Well the bastards in the house passed the climate bill by a mere seven votes.  Coincidentally, eight Republicans voted for it (another reason my voter card says “no party affiliation”).  When the smoke clears, let’s be sure to remember those who voted in favor of this.

But one hero emerged in tonight’s defeat.  John Boehner spoke passionately and eloquently on the realities of this bill.  Do yourself a favor and watch about 10 minutes worth.  After, call your Senator and insist they vote against this craziness.

“The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife.” - Galadriel

My friends, we are living in perilous times.  I believe this government is committed to changing our lives in significant ways.  Beyond the insane spending they opened with (quadrupling our deficit in a matter of weeks), this white house and this congress is set to alter the very society in which we lives in ways that may not be fully reversible.

Probably the most significant way they are trying to do this is in health care.  Despite what the president has been saying, he wants to create a single-payer system akin to what we see in England and Canada.  How will this happen?  They will create a government-run insurance plan to “compete” with the private companies.  Mind you, this G-plan will not be obligated to produce a profit.  In fact, it won’t even matter if it loses money because it will be for the so-called “common good.”

So now private insurance companies will have to compete with an enterprise with unlimited funds that is not obligated to produce a profit or even break even.  But wait, it gets worse.  Once companies begin to see that their employees can be covered by a government plan free of charge, they will one by one begin to stop offering health care benefits.  After all, why would they?  Why would they pay for benefits when the government will provide it to their people free?  Why incur the cost?

At this point the private insurance companies will not only have to compete with the government, they will lose customers hand over fist.  One by one they will begin to go out of business until after a time none will be left, just the government. 

And when this happens bureaucrats will decide our healthcare.

The other thing they are doing is this cap & trade bill set to be voted on by the house tomorrow.  As I touched on the other day, this will amount to THE most massive new taxes on business ever levied.  As businesses don’t actually assume new costs and rather they pass them along to consumers, this will result in higher prices.  If the market won’t bear higher prices, there is only one way to reduce costs; cut labor.  Cutting labor is the single most effective way of reducing costs.

So as we are already heading towards 10% unemployment nationwide (it is already higher than that in some places), the government is set to pass something that will cost even more jobs and begin an inflation cycle that will only worsen as the effects of the increased spending kick in.

Keeping in mind that the game is already rigged, with the Democrats controlling large majorities in both houses, it is time for all of us to do our part to turn these efforts back.  We need to get in the game folks. 

Here are two important ways you can have your voices heard.

- For the Cap & Trade bill (Waxman-Markey Energy Bill), go to Mark Levin’s site for the number to congress and a list of representatives that must be heard from. 

- To sign a petition on health care, go here.  The goal of this petition is one million signatures. 

More than anything contact your friends and tell them to get active.  Our voices turned back the immigration legislation that President Bush wanted, we can do the same here.  There are probably other good efforts around.  Participate in them as well.

Our very future is at stake.

I tell you, this guy and his ilk just keep coming.  While we are all wringing our hands over the proposed health bill, congress is set to push through this climate bill, with the house scheduled to vote this Friday.  This is Obama’s deal btw, something he has wanted all along.

I don’t have a lot of time right now, but let me just say that this is the biggest sham piece of crap legislation you could find.  The centerpiece is cap & trade, which means that companies will have to pay for their carbon dioxide emmissions.  That the EPA is calling carbon dioxide a pollutant is redicules.  It is what plants breath and it accounts for less than 2% of the greenhouse effect.  The entire premise of climate change is crapola.  The planet has been in a cooling trend since the late 1990s and there is more than reasonable doubt surrounding this issue.

Worse, this bill will do little to nothing to curb potential climate change.  What it will do instead is levy a ton of new taxes on companies, which will cost tons of jobs and maybe kill what is left of industry in this country.  Oh and by the way, prices will go up.  ALL prices will go up.

Mark Levin is probably doing the best work on this issue in getting the word out.  If you don’t listen to him, you should, for this issue and myriad others.

If you want to truth about the lie of “climate change,” go here.

Americorrupt

Byron York is getting it done over at the Washington Examiner.  He has been tracking the story of Gerald Walpin, an inspector general fired by the Obama administration without following the rules that say 30 days notice must be given to the IG being relieved and the U.S. Congress. 

The funny part is that Obama himself co-sponsored the bill that requires the 30 day notice.

Here is York’s story from a few days ago that best explains the details.

Trouble in Durbin-land

It looks like there is trouble brewing for the number 2 man in the senate, Dick Durbin.  Apparently he sold a buttload of mutual fund stock the day after receiving a closed-door briefing on the market.  Here is the crux of it from the Chicago Sun-Times:

“As U.S. stock markets plummeted last September, the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin, sold more than $115,000 worth of stocks and mutual-fund shares and used much of the money to invest in Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

“The Illinois senator’s 2008 financial disclosure statement shows he sold mutual-fund shares worth $42,696 on Sept. 19, the day after then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke urged congressional leaders in a closed meeting to craft legislation to help financially troubled banks. The same day, he bought $43,562 worth of Berkshire Hathaway’s Class B stock, the disclosure shows.”

Durbin it should be noted is from Illinois.  Hmmm, isn’t that where our president hails from?

This is what comeupance looks like

Last night, David Letterman once again apologized to Sarah Palin and her family for the classless joke he told last week.  I joked with a friend that he would probably have preferred to eat cat feces on television than have to appear and in a contrite and penitent manner beg her forgiveness. 

I have to admit to some schadenfreude after the years of the snide jokes directed at former President Bush and conservatives in general.  Letterman spent years kicking W in the privates and now I can’t say I’m sorry he is getting his.

White House to Propose New Rules for Executive Compensation - The White House is set to appoint a ‘Pay Czar’ who will oversee executive compensation for financial firms.  The first graph says it all:

“The Obama administration is set to announce today two proposals that would empower shareholders and the Securities and Exchange Commission to have more oversight over executive compensation at all publicly traded firms, government sources said.

This is the part of the movie where I ask why in the hell we as a nation are considering bestowing this kind of power to the federal government.  This is an assault on the free market principles that made this nation the most prosperous ever. 

You don’t know jack-doo doo - Hey lookie here, the guy that Barry installed over at GM has a small confession for us, he doesn’t know a damn thing about cars.  “I don’t know anything about cars,” said GM head Edward E. Whitacre Jr., quoted today over at Bloomberg.  Why is it that this makes perfect sense to me coming from Obama?  In Obama-world you don’t have to have actually ever done something to be considered the best person to deal with it. 

Palau to take Guantanamo’s Chinese detainees - Finally some good news.  Palau is set to take 17 Chinese muslims who have been stuck in GITMO for years because no safe country on earth would accept them, even though they were deemed not to be a terrorist threat by the U.S. Government.  I learned about the Uighurs back in early 2006 when I visited GITMO.  The government bemoaned then that there was no-where to send these people other than to China.  However, the U.S. feared for the safety of these people if sent back.

I got an e-mail from an uncle this morning.  My uncle reported that he had heard from another of his nephews (my cousin) who had wondered how it was that I became so conservative.  The following is a portion of my reply:

How did I become so conservative?  Good question from Alex.  I would say first it was the result of being my father’s son.  As you know my dad was very conservative.  Beyond this I guess it was the result of my patriotism, which really took hold as I became an adult.  Through this process I considered the ideas and ideals on which the nation was founded and I began to appreciate and embrace the notions of limited government and individual rights, as well as the appropriate role of government as envisioned by the founders (as you know, what we have today in terms of government is very much divorced from what was intended). 

The conclusion I reached is that democracy and capitalism ensure the most rights and freedoms for the most people.  It does this by most ensuring the rights and freedoms of the individual.  Individuals I decided are the driving force in our society.  Their hard work, ingenuity, and contributions advance the nation. 

The protection of individual rights is at the foundation of our system of government.  It is why the constitution is a limiting document.  That is, the rights of the individual are protected by limiting the authority of the federal government to intrude in the lives of its individual citizens.  It protects the rights of the states who represent the individual on a local level.  These limitations of government are designed to ensure that individuals have life, liberty, and are free to pursue happiness as they see fit and in their own best interest.

One of the biggest boondoggles going is the idea that serving one’s interest is mutually exclusive to serving the interests of the community.  This is hogwash.  When one prospers on an individual level it causes others to prosper.  For example if I make a significant income through my endeavors I will most likely use the income to procure goods and services from others in my community, who will in turn do the same.  In a capitalistic society I am able to own private property.  As a result I have a vested interest in it and will want to live in the best community possible.  Because of this I will most likely invest time, effort, and money in ensuring my community is clean and safe and has systems and organizations in place that support and protect it.  Because I have children I will have an interest in securing them the best education and health care possible.  This will result in me investing time and effort (and money) in these institutions.  I will likewise vote for and support those who advance my interests, on the local and federal level.

In all of these examples, citizens serving their own interests benefit others and the community.  By extension, the practical result of democracy and capitalism is the highest levels of prosperity and achievement for the most members of society at large. 

Leftist don’t tend to like this model because they assert it makes little allowance for those who cannot, will not, or have not participated in or benefitted from this model.   They highlight those few unfortunates who through fate or misfortune land at the bottom of the socio-economic strata as evidence that the system is flawed. 

This argument belies a fundamental difference in ideology between left and right in this country.  It comes down to what each side means when it speaks of equality.  Conservatives believe that all men are created equal and should enjoy equal opportunities to prosper; whether it be jobs, education, housing, et al.  We believe that an individual in good standing should have access to any opportunity their wealth, competency, or performance can accommodate.   This is a great model in that it ensures those who are most suited for an opportunity will achieve it, which will in turn ensure the best chance for success for an industry or institution.  At the same time it provides clear standards for success for those who would take advantage of future opportunities.

When liberals speak of equality however they mean equal results.  They believe that the outcomes of our efforts should be the same for all.  We see this in the manner they use government to try to manipulate industry, education, and the law to ensure that individuals achieve the same results.  Examples of this are quotas in schools (to ensure equal results in education), capping executive pay (to ensure equal results in compensation), health care reform (to ensure equal results in care), and even in the current housing crises involving Freddie Mack and Fannie Mae where a major contributor were liberals in congress and the white house applying pressure on lending institutions to issue loans to people whose wealth and performance did not merit it (to ensure equal results in home ownership).  

Their goal is for every individual to enjoy the same level of success as their neighbor and they construct political and economic models such as socialism and communism with this as the goal (one being the economic and the other the political side to the same coin).  The problem with this is that it is contrary to the nature of individuals.  Individuals are unique and are blessed with different attributes and competencies.  They have different interests and objectives.  Individuals possess varying levels of proficiency and perspective and as a result will achieve varying levels of success in their endeavors.  

I believe that the objectives of the left, while lofty, are destined to fail.  History has shown this.  On a grand scale the Soviet Union is a prime example where communism and socialism was enacted in order to ensure all citizens of the union enjoyed equal results.  No one owned property and things like healthcare, education, and even employment were mandated by the state.  Over time it was an unsustainable model, one that had to resort to force to keep people living under the system.  In China we see the same thing (Tiananmen Square), although China has recognized the failure of socialism and is embracing a capitalistic economic model.  The current struggles of the socialist European economic models and even our own domestic challenges (such as in California and on the federal level) also demonstrate this, where governments who strive to ensure equality in outcomes are bankrupting their countries and states. 

And through these models we see a loss of individual freedom and wealth.  Be it the right to own property or determine the best use of that which we do own.  Be it a lack of choice in where our children can attend public schools (schools our taxes pay for).  Be it in increased taxation to sustain the issuance of benefits like healthcare, housing, and general welfare to those who do not pay for it.  Be it that some are denied opportunities in which they are the most qualified because a quota has to be met or because a court thinks a particular group is not sufficiently represented.  Be it in thousands of ways that government with the intention of equal results for all intrudes in our lives or inhibits our prosperity.

These manifestations of government are contrary I feel to what was intended in the founding of this country.  I became a conservative because I discovered I share the conservative belief that individuals and their unique contributions are the treasure of our nation. 

Conversely, my rejection of liberalism was affirmed when I realized that the actions of the left undermine these. 

So this morning in New York, lawyers representing General Motors marched their happy asses into court and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for GM.  But before we start to feel good about it, that is, we who thought this was the solution for GM months ago before the government gave them over $20 billion, let us consider that there is already a plan in place for the company in bankruptcy, one described as, “the Obama administration’s plan to shrink the automaker to a sustainable size and give a majority ownership stake to the federal government.”

As disturbing as the sentence quoted above is, it pales compared to the following:

“As it reorganizes, the fallen icon of American industrial will rely on $30 billion of additional financial assistance from the Treasury Department and $9.5 billion from Canada. That’s on top of about $20 billion in taxpayer money GM already has received in the form of low-interest loans.”

So let’s make sure we understand this.  First, we were told that GM was too big to go to bankruptcy and that we the people had to give them a buttload of money.  Now we are being told that yes, they can fail, but we have to give them an addition $30 billion.  And what is not mentioned is that the money that we gave them before is gone and not coming back. 

Do I have that about right?  Is that the size of it?  No, there’s more:

“The plan is for the federal government to take a 60 percent ownership stake in the new GM. The Canadian government would take 12.5 percent, with the United Auto Workers getting a 17.5 percent share and unsecured bondholders receiving 10 percent. Existing GM shareholders are expected to be wiped out.”

How the hell is it that we are allowing the federal government to basically seize major portions of companies and industries like they are doing with wall street and auto, and getting set to do with health care? 

And as repugnant as the federal government owning a controlling interest in GM is, worse is that the government of Canada and the UAW will own a combined 30% of the company while bondholders will get just 10% and shareholders will get zilch.  What kind of world are we living in when a foreign government and a union get a larger share of an american company than the bond and shareholders who actually put money into it?  How is it that the union gets 17.5 % while the shareholders are SOL?

Finally, if the news of the day didn’t upset you already, take a look at the guy the White House picked to mastermind the GM plan.