Poll Finds Flagging Obama Popularity--Dems Blame Poll

Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit quotes a politico.com article (h/t Bob Robbins) that states:

"Democrats are turning their fire on Scott Rasmussen, the prolific independent pollster whose surveys on elections, President Obama’s popularity and a host of other issues are surfacing in the media with increasing frequency.

"The pointed attacks reflect a hardening conventional wisdom among prominent liberal bloggers and many Democrats that Rasmussen Reports polls are, at best, the result of a flawed polling model and, at worst, designed to undermine Democratic politicians and the party’s national agenda."

The Democrats are used to having virtually every media outlet service their partisan propaganda needs and aim to suppress any alternative, especially when more accurate than their traditional propaganda outlets like the New York Times. Democrats much prefer the biases and distortions in the Times to the truth.

Rasmussen reported yesterday that Obama's popularity has severely flagged. The Democrats complain that assertion of facts like that is unfair. As Jules Crittenden points out:

"How much of an outlier is Rasmussen? Not much this morning. Realclearpolitics. Rasmussen gives Obama 46 percent approval, as does Quinnipiac, while NBC/WSJ gives him 47 percent. The diviation spikes in disapproval, however. 53 percent via Rasmussen, mid-40s elsewhere. Sounds like it depends what you think disapproval is. Based on what I’ve been hearing from some Dems in bluest Mass, especially in the wake of back-to-back health care and terrorism debacles, plus the hard left’s disapproval of the Afghan policy, sounds more like all the other pollsters are giving him the benefit of a doubt...Gateway notes that Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster of the 2008 election...

Rasmussen writes:

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, released Thursday, shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18".

The two graphs below tell Rasmussen's story:

US ParksService's Alma Ripps on Maurice Hinchey's Hudson Valley Federal Park Proposal

Alma Ripps of the US Parks Service has responded to my inquiry concerning the implications of Congressman Maurice Hinchey's HR 4003, which would begin a process of federalizing the Hudson Valley, as follows:

Mr. Langbert,

Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding legislation introduced by Representative Maurice Hinchey, H.R. 4003, which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of resources in the Hudson River Valley in the State of New York. I apologize for the tardiness in responding to your inquiry. As you can imagine, it is sometimes difficult to reach people during the holiday season to provide information.

The bill does not propose to establish a park in the Hudson River Valley, rather, it would (if enacted) initiate a study to determine whether any resources in the region meet the criteria for potential congressional designation. Such studies determine whether resources are nationally significant, suitable for inclusion into the National Park System, feasible to administer, and require management by the National Park Service versus being able to be managed by others. At the conclusion of a study (which normally takes two or more years), if resources in the region are found to meet these criteria, separate legislation would need to be enacted by Congress to establish a unit of the National Park System.

The Department of the Interior does not take an official position on pending legislation until a hearing by a congressional committee is conducted. To date, no hearing has been scheduled on this bill.

Since a study of the Hudson River Valley has not even been authorized, much less concluded, it would be premature to offer any conjecture on what the implications of establishing a unit of the National Park System in the region might entail. The first question, of course, is whether one or more resources would meet the criteria indicated above. Even when a study does determine that resources qualify for congressional consideration for establishment of a unit (although most do not), alternatives to National Park Service management must be explored and detailed in the study report.

Today, there are various models of units of the National Park System ranging from the traditional model where the National Park Service owns and manages a resource to those where we have limited or no ownership interest and work with partners for the continued protection of natural or cultural resources and to promote public understanding of their importance to the nation through education and interpretation. An example of the latter model is the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area where we partner with state and nonprofit organizations and provide financial, technical and interpretive assistance. We also have affiliated areas of the National Park System which we do not manage, but provide financial and technical
assistance to those organizations that protect the resource. A study permits us to tailor the appropriate model to the resource(s), assuming that the criteria for potential designation have first been met.

Should a study of the Hudson River Valley be authorized by Congress, an extensive public involvement process would accompany the study since public support for any potential designation is a key aspect of the feasibility analysis. A study must also provide an analysis of environmental, cultural and socio-economic impacts of a unit of the National Park System should one be determined eligible for establishment.

Since you mentioned the Catskills and the Adirondacks, we assume you understand that the regulatory policies affecting those two regions were enacted by the New York State Legislature and are administered by agencies of the State, not the federal government. Currently, we have a cooperative relationship with the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area which was established by Congress in 1996. No unique federal regulations apply to this area because of that designation, although the National Park Service provides financial and technical assistance to the heritage area.

We hope the above information has been helpful and that you will understand that we are not in a position to provide detailed answers to your questions since we have not commenced a study of the region to determine if a unit of the National Park System could be established in the Hudson River Valley.

Thank you for your interest in the National Park Service. Please contact me if you have further questions.

Alma

Rethinking the Congressional Honorific

Tradition dictates that in writing a letter to a Senator or Congressman we use the appellation "Honorable". About.com gives the standard method:

>"The Honorable (full name)
(Room #) (Name) House Office Building
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

"Dear Representative:"

The reference to Congressmen as "honorable" has no legal standing. As HL Mencken wrote in his 1921 "American Language":

"...perhaps the greatest difference between English and American usage is presented by the Honorable. In the United States the title is applied loosely to all public officials of apparent respectability, from senators and ambassadors to the mayors of fifth-rate cities and the members of state legislatures, and with some show of official sanction to many of them, especially congressmen. But it is questionable whether this application has any actual legal standing...Congressmen themselves are not Honorables. True enough, the Congressional Record, in printing a set speech, calls it “Speech of Hon. John Jones” (without the the before the Hon.—a characteristic Americanism), but in reporting the ordinary remarks of a member it always calls him plain Mr. Nevertheless, a country congressman would be offended if his partisans, in announcing his appearance on the stump, did not prefix Hon. to his name. So would a state senator. So would a mayor or governor...."

The reference to a Congressman as honorable is evidence of faith in the character and integrity of the United States government. Election to the Congress of a great nation is honorable. But do we retain belief in the integrity of the United States government?

Congress has abused its trust by gerrymandering districts, reducing its legitimacy and representativeness. As well, it has failed to maintain proportional representation. In 1787 there was one Congressman for every 3,000 Americans. Today there is one Congressman for every 500,000 Americans. In 1776 the nation's 26 senators represented on average 115,000 Americans. Today, with over 300 million Americans, the 100 Senators represent three million each. The failure to retain proportionality of representation has been accompanied with escalation of corruption, especially in the post World War II period. The corruption associated with the Robber Barons of the late nineteenth century was miniscule in comparison with the magnitude of campaign contributions, donations to libraries, speakers' fees and the like today. Membership in Congress has become not an honor, but a form of legalized criminality.

Congress has manipulated the mass media to reflect its own and its clients' interests. It has permitted the subsidization of privileged sectors of the economy at the expense of productive sectors, damaging the nation's economic prospects. It has permitted but refused to take responsibility for wars, harming the nation's interests once it has approved the wars. Congress has failed to oversee the federal government's budget, insisting on renewing hundreds of failed government programs. It has lied to the public with respect to government operations, military operations, the operation of the Federal Reserve Bank, the productivity of government offices and virtually every endeavor in which it has engaged.

Congress has abused its trust by ignoring, violating and damning the Constitution of the United States. It has extended federal power in ways that warranted reassessment through Constitutional Amendment, but knowing that such amendment was impossible, violated its Constitutional mandate. It has effected one failed program after the next, and it puts the interests of the clients of those programs over the interests of the public.

Congress has become a racketeering scheme. Mencken's sarcasm was appropriate in his day. Today, in connection with this year's Congress, the title "honorable" has become offensive.

I call on all Americans to desist from using the appellation "Honorable" when referring to Congessmen.

Letter to the Olive Press

Dear Editor:

One of my neighbors took some offense at my recent characterization of Democrats as thieves in the pages of the Olive Press. My neighbor is not a thief, and that is probably true of a majority of the 36% of Americans who are registered Democrats. Nevertheless, I stand by my letter. For there are two kinds of Democrats: (a) thieves and (b) those fooled by (a). Category (b) Democrats might blame 2,500 years of propaganda. In Open Society and Its Enemies Karl Popper argues that Plato was the first to propagandize for collectivism by identifying collectivism with altruism. But collectivism has almost always helped the rich at the expense of the poor, not the reverse. Thus, "limousine liberals" advocate a class- and self-interested view.

The (a) category goes back to the days of Boss Tweed and "Plunkitt of Tammany Hall". In 1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) extended the federal edifice that the Progressive Republicans led by Theodore Roosevelt (TR) had established. The crux of the New Deal was FDR's abolition of the gold standard, which permitted the Federal Reserve Bank unlimited power to create ("print") money. The chief function of the Federal Reserve Bank has been and still is to expand the money supply by printing new reserves and then depositing them in money center banks who have the power to print a multiple of the money, as much as six times, of which they lend a disproportionate share to Wall Street. If you doubt that a disproportionate share goes to Wall Street, check out Roger Lowenstein's When Genius Failed about Long Term Capital Management (LTCM). The banking system had lent this early hedge fund 100 billion dollars when it collapsed. One hundred billion that time was more than one percent of the entire economy but LTCM employed only about 200 people. This kind of thing has accelerated during the Bush-Obama administration, with Obama donating untold trillions to his supervisors on Wall Street.

On the local level, the corruption of the Democrats never disappeared, even with the diminution of Tammany Hall in the 1930s under the Mayor Fiorello Laguardia (R-NY). Today, government employees, school teachers, and businesses who receive contracts, that is, category (a) Democrats, unabashedly steal from their neighbors. Category (b) Democrats, confusing collectivism with altruism, confuse the schoolteachers', government employees' and contractors' greed with altruism.

At the level of federal government operations, the edifice that TR and FDR created opened the door to special interest politics. No one knows how much of the federal government's operations budget actually performs any valid "service". Newspapers avoid questions like this, preferring to cheer for the bailout and Obama. My guess is less than 20% goes to any public interest purpose. 80% of your federal taxes are squandered.

Today we are facing a health reform bill, that category (b) Democrats have been told will help the poor. It will not. If you compare the performance of health industry stocks over the past two years with the stock market in general, the fall in the health stocks has been two thirds smaller than in the stock market generally, 8% versus 23%, since January 2008. The stock market thinks that the health reform bill will be a boon to the health industry. This will not be the case for the general economy. New regulations will increase costs; health benefits will be reduced; and the uncovered poor will be forced to buy coverage. It makes category (a) liberals happy to know that people making $50,000 per year will have to pay $6,000 for coverage. For these will be forced to sell their homes and live in city projects while category (a) limousine liberals can buy their houses as investments as they congratulate themselves about their liberal consciences.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert