Thursday, August 06, 2015

Cruising the Web

President Obama has always depicted his opponents as having nefarious, partisan motives. He never acknowledges that someone could oppose his policies simply because they think that they are bad ideas that will have terrible consequences. The man who rose to fame by saying that there is no red America and no blue America, just a purple America. He has never has governed according to the rhetoric that made him famous. His defense of his IRanian deal was no exception as he said that hardliners shouting "Death to America" are making "common cause with the Republican Caucus." Just think of that. He is equating Republicans with people who want to kill Americans. Of course, those chanting that are not just fringe groups in Tehran's streets, but they also members of the Iranian government with whom the deal has been concluded.

As David Harsanyi tweets, such an accusation would never be accepted from a Republican president.
(Link via Allahpundit)

David Burge nails it.

Secretary of State John Kerry has a strange concern if this deal isn't approved by Congress. He's afraid that Ayatollah Khamenei would conclude from such a vote that we are untrustworthy.
“The ayatollah constantly believed that we are untrustworthy, that you can’t negotiate with us, that we will screw them,” Kerry said. “This”—a congressional rejection—“will be the ultimate screwing.” He went on to argue that “the United States Congress will prove the ayatollah’s suspicion, and there’s no way he’s ever coming back. He will not come back to negotiate. Out of dignity, out of a suspicion that you can’t trust America. America is not going to negotiate in good faith. It didn’t negotiate in good faith now, would be his point.”
As James Taranto writes,
To put this as politely as possible—and believe us, we’re straining to do so—Kerry’s tender concern for the ayatollah’s “dignity” is perverse. It’s true that a degree of mutual trust is necessary for a negotiation to succeed, but Kerry ignores the “mutual” part. His analysis is one-sided, and on the wrong side. The main question for Congress—as it should have been for the administration—is whether America can trust Iran.

This is, after all, a regime that traduced all diplomatic norms by seizing the U.S. Embassy and holding dozens of Americans hostage for over a year. OK, that was a long time ago. But it’s the same regime, one whose slogan is “Death to America.”
Taranto points out that Kerry doesn't think that the Iranians mean "Death to America" and that they don't really want to wipe out Israel. Obama and Kerry just think that such slogans which the Iranian government has been encouraging since 1979 are just posturing and that the leaders don't really mean it. Perhaps, they're projecting their own approach to political rhetoric as Obama has admitted making claims for Obamacare for political purposes. Taranto notes how Obama regards Iranian adversaries and Republican opponents.
In a regime that claims absolute religious authority, public opinion is rather beside the point. Still, it’s worth noting the contrast between the way in which Obama administration supporters treat domestic and foreign adversaries. When Tea Party protesters said “Take back our country”—a commonplace political trope—they imagined it had invidious racial implications and argued that it discredited opposition to Obama’s domestic initiatives. “Death to America” is invidious on its face, but the administration and its apologists are anxious to explain it away.

At any rate, “Death to America” is the slogan of the regime—the negotiating partner about whose trust and dignity John Kerry is so concerned. Wright quotes Rep. Eliot Engel—a New York Democrat who has expressed skepticism of the Iran deal but has not yet said how he’ll vote on it—at the House hearing: “You would think that after an agreement was signed with us there might be a modicum of good will that perhaps they would keep quiet for a week or two, or a month.” That’s asking far too little, but the point is right: “How can we trust Iran when this type of thing happens?”
President Obama even admits that Iranians may well use the money that they will get when the sanctions are lifted to fund terrorism.
President Barack Obama acknowledged Wednesday that Iran might use cash coming its way under sanctions relief to fund "terrorist organizations" but argued this is preferable to allowing it to develop nuclear arms.

"The truth is, that Iran has always found a way to fund these efforts," Obama said, in a speech to defend the Iran nuclear deal.

"And whatever benefit Iran may claim from sanctions relief pales in comparison to the danger it could pose with a nuclear weapon."

Shop Amazon - Back to School - Up to 25% Off Groceries

Shop Amazon Back to School - Printer Deals

Of course, President Obama's insouciance about how the Iranians will use the over $100 billion to fund terrorism is based on a false sense of security that this deal will allow the world to make sure that Iran doesn't go back on its agreement not to make nuclear weapons. Josh Rogin and Eli Lake explain what a fatuous belief that is.
The U.S. intelligence community has informed Congress of evidence that Iran was sanitizing its suspected nuclear military site at Parchin, in broad daylight, days after agreeing to a nuclear deal with world powers.

For senior lawmakers in both parties, the evidence calls into question Iran’s intention to fully account for the possible military dimensions of its current and past nuclear development. The International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran have a side agreement meant to resolve past suspicions about the Parchin site, and lawmakers' concerns about it has already become a flashpoint because they do not have access to its text.

Intelligence officials and lawmakers who have seen the new evidence, which is still classified, told us that satellite imagery picked up by U.S. government assets in mid- and late July showed that Iran had moved bulldozers and other heavy machinery to the Parchin site and that the U.S. intelligence community concluded with high confidence that the Iranian government was working to clean up the site ahead of planned inspections by the IAEA....

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker told us Tuesday that while Iran’s activity at Parchin last month isn’t technically a violation of the agreement it signed with the U.S. and other powers, it does call into question Iran’s intention to be forthright about the possible military dimensions of its nuclear program.

“The intel briefing was troubling to me … some of the things that are happening, especially happening in such a blatant way," he said. "Iran is going to know that we know.” He added the new information gave him "a lot of concerns" about Iran coming clean on military dimensions of its nuclear work.

According to the overall nuclear agreement, sanctions relief for Iran can come only after the IAEA and Iran resolve their outstanding concerns about possible military dimensions of past and current work. But the agreement does not specify how the issue must be resolved, only that it be resolved to the IAEA’s satisfaction.

Several senior lawmakers, including Democrats, are concerned that Iran will be able to collect its own soil samples at Parchin with only limited supervision, a practice several lawmakers have compared to giving suspected drug users the benefit of the doubt to submit specimens unsupervised. Iran’s sanitization of the site further complicates that verification.
As Michael Rubin reports, Iranian leaders keep telling us publicly that outsiders won't be able to inspect military sites, just the places where they're likely to be working on nuclear weapons.
They [Obama and Kerry]continue to embrace the theory of the agreement to which they arrived rather than the reality of the Iranian reaction to it. Kerry may have gone from ‘anytime, anywhere’ to managed inspections, and he and his proxies may still insist that the procedures set in place are rigorous and can prevent an Iranian nuclear breakout. What he ignores, however, is the growing number — and position — of senior Iranian officials who insist that there can be absolutely no inspection, managed or otherwise, of Iranian military sites, the very locations where the work on the possible military dimensions of a nuclear program allegedly occurred or still could occur.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the group that would guard any sensitive sites, has signaled its rejection of the deal. The latest to speak up is Ali Akbar Velayati, a former foreign minister who was promoted upwards to the Office of the Supreme Leader. Yesterday, he declared, “The arrival of any foreigner, including inspectors of the IAEA or any other inspector, to our sensitive military sites is forbidden in any situation.” That position — straight from the Supreme Leader’s office — seems to make moot the compromise at which the IAEA and Iran supposed arrived to enable managed inspections so long as no Americans were on the inspection teams.

None of this should surprise. On June 24, 2015, as the talks reached their climax, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei reiterated his red lines. “I have already asserted that no inspection of military sites can ever be done,” he tweeted. Nothing since has signaled any change or flexibility in that position.

None of this is rhetoric for Iranian domestic political consumption. To suggest as much ignores the fact that Iran is no democracy. The Supreme Leader derives his authority as the deputy of the Messiah on Earth; popular sovereignty means nothing. It is long past time for Obama and Kerry to put aside the deal they insist they signed, and instead answer the question: If no inspections can occur by the IAEA on Iranian military sites, is the deal still worth its salt? If Iran can maintain locations that remain inspections-free (and which also might be shielded from satellites if underground), does the White House still believe that all pathways to a nuclear bomb are blocked? If inspections cannot occur in certain areas, what would that mean for the State Department’s insistence that the deal has achieved the most rigorous peacetime inspections ever?
But I guess such questions are only because these analysts are only making common cause with those chanting "Death to America." There could be no other reason for anyone to be suspicious of this deal, right?

Try Amazon Prime 30-Day Free Trial

Shop Amazon Fashion - 20% Off Prime Member Exclusive

Ed Morrissey explains
what Bidenmania exposes about the Democratic Party.
ith Hillary Clinton's favorability ratings taking a dramatic dive, the need to find a suitable alternative has become all too obvious. But just as obviously, the focus on Biden shows how poorly the Democratic Party has fared in developing talent for the national stage....

This rash of Biden-mania is nonsensical. At 72, Biden represents the face of the Washington establishment more than any other potential candidate on either side of the race — and that includes Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. Biden first came to Capitol Hill in 1973 as a senator from Delaware, and stayed put for 35 years, until he became vice president. In a political environment where anti-establishment populism has challenged the leadership of both parties, Biden appears uniquely disqualified from capitalizing on the animating emotional engagement of the electorate. Even the Clintons, who have been in Washington for 22 years, look like newcomers in comparison.
But what other choice do Democrats have?
Many have wagged their fingers at Democrats for investing too much in the Clintons, but where else could they have looked? In three straight election cycles, Democrats have taken body blows at the state and local level, with their share of state legislative seats at its lowest point since Herbert Hoover was president. Their gubernatorial ranks have been thinned as well, as a moment's thought will attest. Republicans have a number of two-term governors vying for the nomination, and a number still on the bench — names like Susana Martinez, Nikki Haley, Rick Snyder, Mike Pence, and others. Democrats have no ready bench players in position to step up for a national campaign, even if the Clintons' grasp on the donor class didn't preclude it.

That should be real cause for desperation — because it isn't just about this cycle. If Democrats lose the White House in 2016, they have no one ready for 2020. Can you honestly name a Democratic senator or governor who would give a President Rubio or President Walker or President Bush 3.0 a real run for his money in 2020?

That's the thing. Biden only looks attractive because the alternative is a generational disaster.
As the WSJ writes, Biden would have only one strategy to beat Hillary. He'd have to actually run against her, not just for himself as Obama's heir.
On the other hand, he’s not likely to fire up the left-wing partisans who are most frustrated with Mrs. Clinton’s machine candidacy. Mr. Biden first ran for President in 1988 and in 2008 barely registered in the primary voting. As a 72-year-old white man, he’d be running to deny Hillary her historic moment as the first woman President. In a party that is so driven by identity politics, the gender card and the minority vote are Mrs. Clinton’s biggest advantages.

All of which means that to have any chance of winning Mr. Biden would have to go after Mrs. Clinton’s greatest weakness, which is her incorrigible dishonesty. No Democratic competitor has dared to raise that issue against her, though every Democrat knows it is the pall that will hang over her general election candidacy. There isn’t much difference between Mr. Biden and Mrs. Clinton on the issues. His biggest advantage is that he lacks t

President Obama and John Kerry can talk up the access investigators would have to Iran's nuclear sites, but the Iranian leaders aren't as impressed.
President Obama says his nuclear deal with Iran depends on verification, not trust. But what if Iran has a very different interpretation of what verification entails than does Mr. Obama?

Take Ali Akar Velayati, a top adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who appeared on Al-Jazeera on July 31 and was asked about U.N. inspections of Iran’s military sites. Here’s how he replied, according to the Memri translation service:

“Regardless of how the P5+1 countries interpret the nuclear agreement, their entry into our military sites is absolutely forbidden. The entry of any foreigner, including IAEA inspectors or any other inspector, to the sensitive military sites of the Islamic Republic is forbidden, no matter what.”

Interviewer: “That’s final?”

Mr. Velayati: “Yes, final.”

Yet Mr. Obama has been assuring Americans that inspectors will have access to any suspicious site after a maximum of 24 days. Is Mr. Velayati mistaken, and if he is, will someone else in Iran put that on the record? Congress should find out.

Oh, the irony. This is what President Obama said this week in Africa.
President Barack Obama told a group of young African leaders on Monday that harvesting organs from humans that are killed as part of an African ritual was “craziness” and a “cruel” tradition that needed to stop. He warned of dehumanizing marginal groups of humans and of the problems that arise when “you are not able to see someone else as a human being.”

In a wide-ranging question and answer session with members of the Young African Leaders Initiative [YALI], a woman from Kenya said “Persons with albinism in Africa are being killed and their body parts harvested for ritual purposes,” a woman in the audience said. “My request to you is to raise this issue with heads of state of African countries to bring these atrocities to an end.”

Obama decried the practice and went on to encourage the young people to do everything in their power to fight on the behalf of vulnerable humans....

Obama’s comments come in the midst of a weeks-long scandal in his own country over the killing of unborn children via abortion followed by the harvesting and distribution of their organs. The Center for Medical Progress has released five videos of Planned Parenthood officials discussing the killing of human fetuses and the harvesting of their organs — or entire cadavers — to researchers willing to pay a pretty penny for them.

On the topic of human organ harvesting, President Obama’s spokesman Josh Earnest has said that President Obama has chosen not to watch the video footage of Planned Parenthood officials dissecting human fetuses for parts. Nevertheless, President Obama has vehemently defended the abortion group.

Jeff Greenfield reminds us of how every election year the media anoint one candidate for telling the American people uncomfortable truths while criticizing his own party. Greenfield likens such a candidate to the winner of the NHL's Lady Byng trophy for sportsmanship and gentlemanly conduct. However, such Lady Byng candidates as John Anderson, Bruce Babbit, Paul Tsongas, Richard Lugar, the 2000 John McCain, and Jon Huntsman never win the nomination. Criticizing the party's base is not the path to victory. So who will be the Lady Byng candidate this year?
A Lady Byng candidate is almost always without funds, with a skeleton staff, and little public recognition—significant handicaps for an extended primary campaign. Moreover, a Lady Byng Contender by definition must challenge the base of his or her own party; unsurprisingly, the base almost always responds by enthusiastically embracing a candidate more likely to reassure, than to challenge; and it’s the base that shows up more often than not on primary day. (It’s no coincidence that no Democratic Lady Byng winner had any significant support among minority voters).

And the same civil demeanor that makes editorial pages swoon may not play well with a primary electorate that welcomes a tough-talking, combative candidate: the “I-want-a-tough-S.O.B.-to protect-my tribe” constituency. (This is one reason why Bill Clinton did not win the 1992 Byng in spite of his break with Democratic orthodoxy on crime and welfare.)

So looking at the 2016 field, who are the potential Lady Byng contenders?

On the Democratic side, you might think the obvious choice is Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, with his uncharismatic charisma, his Noo Yawk accent, his challenges to Hillary Clinton’s progressive credibility. But Sanders is,in fact, not challenging the Democratic base, but trying to rally it. I’m the legitimate heir to FDR, JFK and RFK, he is arguing. I’m the candidate of unions and a higher minimum wage and soaking the rich.

No if you’re looking for a base-challenging hard-truth-telling candidate, it’s most likely ex-Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, who, as I noted recently, has serious differences with his base on matters ranging from guns to the legacy of Vietnam.

As for the Republicans, you will not likely find any of the 15—or 17—or, by the time you read, this 34—candidates who will challenge the Republican canon on taxes or abortion or the Iran deal. You will, however, find South Carolina Sen. Lindsay Graham praising his political adversaries—“If you can’t admire Joe Biden as a person, you probably have to do some self-evaluation”.

You’ll find Ohio Gov. John Kasich arguing in favor of Medicaid expansion, and arguing that government programs, properly structured, can change people’s lives for the better. (“I think I have the right to define what it means to be a conservative,” he told a small group of journalists last Spring). On the other hand, Kasich’s communication style—blunt, tough, sometimes strikingly combative—may disqualify him.

Shop Amazon - Back to School - Up to 25% Off Groceries

Shop Amazon Office Products Deals - Supplies & Electronics

Economists aren't impressed with Trump's vow to bring back American jobs that have gone to China.
Economists say he wouldn't stand a chance: Trump's boundless self-confidence is no match for the global economic forces that took those jobs away.

Since the beginning of 2000, the U.S. economy has lost 5 million manufacturing jobs. A study published last year by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that between 2 million and 2.4 million jobs were lost to competition from China from 1999 to 2011.

Announcing his presidential bid June 16, Trump declared: "I'll bring back our jobs from China, from Mexico, from Japan, from so many places. I'll bring back our jobs, and I'll bring back our money."

Economists were unimpressed. "It's completely implausible," says former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Alan Blinder, a Princeton University economist who has studied the offshoring of American jobs.

Companies shifted low-skill jobs to China in the 2000s because American workers couldn't compete with Chinese workers earning around $1 an hour. Now China itself is losing low-wage manufacturing jobs to poorer countries such as Bangladesh and Vietnam.

If America tried to block foreign-made products and make everything at home, prices would skyrocket and foreign countries would likely retaliate by blocking U.S. goods from their countries. "You can't turn back the clock," Blinder says.

But there's an even bigger problem for those who want to restore U.S. manufacturing employment (now 12.3 million) to its 1979 peak of 19.6 million: Technology has taken many of those jobs for good. Today's high-tech factories employ a fraction of the workers they used to. General Motors, for example, employed 600,000 in the 1970s. It has 216,000 now — and sells more cars than ever.

"No matter who becomes president," says economist David Autor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "I cannot foresee a scenario where 5 million additional manufacturing jobs ... reappear in the U.S. in the decades ahead."
But what does reality matter when the pledge is appealing to naive voters?

Even CNN is unimpressed with Obama's "Clean Power Plan."
Unfortunately, upon close inspection, the plan's actual impact on climate turns out to be largely undetectable and the public health benefits tenuous, at best. It's tough to leave the world better for future generations by deliberately slowing the rate of human development, which is what this plan unfortunately calls for.

When it comes to future climate change, mainstream scientific projections, which appear to be running to hot, predict about 2.5°C of warming by the end of the century as a result of carbon dioxide emitted from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas). Nearly 90% of this warming is expected to come from developing nations such as China, India, and countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Of the remaining warming, amounting to about 0.3°C, about half will come from U.S. emissions.

This means, that if we in the United States were to cease emitting all carbon dioxide from this day forward, future global warming would only be reduced by about 0.15°C by the end of the century. That's all. This is why incremental actions like the Clean Power plan, which only seeks a 10% reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2030, will have no appreciable impact on the future course of climate, only around 0.02°C. Put simply, when it comes to mitigating climate change, the U.S. has little role to play.
But wait! That's not all!
But Obama may have an even bigger hurdle to jump internationally. For developing countries, reducing carbon dioxide emissions means reducing economic growth and human progress. Off-the-shelf renewable technologies are grossly insufficient to meet the immediate and growing needs of a world where well over a billion people do not have access to electricity, much less in sufficient quantity and quality. For populations in these parts of the world, limiting carbon dioxide emissions by restricting fossil fuel use may, in fact, prove dangerous -- much more so than the threats that a changing climate may bring. Restricting fossil fuel use means restricting transportation, electricity, air conditioning, and other critical technologies. For people that aren't already living in wealth and abundance, those restrictions can have serious human consequences for health and well-being.

Ultimately, and looked at with a critical eye, the Clean Power Plan will be ineffective at mitigating climate change and improving public health. Worse, it indicates a desire for President Obama to lead the world away from the best path for ensuring human progress and well-being.
And what would Obama's plan do to our own energy bills? Remember when Obama said in 2008 that his energy goals would make rates "necessarily skyrocket." That is actually true of his plan today.
In reality, nothing from the proposed rules has changed.

ILLEGAL: The final rule is still illegal and will be changed in court as soon as the ink is dry later this summer. At least 15 states, if not more, will file suit challenging the regulation that Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe called “lawless.” The plan has four “blocks. EPA only has the legal authority to do one of the blocks.

EXPENSIVE: The cost of the rule is in the billions. The final rule still imposes higher energy prices on families, businesses, and the poor. NERA Economic Consulting estimates that U.S. electricity prices will increase by an average of 12 to 17 percent. The Heritage Foundation estimates a loss of $2.5 trillion in gross domestic product and more than 1 million job losses.

INFLEXIBLE: The final rule still offers no actual flexibility to the states. EPA to states: “Comply, or else.” Utilities are scared sh-tless.

DESTABLIZING: According to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, regional grid operators, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the final rule threatens the electric power grid.

INEFFECTIVE: Even if you believe carbon is a pollutant, the final rule still does nothing to address climate change—in fact, it only reduces global temperatures by an immeasurable 0.018 degrees Celsius by 2100. Say what? The EPA’s climate rule fails to impact the climate in any meaningful fashion, since the vast majority of global emissions originate outside the United States.
But what does reality matter when the pledge is appealing to naive voters? Who would guess how much Obama and Trump have in common?

Shop Amazon - Best Selling Products - Updated Every Hour

Shop Amazon Warehouse Deals - Deep Discounts on Open-box and Used Kitchen Gadgets

Thomas Sowell explains why he thinks Trump would be a radioactive choice.
Donald Trump has turned this opening phase of the 2016 primaries into The Donald Trump Show. All of this might be very entertaining, if this were not a crucial juncture in the history of the country and of the world.

But, while all this political theater is going on, the world’s leading promoter of international terrorism — Iran — has gotten a “deal” that all but guarantees that it will have nuclear bombs and, not just incidentally, intercontinental missiles to deliver them.

Iran doesn’t need intercontinental missiles to reach Israel, which is closer to Iran than St. Louis is to Boston. Send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.

We can only hope that, somewhere among the many Republican candidates, there is someone who can, as president, make the hard decisions and take the hard steps required to undo the utter disaster that looms ahead, as a result of Barack Obama’s feckless foreign policies.

If ever there was a time to carefully sift through all the aspiring Republican candidates, in hopes of finding just one who might be up to the superhuman task ahead, in order to head off a nuclear catastrophe, this is surely the time to look for a solid, wise, and steadfast leader.

A shoot-from-the-hip, bombastic show-off is the last thing we need or can afford. As for the Democrats, their leading candidate — Hillary Clinton — was one of the architects of the foreign policy disasters that can turn into world-changing catastrophes.

As for the Republican mob scene, it is a challenge just to remember all the names of the candidates. These include many who must know, in their heart of hearts, that they have no real chance of getting the nomination. But, unless they withdraw, the public’s attention may well be fragmented over too many candidates for them to find a truly promising candidate for president.

My own view is that the last thing we need is another great talker with no track record of actually taking responsibility for running a government at any level.

P.J. O'Rourke has some words of wisdom for Democratic voters.
I would like to address myself to the poor, the huddled masses, the wretched refugees teeming to America’s shore, the homeless, the economically, socially, and mentally tempest-tossed. Also, I’d like to address the young, the hip, the progressive, the compassionate, and the caring. I’d like a word with everyone who votes for Democrats.

Democrats hate your guts.

Democrats need your vote and they’ll do anything—no matter how low and degrading—to get it. They hate you the way a whore hates a john.
He sympathizes with them for not wanting to vote for Republicans. He doesn't want to either.
Republican politicians stink. This is because real Republicans don’t go into politics. We have a life. We have families, jobs, responsibilities, and it takes all our time and energy to avoid them and go play golf. We leave politics to our halt, our lame, and our feeble-minded. Republican candidacies are sinecures for members of the GOP who are otherwise useless and/or retired.

Democrats, on the other hand, are brilliant politicians. And I mean that as a vicious slur. Think how we use the word “politics.” Are “office politics” ever a good thing? When somebody “plays politics” to get a promotion, does he or she deserve it? When we call a coworker “a real politician,” is that a compliment?

....Democrats pay a lot of attention to you. They offer you all sorts of trick-or-treat giveaways.

Benefits are the way government is expanded. The more government expansion, the more opportunities for politicians to get power. (Beware of razor blades in the candy apples.)

Democrats offer you regulations to make your life safer from razor blades in candy apples. Regulations expand government with unelected regulatory bodies so that politicians can get power without bothering about your vote.

Democrats hate you now, but wait until they have you fully regulated and aren’t even pretending to lick your Nikes, Birkenstocks, or Manolo Blahniks. (Nikes will be banned for exploitative overseas child labor. Manolo Blaniks will fall victim to a National Campaign to Improve Foot and Toe Health. And Birkenstocks—which never go away—will be found to be in violation of federal biodegradability standards.)

Democrats adore your demographic groups. Democrats are pro-woman, pro-black, pro-Latino, pro-immigrant, pro-LGBT, pro-AFL/CIO, pro-differently abled, pro-unemployed, pro-poor. (And by pro I mean whore.)

Besides prostituting themselves to your demographic groups, Democrats are adhering to the first principle of political elites: Divide and conquer.

The Democratic party is one big family. This means—as those of us from big families know—all of you detest each other. Or you will by the time Democratic matriarchs and patriarchs get done parceling out too little to one group, too much to another, and none to most. (Are you undocumented alien moms and children enjoying your summer internment camp?)

Democrats are particularly infatuated with the demographic group of voters who are poor. Democrats provide many social programs for the poor. If you happen to be poor, you know what these social programs do. They pay you to stay poor.

Democrats favor a higher minimum wage. And they’ll make sure you get a minimum wage. Forever.

Democrats want to give you health care that’s free—and worth it.

Democrats will provide you with more opportunities to get an education and buy a house. A couple hundred thousand dollars of student loan debt and a huge mortgage that’s underwater will keep you poor for sure.

And then Democrats tax the hell out of your beer and cigarettes—two of the few small pleasures available to the poor.

Democrats are tough on business. After all, you might get into business. And make money. And
vote Republican.

Not just Chief Justice John Roberts, but former presidents can also get picked for jury duty.