americans can no longer afford to ignore this problem of an antiquated voter registration system. Now is the time for reform - with support from both parties - before the politics of the next election cycle render it impossible.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Harry R. Jackson

Is the fight against same-sex marriage primarily one fought between religious groups and the gay community? Are there any issues that a secular society should consider in this fight? We have found at least eight negative sociological outcomes that could occur if same-sex marriage is legalized.

The first impact would most likely affect the number of marriages in the United States. Fewer people would see marriage as the ultimate covenant between two people. The proof of this lies in the state of Massachusetts where only 43 percent of same-sex couples who cohabitate have utilized the state law which grants them marriage rights. Heterosexual couples in Massachusetts are more likely to marry (91 percent) but the degree to which same-sex couples marry devalues the commitment for all couples and the number is likely to decrease. In the Netherlands, only 12 percent of gay couples have chosen marriage; this low number is consistent with countries that have legalized same-sex marriages.

A second impact that legalizing same-sex marriage would have on our society would be that monogamous and sexually faithful relationships would decrease. Fidelity among same-sex couples in countries that have legalized same-sex marriage is extremely low. Several studies in the Netherlands show shocking figures: homosexual men who have a steady partner have had an average of eight other sexual partners per year; lesbians were found to have more male partners over their lifetime than heterosexual women. This lack of fidelity affects the view of marriage by the society in general, no matter the sexual preference.

Third, same-sex marriage would negatively impact the number of couples who would remain married throughout their lives. As the transient nature of homosexual relationships becomes a normative ingredient of a society, all marriages will be impacted. One of the studies mentioned above found that the average male homosexual partnership lasts only 1½ years. This is a direct result of the widespread promiscuity among the homosexual community.

Next, the effect of same-sex marriage could be felt in the area of polygamy. Once society is afforded the opportunity to choose a spouse regardless of sex, the next step is to take the limit off the number of spouses a person may have. In case you think this is an unlikely scenario, one lawsuit has been filed in the courts using the argument we have stated above.

Moving on from marriage, we can readily deduce that the next influence same-sex marriage would have would be on children. More children would grow up without both father and mother to influence their lives. The social sciences are replete with study after study that commands our attention to the positive effect married, biological parents have on their children. Children are more emotionally stable and achieve higher test scores when they are raised by a mother and a father. Creating permanent motherless or fatherless homes dares to suppress the best standards for the next generation. Allowing gay partners to adopt will deny innocent children (who are unable to choose for themselves) the benefit of a home with both a mother and a father.

Another negative impact same-sex marriage would have on our families is that schools would be required to offer information about homosexuality as a choice to students. Sex education classes would purport that homosexual relationships are identical to heterosexual ones. In Massachusetts, a lesbian sex education instructor told her 8th grade students how lesbians use “a sex toy” to have intercourse. Though this is shocking, more so is the fact that a kindergarten parents was jailed because he protested against a book that was distributed to his son describing same-sex partners.

Next, the impact of same-sex marriage will have a negative impact on the economy. Once same-sex marriage is legalized, all employers, whether they are public or private, will be forced to provide a benefits package for same-sex couples. This will broadly affect every US citizen as our consumer goods and services will increase due to the increase cost of benefits that companies (large or small) will have to bear.

Finally, the conscience of each citizen and our religious liberties would come under attack if same-sex marriage became legalized. Once a law has been made, the interpretation of that law is managed by the court system, which has often seen opinion rise over the will of the people. Religious schools, colleges, and organizations might face becoming stripped of their tax-exempt status if they do not hire and admit homosexuals. Social workers, psychologists, counselors and other professionals could have their licenses revoked because they have chosen to “discriminate” against homosexuals.

The types of issues we have stated above have already been found to be true in the countries and states in which same-sex marriage has been legalized. If you are as vexed as I am over this issue, make a stand for marriage.

What can you do to stop the legalization of same-sex marriage?

1. Call your Congressmen

2. Send this e-mail to 5 friends

3. Consider sending a contribution to www.stand4marriagedc.com

4. Join us Sunday, October 25th at The People’s Rally - “Let The People Vote.” We want to let DC officials know that the constituents of the District should be allowed to vote on the issue of the definition of marriage. The Rally will be held at Freedom Plaza from 2:00-5:00pm.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
1 Comment »

By Herman Cain

Unemployment has hit 9.8 percent. New jobless claims grow each month. Federal spending is increasing exponentially, while current tax revenues are decreasing. The value of the dollar is in a nose dive.

The deficit for fiscal year 2009, which ended September 30, 2009, has come in at $1.4 trillion dollars, nearly four times the deficit of any previous year in history.

Business bankruptcies are on the rise, while some businesses are literally hanging on by their cash flow fingernails.

News flash! The $789 billion “stimulus bill” is not working. And no, don’t give me that baloney that the stimulus needs more time.

The bill was philosophically flawed from the beginning, but the big-government-and-more-taxes members of Congress refused to even consider solutions offered by the less-government-and-fewer-taxes members.

Meanwhile, Congress is trying to ram a $1 trillion-plus health care deform bill down our throats, with a Cap & Trade & Tax & Kill bill waiting in the wings in the Senate. The Democrats are also secretly talking about a second “stimulus” bill, but they are not calling it a stimulus. I call it more government spending with no new results.

Here are three suggestions that would get this country out of a recession in 12 months, not that the Democrats will listen or even consider any of these ideas. These are not original ideas. They are just great ideas from several sources that Congress and the president are ignoring because they would result in less government control.

The reason that we would be out of the recession in 12 months is that businesses would get excited and start planning to grow their business instead of making plans to just survive. It’s just that simple. The prospect of bigger government and more taxes does not inspire businesses to grow.

Here’s the solution.

Suspend the payroll tax for one year. This gives an immediate 7.65 percent increase in take home pay to all workers. It also lowers the payroll costs for all employers by 7.65 percent for one year. A total of about $900 billion would be injected directly into the economy immediately, rather than through the inefficiency of the federal government.

The big-government types will say that it will hurt the already revenue-strained Social Security and Medicare systems. They are right. But it just means that we will have to solve those oncoming financial train wrecks one year earlier than currently projected. Facing these challenges with a healthy economy makes a whole lot more sense than trying to do it in the middle of a recession.

Suspend the federal tax on repatriated profits. Multi-national U.S. businesses are hungry for cash flow, which could come from cash they have sitting in foreign countries in order to avoid double taxation. The last time this was only partially done, in 2005 during the Bush administration, nearly $300 billion dollars came back to U.S. businesses from their overseas operations.

Replace the tax code with a consumption tax, popularly known as the Fair Tax. This would produce a huge sucking sound of businesses from around the world wanting to establish businesses here in the U.S. It would super-charge our economy like never before. The problem that the Democrats have with this proposal (H.R. 25) is that it gives power back to the people. What a patriotic idea!

Instead of secretly planning another economic stimulus flop, the Democrats could take these ideas and call them their ideas. Most of us do not care who gets the credit as long as this economy gets the results.

The recession could be over if they would just listen.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
1 Comment »

By Wayne Perryman

When President Obama gave his speech yesterday to the Gay Human Rights Group, he was merely keeping his campaign promises to preachers and Christians.  Yesterday, he told his audience that that when America voted for him (both preachers and Christians) they were approving and endorsing his campaign promises which included the following:

1.  Remove “don’t ask, don’t tell” from military regulations

2.  Pass a Hate Crime/Speech laws to protect gays from being what is considered hate speech, which include sermons by preachers.  (Note: Eric Holder said the law will protect gays from hate speech, but it will not protect preachers from the same, if gays lash out against preachers).

3. Overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which currently says marriage is between one man and one woman.

4.  Approve and sanction same sex unions

5. Support Abortions and the woman’s right to choose.

Many will say that when they voted for Obama they weren’t voting for these things.  But if the man told you what he was going to do - and you vote for him anyway, isn’t that a form of endorsement?  Let me put it this way.  If a young man told you that he was going to rape your daughter if you allow him to take her out a date, wouldn’t your approval of the date be an endorsement for rape?

On yesterday, Obama reminded everyone that he wasn’t saying anything new, these were the same things that he promised he would do during the campaign and if they did not want him to implement his agenda they shouldn’t have voted for him.

My brothers and sisters, it is too late to complain.  Its like five foolish virgins that waited too late to buy their oil. They were warned, but the foolish turned a deaf ear to the warning.  When Obama promised to do what he was going to do for gays (and abortion), preachers and Christians turned a deaf ear to these promises.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
1 Comment »

By Lisa Fritsch

Former president Jimmy Carter made it official.  Liberals are making the country pay for the mistakes of the Obama Administration and their agenda.  They are ignoring the merits of any criticism of his policies or actions and simply faulting Americans who disagree with him as racist.

This is a travesty.

It is time for minorities to step up and say that they will not be used as the scapegoat, be used for propaganda, be the victim or become a dividing force in this country just to protect the nation’s first black President.

Not this time. Especially not this time.

The race card was up the sleeves of liberal activists and their friends in the media long before Representative Joe Wilson shouted out, “You lie!” during President Obama’s address to Congress on health care.  The Joe Wilson incident and the tea parties only provide the stage for a long-written script, saved for the day when Americans dared to disagree with this President.

It’s an indicator of the weakness of their convictions.  Is the only way to defend the President and his policies to dredge up the prejudices that plagued this nation decades and centuries ago?

How dignified is it to play up the one thing that can make Americans feel sorry for this President?  All this essentially says Obama’s blackness is a disability.  Are we supposed to condescend to him as if he were a person in a wheelchair looking at a heavy door?

The whole farce about the President Obama’s half-African decent being a catalyst for civil unrest is not only disgusting, but pitiful.  Poor President Obama, if only he were white, Congress would have passed health care reform by now.  If Americans weren’t racist, town hall meetings would be full of Americans rallying in support of all the spending coming out of Washington.  And, if only the nation could accept a black man in charge, Obama could rule in unobstructed peace and solidarity - no matter what policies or laws he chooses to impose on the country.

When one thinks about it in these terms, only then does the absurdity truly rise to the top.

Opposition to Obama’s policy is not opposition to his person.  Race has nothing to do with not wanting to rush into his health care reform or a national energy tax or a huge spending bill without understanding their full measure (or at least being able to read the bills).

Has anyone stopped to think that perhaps the American people deserve more credit than what Carter and others are allowing them?

Here is a spectacular point of view:  perhaps the American people are disappointed in Obama because they expected so much of him and not so little.

In that same tenor, how many had truly hoped for positive change to come because of his race and not in spite of it?   Remember the talk of a post-racial America up to the election and during his inauguration?  As a nation, we celebrated this awe-inspiring African-American man.

People looked to Obama to unify Americans with his seemingly diverse points of view and his intellectual philosophies.  Many turned to him for racial edification.  Many hoped the change expected to come with electing him would wipe the slate and cleanse us of our sins of a prejudiced past.

Quite simply, his leadership and the business being done in his name have left Americans empty.

The promise of change, we have found out, is a lie.  And, as is apparent from Obama’s ruling class, we are to sit idly by while our country pays the price.

#  #  #

Lisa Fritsch is a member of the national advisory council for the Project 21 black leadership network and a writer and radio talk show host in Austin, Texas.  Comments may be sent to Project21@nationalcenter.org.

Note: New Visions Commentaries reflect the views of their author, and not necessarily those of Project 21.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
1 Comment »

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Armstrong Williams

On Sunday, President Obama warned U.S. military commanders that he is “skeptical” about whether more troops will make a difference in Afghanistan.  When Obama was a junior Senator, he unambiguously opposed the surge of additional troops in Iraq.  Had the military listened to him at the time, it is unlikely that the U.S. would have had its subsequent military success in Iraq.

After 9/11, most Americans agreed with President Bush that the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan was a war of necessity and worth fighting.  Al Qaeda’s attack on the World Trade Center galvanized American support for the war the way Pearl Harbor did in World War II.  Even Obama agreed in his campaign that this was the good war.

Now, the U.S. is at a military cross road in the stalled Afghanistan war.  The U.S. government must decide whether it wants to fight to win.  Fighting to a stalemate or, worse yet, losing, is not an option that most Americans are willing to tolerate. America is willing to sacrifice its sons and daughters to war when the country commits the resources necessary to win.  However, America should not sacrifice these brave young warriors on the altar of political ambivalence.  President Roosevelt facing defeated allies in Europe and major Japanese victories in the Pacific did not equivocate.  He led America’s commitment to fight and win.  Does Obama have what it takes to be a war time president?

If Obama is not willing to support his commanders in Afghanistan with the troops and resources they need to win, he has two choices – replace his commanders or get out of Afghanistan as soon as possible.

American history has many examples of Presidents replacing military commanders who advocated a different military strategy.  The most notable example is President Lincoln who replaced the cautious un-victorious General McClelland with the brutal but victorious General Grant.  President Lincoln had the will to win.

Obama has signaled to his top military commanders that he does not trust their military judgment.  These are the same commanders who redirected the successful military strategy in Iraq.  If Obama does not trust their judgment, then he should replace them with commanders who agree with his judgment that we may not need more troops in Afghanistan.  However, if Obama replaces these successful commanders, he does so at his peril given his lack of military experience.  If he retains them, he should also stop publically second guessing his military commanders and support them with a troop surge.

President Obama’s other alternative is to cave in to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and retreat from Afghanistan. Retreat may be the bone he throws to the liberal wing to assure the passage of health care reform without a public option. President Obama has spent much of his first 9 months in office apologizing to the rest of the world for American foreign policy and past military interventions.  One might infer from these apologies that Obama does not have the will to win a military victory in Afghanistan.  Consequently, it would not be unreasonable to expect him to weaken America’s military position in Afghanistan so much that a retreat is the only option.

The long-term consequences of a retreat from Afghanistan will have severe negative consequences to America’s security and alliances. If Afghanistan f falls into the control of the Taliban will the country become a safe haven again for Islamic terrorists who plan, train for, and launch attacks on the US and its allies?  What will happen to America’s Afghani allies? Will this retreat weaken Pakistan’s ability to fight its Taliban insurgents?  If Pakistan falls into the control of the Taliban, will Islamic terrorists have access to their nuclear weapons?  Given Obama’s retreat from the nuclear shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, how will America’s allies view America’s military commitments and alliances?

General Stanley McChrystal, the US military commander in Afghanistan, has made it clear.  If the President does not commit additional troops, the war “will likely result in failure”.  If the President disagrees and still wants to win the war, he should relieve McChrystal and replace him with an experienced military commander who shares his vision. If the President does not have the will to win, he should end the war.  If he chooses to end the war, he should do so quickly so that he does not waste any more lives.  He should also tell the world that it is solely his pusillanimous political decision so he minimizes the collateral damage to the U.S. military and U.S. security.

Withdrawing from Afghanistan in defeat because the President is not willing to commit resources is not a good result, but I fear it is in our future.  Why else would President Obama withhold his support of a surge which his military commanders publicly advocate as necessary to win the war in Afghanistan?

www.armstrongwilliams.com

Williams is heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169  9 pm - 10pm Est.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Kevin Martin

Throughout the Bush presidency, a new golden age was promised to the American people if they would just put liberals in charge of the government.

That happened last November after Obama’s election and the strengthening of liberal majorities in Congress.  But after ten months in power, liberals now appear to be a bunch of posers.

“Poser” is slang for a person falsely claiming skills, smarts and connections. That guy at the club who says he hangs with Kanye when everyone knows he lives in his mom’s basement and works at Popeye’s?  Poser.

Posers are now running our government.  Liberals claimed they could do things better, set the important priorities, influence world leaders and unify the country.  After less than a year, however, our nation is saddled with a generational debt problem, dictators laughing behind our back, polls that show increasing malaise and political divisions that are greater than ever.

Like any poser, don’t expect these guys to flinch.  Consider their reaction to the failed “stimulus” plan.  Obama and his allies said it was essential to pass the huge spending bill quickly and without even reading it.  It turned out to be filled with pork, including some that won’t “stimulate” the economy for years.  But the national debt skyrocketed immediately and unemployment continued to rise while easy credit still eludes most Americans.

A common response from the White House and Congress is that they inherited the problem. It’s not their fault!  This excuse is thin, since liberals were in charge of budgeting after taking control of the Congress in the 2006 election and the stimulus was their baby.

These posers also implied that ridding the White House of George W. Bush (and, by extension, rejecting John McCain) would bring our troops home from Iraq, lead us to victory in Afghanistan and pacify Iran.  Now, Afghanistan is more dangerous than ever.  Obama is barely speaking to our military command there.  Iraq may seem calm for the moment, but Iran is rattling its saber again with new missile tests and new uranium-enrichment facilities.

Obama couldn’t even bring the Olympics to his adoptive hometown despite a full-court lobbying effort by the White House that included the President himself.

Speaking of Chicago, Obama was late to address the recent murder of an innocent honor student who accidentally walked into a gang riot not far from the President’s Hyde Park home. He was also late to address the murder of a military recruiter by an extremist Muslim, yet quick to make political hay over the murder of an abortionist.  In that same manner, he also quickly admonished cops in Cambridge, Massachusetts last summer for doing their jobs.  Obama’s thoughtless remarks, seemingly a knee-jerk response in defense of his friend, Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, questions his leadership.

Speaking of race, public concern over the leftward track our nation is on has the posers rushing back to their old friend, the race card.

If anyone criticizes President Obama or the policies he supports these days, it is assumed to really be about the color of his skin.  Legitimate questions about leadership skills, growing government or expanding debt apparently run a distant second.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are similarly posers as well as enablers.  They make their own boasts of infallibility and say “who me?” when their plans fail, but they are also responsible for trying to ram through the Obama agenda at break-neck speed.  It’s as if they feel the need to do as much as they can before the 2010 election.

By the assertions of Obama, Reid and Pelosi, our economy should be recovering and our standing in the world should be on the rise.  But neither is true.  When someone stands in their way or points out the folly of their ways, those people are demonized and minimized.  That’s what posers do.

So much for hope and change.

#  #  #

Kevin L. Martin is a member of the national advisory council of the Project 21 black leadership network.  Comments may be sent to Project21@nationalcenter.org.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Ken Blackwell

I well remember from my days in college football how much we players did not like being second-guessed by Monday morning quarterbacks. Even so, we do have to go to the videotape to analyze how the home team is doing.

Last Friday, President Obama staged a high-stakes, lightning strike on the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The IOC, meeting in Copenhagen, was subjected to the full-court press to select Chicago for the 2016 Olympic Games.

I was rooting for Chicago. I think every American was rooting for the City of Broad Shoulders. Given the fact that we have Muslims competing in the Olympics, the American team probably didn’t use Carl Sandburg’s description of Chicago as “hog-butcher to the world.” Even with that discretion, even with a “Diversity Plus” Obama appeal, the IOC turned Chicago down flat.

Hardly had Air Force One lifted off, hardly had the Presidential party waved good-bye to Hans Christian Andersen’s little mermaid in the harbor when the IOC announced Chicago had been eliminated. No gold. No silver. Not even a bronze. It was an embarrassing fourth-place showing for the Windy City. Blown away by Rio de Janeiro, Madrid, and Tokyo.

When he was campaigning last fall, candidate Obama charged that George W. Bush had “taken his eye off the ball.” He said that Bush had turned from prosecuting a “war of necessity” [Afghanistan] to fighting a “war of choice.” [Iraq]

Those are all debatable points, to be sure, but then-Sen. Obama persuaded the American electorate and he won the right to call the shots. So, presumably, when your hand-picked commanding general, Stanley McChrystal, reports to you on what is urgently needed in Afghanistan, you would then be obliged to focus like a laser on Afghanistan.

Has anyone seen what’s become of March’s “new strategy” Commander-in-Chief Obama announced with some fanfare barely six months ago? He quickly followed up that announcement by putting in place his new general and outlined his plans to phase out combat operations in Iraq. We could then presumably rest easy that he was going to pursue Afghanistan to victory. And catch Osama bin Laden, too.

Since that time, the headlines have been all about health care, and understandably so. So what part of health care and what part of Afghanistan was this trip to Copenhagen? Didn’t his advance team warn him of going out on a limb? Couldn’t these famous Chicago vote counters count votes for Chicago? It was as if the President was set up for a high visibility belly-flop in the Olympic diving competition.

Worse, it virtually guarantees a return trip to the Danish capital in December. Left-wing blogs are almost threatening him. If he could spare time for a quick side-trip to

Copenhagen for the Chicago Olympic bid, he’d better darned well find time to attend the UN’s global climate change conference slated for that ancient European city later this year.

What if health care is just then at crisis stage? Current time lines show health care moving to the President’s desk just before Christmas. The UN-sponsored global climate change conference is slated for December 7-18th. The conference is being hyped in the European press. Danish Environment and Energy Minister Connie Hedegaard is putting democracy itself on trial:

“If the whole world comes to Copenhagen and leaves without making the needed political agreement, then I think it’s a failure that is not just about climate. Then it’s the whole global democratic system not being able to deliver results in one of the defining challenges of our century. And that is and should not be a possibility. It’s not an option.”

So, unless Mr. Obama delivers the goods, democracy is finished. Climate change criers want a cap and trade bill. It’s a bill that economists tell us will be a massive job-killer. We could have a U.S. unemployment rate above 10 percent by December. Unless Mr. Obama comes across with the goods, Minister Hedegaard is prepared to throw cold water not only on the UN conclave, but on the very possibility of democratic change itself.

How can President Obama not go to Copenhagen? Even if health care isn’t settled yet. Even if cap & trade (read: cap & tax) isn’t inked yet. It isn’t hard to see what’s ahead for him. It may be a cold first Christmas in the White House for an increasingly embattled young President.

Well, he can take cold comfort from one fact. He won’t get a piece of coal in his stocking. Coal will doubtless be banned in Copenhagen. I think something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »