First, I’d like to wish everyone a happy Guantanamo Bay Closure Day!
Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. …BARACK OBAMATHE WHITE HOUSE,January 22, 2009.
Now, although some may think the heading for this post is overblown, it must be recognized that there is a crisis brewing in Washington over Obama’s treatment of the Christmas Day underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and there are signals that his decision to hold the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York City is in peril.
If the crisis over treating the Detroit terrorist Abdulmutallab as a criminal continues to brew, and the Congress is able to sideline the New York trial of KSM, I predict that credible calls for Obama to resign the presidency will begin to be heard.
These two missteps, if widely disseminated, should be the final straws that break Obama and from which he will never be able to recover politically. No matter which direction Obama pivots after the devastating election in Massachusetts, these two national security missteps show that he has become an ineffective and incompetent leader. And with his incompetence fully exposed- especially on foreign policy and national security issues- he has become a dangerous liability not only for the Democratic Party, but more importantly, for the country as well. This should be unacceptable to a country trying to recover from economic crisis, that is in a war with extremists, and which is being challenged internationally on a every level.
The crisis over giving Abdulmutallab civilian legal rights was exacerbated Wednesday by the congressional testimony of Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence. In that testimony, Blair said that it was a mistake that Abdulmutallah was not held for interrogation by the High Value Interrogation Group, of HIG, an agency created for the express purpose of making decisions about terrorist interrogations. Blair explained that even though the FBI was able to question Abdulmutallah briefly before his surgery on Christmas Day and that it revealed a “a treasure trove of intelligence,” shortly after his surgery, Abdulmutallah was read his Miranda rights and clammed up.
It was also revealed at the same hearing that Blair, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael E. Leiter, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano-the four most important counter-terrorism officials in the country- were not consulted about the charging decision. Essentially the decision to treat Abdulmutallah as a civilian with full legal rights was made on the ground, and many questions have been raised about the Administration’s preparedness on domestic terrorism.
Also, in a Newsweek blog, Michael Isikoff reveals that there is growing consensus in Congress that locating the trial in New York City was a really, really bad idea. Isikoff reports that Republican Senator Lindsay Graham will soon force another vote on his previously failed amendment to strip funding for the trial. Isikoff reports that there is renewed support for the measure in Congress:
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham says he will force another vote on his amendment to stop the trial (which was defeated 54-45 in November) once Congress reconvenes. “With Detroit and everything else going on, we’ve got a pretty good chance of winning this thing,” says Graham, adding that he’s privately heard from a number of Democrats, saying “they’re with me.” GOP Rep. Frank Wolf says he plans a similar move in the House. “I’m afraid it’s probably going to pass,” says Democratic Rep. Jim Moran, who has strongly backed the administration on the issue.
These are epic failures by Obama and his Administration. Add this to his clearly inept handling of Iran, his admitted failure on Middle East peace, and not to mention his falling popularity and stalled domestic agenda, and it is very conceivable that even people within his own party will begin calling for his resignation.
No matter which direction Obama pivots now, I think it is almost impossible for him to reclaim any political ground. If he moves to the center, he loses the far-Left. Why would they support this move before he gets health care? Why should they put their issues on hold in an attempt to save Obama’s presdency and a possible second term? They have the political clout now and can’t get things done.
No, unless they believe him blindly, the Left must demand that Obama moves to the left now, and if he pivots to the center, they will move against him and start clamoring for a third party or support a more progressive candidate in 2012.
Consequently, if Obama moves to the Left, there is a good chance he will be finished altogther. While this may inspire his far-left base to get out in the streets again, it will alienate the moderates and resurgent conservatives even more. They will not give him the cover he sorely needs on his foreign policy and national security incompetence, and he will then appear to be flailing and ineffective on that front.
So, his best move is probably going to the center. Once there, he must hope that his administration’s repeated attacks on Bush and conservatives in order to decimate them are forgotten. He must hope the Tea Party Movement goes away (and it isn’t), and that the electorate forgets his massive failures and lies to date. If “moderates” and conservatives are unwilling to support Obama’s move to the center and he simultaneously loses the far-left, what will be the point of him serving out the next four years? (He is already in danger of losing the far-left anyway, given that he has not repealed some of the most hated of Bush’s anti-terror policies. Discarding the radical domestic agenda now, I think, will put them over the edge.) He will then be unable to garner support for anything he does, and the country will enter a protracted stage of political crisis as its leader will be powerless. And political crises are consistently resolved throughout the world by the main perpetrators of the crisis being forced to step down. Here and now, that would be Barack Obama.
Incidentally, I found a video that sends chills down my spine. And in accordance with my series on the crisis in Honduras, I made a connection that is very unpleasant.
Watch the video below, especially the first 2:20 (especially 1:50-2:18) minutes and you’ll see what I mean. See if you make the same connection I do. Don’t believe you are just paranoid if you do, this documentary was produced by the CBC in the 1980s, and was not funded by the Birchers or any anti-Communist group in America.
Perhaps protracted political crisis in the United States is what Obama wants. If it is, we’re in for a bumpy ride in the coming year.
ORIGINAL REPORT from CONSERVATIVE POLICY NEWS
The general narrative that has emerged from the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference is that it was a failure because no binding agreement on carbon reduction goals was signed. But, despite the predictable assertions by developing and poorer countries, and environmental NGO that the summit was “farcical,” the critique conceals the successful nature of the Accord for climate change activists.
While many of the developing countries did not get the deep emission cuts they sought from the industrialized world, what was agreed to in no way defeats the push for an international policy architecture that advantages developing nations, nor does it curtail the notion that vigorous redistributive efforts, through cap-and-trade, will be employed in the future.
On the contrary, the resulting document, the Copenhagen Accord, marks the first time that the United States has signed on to the idea that a “climate debt” is somehow owed to developing countries by advanced, industrialized ones. This is a remarkable precedent and probably what Obama meant when he said the Accord was “an important first step” before he left the Conference.
Through the Copenhagen Accord, a goal that would redistribute $100 billion a year by 2020 was agreed to by the developing countries. The U.S., the European Union, and Japan also agreed to provide $30 billion in financing to developing countries between 2010 and 2012. In addition the signatories have obligated themselves to “pursue opportunities to use markets to achieve cost-effective mitigation actions.” This is an important development for the United States as the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Bill was passed in U.S. Congress in 2009 and there is a possibility that it may pass the United States Senate in early 2010. In fact, at least one commentator has suggested that the outcome of the so-called “shameful” Copenhagen Accord could be that it boosts the odds for the U.S. Senate to pass a bipartisan cap-and-trade bill.
The passage of cap-and-trade in the United States would be the beginning of a truly global redistributive scheme, that would effectively take money from the American energy consumer and put it in the hands of foreign governments or foreign investors. With cap-and-trade, American consumers may possibly be taxed (through additional costs) every time they turn up the heat, use their air conditioning, drive a car and take a plane. Though China and India would be the main beneficiaries of this policy, anti-American countries in Latin America, notably Lula Da Silva’s Brazil and Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, also stand to benefit from this transfer. Is there any wonder that Chavez railed against the United States and insulted Obama at Copenhagen-he was amongst Marxist friends who believe the West owes them a climate debt.
So, it is important to understand that the narrative of Copenhagen’s “failure” comes from the Left and is diversionary. For, the Copenhagen Accord was really just a patchwork agreement that was meant to ameliorate and gauge the present political environment on climate change and also supplement treaty provisions before the renegotiation of the Kyoto Protocol that expires at the end of 2012. The outlines of Kyoto II has already been agreed to at the Washington summit in 2007 by the way.
For his part, Obama has been given credit for bringing China to heel, and this, it is hoped, will also allow him to effectively advocate for passage of cap-and-trade in the U.S. Senate before 2012. But, the much reported spat between the U.S. and China at Copenhagen, was, in fact pure theatre. For one thing, the U.S. and China had already made an agreement in November that essentially mirrors in full the outcome achieved by the Copenhagen Accord. In a joint statement issued by President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao on November 17 in Beijing, the two leaders agreed on a common approach and a successful outcome in international climate agreements. The joint statement expressly stated:
Regarding the upcoming Copenhagen Conference, both sides agree on the importance of actively furthering the full, effective and sustained implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in accordance with the Bali Action Plan. The United States and China, consistent with their national circumstances, resolve to take significant mitigation actions and recognize the important role that their countries play in promoting a sustainable outcome that will strengthen the world’s ability to combat climate change. The two sides resolve to stand behind these commitments.
In this context both sides believe that, while striving for final legal agreement, an agreed outcome at Copenhagen should, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, include emission reduction targets of developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries. The outcome should also substantially scale up financial assistance to developing countries, promote technology development, dissemination and transfer, pay particular attention to the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable to adapt to climate change, promote steps to preserve and enhance forests, and provide for full transparency with respect to the implementation of mitigation measures and provision of financial, technology and capacity building support.
Although we were told that the rift between the U.S. and China was about transparency, it was not a rift at all, but was an expected application of diplomatic pressure by China and other “emerging economies'” ( India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, and Korea) that would enable them to emit greenhouse gases and continue as a non-annex I countries well beyond Kyoto II. Staying in the classification reserved for developing nations, China and the other “emerging economies” understand that they could then continue to grow their industry while being allowed to apply less stringent reporting on their emissions. While the Copenhagen Accord sets up a framework for these “emerging economies” to report their mitigation efforts to the U.N., it also significant that the three-tiered Kyoto system apparently has remained intact.
Consequently, two significant details in the Accord seem designed to give China and others some wiggle room. Contained in the second annex, it is clearly stated that emission goals for “developing” countries are voluntary. This means that unlike developing countries who can be punished for over-emitting, developing countries will be allowed to stay in Kyoto II even if they fail to meet their goals.
Second, the langauge in the section concerning reporting and mitigation is weak as it allows “international consultations and analysis,” which would help keep track of whether the country is meeting its goals, but is not really an enforcement provision. There is also an escape clause in the agreement that provides the international consultations be designed “to ensure that national sovereignty is respected.” If “domestic imperative” provisions are carried over to Kyoto II, it is difficult to fathom that there will be any rigid international checks on the carbon emissions of countries with “emerging economies.”
However, there is another reason why the developing countries see it as beneficial to keep emitting with operational impunity but remain in the Kyoto regime: Carbon credits.
Essentially, China and India stand to make windfall profits if they are allowed to keep their emissions at or close to present levels. This is because those countries are the main beneficiaries of UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).This mechanism was formally created in 1997 by the Kyoto climate treaty and started operation in 1998. It began with 78 million “credits” (or Certified Emission Reductions, CER, as they are formally known) and grew to 333 million this year with a projection of 1.7 billion by the end of 2012.
Additionally, the global carbon market is one of the hottest items in town. In 2004, it was valued at less than $300 million. But in 2005, the trade really started to soar, ending the year with $10.8 billion-worth of transactions. A year later, in 2006, the “carbon” market had grown to $31 billion. In 2007, again it more than doubled its turnover, to $64 billion. Last year, it did it again, reaching a colossal $126 billion. By 2020, some estimates suggest the annual value of the market will reach $2 trillion.
This is why the renegotiation of Kyoto is a major milestone because at that time, there must be considerable will amongst policy-makers to commit their countries to long-range integration of parts of their national energy economies to a global cap-and-trade system. Although the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme accounts for 73 percent of the market at present, the whole enterprise is underpinned by “project based transactions” comprised mainly of the CDM generated carbon credits. The better positioned a nation is to benefit from the emerging global carbon market at the end of 2012, the more money they can make through the global carbon trading scheme. And presently, China, India and Brazil are positioned to do that in a big way. The chart below shows what countries own the most carbon credits under CDM:
This also explains why governments and investors from the West are chomping at the bit to establish a functioning system of carbon trading: Untold gobs of money can be had from the guilty, browbeaten citizenry of Western nations when prices are increased throughout the system by the taxation and regulation of carbon emissions. If you can pervert the mind of the energy consumer into accepting that they have a “climate debt” you no longer have to guarantee efficient and low-cost energy to them. Instead, if you have a population that believes it does not deserve to be warm in the winter and cool in summer and accepts higher energy prices as they support “development” in poorer countries, you have pulled off the greatest political rip-off of all times.
This is why Christopher Booker has said:
The only really concrete achievement of Copenhagen was to win agreement to the perpetuating of those Kyoto rules that have created this vast industry, which has two main beneficiaries. On one hand are that small number of people in China and India who have learnt how to work this system to their huge advantage. On the other are all those Western entrepreneurs who have piled into what has become the fastest‑growing commodity market in the world…The only tree they were concerned with hugging was the money tree and all the vast political apparatus that now supports it, allowing governments to tax and regulate us into handing over ever more of our money…
I posted this article from a few days ago which reported that test scores from a huge majority of the students in the Detroit Public Schools were essentially the worst in the history of such testing. The article documents the disbelief by some educators that the scores were what could be expected if students had merely guessed at most of the answers.
Although I did not make the connection overtly in the post, my intention was to show that areas suffering under the control of liberal Democrats- and that have been for years in many cases- are utterly dysfunctional in almost every aspect.
In the urban areas of America-and I live in one-the Democratic Party has ruled pretty much unopposed for a long time. Since many of those places have been in a seemingly unstoppable death spiral since the 1960s, perhaps it is time that these people-the Democrats- take some responsibility for the consequences of the bad ideas they like to impose on the rest of us.
Yeah. I know. I’m dreaming.
But, there is cause and effect. And one of the purposes of this blog is to document the effects of bad, left-wing ideas and the nature of their fallout.
It happens all the time, but the liberal advocacy media (LAME, or the entity that used be known as the mainstream press) is incapable of noticing these things for what they are.
Once in a while though, things get so bad that even the LAME has to look into the affairs of the local Democratic Party junta and write what it sees.
It appears that this is happening in Philadelphia, as the Philadelphia Inquirer has had enough of the crime rate there and did some good ol’ fashion gumshoeing about it.
The result is a four-part series that looks into the reasons why “Killadelphia” which has one of the highest violent crime rates in the country, also has one of the worst conviction rates.
The Inquirer inaugurates its series with an editorial called A National Disgrace. It begins:
Often after a heinous murder or a police shooting in Philadelphia, the suspect is found to have a lengthy criminal record or an outstanding warrant for another crime. That prompts many to ask: “Why wasn’t this creep in jail?”
A four-part series that begins in The Inquirer today answers that question. It details a criminal justice system practically built to perpetuate crime, rather than stop it. Thugs go on committing crimes until they escalate into murder.
Police may do a good job of capturing suspects, but after that comes the revolving door. Various breakdowns in the legal system enable thousands of suspects to go free.
What is incredible about this editorial is that the Inquirer not only dismisses the excuses of the City’ s ineffectual liberal Democrat District Attorney, Lynn Abraham, they lay much of the blame at her doorstep. The paper found that the conviction rate for violent crimes in the city was a meager 20 percent. Abraham, who has been the D.A. for eighteen years disputes those numbers. The Inquirer responds:
District Attorney Lynne M. Abraham disputes The Inquirer’s findings regarding the low conviction rate compared with that in other cities. However, Abraham – who has been the DA for 18 years – has failed to keep her own records that could benchmark the office’s results.
Then after listing the many ways that the city’s criminal justice system is failing, the paper finishes by revealing its relief that Abraham’s tenure as D.A. has come to an end.
An overhaul of the court system isn’t easy, since there are so many disconnected parts. But much of the burden for leading the reform could come from the DA’s office.
It’s good for the city that Abraham did not run for reelection and will leave office next month. It will be up to incoming DA Seth Williams to bring real change.
A fresh approach to managing and tracking cases could boost convictions and reduce the number of cases that get dismissed. But broader reforms are also needed to fix a broken system.
A quick review of Abraham’s biography reveals that she is part of a gun regulation group, that she criticized the Catholic Church about the molestation scandals long after they were over, and she was a Pennsylvania delegate to the Democratic National Convention in 2004, where she cast her vote for Kerry, and in 2008 casting her vote for Obama. I would have thought that a person with those kind of progressive credentials would have made her untouchable to the LAME.
Maybe the LAME will start waking up to the fact that most of America’s problems are within its urban areas where the Democratic Party has ruled for a long time. You wonder, though, if they’ll ever get around to asking the obvious questions, like we do here at the intrepid Conservativepolicynews blog.
Some of the comments left by online readers of the Philadelphia Inquirer’s editorial are priceless by the way. I reproduce some of my favorites below for your entertainment.
Societal decay. Acts that people used to be ashamed of, are now celebrated. Kids out of wedlock with multiple fathers seems common and ok today. 14-year old mothers pushing baby carriages is commonplace and not given a second glance. Being a single mothers is normal and bragged about like it should be rewarded. Going to jail seems to be a badge of honor. Having warrants is the norm for some people. Bad credit seems to be acceptable. Drug addiction is a “disease” and is accepted as easily as the common cold. Boys walking around with their butts hanging out of their pants is now normal. Unemployeed men being taken care of by a bevy of naive women is the norm. It just never ends. This once great country, like the Roman Empire eventually did, is falling, and it will be a Third World
Fetus found in gift box,Texas couple charged
SAN JUAN, Texas (AP) – Authorities allege a south Texas couple put an aborted 7-month-old fetus in a gift box under a Christmas tree after trying to flush the remains down a toilet.
Thirty-one-year-old Ruby Lee Medina and 37-year-old Javier Gonzalez are jailed on abuse of corpse and tampering with evidence charges. Bond is set at $20,000 each.
A woman at the San Juan city jail says she can’t say whether either has retained an attorney.
San Juan Police Chief Juan Gonzalez says police found the fetus inside the woman’s trailer home Thursday after an anonymous tip.
Gonzalez says police believe the woman used pills to induce an abortion, then called an ambulance and said she didn’t know where the fetus was.
Gonzalez says the couple first tried to flush the fetus, then cleaned it up and put in the gift box.
Look for more and more articles like this in the future.
The UN panel on climate change warning that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035 is wildly inaccurate, an academic says.
J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.
He is astonished they “misread 2350 as 2035”. The authors deny the claims.
Leading glaciologists say the report has caused confusion and “a catalogue of errors in Himalayan glaciology”.
The Himalayas hold the planet’s largest body of ice outside the polar caps – an estimated 12,000 cubic kilometres of water.
They feed many of the world’s great rivers – the Ganges, the Indus, the Brahmaputra – on which hundreds of millions of people depend.
In its 2007 report, the Nobel Prize-winning Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said: “Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.
It is not plausible that Himalayan glaciers are disappearing completely within the next few decades
World Glacier Monitoring Service
“Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2035,” the report said.
It suggested three quarters of a billion people who depend on glacier melt for water supplies in Asia could be affected.
But Professor Cogley has found a 1996 document by a leading hydrologist, VM Kotlyakov, that mentions 2350 as the year by which there will be massive and precipitate melting of glaciers.
“The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates – its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2350,” Mr Kotlyakov’s report said.
Mr Cogley says it is astonishing that none of the 10 authors of the 2007 IPCC report could spot the error and “misread 2350 as 2035”.
“I do suggest that the glaciological community might consider advising the IPCC about ways to avoid such egregious errors as the 2035 versus 2350 confusion in the future,” says Mr Cogley.
He said the error might also have its origins in a 1999 news report on retreating glaciers in the New Scientist magazine.
The article quoted Syed I Hasnain, the then chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice’s (ICSI) Working group on Himalayan glaciology, as saying that most glaciers in the Himalayan region “will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming”.
Scientists say Himalayan glaciers need more study
When asked how this “error” could have happened, RK Pachauri, the Indian scientist who heads the IPCC, said: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”
The IPCC relied on three documents to arrive at 2035 as the “outer year” for shrinkage of glaciers.
They are: a 2005 World Wide Fund for Nature report on glaciers; a 1996 Unesco document on hydrology; and a 1999 news report in New Scientist.
Incidentally, none of these documents have been reviewed by peer professionals, which is what the IPCC is mandated to be doing.
Murari Lal, a climate expert who was one of the leading authors of the 2007 IPCC report, denied it had its facts wrong about melting Himalayan glaciers.
But he admitted the report relied on non-peer reviewed – or ‘unpublished’ – documents when assessing the status of the glaciers.
Recently India’s Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh released a study on Himalayan glaciers that suggested that they may be not melting as much due to global warming as it is widely feared.
He accused the IPCC of being “alarmist”.
India says the rate of retreat in many glaciers has decreased in recent years
Mr Pachauri dismissed the study as “voodoo science” and said the IPCC was a “sober body” whose work was verified by governments.
But in a joint statement some the world’s leading glaciologists who are also participants to the IPCC have said: “This catalogue of errors in Himalayan glaciology… has caused much confusion that could have been avoided had the norms of scientific publication, including peer review and concentration upon peer-reviewed work, been respected.”
Michael Zemp from the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich also said the IPCC statement on Himalayan glaciers had caused “some major confusion in the media”.
“Under strict consideration of the IPCC rules, it should actually not have been published as it is not based on a sound scientific reference.
“From a present state of knowledge it is not plausible that Himalayan glaciers are disappearing completely within the next few decades. I do not know of any scientific study that does support a complete vanishing of glaciers in the Himalayas within this century.”
Pallava Bagla is science editor for New Delhi Television (NDTV) and author of Destination Moon – India’s quest for Moon, Mars and Beyond.
The Powerline blog reveals that Obama has had to revise history for his Nobel Prize speech. In the speech Obama says:
Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait – a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.
Powerline then points out that there was no such consenus about the exigencies of thwarting Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in the United States Congress in 1991. Vice-President Joe Biden was one of 47 Democrats in the U.S. Senate who voted against sending this “clear message about the cost of aggression.”
The vote in the Senate on the authorization of military force to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, which took place on January 12, 1991, was 52-47. The Democrats controlled the Senate at the time; they voted 45-10 against the “consensus” on “the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait.” John Kerry, Joe Biden and 43 other Democrats voted to let Saddam Hussein keep Kuwait and expand his control over Middle Eastern oil from there, while continuing to develop nuclear weapons–which, we later learned, he would have had by 1992 or 1993, at the latest.
In the House, the story was similar. The vote was 250-183, with a large majority of Democrats voting with Saddam Hussein. Sure, it would be possible to be more pathetic on national security than the Democratic Party, but it wouldn’t be easy. What is interesting about all of this is the Democrats’ need to rewrite history. Can anyone doubt that if Barack Obama had been in the Senate in 1991, he would have joined 45 of his Democratic colleagues in voting for Saddam Hussein’s control over the Middle East? Of course not. Yet today, Obama is forced to pretend that ousting Saddam was a “consensus” decision taken by “the world.” Thus does truth force itself on even the most unwilling auditors.
Oh yeah. And there’s this pleasant little story at Newsreal about the White House serving ACORN cookies to guests at the December 7, 2009 White House Christmas Party.
At the Dec. 7 White House Christmas Party attendees were treated with acorn-shaped chocolate cookies, rubbing the President’s affiliation with the controversial group ACORN in everyone’s faces as though they were punishing a puppy by rubbing its nose in their sh*&.
Now I see where all my confusion comes from. I am trapped in the denial of “the collective pain body” that Oprah and Eckart Tolle explain in the video.
What a fool I have been.
New study: More Democrats than Republicans believe in ghosts, talking with the dead, fortunetellers
No wonder I never got it. And the cool people never invited me to their really serious, cool and slutty Halloween parties.
A new study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reveals some startling differences between Republicans and Democrats on issues of spirituality and supernatural phenomenon.
The study, “Many Americans Mix Multiple Faiths,” reports that a significant number of Americans practice a mixture of religious beliefs, and “many also blend Christianity with Eastern or New Age beliefs such as reincarnation, astrology and the presence of spiritual energy in physical objects.” The report is not specifically about partisan differences, but the results of the study are broken down by party affiliation, among many other categories. And the news on that front is that Democrats are far more likely to believe in supernatural phenomenon than Republicans.
“Conservatives and Republicans report fewer experiences than liberals or Democrats communicating with the dead, seeing ghosts and consulting fortunetellers or psychics,” the Pew study says. For example, 21 percent of Republicans report that they have been in touch with someone who is dead, while 36 percent of Democrats say they have done so. Eleven percent of Republicans say they have seen a ghost, while 21 percent of Democrats say so. And nine percent of Republicans say they have consulted a fortuneteller, while 22 percent of Democrats have.
There’s more. Seventeen percent of Republicans say they believe in reincarnation, while 30 percent of Democrats do. Fourteen percent of Republicans say they believe in astrology, while 31 percent of Democrats do. Fifteen percent of Republicans say they view yoga as a spiritual practice, while 31 percent of Democrats do. Seventeen percent of Republicans say they believe in spiritual energy, while 30 percent of Democrats do.
(Click here for more)