The Leftists now seeking absolute control have been very shrewd in their effort to destabilize American civilization. By intentionally and methodically discouraging the development of citizens’ personal strength of spirit, they continue to advance their unrestricted power.











Article below from:

June 25, 2009
Not Much Ado About Nothing
By Nancy Coppock

Each individual must make the disciplined, conscious choice to reject what may be the most threatening problem in U.S. culture — the glib acceptance of meaninglessness. “Whatever…” we say, glossing over libraries of volumes of fact and evidence in our headlong rush to dissolve into relaxing nothingness. Constant chattering of inanities by the media has made the American mind a giant Jackson Pollock of disintegrating oblivion.

Discussion of conflicting ideas has become nothing more than a Seinfeld Moment, as exhibited by this now-infamous MSNBC interview. In host Brewer’s meaningless reality, she is at inner peace after being publicly denounced as a slut. “I’m still here,” she proclaims, with the same philosophical vacuity as Michael Dukakis discussing capital punishment. Although our culture is absorbed with emotion, lotus-eating Leftists offer a false intellectual calmness so removed from critical thinking the word ‘is’ surpasses the limits of ordinary experience. Lack of emotion, unless ridiculing political opposition, is the hallmark of Leftist intellectual prowess. But without focused emotion there is absence of critical thinking.

While nihilism is a respectable philosophical school, it is best handled by those who actually think. In the hands of those who do not, it is an easy philosophy to practice but deadly to cultural advancement. Even the Republican Party is having trouble becoming a Randian man, an Adam, standing separate from the devolving popular culture. The situation is beyond apathy, as the apathetic at least have an inkling of the ideas they believe cannot be changed.

Slick, deceitful media and politicians easily control a population consumed with a marked ease and nonchalance in knowing nothing. An empty mind is a controlled mind.

Karen Carr, in her book The Banalization of Nihilism, discusses how the mindless consumption of meaninglessness “creates an environment where ideas can be imposed forcibly with little resistance, raw power alone determining intellectual and moral hierarchies.” The mewling response to Obama’s nationalization of banks and the auto industry is evidence of this trend.

The Left’s constant attack on all things traditional has pushed the simple-minded to reject prima facie all things American. Without so much as reading The Bible, the Declaration of Independence, or The Constitution, these sanguine know-nothings dismiss such writing as mythology, fatally flawed, the ramblings of ancient evil men. The Left’s attack has been so successful that the ideals of individualism and responsibility, as applied to traditional American values, are repulsed with the deathly vigor of an organ transplant rejection. By denying ourselves the very values that made the success of our country possible, we intentionally yet inadvertently seem willing to bring about our extinction as a unique people group.

In his essay The End of History?, Francis Fukuyama discusses the idea that it is our personal spirit from which productivity and profit are created. What drives one man to push himself to high levels of productivity and another to sloth? It is the spirit of the individual that determines our value system. Proverbs says, “The spirit of man is a lamp of the Lord, searching the innermost parts of his being.” The truth is that without discipline our inner spirit never develops strength, becoming instead an atrophied muscle.

The Leftists now seeking absolute control have been very shrewd in their effort to destabilize American civilization. By intentionally and methodically discouraging the development of citizens’ personal strength of spirit, they continue to advance their unrestricted power. Like the horse and bridle, for a population of overly trusting empty-minded nihilists, whoever controls their emotions controls their spirit.

To this end Obama speaks dramatic words for the cameras knowing that those watching are experiencing him emotionally, not rationally. His speeches implant dreamy ideas in the minds of viewers incapable of hearing the menace behind the dream. The yawning jaws of slavery are waiting to engulf a population of non-thinkers. Only our spiritual reawakening can stop our nation’s willing step into the pit.

Rejecting this mentality requires effort and action. No nation in the history of civilization has willingly exchanged liberty for oppression. This is the greatest test of the American Spirit. Will we find the inner strength to acknowledge our existence as individuals and accept its attendant responsibilities? This is not something a leader can do for us. Each of us must make this conscious decision for ourselves.

This is what the Tea Party movement is about — a public display of the strength of individual spirit. It took the choices of individual men to stand against the British army at Concord Bridge. In my state, it took individuals choosing to cross the line in the sand against the oppressive dictatorship of Santa Anna. I encourage you to make the deliberate decision to join in solidarity and strength of numbers in this movement. We must show the world the resolve and determination of the inner spirit of all men to live in freedom.

Nancy Coppock is the Bryan/College Station Texas Tea Party Organizer and blogs at The Jackalope’s Voice
Page Printed from: at July 31, 2009 – 06:52:32 PM EDT


The Top 10 Myths of American Health Care and the 7 Best Solutions

If you want to grasp this incredibly seminal issue in America read:

Here’s an article about it:

The statists are licking their chops hoping to implement their cures that are worse than the disease (which they caused in the first place), in a way similar to how they exploited the mortgage/credit crisis (which they caused in the first place), except with far more damage to our freedom, incentives and innovation.  

Myth One: Government Health Care Is More Efficient
Myth Two: We’re Spending Too Much on Health Care
Myth Three: Forty-Six Million Americans Can’t Get Health Care
Myth Four: High Drug Prices Drive Up Health Care Costs
Myth Five: Importing Drugs Would Reduce Health Care Costs
Myth Six: Universal Coverage Can Be Achieved by Forcing Everyone to Buy Insurance
Myth Seven: Government Prevention Programs Reduce Health Care Costs
Myth Eight: We Need More Government to Insure Poor Americans
Myth Nine: Health Information Technology Is a Silver Bullet for Reducing Costs
Myth Ten: Government-Run Health Care Systems in Other Countries are Better and Cheaper than America’s

7 Solutions which Obamacare mostly refuses to propose:

Change the Tax Code
Reduce costly government mandates and regulations
Allow the purchase of insurance across state lines
Expand Health Savings Accounts
Support retail health clinics
Implement tort reform
Provide vouchers for the working poor and chronically uninsured

The collapse of the stimulus can be taken as representative of Obama’s policies, past, present, and future. The stimulus shares one major element with every other program this administration has come up with: they have all been tried before, and they have all failed.


July 30, 2009

Obama Fails

By J.R. Dunn

Over the past couple of weeks, it has become apparent even to politicians and the media that the Demented Spree Act of 2009, better known perhaps as the “Obama Stimulus”, has not worked, and shows no sign of ever working.

Unemployment — the professed reason for the stimulus in the first place — is now at 9.5% and will break 10% within the next few months. Credit remains tight and industry is still fumbling. It is clear that there are no shortcuts back to a steady prosperity, that this recession will be overcome in the exact way such disasters always have been — by working our way out of it. The $787 billion (“real money”, as Everett Dirksen would have put it), already spent, being spent, and to be spent, can be considered as so much waste paper.

The interesting thing about this is the reaction of our media and political elites — or rather, the lack of reaction. They’re behaving as if flushing away three-quarters of a trillion dollars is trivial. The failure of the greatest act of financial pump-priming in history has elicited no more than a collective shrug. Cognitive dissonance doesn’t come more obtuse than this. Our great opinion leaders have stumbled over a huge pile of facts having serious bearing on O’s future prospects and rather than pausing to take a look have instead gotten to their feet, brushed themselves off, and hurried away exactly as if nothing happened. The pretense appears to be that the fate of the stimulus has nothing at all to do with the rest of Obamus Maximus’s policies.

Of course it does. The collapse of the stimulus can be taken as representative of Obama’s policies, past, present, and future. The stimulus shares one major element with every other program this administration has come up with: they have all been tried before, and they have all failed.

First up is health care. We’re constantly reminded that the U.S. is the only industrialized nation lacking a national health-care system, without anyone going on to add how lucky we are. Health care systems of the exact type promised by Daddy Obama are omnipresent all across the world, their records open for our edification and enlightenment. A close look at only the Mother Country will suffice.

Here’s what a search on “UK NHS” a few weeks ago came up with: a maggot infestation at the Royal Children’s Hospital (the staff assured parents there was nothing to worry about). A sick woman who grew so tired of lying in filth that she got up out of her hospital bed and cleaned the room herself, dragging her IV behind her (The nurses, she reported, “let her get on with it.”) The two emergency medical techs arrested for letting a patient die while they stood around and cracked jokes. The fact that the UK has once again achieved the highest levels of superbug infestations in the industrialized world (over 32,000 hospital patients die of MRSA alone each year). The so-called “Mental Capacity Act”, under the terms of which a patient unable to communicate is to be considered “due to die”, and denied food and water, the same treatment meted out to Terry Schaivo. Across the UK, families have been rescuing aged relatives declared surplus under the terms of the act.

And last but not least, we encounter Prof. Trevor Sheldon, one of the UK’s leading authorities on health-care policy. In 2007, Professor Sheldon published a study on mortality in British hospitals. According to that study, the NHS kills up to 91,030 patients each year through “avoidable” mishaps. The professor went on to assure readers that these numbers are matched in many other countries, but that’s not quite the case. To equal the UK number, the U.S., with six times the population, would have to suffer 450,000 unnecessary deaths annually.

All in all, this sounds like a system that, if put in place by an occupying enemy power, would be considered a war crime. But it’s the system Obama is wishing on us. Needless to say, none of this has been mentioned in the mass media, for fear of confusing and alarming the public, although it’s finding its way into the debate anyway. My prediction is that nothing like ObamaCare will be passed anytime soon. ObamaCare has already been “delayed” past its original launch date, which in Washington terms usually means it’s dead-on-arrival.

Our next item from the Obama piñata concerns industrial policy, namely the administration’s enthusiastic takeover of industry for the benefit of all. This is one instance where the imputation of fascism is perfectly accurate. This policy, known as “corporatism”, comprised the economic system of fascist Italy. Corporatism was developed at the behest of Mussolini as an answer to the manifest failure of Soviet-style expropriation. It divided Italian industry into easily-run sectors with the state acting as upper management, exactly as the administration is doing for GM, Chrysler, and a large chunk of the financial sector.

And how did this work for Il Duce’s Italy? During the Depression, Italy coped worse than any other nation in Europe. Real wages fell 20%, as did investment, while international trade was cut nearly in half. Per capita private consumption remained below the 1929 level straight into WW II. Corporatism also had a clear impact on the war itself. Italy had one of the largest fleets in the world, with battleships equal to anything on the seas. But they weren’t equipped with either radar or modern fire-control systems — there was no corporative sector for electronics, you see. So the British, using the primitive gun-laying radar of the period, managed to ambush the Italians twice and put much of their fearsome navy at the bottom of the Mediterranean.

The Nazi example is even more entertaining. In the 30s, German aircraft development was nationalized and handed over to Ernst Udet, WW I ace, expert pilot, and complete wacko. Udet became obsessed with dive bombers after seeing a U.S. Navy demonstration team and decreed that all German bombers must be able to dive. This was obeyed with Nazi alacrity and German efficiency. From then on, all bombers were modified according to decree, up to and including a heavy bomber, the He-177 Greif, truly one of the weirdest designs ever — a plane the size of a 757 fitted with dive brakes. The end result was that Germany fought the Battle of Britain with no usable strategic bombers, and failed to defeat the British. Knowing that this meant the war was lost, and aware of his personal responsibility, Udet shot himself in 1941.

Compare this to what occurred in the U.S. at the same time. Henry J. Kaiser, a steel magnate who had scarcely ever set foot on a ship in his life, had the brainstorm of building ships the same way they did cars, using prefab parts on what amounted to an assembly line. The result was the Liberty Ship, a squat, ugly little devil of a freighter that became a legend for shipping every kind of cargo there was to every last corner of the earth. Down in New Orleans, Andrew Higgins offered to build a landing craft for the Marines after a government department screwed the project up. Working from a drawing, Higgins had a prototype ready for tests in less than a month. The LCVP — the “Higgins boat”, became an emblem of victory, the troops racing over its dropped ramp one of the memorable images of the war.

These ideas would never have occurred to any “central planner” and could not have been rammed through the bureaucracy if they had. They were products of the creative chaos that prevails under true capitalism and is its chief, often overlooked virtue. (This, by the way, gives the lie to people John Kenneth Galbraith who contend that “planning” won WW II.) So let’s all wave goodbye to GM while we still have the chance.

Third on the list is the ever-popular topic of liberal foreign policy. Now, anybody who does not understand the shortcomings of appeasement really deserves his own umbrella with “Neville Chamberlain” engraved on the handle. The problem is that I’m not sure that Obama needs a dozen umbrellas. The sole innovation he has made in hail-fellow-well-met foreign policy is that he’s appeasing everybody. And even there, Jimmy Carter may well have surpassed him.

Carter came into office with a lot of appeasing to catch up with, but he managed to bring it off. Within four short years, he saw that the Sandinistas took over Nicaragua, assured that the Shah was overthrown and replaced by elements out of the 12th century, undermined a legitimate democratic election to put Robert Mugabe in control of Zimbabwe, and enabled Russian tanks to find their way to Kabul with no unnecessary holdups or delays. And somewhere in there, he found time to see that no assistance was given to the Vietnamese boat people, so that thousands of them drowned or were murdered by pirates.

Clearly, Obama has quite a challenge ahead of him to match this record. But he’s off to a good start. Today, less than eight months into office, he has Kim shooting off missiles with the intensity of a meth addict, the Iranian mullahs all but publicly marking targets in Israel, and Chavez grunting insults on Venezuelan TV while Danny Ortega (one of Jimmy’s little friends), threatens to intervene in an internal political crisis in Honduras. If he keeps this up, Obama may very well take the appeasement cup from Jimmy, leaving himself plenty of time to give Indonesia back to the Hobbits.

So what does this tell us about Obama? For the AT readership, it speaks above all to the phenomenon of conservative despair. Since last November conservatives have been in a complete funk over Obama and his intentions for the country. It’s as if they believed in Obama’s messiahhood to an even greater extent than the followers who believed Obama was the One, the Alpha and the Omega. Problems simply solve themselves in his presence. The oceans stop rising. Cracked glasses are made whole again. Henry Louis Gates overcomes writer’s block. Obama could not fail — Obamacare, the Obama Recovery, the Obama Century were in the bag. America as we knew it was doomed.

Among our Northeast Exquisites, this attitude has led to direct collaboration. In the heartland, it has given rise to desperation and feverish hunts for will-of-the-wisp “solutions” such as the birth certificate. (As an aside, amid all the uproar I can’t help but notice that nobody has produced a birth certificate from Nairobi.)

That there is now no justification for this goes without saying. But as the record shows clearly enough, there has never been any justification for it. Obama cannot make it work. Here is a man whose entire basis of belief and action was that he was living outside of history, not subject to its lessons or limitations. He is now, as my old granddad used to say, getting a rude awakening, learning what truly capable presidents ranging from Lincoln to Truman to, yes, even the despised George W. Bush, knew at the beginning: that the limitations entwining a president are not less than those of the man in the street, they are greater. Very few things are possible to a president, and even those few must be handled with infinite care and attention to detail. Even if Obama learns this lesson, he is learning it very late. So there will be no social revolution, no left-wing Rapture, no Promised Land. The Red Sea has been bid to part, and the waters have stayed right where they were. Obama is no Moses; he is simply another example of liberalism’s long, miserable decline.

About a year ago I wrote on this site that Obama’s chief characteristic was his flakiness, and that come what may, that would eventually be clearly seen. Well, behold his flakehood made manifest, and a superhuman and preternatural flakiness it is too. Obama may yet prove to be one of the most remarkable presidents of the emerging millennium. Despite himself, he may well be the president who discredits the liberal brand for good and all.

© American Thinker 2009

ObamaCare is a sick joke


Return to the Article

July 22, 2009
ObamaCare is a sick joke
By Jason Lee

As The New York Post has aptly pointed out, ObamaCare is a sick joke. Here are some facts that refuse to be ignored…

By 52 percent to 40 percent, voters are opposed to the healthcare bill introduced on July 14 to the House of Representatives.
Independents now oppose ObamaCare by a ratio of almost 2:1.
The World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients’ needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors. Among those currently insured, 84% are satisfied with their healthcare. But if you’re happy, don’t get too comfortable: ObamaCare will force people to change their insurance.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that the bill proposed by House Democrats would increase the federal deficit by $239 billion.
Team Obama says the CBO has failed to account for plans to reduce waste and cut services. Unfortunately, reducing waste would account for only about 1% of ObamaCare “savings.” Any other potential savings would have to come from reductions in patient care services.
In its “keep the plan deficit-neutral” charade, the Obama Administration indicates that it is counting on reductions in patient care in the form of cuts to the Medicare health program for the elderly. However, the American Medical Association, in its controversial letter of support for the Democrats’ plan, thanks House leaders for repealing $230 billion of Medicare cuts.
Team Obama is also counting on savings from prevention initiatives. Legislation pushed by Senate Democrats mentions “prevention” repeatedly. But as the CBO has repeatedly pointed out, prevention doesn’t generally save money.
Obama tells us he wants a public plan comparable to the Federal Employees’ Health Benefits Plan Congress enjoys. This notion is a farce. Congress has a high-choice cafeteria plan that is indeed paid for by the public, but it is not run by the government.
Congress enjoys very special perks the rest of us can only dream about. There is an attending physician on call exclusively for members of Congress, and Congress enjoys VIP access and admission to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Bethesda Naval Medical Center. Is Congress going to provide us with VIP treatment?
ObamaCare will implement an oppressive health care bureaucracy with eye-popping complexity that would make Rube Goldberg’s head spin.
When Obama was in pre-election campaign mode, he made some reasonable statements about healthcare. He wanted you to keep your insurance if you were happy with it. He told us that government-run healthcare with higher taxes was a bad idea. And he didn’t think anyone should be forced to purchase insurance. Only the most naive among us believed Obama’s sweet little promises, but at least they sounded nice.

The halcyon days of the 2008 campaign are long gone. Elections have consequences – broken promises, for example. But at least we can take comfort in knowing that Obama and friends will have to play by the rules they implement, right?


“Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill.”

Congressman John Fleming has offered a resolution that will give members of Congress “an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.” Fleming’s resolution has over 40 cosponsors- but not a single one of the cosponsors is a Democrat.

Similarly, Obama has flatly refused to participate in the public health insurance program. I can’t blame Obama for wanting the very best health care for his own family, but I can blame him for being a hypocrite.

Americans have lost their appetite for hypocrisy, reckless spending, and the intrusion of incompetent government into every aspect of their lives. Obama is trying to address one of these concerns by promising that he “won’t sign any health-care bill that adds to the deficit”, but it’s apparently too little and too late. Support for ObamaCare is crumbling. Consider some of the most recent observations:

The Washington Post: “Months of relative cooperation among disparate interest groups in the heath-care reform debate appear to be coming to an end…”
Reuters: “Reforming the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare industry is Obama’s signature domestic issue and a major test of his presidency, but he is running out of time…”
CNN: Six key senators – three Democrats, one independent and two moderate Republicans – sent a letter to Senate leaders calling for a slowdown in the push for a health care overhaul, in light of the Congressional Budget Office’s assessment that the Democratic plan currently being considered would not cut medical costs.
WSB: “Last week saw a rollercoaster of events that seemingly gave momentum to the controversial health reform initiative and then saw it slowed down…”
Politico: Jim DeMint apparently smells the possibility of victory. “If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”
The Associated Press: “Could it be that President Barack Obama’s Midas touch is starting to dull a bit, even among members of his own party?”
Obama spent vast quantities of political capital and strained his credibility to the breaking point with the Chicken Little schtick he put on to sell the stimulus package. When it comes to healthcare, perhaps the sky is falling, but Americans don’t seem to be listening anymore.

Obama’s popularity is sagging, the tone is changing, and even his cheerleaders are losing enthusiasm. “What’s in it for you? Pain and discipline!”, they exclaim. “Who knew we were electing a national mother-in-law?”

When Obama took the White House, giving Democrats solid control of Washington, government-dominated healthcare seemed to be an inevitability. Now the picture isn’t so clear. Conservatives have many reasons to be optimistic about their opportunity to defeat ObamaCare.

Page Printed from: at July 23, 2009 – 07:05:03 PM EDT

Up from liberalism

Up from liberalism
July 23, 2009 Posted by Scott at 7:10 AM

In some ways William Buckley’s Up From Liberalism (1959) is a dated book, but Richard Brookhiser quotes the book’s timely penultimate paragraph:

I will not willingly cede more power to anyone, not to the state, not to General Motors, not to the CIO. I will hoard my power like a miser, resisting every effort to drain it away from me. I will then use my power, as I see fit. I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yestereday at the voting booth.

Brookhiser adds: “All we would have to change is that General Motors is the state.”

In the concluding section of the book, Buckley makes other still timely observations, such as this one:

The tendencies of liberalism are every day more visibly coercive, as the social planners seek more and more brazenly to impose their preferences upon us. Here, I believe, is a practical distinction at which conservatives should hammer hard–the distinction between the kind of welfarism that turns dollars over to people, and that which turns services over to them. The former kind is embodied in legislation such as social security, unemployment compensation and old age assistance. The latter in federal aid to education, to housing, to rural electrification, small business,etc.; and the proposed “insurance” programs, e.g., health, accident, etc.

Why the distinction? Among other points, Buckley notes that in making money grants “the government is prevented from taking active control of industries or social services, or from having the deciding hand in the creation or development of social institutions.”

“I judge this to be significant,” Buckley adds, “because as long as one is free to spend the money with reference to one’s desires, the government’s control is at least once removed.”

Not done yet, Buckley arrives at the lesson for today: “And then at the tactical level, the longer one can hold off or slow down such grandiose ambitions of the welfarists as free health services…the more difficult it will be for the government to establish such enterprises.”

Americans Are Beginning to Understand the Left

Americans Are Beginning to Understand the Left
Dennis Prager
Tuesday, July 21, 2009

There is only one good thing about the Obama administration’s attempts to nationalize most health care and to begin to control Americans’ energy consumption through cap-and-trade: clarity about the left. These attempts are enabling more and more Americans to understand the thinking and therefore the danger of the left.

The left has its first president — with the possible exception of Franklin Delano Roosevelt — and for the first time controls the Democratic Party and both houses of Congress. In the name of compassion for the sick and the poor and in the name of preventing worldwide environmental catastrophe, it is attempting to remake America.

In so doing some principles of the left are becoming clearer to more Americans:

Principle One: The left, as distinct from traditional liberals, is not, and has never been, interested in creating wealth. The left is no more interested in creating wealth than Christians are in creating Muslims or Muslims in creating Christians. The left is interested in redistributing wealth, not creating it. The left spends the wealth that private enterprise and entrepreneurial risk-taking individuals create.

The left does not perceive that poverty is the human norm and therefore asks, “Why is there poverty?” instead of asking the economic question that matters: Why is there wealth? And the obvious result of the left’s disinterest in why wealth is created is that the left does not know how to create it.

Principle Two: The reason the left asks why there is poverty instead of why there is wealth is that the left’s preoccupying ideal is equality — not economic growth. And those who are preoccupied with equality are more troubled by wealth than by poverty. Ask almost anyone on the left — not a liberal, but a leftist like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi — which society they consider more desirable, a society in which all its members were equally lower middle class or one in which some were poor, most were middle class, and some were rich (i.e., America today). And whatever they say, in their hearts, the further left they are the more they would prefer the egalitarian society.

Principle Three: The left everywhere seeks to make as big and powerful a state as possible. It does so because only the state can redistribute society’s wealth. And because only a strong and powerful state can impose values on society. The idea of small government, the American ideal since its inception, is the antithesis of the left’s ideal.

The cap-and-trade bill’s control of American energy and the “ObamaCare” takeover of American health care will mean an unprecedented expansion of the state. Added to increased taxes and the individual becomes less and less significant as the state looms ever larger. Americans will be left to decide little more than what they do with vacation time — just as Western Europeans do. Other questions are largely left to the state.

Principle Four: The left imposes its values on others whenever possible and to the extent possible. That is why virtually every totalitarian regime in the 20th century was left-wing. Inherent to all left-wing thought is a totalitarian temptation. People on the left know that not only are their values morally superior to conservative values, but that they themselves are morally superior to conservatives. Thus, for example, the former head of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean, could say in all seriousness, “In contradistinction to the Republicans, we don’t think children ought to go to bed hungry at night.”

Therefore, the morally superior have the right, indeed the duty, to impose their values on the rest of us: what light bulbs we use, what cars we drive, what we may ask a prospective employee, how we may discipline our children, and, of course, how much of our earnings we may keep.

It is dishonest to argue that the right wants to impose its values to anywhere near the extent the left does. This can be demonstrated to a fifth-grader: Who wants more power — those who want to govern a big state or those who want to govern a small state?

The president of the United States and the much of the Democratic Party embody these left-wing principles. Right now, America’s only hope of staying American rather than becoming European lies in making these principles as clear as possible to as many Americans as possible. The left is so giddy with power right now, we actually have a chance.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

We’re only in the early stages of the liberal suicide march, but there already have been three phases.


Published: July 20, 2009

“It was interesting to watch the Republican Party lose touch with America. You had a party led by conservative Southerners who neither understood nor sympathized with moderates or representatives from swing districts.

They brought in pollsters to their party conferences to persuade their members that the country was fervently behind them. They were supported by their interest groups and cheered on by their activists and the partisan press. They spent federal money in an effort to buy support but ended up disgusting the country instead.

It’s not that interesting to watch the Democrats lose touch with America. That’s because the plotline is exactly the same. The party is led by insular liberals from big cities and the coasts, who neither understand nor sympathize with moderates. They have their own cherry-picking pollsters, their own media and activist cocoon, their own plans to lavishly spend borrowed money to buy votes.

This ideological overreach won’t be any more successful than the last one. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Monday confirms what other polls have found. Most Americans love Barack Obama personally, but support for Democratic policies is already sliding fast.

Approval of Obama’s handling of health care, for example, has slid from 57 percent to 49 percent since April. Disapproval has risen from 29 percent to 44 percent. As recently as June, voters earning more than $50,000 preferred Obama to the Republicans on health care by a 21-point margin. Now those voters are evenly split.

Most independents now disapprove of Obama’s health care strategy. In March, only 32 percent of Americans thought Obama was an old-style, tax-and-spend liberal. Now 43 percent do.

We’re only in the early stages of the liberal suicide march, but there already have been three phases. First, there was the stimulus package. You would have thought that a stimulus package would be designed to fight unemployment and stimulate the economy during a recession. But Congressional Democrats used it as a pretext to pay for $787 billion worth of pet programs with borrowed money. Only 11 percent of the money will be spent by the end of the fiscal year — a triumph of ideology over pragmatism.

Then there is the budget. Instead of allaying moderate anxieties about the deficits, the budget is expected to increase the government debt by $11 trillion between 2009 and 2019.

Finally, there is health care. Every cliché Ann Coulter throws at the Democrats is gloriously fulfilled by the Democratic health care bills. The bills do almost nothing to control health care inflation. They are modeled on the Massachusetts health reform law that is currently coming apart at the seams precisely because it doesn’t control costs. They do little to reward efficient providers and reform inefficient ones.

The House bill adds $239 billion to the federal deficit during the first 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It would pummel small businesses with an 8 percent payroll penalty. It would jack America’s top tax rate above those in Italy and France. Top earners in New York and California would be giving more than 55 percent of earnings to one government entity or another.

Nancy Pelosi has lower approval ratings than Dick Cheney and far lower approval ratings than Sarah Palin. And yet Democrats have allowed her policy values to carry the day — this in an era in which independents dominate the electoral landscape.

Who’s going to stop this leftward surge? Months ago, it seemed as if Obama would lead a center-left coalition. Instead, he has deferred to the Old Bulls on Capitol Hill on issue after issue.

Machiavelli said a leader should be feared as well as loved. Obama is loved by the Democratic chairmen, but he is not feared. On health care, Obama has emphasized cost control. The chairmen flouted his priorities because they don’t fear him. On cap and trade, Obama campaigned against giving away pollution offsets. The chairmen wrote their bill to do precisely that because they don’t fear him. On taxes, Obama promised that top tax rates would not go above Clinton-era levels. The chairmen flouted that promise because they don’t fear him.

Last week, the administration announced a proposal to take Medicare spending decisions away from Congress and lodge the power with technocrats in the executive branch. It’s a good idea, and it might lead to real cost savings. But there’s no reason to think that it will be incorporated into the final law. The chairmen will never surrender power to an administration they can override.

That leaves matters in the hands of the Blue Dog Democrats. These brave moderates are trying to restrain the fiscal explosion. But moderates inherently lack seniority (they are from swing districts). They are usually bought off by leadership at the end of the day.”

And so here we are again. Every new majority overinterprets its mandate. We’ve been here before. We’ll be here again.
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company Privacy Policy Terms of Service Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map

‘Public Option’: Son of Medicaid Lard atop lard that only a politician or bureaucrat could love.


In his speech on health care to the American Medical Association, President Obama explained why the U.S. has “failed” (yet again) to provide comprehensive reform that “covers everyone.” He had a list of the failing people, who “simply couldn’t agree” on reform: doctors, insurance companies, businesses, workers, others. And “if we’re honest,” he said (ergo, disagreeing with this is dishonest) we must add to the list “some interest groups and lobbyists” who have used “fear tactics.”

It seems to me, if we’re honest, that one other contributor to the health-care morass should have been on the president’s list: Congress. Indeed a close reading of Mr. Obama’s speech suggests he holds the political class innocent insofar as he blames everyone else but them. Can this be true?

Back before recorded history, in 1965, Congress erected the nation’s first two monuments to health-care “reform,” Medicaid and Medicare. Medicaid was described at the time as a modest solution to the problem of health care for the poor. It would be run by the states and “monitored” by the federal government.

The reform known as Medicaid is worth our attention now because Mr. Obama is more or less demanding that the nation accept another reform, his “optional” federalized health insurance program. He suggested several times before the AMA that opposition to it will consist of “scare tactics” and “fear mongering.”

Whatever Medicaid’s merits, this federal health-care program more than any other factor has put California and New York on the brink of fiscal catastrophe. I’d even call it scary.

Spending on health and welfare, largely under Medicaid, makes up one-third of California’s budget of some $100 billion. In New York Gov. David Paterson’s budget message, he notes that “New York spends more per capital ($2,283) on Medicaid than any other state in the country.”

After 45 years, the health-care reform called Medicaid has crushed state budgets. A study by the National Governors Association said a decade ago that because of “new requirements” imposed by federal law — meaning Congress — “Medicaid has evolved into a program whose size, cost and significance are far beyond the original vision of its creators.”

In his speeches, Mr. Obama makes the original vision of his “public option” insurance plan sound about as simple as driving through toll booths with an electronic pass on your windshield. It’s going to be all about “best practices” with patients “reimbursed in a thoughtful way,” as if the federal government is about to become just another big Google.

Medicaid is a morass. Since the program’s inception, Congress has loaded it up every few years with more notions of what to cover, shifting about 43% of the ever-upward cost onto someone else’s tab, mainly the states. A 1988 congressional mandate requires local schools to pay for schooling and related services for disabled children, but because Congress underfunds its mandates, the states pay the rest through Medicaid.

The list of add-ons is endless, and there’s little about it that is thoughtful. Why shouldn’t one think that, as with Medicare and Medicaid, the Obama Public Option in time will become an impossible fog for patients to navigate? But unto eternity the program’s administrative complexity will provide work for bureaucrats, Members of Congress, their staffs, lobbyist spouses and the “health-care” establishment of foundations and economists.

Oh, and the courts. The fact that this is a public program ensures not just congressional meddling but also makes it vulnerable to litigation. Over time, the Sotomayors of the federal bench will make it bigger. One piece of California’s incredible budget mess flows from a federal judge’s 2006 decision to seize control of the state’s prison-health system and make the state pay billions for new health spending imagined by his appointed federal overseer.

Medicaid alone didn’t put California and New York on the brink. Add in spending on public education and you’ve accounted for about 60% of their budgets. This drives the deficits and gets all the ink, but not least among the casualties of bigness is the idea of governance.

The elected legislatures of California, which holds 36.7 million American citizens, and New York, with 20 million, are essentially falling apart as governing bodies. The whole country has witnessed the spectacle of the comic “coup” in New York’s Senate in Albany the past two weeks.

With collapse comes a truth: The bigger the government, the smaller the politicians. As mandated entitlements grow, the spending “crowds out” the need or obligation to think or to govern. Legislators with nothing very real to do become lazy, slack and corrupt. They become Albany. Or Sacramento. Or Trenton.

Mr. Obama’s plan is intended to “guarantee” health insurance for all. Whatever the truth of that, its outlays — larded atop Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security — guarantee that Congress will become more like the states’ clown shows. But they are expensive clowns.

In his speech, Mr. Obama said the cost of the Public Option won’t add to the deficit: “I’ve set down a rule for my staff, for my team — and I’ve said this to Congress — health-care reform must be, and will be, deficit-neutral in the next decade.” If we’re honest, that means tax increases are inevitable. Sounds scary to me.

Write to

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A15
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

A Health ‘Reform’ To Regret

A Health ‘Reform’ To Regret

By George F. Will
Sunday, June 28, 2009

“In the beginning,” says a character in a Peter De Vries novel, “the earth was without form and void. Why didn’t they leave well enough alone?” When Washington is finished improving health care, Americans may be asking the same thing. Certainly the debate will compel them to think more clearly about this subject.

Most Americans do want different health care: They want 2009 medicine at 1960 prices. Americans spent much less on health care in 1960 (5 percent of gross domestic product as opposed to 18 percent now). They also spent much less — nothing, in fact — on computers, cellphones, and cable and satellite television.

Your next car can cost less if you forgo GPS, satellite radio, antilock brakes, power steering, power windows and air conditioning. You can shop for such a car at your local Studebaker, Hudson, Nash, Packard and DeSoto dealers.

The president says that his health plan is responsive “to all those families who now spend more on health care than housing or food.” Well. The Hudson Institute’s Betsy McCaughey, writing in the American Spectator, says that in 1960 the average American household spent 53 percent of its disposable income on food, housing, energy and health care. Today the portion of income consumed by those four has barely changed — 55 percent. But the health-care component has increased while the other three combined have decreased. This is partly because as societies become richer, they spend more on health care — and symphonies, universities, museums, etc.

It is also because health care is increasingly competent. When the first baby boomers, whose aging is driving health-care spending, were born in 1946, many American hospitals’ principal expense was clean linen. This was long before MRIs, CAT scans and the rest of the diagnostic and therapeutic arsenal that modern medicine deploys.

In a survey released in April by National Public Radio, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard, only 6 percent of Americans said that they were willing to spend more than $200 a month on health care, and the price must fall to $100 a month before a majority are willing to pay it. But according to Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute, Americans already are paying an average of $400 a month.

Most Americans do not know this because the cost of their care is hidden. Only 9 percent buy health coverage individually, and $84 of every $100 spent on health care is spent by someone (an employer, insurance company or government) other than recipients of the care. Those who get insurance as untaxed compensation from employers have no occasion to compute or confront the size of that benefit. But it is part of the price their employers pay for their work.

The president says that the health-care market “has not worked perfectly.” Indeed. Only God, supposedly, and Wrigley Field, actually, are perfect. Anyway, given the heavy presence of government dollars (46 percent of health-care dollars) and regulations, the market, such as it is, is hardly free to work.

As market enthusiasts, conservatives should stop warning that the president’s reforms will result in health-care “rationing.” Every product, from a jelly doughnut to a jumbo jet, is rationed — by price or by politics. The conservative’s task is to explain why price is preferable. The answer is that prices produce a rational allocation of scarce resources.

Regarding reform, conservatives are accused of being a party of “no.” Fine. That is an indispensable word in politics because most new ideas are false and mischievous. Furthermore, the First Amendment’s lovely first five words (“Congress shall make no law”) set the negative tone of the Bill of Rights, which is a list of government behaviors, from establishing religion to conducting unreasonable searches, to which the Constitution says: No.

The president may have been too clever when he decided, during an economic crisis that was sending federal expenditures soaring and revenue plummeting, to push the entire liberal agenda on the premise that every item on it is essential to combating the crisis.

Now the health-care debate is coming to a boil just as public anxiety about the deficit is, too. As cost estimates pass the $1 trillion mark, the administration is reduced to talking about financing its reforms with mini-measures such as a 3-cent tax on sugary sodas. The public, its attention riveted by the fiscal train wreck of trillion-dollar deficits for the foreseeable future, may be coming to the conclusion that we should leave bad enough alone.

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

© 2009 The Washington Post Company

Call The Senate to Prevent the Cap And Trade Fiasco

Please don’t take this laying down. Call the Senators below to oppose this bill, HR 2454.

“Masquerading as an instrument of environmental salvation, the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill will result in one of the largest seizures of wealth in human history. The legislation will wreak havoc on American manufacturing and industry, and coerce the conformity of an already economically squeezed populace.  The bill is a transparent power grab, based on a fictional crisis-the left’s ever-dependable threat of global warming.”

Barbara Boxer, California, Chairwoman (202) 224-3553 / (916) 448-2787
Max Baucus, Montana 202) 224-2651 / (406) 657-6790
Tom Carper, Delaware (202) 224-2441/ (302) 856-7690
Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey (202) 224-3224/ (973) 639-8700
Ben Cardin, Maryland (202) 224-4524/410-962-4436,
Bernie Sanders, Vermont[1] (202) 224-5141/802-862-0697
Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota (202) 224-3244 / 612-727-5220
Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island (202) 224-2921 / 401-453-5294
Tom Udall, New Mexico (202) 224-6621/ (505) 346- 6791
Jeff Merkley, Oregon (202) 224-3753/ (503)-326-3386
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York (202) 224-4451/ (212) 688-6262
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania (202) 224-4254/ (215) 597-7200

Here’s the abominable bill:

Cap Taxes, Trade Congress

July 07, 2009
Cap Taxes, Trade Congress
By Kyle-Anne Shiver

I’m all for cap ‘n trade; it’s a nifty idea. Simply splendid. Positively stupendous. Brilliant beyond brilliant.

I just have a different take on the whole notion. I prefer very stringent caps on taxes and spending, coupled with a 2010 trade-in of the entire U.S. Congress.

What in holy tarnation do those people think they’re getting paid to do?

While these Roman throwbacks attempt to save the planet, pagan style, so they can set up their Darwinian nirvana on earth, the rest of us have enough sense not to try to make the state our church.

While we, in the other America, use reason to guide our decisions, Nancy Pelosi actually seems to think she’s the reincarnation of some pagan goddess on a mission to save the planet. She’s in the service of a president she says was sent to us at this time by God, a god who she apparently likens to Zeus. If she were referring to the real, one, eternal, all-powerful God, she would know that stealing the liberties of Americans under utterly false pretences are two of the real God’s Big No-nos, and would have enough fear and trembling to stay clear of this pure abomination: Waxman-Markey.

But no, no, no, Imperious Nancy serves the climate gods and their chief priest, Al Gore.

Shortly after she took over as Speaker of the House, Imperious Nancy presided over passage of an energy bill, that was itself pure abomination. Tucked into the fine print was the liberty-stealing tribute to the climate gods, the phasing out of the 125 year-old incandescent light bulb. This little tidbit from the Business and Media Institute’s analysis:

The Financial Post reported in April that a broken CFL bulb cost a Maine woman more than $2,000 to clean when the state Department of Environmental Protection referred her to a cleanup company. At $5 in energy savings per bulb per month (as Davidson reported), one broken bulb could eat up 33 years’ worth of savings!

Why all the fuss over a single broken light bulb? It’s the poisonous mercury inside, a substance all reasonable people — who read their 4th grade science books — know full well is dangerous to people and their pets. But Imperious Nancy, purchaser of at least one too many face lifts, was too busy redecorating her new office, converting the House cafeteria to organic health food, ordering flower bouquets and flying back and forth to San Francisco on government private jets to bother with real science.

Judging from the looks of Henry Waxman, it’s doubtful that plastic surgery has had any ill-effects upon his brain. Waxman’s senses have no doubt fallen victim to 34 straight years in the United States Congress. Having been serially elected by nincompoops from now-broke California, Waxman has been held to the accountability of a slug. But, as all wise Americans know, elections do have consequences and this entire Nation is about to reap the bad seeds sown for 3-1/2 decades by those witless Californians.

As if to underscore his own pagan godhood, Henry Waxman sat in a committee hearing in May and declared to the people of these United States that he didn’t even know what was in his own bill.

“Well, I certainly don’t claim to know everything that’s in this bill. I know that we left it to, that we relied very heavily on the scientists, the IPCC and others, and the consensus that they have that there is a problem of Global Warming, that’s having an impact and that uh that we need to try to reduce it by the amounts that they think we need to achieve in order to avoid some of the consequences. That’s what I know, but I don’t know the details.”

If this guy were a Republican, that admission would have evoked a media frenzy the likes of which haven’t been seen since Butterfield dropped the Nixon-tape bomb in the Watergate Hearings.

Never, in all my born days, would I have believed that a bunch of so-called public servants in this grand republic would have the unmitigated gall to pass thousand-page bills, with enormous ramifications for every man, woman and child in America – without even so much as reading them.

These Democrat legislators are the very same folks, who decried with vociferous vengeance, mortgage contracts that were not fully spelled out and easily decipherable by a 2nd grader. Yet, they shamelessly proffer bills, with far more intricacies than any mortgage contract, for instant passage. They might as well declare that a cabal of lobbyists wrote their legislation.

While other western countries are dumping this fraudulent Global Warming scam as fast as they can, in an attempt to undo the grievous economic harm done by their own versions of Cap ‘n Trade, our Congress jumps on the climate-god bandwagon with pious pretense and brains of pure mush. Meanwhile, New England has just reported the coldest June on record, while the Global Warming hoax is revealed as a pile of pure poppycock by more real scientists every single day. This Congress and their pagan-god delusions have got to go.

Has ever a more witless group reigned from on high in such vainglorious fashion?

A simple question for us in this summer of our discontent: Which is the largest special interest group in this whole Country, with absolutely no representation in the United States Congress?

If you answered, “the American taxpayer,” and you are one, then you know what must be done.

That’s right.

All together now:

Throw all the bums out?

Yes, we can!

Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at

Page Printed from: at July 08, 2009 – 06:34:09 PM EDT

Cap and Trade: The Big Con

July 03, 2009
Cap and Trade: The Big Con
By John Griffing

Masquerading as an instrument of environmental salvation, the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill will result in one of the largest seizures of wealth in human history. The legislation will wreak havoc on American manufacturing and industry, and coerce the conformity of an already economically squeezed populace.  The bill is a transparent power grab, based on a fictional crisis-the left’s ever-dependable threat of global warming.
But global warming is finally coming under the scrutiny it deserves.  Not only are NASA satellites showing a cooling trend, but 700 scientists-to the UN’s 50-have come out in opposition to the patently false claims of the global warming lobby.

Most damning, Harvard meteorologists have been unable to replicate the findings of the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) without the use of a technique called “data-padding.”[1]  The IPCC actually admitted to engaging in this deceptive practice.  Without this padding, the infamous warming trend falls by several degrees.  In essence, the IPCC and its primary source manipulated data (dare we say “lied”?) to produce a desired result.
If global warming is a scientific hoax, a fact that now seems incontrovertible, then why have President Obama and Congress advanced such drastic and costly legislation to address this nonexistent crisis?  One might conclude that HR 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act, exists for no other purpose than to destroy the American economy as we know it and bring it all under government control.
It’s not like we don’t know any better.  We’ve been through something like this before, narrowly escaping the Kyoto Protocol’s threats to US security.  In its non-partisan report to study the implications of implementing Kyoto, the US Environmental Information Agency predicted a loss of between $100-400 billion in US GDP and skyrocketing energy prices. Moreover, the Kyoto Treaty’s effect on our national security due to reductions in military training and operational tempo would have been staggering.

But Kyoto will seem like a walk in the park compared to the Obama plan, which will result in cumulative losses in GDP of an astounding $9.4 trillion.  To put this in perspective, that’s over half current US GDP.  In other words, half our economy.  By 2035, unemployment losses will average 1.1 million peaking at 2.4 million some years.  Families will see energy prices rise $1,200 per year.  Electricity prices will rise 90 percent.  Gasoline will be up 58 percent.
The new policy would establish a carbon-ceiling and levy a devastating “carbon tax” on businesses.  Any emissions over and above the established ceiling would require businesses of all types to trade a finite number of government emission allowances.  Obama describes his program thus:

What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.  I was the first to call for a 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.
Ultimately, the costs to business in the form of emissions-purchases will be passed on to the consumer.  Obama knows this, and has said, “If you say to a power plant, you have to produce energy in a different way, and that costs them money, then they want to pass that cost on to consumers, which means everybody’s electricity prices go up — and that is something that is not very popular.”  This from an individual who thinks energy prices can be controlled through better inflation of tires.

Costs will also translate into across-the-board layoffs, as more and more money will have to be devoted to purchases of emissions permits.  This is because the Obama policy gradually decreases the allowable emissions annually (“ratcheting down”), in effect dictating allowable production for the year, which will have a residual impact on employment.  But don’t worry-“green jobs” will supposedly replace the energy sector as a source of employment.
Cap-and-trade also achieves the age-old Marxist goal of wealth redistribution through the back door.  It does this by creating two classes: those with carbon permits, and those without.  Companies like GE, which has positioned itself to take advantage of a cap-and-trade system, bidding for billions of dollars in federal contracts, will dominate the new America.  On a side note, evidence has surfaced that GE misused its ownership of NBC to catapult Obama into the Presidency for financial gain.  Is it any coincidence that GE execs went to CNBC headquarters to silence criticism of the President’s economic policies?  What’s good for Obama is good for GE.  Is what’s good for GE still good for America?

Cap-and-trade amounts to an artificial constriction of an abundant resource.  Refineries are especially targeted by this bill, which is significant because it was the sweeping reduction in refinery capacity due to onerous environmental regulations and voracious legal lobbies that caused the spike in energy prices during 2008.  Further strain on refineries will be another nail in the coffin of US energy independence.  We should view with suspicion any legislation that attempts to artificially recreate the circumstances of the 2008 gas crisis.
Besides, many of the bill’s provisions are superfluous, since the Clean Air Act has already put America well on the way to being pollution-free without stealth taxes, mandatory technology shifts, or the apocalyptic deindustrialization of the west.  Power plant nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions fell 28 percent from 1998 to 2003.  Eastern coal-fired energy plants saw a drop of 25 percent over the same period.  Power plant sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions fell 31 percent between 1990 and 2003.  The Bush-inspired Clean Air Act requires emissions to be reduced an additional 53 percent by 2010 and 70 percent by 2020.  If clean air is really the goal of the Obama team, they would be wise to leave well enough alone.     

But cap-and-trade is about economic control, not about fixing the environment.  President Obama will proudly destroy an American industry if it serves his ends, something that has gone unnoticed in present cap-and-trade discussions: 
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.
The coal industry employs 80,000 people.  So much for Obama’s reputation for “saving” jobs.
If Obama has his way, manufacturing, refining, chemical, coal, steel, metallurgical, and other energy-driven sectors will come increasingly under government control or be completely replaced by imports.  In the wake of this deindustrialization, people will look to government for provision, an expectation which is at the core of all of Obama’s economic policies.  Obama has “reluctantly” accepted the breathtaking and unprecedented power of managing our nation’s businesses and dictating wages.  Now he wants to control a free nation’s energy consumption.

Cap-and-trade is Marxism clothed in environmental righteousness.  If Obama’s plan goes forward, America will be doomed to economic ruin.  When the President of the United States is appointing czars with impunity and openly bragging about “bankrupting” the coal industry, it’s time to take a step back and evaluate how we got here.  Because of the lightning speed with which Obama is brazenly enacting these destructive policies, he is positioned to do what America’s enemies could only dream of doing.

Americans need to wake up.  If Obama and the Democrats in Congress really want clean air, there already exist laws to achieve it.  But there is one thing that HR 2454 does better than any other piece of legislation: it destroys American economic strength for future generations, capping the American Dream, and trading away prosperity for a scientific hoax. Whatever their real agenda, it is not consistent with the economic well-being of the American people.  Let’s stop treating bald-faced lies like topics for polite discussion.

[1] Willie H. Soon, David R. Legates, and Sallie L. Baliunas, “Estimation and representation of long-term (>40 year) trends of Northern-Hemisphere-gridded surface temperature: A note of caution,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 31, 14 February 2004, 2.

Page Printed from: at July 03, 2009 – 10:14:26 AM EDT

Cap-and-Trade Means Regulate and Subsidize

July 02, 2009
Cap-and-Trade Means Regulate and Subsidize
By Brian Sussman

Last week, prior to voting for the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, House Republican Leader John Boehner spent the better part of an hour reading from the 1201-page bill and the associated 300-page addendum, which had been dumped on Congress’ door at 3:09AM. He did so, he told The Hill, because he believed “people need to know what’s in this pile of s-it.”

Congressman Boehner was correct. There may be no better description of what’s in this phony legislation, designed to supposedly halt global warming.

First, a couple quick facts:

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it’s a fertilizer. It accounts for a feeble .038 percent of the atmosphere. According to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, a research wing of the Department of Energy, only 3.2 percent of that thin atmospheric component is created by anthropogenic emissions.

The earth’s temperature has only risen 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 150 years, and most of that occurred prior to the 1940s. The Thirties was the hottest decade on record, with 22 of the current 50 states having established their all-time high temperatures during that sizzling ten years. There has been no warming of the earth’s climate since 1998, and in the past 18-24 months there has been a slight cooling.

Anthropogenic global warming is a myth, and therefore there is no need for the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. Climate change is simply an excuse for another massive government attempt at control and giveaways.

For example, buried on pages 1014-1016 of the bill is the “Monthly Energy Refund.” According to this plan, for those with a gross income that “does not exceed 150 percent of the poverty line…a direct deposit,” of an undisclosed amount of money, will be sent “into the eligible household’s designated bank account…”

On pages 502-503 we find the “Low Income Community Energy Efficiency Program,” whereby grants will be issued “to increase the flow of capital and benefits to low income communities, minority-owned and woman-owned businesses and entrepreneurs…”

Further proving this is actually a welfare scheme, on page 973 we discover that for workers who lose their manufacturing jobs because the caps on their companies are too repressive, and their employer either has to shut down, or move operations to the Third World to avoid regulation, the “adversely affected worker” shall receive 70 percent of their prior weekly wage, “payable for a period not longer than 156 weeks.” In addition, on pages 986-987 we read the unemployed worker can submit up to $1,500 in job search reimbursements, and get another $1,500 to cover his moving expenses.

And then there are the new federally mandated building codes, which will supersede local rules and regulations. The new codes will be enforced by a green goon squad. On pages 319-324 we read the Secretary of Energy “shall enhance compliance by conducting training and education of builders and other professionals in the jurisdiction concerning the national energy efficiency building code.” These EPA badge-wearing G-Men will be funded both through global warming revenues procured through the cap and trade scheme, as well as by $25 million designated annually from the Department of Energy “to provide necessary enforcement of a national energy efficiency building code…”

Oh, but there’s more of the stinky stuff Mr. Boehner was referring to. A new office will be created at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the government’s primary weather body. If this bill becomes law, NOAA will have a “Climate Service Office,” as described on pages 1083-1087 of the document. This new office will “ensure a continuous level of high-quality data collected through a national observation and monitoring infrastructure…”

Question: shouldn’t NOAA already be doing this? If not, perhaps the idiotic forecasts of gloom and doom from the government’s chief global warming forecaster James Hansen, who supposedly relies on NOAA products for his scare tactics, have been incorrect after all, due to corrupt data?

Anyone can see through this charade — the Climate Service Office will ensure that skeptics and deniers are silenced, and that all research will be controlled and monitored to ensure that global warming is the lie of the land.

In a further effort to perpetrate this fraud, on page 1102 we discover the “Summer Institutes Program and the Regional Climate Center.” According to the bill: “The purpose of the program is to provide training and professional enrichment by providing opportunities for interaction between participants and climate scientists in a research and operational setting to-enable middle school and high school teachers to integrate weather and climate sciences into their curricula: and encourage undergraduate students to pursue further study and careers in weather and climate sciences.”

This is nothing but government sponsored brainwashing, folks.

Thank you Mr. Boehner, for saying it like it is. You, sir, are a great American. Now let’s place pressure on the Senate to keep this sucker bill from passing its stinky gas.

Brian Sussman is a former television meteorologist, turned conservative radio talk host. He is heard nightly on KSFO-560AM in San Francisco (streaming live at between 6 and 8PM Pacific. His upcoming book, “Global Whining: confidence to confront the biggest scam in history” will be published by WND Books.

Page Printed from: at July 02, 2009 – 08:07:06 PM EDT