Obamacare Actually To Become Law???

Tonight the supposed "pro-life" Democrats (what an oxymoron) caved and decided to vote for Obamacare. Previously they'd been the only thing standing in Pelosi & Obama's way to passing their health care boondoggle, proving that even the moderate Democrats are out-to-lunch.

Bart Stupak, leader of the pro-life Dem's, claims he got what he wanted: assurance from the White House that abortions would somehow not get funded through this national health care system. He is going to get this via an executive order signed by Obama stating so. How that is satisfying to Stupak is beyond me. An executive order can be overturned by any president, at any time. Or just not even written by Obama. Or written in such a way that it doesn't give pro-lifers what they want.

Or it could be that Stupak's just an idiot. That seems unlikely, but what kind of person sells out on such a core moral issue when offered so very little? And then Stupak makes it worse (for his reelection campaign) by getting behind the bill and promoting it, claiming Democrats are the good guys, here, when Republicans tried to make motions to kill the bill earlier tonight:

"The motion is really a last-ditch effort of 98 years of denying Americans health care. It is the Democrats who have stood up for the principal of no public funding of abortions. It is Democrats through the president's executive order that ensure the sanctity of life is protected."

Does any serious adult believe that Democrats, not Republicans, are the ones who have been protecting life all these years? Fighting abortion? It's the godless liberals, supporters of the Democrat party, that got abortion to be enshrined into law through the court system, and who continue to argue for it today. Religious conservatives are the ones fighting abortion. The GOP is the party that has anti-abortion language written into its platform. The Democrats are the ones who removed it from theirs.

And this idea that Congress has been "denying Americans health care" for 98 years??? Talk about a drama queen. Where is it, exactly, Mr. Stupak, you moron, where it says Congress has the AUTHORITY, much less the mandate, to provide health care for its citizens?? Where is it, exactly, Ms. Pelosi, you communist, in the constitution where it says health care is a RIGHT??

Pelosi and Obama want one thing: Big Government. They want to "re-make" this country into a socialist utopia. They can deny it all they want, but their actions give them away, even if they themselves are too cowardly to stand up for what they really believe. Taking over the health care system is a big step in that direction. And they just convinced the majority of their party to commit political suicide in order to get it.

Statists In Our Midst

The Nanny State just got a lot larger. Businesses, the life force of our economy, will be required to provide health insurance to their employees. Something that businesses began to offer employees as a benefit, as a way to attract good employees, will now be mandated by law: If you run a business, you have to provide health insurance for your employees, or pay a fine. Furthermore, if you're an insurance company, you won't be allowed to exclude pre-existing conditions anymore (which effectively changes the nature of the product you offer, making it unlike actual insurance).

Why? Because when people started depending on their workplace to provide their health insurance, they found they had problems when they wanted to switch jobs, because anything they'd been being treated for would now be a "pre-existing condition" and thus not qualified to be insured. This is Insurance 101. It's not unfair, and it makes perfect sense from the insurance company's perspective.

But the Statist Democrats saw an opportunity to grab an enormous chunk of power, to the tune of 1/6 of the entire economy, and couldn't pass it up. In ostensibly trying to help people grapple with this problem, rather than seek out conservative, market-based solutions like removing health insurance from workplaces, or allowing private individuals to purchase their own health insurance at the same rate and tax-deductibility as companies do, the statists instead decided to take workplace-provided health insurance a step FURTHER (making an existing bad situation even worse) by mandating that employers provide health insurance, then turning around and mandating that insurers ignore pre-existing conditions. So in one fell swoop, Congress has injected itself into the operations of almost all private businesses in the country, and into all health insurers in the country.

But this is just one tiny piece of what grew into a 2700+ page bill. As bad as what I just described is, it's the tip of the iceberg for this legislation. The government's own Medicare program (a ponzi scheme within 10 years of going bankrupt) and Medicaid (a taxpayer-funded health provider program for the poor that is in the red) programs will also be affected by this, as millions more people are added to Medicaid and billions of dollars are cut out of Medicare to try to pay for the new health care system. Clearly, taxes will have to be raised across-the-board, and even that won't cover the additional expenses. And this is all happening at a time when we still have double-digit unemployment and an unstable economy trying to recover from a nasty recession.

Stupid or Smart?

Democrats, in their short-sighted unwise attempts to "reform" a health care system that is not fundamentally broken and actually is the envy of the world, are going to wreck that system and risk bringing down the entire American economy in the process. By not intelligently analyzing the health care system to determine what its core problems are, Democrats are instituting new rules that do not address the real issues, and add on more burdens instead. Are they just stupid, and really believe they're helping people? Or are they smart, and targeting for takeover a sixth of the economy that will open the door for more takeovers? It's one or the other, take your pick.

Phil Angelides and the Left's Expectations of Corporate America

This morning I read this editorial in my local paper. I wrote a letter to the editor in response, but they never publish me so here it is:

Your editorial supporting Phil Angelides as the head of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission illustrates one of the problems we have in the media in this country right now: An attitude that the nation's corporations are at fault for all of our woes and should be hauled out in public, beaten senselessly, slapped with a boatload of new regulations, then sent back to work with a pat on the head for their trouble.

Angelides should be interviewing congressmen like Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, who beat back Republicans that saw FNMA and FHLMC getting too big and wanted more regulation. He should be interrogating Fannie and Freddie's enablers and their executives, and examining the wisdom of the Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks to lend to the bad risks that ultimately started the financial meltdown. My bet is that he won't do that because he's a Democrat, and while both parties share responsibility for this mess, the Democrats and their wrong-headed idealistic policies have considerably more.

But whether or not we think Angelides is the best choice for this role is secondary to why your editorial is bad. Your attitude toward corporate America in general, and banks in particular, is wrong and destructive. You refer to Angelides's role as "lead attack dog on banks" and note that he has a history of "staying one step ahead of corporate fat cats" and that you hope he is as aggressive as possible because the "arrogance of the nation's financial leaders knows no bounds." Your contempt for these companies, which employ millions of Americans and make it possible for our economy to function, is just bizarre. It's similar to Democrats' recent demonization of the health insurance industry.

We live in a capitalist nation. Corporations exist for the sole purpose of earning profits for their shareholders. They are not immoral, but they are typically amoral. Your outrage is misplaced because you expect them to do things they are not there to do. Angelides's question to Goldman's CEO about selling mortgages and betting their value would go down seems pointless to me. Blankfein's response that the investors knew the risks seems reasonable. What did you expect him to say??

Laws and regulations exist to maintain a level playing field for all corporate combatants. If a corporation breaks a law, they should be punished, and if Goldman or others did, obviously they should pay a price. But sitting on your high horse and complaining that times are tough and someone ought to pay, even though they didn't legally do anything wrong, is ridiculous.

The Real Driver Behind Global Warming

It's no surprise I think "global warming" is a bunch of made-up garbage with no basis in reality. More and more people are realizing this, and we can only hope that within a few years, there will be enough of us to stop all this insane legislation that is designed to turn the world economy into a socialist utopia (like most liberal legislation's aim).

One proof of this is that the leaders of this idiotic movement all stand to be made billionaires from the policies they are foisting on the developed countries of the world. Al Gore's investments and chairmanships have been well documented and when he is questioned about them, instead of admitting the obvious -- that they are a clear conflict of interest -- Gore proudly states that he's just putting his money where his mouth is; that he so believes in this nonsense he's peddling that he's willing to invest in it to help prove his point. Furthermore, reporters never follow-up on this response. Dick Cheney divested himself of all his Halliburton holdings when he became Vice President years ago, yet still liberals were all over him for supposed conflicts of interest arising from his work as VP in the defense arena. Somehow, though, when it comes to the Goracle, they lose their spine and let him get away with ridiculous answers like that.

Another example, even more egregious than Gore, is Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, a leader right alongside Al Gore, as chairman of the IPCC, the U.N. body that is driving global warming legislation all over the planet. Conservative blog RedState has posted a short and interesting profile of Pachauri here and, as blogger Vladimir puts it, "he makes Al Gore look like a piker."

To start with, like a great many global warming advocates (Gore included), Pachauri is touted by the supportive mainstream media as an expert on the subject, yet has zero credentials in the area. According to an article in UK's "The Telegraph" that RedState's post references,

Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.

Actual climate scientists, true experts in the field, who disagree with global warming are often dismissed as un-serious and challenged and debated in the media, while journalists, former Vice Presidents, and railway engineers like Pachauri are touted as experts whose conclusions are beyond reproach.

The old saying "Follow the money" is always true, and it is just as true in this case. Global warming purveyors stand to make billions of dollars from their invented currency, "carbon credits," and no one in the mainstream media follows up on it. Because they're in the tank. Wonder why people are running away from them in droves? CNN is down 30% in 2009 total viewers, MSNBC down 14%. They're not balanced, and people know it. Fox News is up 7% in the same time period. Do they have an agenda? I think all 3 have a bias one way or the other. But the country is center-right and people perceive Fox as being closer to the ideal of reporting the facts whether you like them or not.

2010 is going to be a big year for America. The health care "reform" monstrosity is poised to be passed into law; "Cap and Trade," the global warming fanatics' solution and money-maker, is also set to be advocated for (it should be crushed); terrorist incidents are on the rise; and the American economy is still in the tank. How will Obama respond to all of these pressures? I'm betting: Predictably (as a leftist/statist) and Poorly (as a politican not as a leader).

Guy Gets On a Plane With Explosive Underpants....

Watching DHS Director Janet Napolitano being interviewed by CNN's Candy Crowley about this attempted terrorist attack on a Detroit-bound plane the other day should make you cringe whether you hail from the left or the right. Why? Several reasons:

1) Napolitano doesn't seem at all disturbed by this total breakdown in airport security, and even goes so far as to say that "the system worked." Really?? In what way? In fact the system did NOT work and Napolitano should have said so. The only reason that plane didn't blow up is because some other passengers tackled the guy, much like with Richard Reid a few years ago.

2) Napolitano goes on to defend the fact that the terrorist had not been placed on a narrow "watch list" that would have prevented him from boarding the plane, despite the fact that the man's own father called DHS a month ago and warned them about him. So again, agency not competent, she should have the guts to say so and vow to make it better, rather than to sit there and crow about how everything worked. NOTHING WORKED.

3) Napolitano also revisits the familiar liberal mantra of, "well there's nothing to suggest that he was working with anyone" in order to avoid having to state (another) obvious point that this was an attempted terrorist act. Liberals always come back to whether or not a terrorist had connections to Al Qaeda; whether he consulted with other people, or conspired with them to do the act, before it "qualifies" as an act of terrorism. WHY?? What possible difference does it make? It is the ACT and its PURPOSE that determine whether it was terrorism. Not whether a bunch of bad people were involved or just one. The purpose of this act was to destroy an American plane; kill American civilians; and strike fear into the hearts of travelers. That is terrorism, by definition. It matters not one iota whether this idiot consulted with a single other person. The exact same was true of Major Hassan, the lone terrorist in last month's Army base shooting.

4) Candy Crowley could not have been more accomodating. Her questioning was not adversarial in any way. Despite Napolitano's non-sensical answers, Crowley's follow-up questions were asked in a very respectful tone, almost as though she were trying to coach Napolitano through the interview. This was not an interrogation, this was a Good Morning America-type interview where all parties were on the same side. Napolitano should have been grilled, both for DHS's poor performance in this case, AND for her moronic answers to questions. CNN failed, displaying its liberal bias yet again. Would Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday have let her off the hook this easily? NO! And no interviewer should have, whatever their political persuasion.

Liberals get into power and people get killed. It's pretty much that simple. They appear to have no ability to accurately self-assess, and the mainstream media accomodates them. The whole thing is disgusting.

Give Democrats a Year and They Can Ruin the Country

Somehow, the Democrats in Congress -- not just the liberal ones, but ALL of them -- are on the verge of passing health care "reform," despite many months of angry debate, grassroots political activism, and political will that is so reckless that it's stunning. Either the Democrats are what conservatives like me say they are -- insane, out of touch, and about to lose their jobs -- or they are what Obama says they are -- courageous and effective doers of the people's will. There is no middle ground, here. They are going way out on a left-dangling limb and expecting the country not to punish them for it. We will see who was right in November 2010.

Democrats have begun to move the country far to the left in just the 11 months since Obama took the presidency.

• They passed the second half of a horrible idea (Bush 43 passed the first half), the TARP bailout plan, a $700 billion stimulus-turned-slush-fund boondoggle that tripled the country's deficit in a single year for virtually no benefit.
• They passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change "Cap and Trade" bill in the House, a bill that will raise costs on every sector of our current energy infrastructure, which will adversely impact all Americans.
• Obama himself signed an executive order legalizing the production of human embryos for scientific research.
• Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, has granted civilian rights to terrorists housed at Guantanamo Bay and is working to bring them to a prison in Illinois and to trial in Manhattan, where they will infect the country with their hateful ideology.
• They are in the midst of passing a 2000+ page health care "reform" bill into law that will impose major regulations on an industry that comprises more than 1/6 of the American economy.

All of these moves have been far-left in nature, and done almost entirely without any kind of Republican support. In the case of health care reform, it's also being done with polls showing that Americans are against its passage roughly 2:1. All of the bills have been very important, not minor ones, affecting gigantic pieces of our economy (in the cases of Cap & Trade and Health Care) or by changing sides on a moral issue (in the case of embryonic research)

I've already written my thoughts on the embryonic stem cell research, which is morally repugnant and scientifically unnecessary. For an administration that claims to be beholden to whatever Science says, they selectively ignore it when it doesn't fit their politics.

Cap & Trade will increase the costs of energy for everyone by forcing non-renewable energy producers to pay money to renewable energy producers. These new costs will of course be provided by energy consumers. That means higher taxes/less disposable income for you and me, plus many companies moving operations to other countries, where energy costs are lower. (This, by the way, is the true aim of these proposals and their backers: A global socialist village)

Health Care "reform" is a scary monstrosity that will increase the number of people who own health insurance, but at the cost of increasing premiums, fewer doctors, fewer insurance companies, and degrading health care quality every year.

The American people see this going on, and must say to themselves as 1-in-10 of them sit at home looking for a job, "what in the hell are these fools doing??" As well they should. The Democrats won themselves both houses of Congress last year, and the presidency, and at a time when the president-elect was the most liberal ever elected into office. This "Perfect Storm" has manifested itself in the debacle we now find our country in: A deep recession with no real signs of recovery in sight yet, and with all kinds of new taxes on their way in the coming years.

To add insult to injury, the liberals' talking points on all these issues have been stupid, and the same, for all of them. Basically they are that anyone who is disagreeing with them is either lying or scare-mongering, or both. When the public disagrees with them, such as on health care reform, it's because "hundreds of millions of dollars of advertising have been directed against them" to misinform the public about the bills. With the Democrats, it's never an honest debate that they're engaged in. It is, instead, always an issue of the do-gooder Democrats being badmouthed by those evil, lying Republicans. I heard this today even from senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), normally a pretty reasoned voice I can respect.

In short, the Democrats are running this country into the ground. Furthermore, they show no signs at all of letting up anytime soon. They are increasing taxes; lowering the quality of medical care; nudging companies out of the country; nudging older doctors out of the profession and undergrad students away from pre-med; and doing nothing whatsoever to stimulate private-sector job growth.

So the real question to me is, when do they pay? Do they get stopped before the country comes completely apart? How far gone will we have to get before people boot these idiots out of office and stop Obama in his tracks? Must we really wait until November 2010? I mean, considering the damage they have done between January 20th, 2009, and December 20, 2009, can we really afford 11 more months?