After pointing out that elected Democrats are making a big mistake in backing these far left kids, Douglass Schoen at the Wall Street Journal points out

Yet the Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people—and particularly with swing voters who are largely independent and have been trending away from the president since the debate over health-care reform.

The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York’s Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.

I know, I know, kinda shocking that they are radical left wingers. Some basic polling data is provided about the protesters, followed by

What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).

Schoen isn’t exactly a rightwingnut hell bent on everything the left accuses the right of doing: he was a former pollster for Bill Clinton. And it is very interesting that we see the typical Leftist idea that taxes need to be raised on That Guy, but Not Me. They want someone else to pay their fair share, do their part, but, refuse to do it themselves. And they should all be given free, well, everything, because they are entitled. Someone owes them simply because they were born, not because of any hard work.

My prediction is that the longer this protest goes on, the worse it’s going to get for Democrats, as mainstream America gets a good eyeful of the way Democrats act. The media, despite fawning coverage now and certainly in the future, will not be able to hide the far left ideologies of the Occupiers, and people will start equating the Occupiers more with whiny teenagers who want something for nothing. Or, more than likely, 5 year olds who enjoy pooping their diapers in public, and scream and cry when mommy won’t buy them a toy.

As the saying (sorta) goes: standing around filthy, smelly and unkempt, living in squalor, and demanding someone else’s money is no way to go through life, son.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. Please sign the drill now petition.

Here in Silicon Valley, immigrants and first-generation Americans provide the drive and hunger for almost every company worth its salt. But these days protectionism and xenophobia are choking off the supply of H1-B visas for the best and brightest foreigners. Sadly, we no longer lay out the welcome mat for people with names like Grove, Brin, Yang, Bechtolsheim, Huang, Nguyen, Omidyar and Wadhwani.

Some say that the effect of immigrants on Silicon Valley is exaggerated and that venture capitalists should provide more opportunities for homegrown Californians. But the state’s xenophobes and protectionists need only take a look at the recent history of the English Premier League to see the staggering and transformative effect that immigrants can have on a market.

Twenty years ago, English professional soccer was in a shambles. Most of the stadiums had just a few seats. Stabbings and fights on the terraces were part of the entertainment. In 1989, 96 people were trampled to death during one tragic game. Almost all the players in the league had been born in England—many within sight of the stadiums in which they played. Clubs in Italy, Spain, Brazil and Argentina provided a more scintillating version of the sport. Revenues from television coverage were small. In less than two decades all that has changed, and today the best soccer in the world is played in England. The reason: immigrants.

The English Premier League is a testament to what happens when immigration barriers are broken down and a market attracts the most talented people from around the world.

In 1992, the year of its formation, there were only 11 soccer players in the English Premier League who had not been born in the United Kingdom or Ireland. Now that number is more than 250—in a league where the total number of players in the overall starting lineup is 220. In 1999, Chelsea became the first team to field a Premier League starting lineup composed entirely of foreign-born players.

The main reason behind this dramatic change was a labor ruling in 1995 by the European Court of Justice. The court ruled that arcane rules restricting the free movement of soccer players were in breach of the law of the European Union. When the rules were lifted, the English Premier League was flooded with the best players in the world.

The economic result of the influx of talented immigrants has been profound. Today the soccer on view in the English Premier League is far and away the most attractive in the world. The domestic market has expanded—hooliganism is in decline, and women and children flock to stadiums on Saturdays. Meanwhile, the export market is more lucrative than ever. More than half a billion people in some 200 countries follow the exploits of Chelsea, Manchester United, Aston Villa, Blackpool and Tottenham Hotspur. A preseason tour of Asia has become de rigueur for the best clubs.

The league has also drawn foreign capital with club owners from the United States, India, Russia and the Middle East. Only three sports leagues—the NFL, MLB and NBA—top the English Premier League in revenues. But these leagues, it should be noted, compete in a domestic market six-times larger than England’s.

In 1986, a two-year TV agreement for the top flight of English soccer was sold for 6.3 million pounds, the equivalent of about $10 million today. In 2007, a set of three-year rights was sold for 1.7 billion pounds, or $2.7 billion. It’s little wonder that last year the English Premier League won the Queen’s award for enterprise in international trade.

Players like Chelsea’s Didier Drogba (Ivory Coast), Arsenal’s Cesc Fabregas (Spain), and Manchester United’s Nemanja Vidic (Serbia) may not possess the technical chops to start technology companies in Silicon Valley. But they answered the same clarion call that rang out to the founders and families that once spawned Intel, eBay, Google, Nvidia, Yahoo and hundreds of other companies formed between San Jose and San Francisco. These soccer players are living proof that the best people score the most goals.

Turning away talent—wherever it’s from—only weakens the market and brings down everyone’s game.

SOURCE

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Recent surveys show Americans cooling to global warming, and they’re even less keen on environmental policies they believe might raise power bills or imperil jobs. …

“Right now, Americans are more concerned about the economy than the environment,” said Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll. “The politician who says, ‘I’m going to cripple jobs and shut down factories’ would be in trouble in this economy.”

Here’s what Gallup found: The number of Americans who say the media have exaggerated global warming jumped to a record 41 percent in 2009, up from 35 percent a year ago. The most marked increase came among political independents, whose ranks of doubters swelled from 33 percent to 44 percent. Republican doubters grew from 59 percent to 66 percent, while Democratic skeptics stayed at around 20 percent.

What’s more, fewer Americans believe the effects of global warming have started to occur: 53 percent see signs of a hotter planet, down from 61 percent in 2008.

These trends will inevitably gather momentum as the climate ignores MSM propaganda and continues to cool. This doesn’t bode well for statist plans to use global warming as a pretext to advance socialism.

In a July Rasmussen poll, 56 percent said they didn’t want to pay higher taxes or utility bills to generate clean energy and fight global warming. A January Pew poll placed global warming last among the top 20 priorities Americans have for 2009. Nos. 1 and 2? The economy and jobs.

Meanwhile, Big Government plunges obliviously ahead toward doom — hopefully its own, not ours.

[T]he federal Energy Information Administration released a report Wednesday that tallied up the costs of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the carbon cap-and-trade bill that passed the House of Representatives in May and goes to the Senate for a vote in the fall. The agency’s analysis found that the bill would increase the cost of energy, pare economic output, curb purchasing power and cut $432 billion to $1.9 trillion from the nation’s gross domestic product by 2030.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but after marketing the twin farces of global warming and Barack Obama, it will be awhile before the mainstream media fools anyone again.

On a tip from mega. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

As Gore Lied points out

So, Big Green is about to “launch a major movement…to help build a formidable grassroots advocacy force”, and they have the nerve to call it “grassroots”. That sounds like nothing but Astroturf to me. And the words “formidable…advocacy force” are carefully chosen words of aggression that sound to me like Al Gore and The Climate Project are trying to incite an “angry mob”.

No, no, if it is liberal, it is always grassroots. If it is conservative, well, it is run by Big Business. /sarc off.

In other AGW news, seems there is a bit of a fight going on in the Calgary Herald. David Mayne Reid wrote a screed which attempted to explain why so many folks aren’t buying into the hysterical AGW movement. Many, many people have written rebuttals, including those who work at the paper. Ken Green writes a great one on Monday entitled “People know politics when they see it” which includes this tidbit

First, people instinctively and rightly doubt others who spin end-of-the world stories, demand a “wrenching transformation” of society, and who clearly have a radical social agenda independent of (and predating) their climate concerns. People know from experience that, as H. L. Mencken observed, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” People have seen other eco-scares rise and get debunked over and over again.

Slap a double sided sign on most Climahysterics, give them a bell, put them on a street corner to preach their gloom and doom, and most people will think they are a wacko. Give them lots of money to predict gloom and doom, and they are Al Gore.

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is
argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.”– William Pitt in the
House of Commons November 18, 1783

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:

I am deeply concerned about President Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy.

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

Ouch! That’s gotta burn a bit!

Noel Sheppard wonders how the media will respond. Liberal heads in the punditsphere are already exploding!

MacRanger:

Absolutely correct. This on the heals of Obama’s economic plans becoming a disaster and his poll numbers shrinking. Americans will literally hit the roof when their electric/heating bills skyrocket, along with everything that is made from energy such as plastics (food, water and milk cartons to name a few).

Donald Douglas is impressed how fast she is coming out of the gate. So am I, and the liberal media and pundits are making the same mistake they make with Bush…underestimating.

Ed Morrissey:

Cap-and-trade rations energy production, which means there will be less of it for a long time. Alternatives are not ready for the kind of mass production that would allow a complete replacement of energy, and probably won’t be for decades, if ever in some cases (notably wind power, as GreenChoice showed and as T. Boone Pickens finally realized). That means a lower standard of living that will impact America regressively, with the lowest income earners getting hit the hardest. The drain on the economy from high energy prices means less jobs and higher retail prices for goods and services, again a regressive consequence of energy rationing.

Obama and his Utopian allies promise that government will help close the gap by offering more services to the unemployed and the poor at the expense of the “rich”. What will that do? It will further handicap the economy by keeping capital out of the markets. Even worse, it will vastly expand the dependent class in America who have to go on the dole to survive. And many of those ardent liberals will be pretty happy with that outcome, too.

Susan reminds us of Obama’s own words:

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

Former Vice-President Al Gore is touting the United Nation’s (U.N.) plan to administer global warming and climate change through “global governance.” Make no doubt about it, it will be the U.N. and a few power-mongers who will administer that governance, as well as global social justice on you and me.

Al Gore

Speaking at the Oxford School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment on July 7th, Gore said the Waxman-Markey climate bill, recently passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, is a “step in the right direction,” toward that governance.

But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.

Recent U.N. global warming conferences have also called for a global carbon tax.

…the UN climate conference in Bali, urged the adoption of a global carbon tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.

Schwank noted that wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.” The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.

Hitting on my last nerve in this article is the “redistribution of wealth,” which is just what global governance is all about. Did you know that a species called the a Climate Justice Campaigner actually exists?

A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

The quotes above from ClimateDepot.com. They end with this Editor’s Note:

[Editor's Note: Many critics have often charged that proposed climate tax and regulatory “solutions” were more important to the promoters of man-made climate fears than the accuracy of their science. Former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth reportedly said, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."]

I urge you to go to get acquainted with then-Senator Obama’s Senate Bill 2433, which is festering on hold, and the U.N. Millinium Development Goal (MDG). The U.N. has very dangerous plans for America’s future and Obama has tied his Global Poverty Bill, Senate Bill 2433 to the MDG. You can find links to the MDG in these articles:

Will Obama’s Global Poverty Act Tax Fossil Fuels, Currency, Land and Freeze Militaries?

Transnationalism: What it Means for America

Obama’s Global Poverty Act – Here’s the Evil in S.2433

Obama’s Senate Bill S.2433 – A UN Global Tax on the U.S.

July 13, 2009 | House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) | Permalink

As the House Democratic Leadership tries to gather support for their massive small business tax and government takeover of health care, they are finding reluctance from many in their own caucus. Why? Well, many Democrats who walked the plank and voted for the Speaker’s unpopular national energy tax faced a blistering reaction back home, and the Senate looks unlikely to act on the legislation – meaning House Democrats got “BTU-ed” all over again.

Roll Call this morning reported on the Democratic House Members’ unease, and the hurdle it is creating:

“Democrats who helped the sweeping climate change bill squeak through before jetting home for the July Fourth break got a surprisingly ugly homecoming, encountering a barrage of protests, attack ads and negative press. Police turned up at a local protest aimed at Rep. Allen Boyd (Fla.), a leader of the moderate Blue Dog Coalition. Freshman Rep. John Adler (N.J.) told a local paper he got shoved.”

“The bruising endured by the moderates — along with serious substantive concerns —prompted them last week to derail the planned Friday rollout of the health care bill. And it presents a continuing challenge to leaders hoping to wrap work on the package this month. ‘They are completely and totally rattled,’ one senior Democratic aide said of the centrists. ‘I’ve never seen them as bad as they are now.’”

Those Democrats are right to be worried, since Politico finds little enthusiasm for Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax in the Senate:

“President Barack Obama’s plan for climate change legislation faces an extraordinarily tough climb in the Senate. For proof, look no further than to some of Obama’s closest allies.”

“‘We’ve got to be very careful with what we do with this legislation,’ Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), a near—constant cable surrogate during Obama’s presidential campaign, told Missouri talk radio show host Mike Ferguson last week. ‘We need to be a leader in the world, but we don’t want to be a sucker.’”

“When it comes to climate change, McCaskill and other Midwestern Democrats are putting their home-state concerns ahead of one of the president’s biggest first-year priorities; many of them fear that the legislation, which narrowly passed the House earlier this month, will hurt manufacturing- and coal-dependent areas that are already struggling.”

Republicans have a better solution. Our “all of the above” plan will lower energy costs, clean up the environment, and create millions of new American jobs. When will the Democratic leaders realize that we need a serious plan to help our economy and reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, not the job-killing boondoggle like Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax?

Former Vice President Al Gore declared that the Congressional climate bill will help bring about “global governance.”

“I bring you good news from the U.S., “Gore said on July 7, 2009 in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by UK Times.

“Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill,” Gore said, noting it was “very much a step in the right direction.” President Obama has pushed for the passage of the bill in the Senate and attended a G8 summit this week where he agreed to attempt to keep the Earth’s temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C.

Gore touted the Congressional climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming.

“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” (Editor’s Note: Gore makes the “global governance” comment at the 1min. 10 sec. mark in this UK Times video.)

That can’t be right, can it? I thought we were “saving the Earth from Mankind” or something. Of course, since the vast majority of AGW leaders and Believers fail to live the life they demand everyone else live, and be taxed like hell on….

Say, y’all Climahysterics think the cap and tax bill is great, right? Have you started implementing what it legislates yet? If not, why?

To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country.

Since about half the planet’s climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country.

I have a better idea: we should cap the amount of CO2 allowed to be released by the True Believers. No cap and trade for them, no purchasing of carbon offsets. Once they reach their limit, they stay home. Imagine the outcome. No longer would folks like James Hansen, Al Gore, Ban Moon-Ki, and all the others who are constantly traveling around the world to exotic vacation spots for conferences, putting out massive CO2, be unaccountable to walking the talk. That would be upsetting to them. Less money and prestige, no more “do as I say, not as I do.” Shame.

The study is an interesting way for a world government to start controlling people, instead of attempting to control countries, eh?

And now we have another fine..zzzzzzzz..sorry news magazine, US News and World Report, allowing an opinion piece critical of cap and tax, a favorite of Obama’s. After highlighting an interesting part of the legislation which provides for unemployment payments for the people who will be out of jobs due to capNtax

Building a safety net into the legislation is probably the responsible thing to do. The government is going to be directly responsible for the destruction of millions of jobs if the bill passed by the House becomes law—anywhere from a net loss of .5 percent of total jobs over the first 10 years, according to the liberal Brookings Institution, to 3 million by the year 2030, according to the industry-backed Coalition for Affordable American Energy. But wouldn’t it be better to leave the jobs alone in the first place? It would certainly be cheaper.

I’d have to search the bill for the relevant portion, but, I did run across a portion on page 253 of the 3am addition that basically says they know LOTS of jobs will get wacked. They apparently do not care. If people are out of work and being given government money, it gives those in charge more power.