But what happens if the scientific community, for whatever reason, abandons its neutrality concerning the conclusion the evidence is pointing to and decides to actively promote a conclusion unsupported by the facts? It takes no great leap to imagine that, in such a scenario, some evidence would be suppressed and other evidence would be gussied up.  Not with a view to finding the Truth.  With a view to manipulating the conclusion.

For years, common citizens and scientists alike have wondered: from whence comes all this support for Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming (AGW)? Not only did the same scientific community predict just a few years before all the AGW hysteria that we were headed for a new Ice Age, but research often points away from AGW as a scientific conclusion.

If Science is, indeed, the dispassionate neutral observer, the best conclusion would seem to be to keep on studying and make no definitive statements.  A scientific version of “We can neither confirm or deny the existence of either AGW or an imminent Ice Age.” New evidence has emerged, however, which seems to show the scientific community did just the opposite.

The Telegraph’s James Delingpole writes:

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

The trap my scientist friend falls into with his belief in Science as an arbiter of knowledge and Truth is not that Science sometimes comes to conclusions that are later shown to be wrong. The very quest that Science embarks on recognizes there are things we now believe that are wrong. That’s why Science exists, to ferret out the Truth.

My friend errs in trusting scientists. Human nature, as it exists in scientific leaders, political leaders, religious leaders and others engaged in the quest to improve the life and condition of their followers, is not exempt from the call and response of greed, deception, hypocrisy and hubris because their cause is noble.

As with Politics and politicians; as with Theology and theologians; so with Science and scientists. When looking for Truth, our greatest concern should not be the analysis of the conclusions being reported. It should be an analysis of the character of those doing the reporting.

Cross posted from Blue Collar Muse.

The Speaker of the House actually says it is UNFAIR for people not to have health insurance and pass on costs of POSSIBLE illnesses to the rest of us and then opines it is FAIR for people not to have health insurance and pass on costs of PURPOSEFUL provision of health insurance to the rest of us. This level of ignorance is intentional.

Cross posted from Blue Collar Muse

WGNO, ABC 26 News is reporting there have been two fundraisers canceled in the week since Cao became the lone Republican to support what many believe to be an irresponsible and reckless increase in federal spending. They are also reporting some previous donors, unable to cancel their fundraisers or choose not to attend one are asking for their money back.

Cao’s actions have obviously angered supporters in his district. He is a freshman Congressman who barely edged out his incumbent opponent, Democrat William Jefferson, best known for being caught with almost $100,000 in bribe money in his freezer. Around the country, Republicans and Conservatives are also angry with Cao as his single GOP vote has enabled Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic caucus to claim their victory was bi-partisan in nature based on the votes of 219 Democrats and Congressman Cao.

ABC 26 News notes that GOP Minority Whip Eric Cantor, while disappointed, has no plans for “political retaliation” against Cao. Given the vital importance money plays in political campaigns and given the mood with donors back home, it appears Cantor won’t need to worry about that at all. Cao’s supporters will take care of that for him with their own vote on reforming his campaign finances.

The Tennessean goes on to report that Rep. Cooper has authored a bill to address the issue and “… create a bi-partisan commission that would look at entitlement programs that are driving deficit spending and make recommendations that Congress could approve or disapprove but not amend.”

This from a Congressman who voted, less than 72 hours before to expand the country’s debt and usher in a deficit spending entitlement program the likes of which were contemplated only in the dreams of die-hard Democrats.

The full text of Cooper’s remarks are even more astonishing.  Again, despite having voted for the health care bill on Saturday in the US House, on Tuesday Cooper told the US Senate, “I believe that the greatest threat to our nation’s economic security is our long-term fiscal imbalance.” He is referring to 2008’s $56 trillion in unfunded liabilities currently facing our Economy which are likely to grow to $60 trillion in 2009.  Those are Cooper’s numbers.

Identifying the source of these problems, Cooper says of the cancer he is warning against, “The President and Congress have acknowledged that the bulk of our budget problem is in health care. That’s why both the House and Senate reform proposals make an effort to reduce the deficit now and in the future.”  He follows that up by stating, in testimony to the Senate Budget Committee, “I am not satisfied that the House bill passed this weekend meets these goals.”

He concludes, “So, how can we fix it? The best course is more direct spending cuts, but we all know how likely those are. The second-best solution is a top-level commission to force congressional action.”

Only in Washington, DC does this pass for wisdom and responsible governance.  Were I to put the Congressman’s words into the language of normal Americans it would go like this:

“Senators, our country is in a huge amount of trouble because we have spent money we do not have for years.  This behavior is like a cancer that is killing us and it’s getting worse. I should know. Just 3 days ago I added over $2 trillion dollars to the $55 to $60 trillion dollars of unfunded mandates in the area of health care alone that threaten to cripple our Economy. The President and Congress all understand that it is precisely that sort of health care spending that has put us in this mess and so we’re going to fix it.  Yessirree … we’re going to reduce that pesky deficit spending.  We all know the best and most effective way to do that would be to reduce deficit spending.  So, we’re not going to push for that because it might be hard on our chances to get re-elected.  What we should, therefore, do as a fall back position is to have another Congressional panel to make non-binding recommendations to Congress telling them they should cut spending while not actually insisting that they do.  That way everyone acknowledges the problem, we are all seen as doing something about it and nothing really has to change.  And by the time the country implodes, we’ll all be out of office.  Any questions?  Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.”

Please - don’t believe me when I tell you it is really that bad.  Go read the Congressman’s words for yourself.

The idea already has some weighty Senate co-sponsors in Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), and Sam Brownback (R-Kansas).  Brownback was even a GOP candidate for President in 2008.  To actually become a part of the Constitution, however, it will need a few more Senate votes and then some. To pass, a Constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority vote of approval in the House and Senate and must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.  Given the current make-up of the federal chambers and the dependency the Democrats have on long serving members such as Durbin, Frank, the late Senator Kennedy and so many more, it is highly unlikely these “public servants” will be swayed to legislate themselves off the gravy train.

Yet, for the country to move forward, it may be a necessary step.  As DeMint notes in his presser,

Some say only long-serving, seasoned elites have the skills to lead the people, but that’s exactly what we have today and how do you think it’s working out for us? It wasn’t the ‘people’ who gave us a $12 trillion debt, an IRS tax code seven times longer than the Bible, over 1,700 departments of the federal government, trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, $100 trillion long-term shortfall in Social Security and Medicare, the Wall Street and auto bailouts, and the pending health care takeover.

This nation can no longer afford these entrenched men and women who enjoy lives of luxury wholly insulated from the consequences of their major policy failures.

Notably and importantly, the title of DeMint’s proposed amendment is indicative of his attitude. Term Limits for All means that DeMint supports term limits as a legislative or constitutional mandate but not self-imposed term limits chosen by individual legislators. Not only do Democrats never choose to do it, in DeMint’s words,

… demanding that reformers adopt self-imposed term limits is a recipe for self-defeat on this issue. We lost the battle for term limits after the 1994 Republican Contract with America because we forced our best advocates for reform to go home, while the big-spending career politicians waited them out. We must have term limits for all or term limits will never succeed. Only when we apply the same rules to all will we be able to enact vital bipartisan reforms.

The larger goals DeMint has in mind for his amendment are to

… increase legislative turnover, expand the field of candidates who run for office, and instill transparency and accountability in our public officials. By ratifying this amendment, we can end the tremendous advantage enjoyed by incumbents in Washington, break long-lasting ties to special interests and lobbyists, and transform Congress from the body of career politicians that it has become, to a chamber of true citizen legislators.

If the proposal has no chance of passing under the current Beltway leadership, a revolution of the sort some are predicting in November, 2010 may bring about a federal legislature more willing to ratify such a notion and **gasp** take the extraordinary step of putting the idea of Term Limits out in the public to be debated and weighed in on by, if not the People themselves, then at least legislators a whole lot closer to the people than the career federal politicians the amendment would turn out. Not only that but it gives challengers and incumbents alike a great campaign platform plank over the next few months.

If Barack Obama, the black man, and Democrats, many of whom are black, are so opposed to and horrified by the notion of slavery in our country and are determined to move the country beyond it, why then did they just vote to become the most grotesque slave owners in history?  Other despots in our history merely hated America and the Liberty she stood for and wanted to destroy the United States. Barack Obama and his fellow slave owners hate America and the Liberty she stands for yet do not want to destroy us; they want to compel us to work against our will to provide for them.  The very definition of slavery.

According to Dictionary.com, slavery is: “The condition of a slave; bondage. The keeping of slaves as a practice or institution. Severe toil; drudgery.”

Its synonyms and their meaning are even more damning to Democrats:

Thralldom, enthrallment. Slavery, bondage, servitude refer to involuntary subjection to another or others. Slavery emphasizes the idea of complete ownership and control by a master … Bondage indicates a state of subjugation or captivity often involving burdensome and degrading labor … Servitude is compulsory service, often such as is required by a legal penalty …

That Barack Obama and Democrats may be offended by this truth or deny it is irrelevant.  They are slave owners, now.  They have subjected millions of Americans to work to provide for them involuntarily.  They own this nation’s Producers and control them.  They determine what will be produced and will require millions to labor to produce it for millions more under penalty of fines or imprisonment.  No one has the right to fail to participate.

What they are forced to participate in is not the recognition of a human right such as Life or Liberty. That would make those orchestrating the conflict liberators and visionaries.  What they are being forced to provide under threat of serious penalties is a consumer good. Like the cotton of the first American slave owners, health care will now be produced by today’s slaves for sale to eager consumers willing to be purposefully ignorant of the circumstances under which it is produced.  This brings profit to the slave owners and happiness to the consumer on the backs of the slaves. The analogy is both proper and complete. Barack Obama is not a liberator.  He is a slaver. His legacy will be that a sitting President of the United States - once the symbol of Liberty around the world - trafficked in human flesh for his own profit.

What remains to be seen is how this Master deals with the inevitable slave’s rebellion. It is coming and it will not take decades. Because I will not submit to shackles. I will not be compelled to labor for the comfort of others. I will not live a single day as less than a free man. It is my heritage and my birthright as both a Christian and an American.  I am free and will remain so. I will not be a slave. I am not alone in this. If Barack Obama and Democrats think they have won some sort of victory here they are as ignorant of history as they are of human nature.

I will be free or I will die fighting for my freedom. Barack Obama calls for me to lay down my Liberty.  I dare him, if he is man enough, to come and take it from me himself.

Cross posted from Blue Collar Muse

The current crop of Democrats in power in Washington, DC simply cannot be trusted. Should they tell you the sky is blue, I suggest you check for yourself. It is easy to imagine those who support such faithless men and women dismissing my charge as being what one would expect from political opponents. Except one would choke on the evidence supporting my position if one ever sat down to start to take it in. What about promises from Pelosi and Obama that legislation would be available to the people ahead of time for them to examine it before any votes were taken? What about promises of transparency and then shutting Republicans out of the process? What about pledging not to sign a bill that funded abortions with taxpayer dollars or to make health care available to non-citizens and then lobbying for a bill that does both of those things? What about saying the idea was to be fiscally responsible and then spending an ESTIMATED $1.5 TRILLION dollars when the GOP alternative weighs in at a mere $60 BILLION as analyzed by the Congressional Budget office? And all of this has happened in just the last 7 days!

Which brings us to the point. We cannot let up the pressure until the vote is over and either the dangers inherent to the US Economy in the Democrats ignorant and ill advised intentions are defeated or we succeed in making the Democrats completely own this abomination of a bill. There is all manner of reporting going on that Blue Dog Dems are rebelling against being strong armed into supporting a bill the vast majority of the country does not want. It may even be true. But we cannot take success for granted and we must keep our federal representative’s feet to the fire until the vote is over. Then we must hold them accountable for their votes between now and November of 2010.

For those of you in Districts where your Democrat has pledged to vote “No!”, keep the pressure on. Call them or call them again and tell them you don’t want this irresponsible financial disaster to be laid at the country’s doorstep. But there are still other Democrats that have not made their intentions known. These are still on the fence and need to hear from you if you live in their District. The following list is of potential swing votes that may still have enough allegiance to the idea of “representative” government that your calls will have an effect.

• Michael Arcuri         (NY-24th)         (202) 225-3665
• Steve Dreihous        (OH 1st)             (202) 225-2216
• Gabrielle Giffords    (AZ-8th)            (202) 225-2542
• Debbie Halverson    (IL-11th)           (202) 225-3635
• Steve Kagen             (WI-8th)            (202) 225-5665
• Betsy Markey          (CO-4th)            (202) 225-4676
• Tom Perriello           (VA-5th)            (202) 225-4711
• Loretta Sanchez       (CA-47th)          (202) 225-5711
• Vic Snyder                (AR-29th)          (202) 225-2506
• Zack Space               (OH-18th)          (202) 225-2965

If you are in their Districts, call them and tell them you want them to vote “No!” on Obamacare. I know it’s late on Friday or Saturday and the vote is in just a few hours or maybe a few minutes. Call anyway! It doesn’t matter what your Congressman has said or what he might say. It only matters how he votes! Your calls will help him make the right decision. Thanks!

She continues her explanation with, “It is increasingly clear that pressure is mounting on many of my supporters to shift their support.” Nowhere does she address the reasons for her lack of money or the pressure on her supporters. All of this is understandable. In the pressure of the moment, it’s hard to be either precise or circumspect enough to satisfy everyone. There is, however, one specific thing it is incumbent upon a candidate to do in such a situation. They must tell their supporters what to do next.

At the end of a primary, losing candidates all pledge to rally behind the person who won their Party’s nomination. Hillary Clinton sounded positively Republican in telling the nation how bad a President Barack Obama would be. But when he was the Democrat’s nominee, she supported him and encouraged her followers to do so as well. OK, maybe the PUMA people are evidence she didn’t really do that but you get the idea. The Hoffman challenge of Scozzafava in NY-23 was a primary of sorts. It was a fight to see what values and principles the Right of Center voters in NY-23 would rally behind. The voters chose Hoffman’s and that didn’t sit well with Dede.

What Scozzafava did next was unconscionable. She “[released] those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit to do so.”

This is key because in her official statement, her very next words were, “I am and have always been a proud Republican.” What a slap in the face to the NRCC and RNC which spent $900,000 in support of her campaign. When the NRCC recently withdrew from the NY-23 race, it made overtures to Hoffman. Scozzafava knows Hoffman is the obvious candidate to support if she gets out. But she couldn’t make herself do it. It is a slap in the face to all the GOP supporters across the country who supported her because they understand the importance of keeping the seat in the GOP. It is a slap in the face to all the people in NY-23 who want Republican representation in DC. With proud Republicans like Scozzafava, the GOP doesn’t need Democrats to worry about. And that’s been the point of Hoffman’s candidacy all along.

Some will rightly argue Hoffman isn’t running as a Republican, he’s the Conservative Party candidate, and so there will be no GOP representation even if Hoffman wins. But Scozzafava herself was running as both the GOP candidate AND the Independence Party candidate. Hoffman would have run on the GOP ticket had he been allowed to. Since there was no primary he had no choice except to run as another Party’s representative. Scozzafava’s refusal to specifically tell her supporters she was supporting Doug Hoffman; that they should support Doug Hoffman, too; and that even though her name was on the ballot, she was requesting her supporters NOT to vote for her but to vote for Hoffman instead can be spun as defending the Republican brand. More likely it will be seen for what it is - what happens when RINOs go on a murderous rampage.

Of course, all this is what you’d expect if Scozzafava’s opponents were correct and folks like Newt Gingrich and the NRCC were wrong. If Scozzafava were the Conservative Republican they said she was, she would have fought hard, been gracious in defeat and supported the candidate with the most Conservative principles moving ahead to Tuesday’s election. Instead she proved herself to be the Liberal RINO she was charged with being and has outed herself as the petty, vindictive and mean-spirited Republican that your Democratic friends are always telling you about. You know the ones. The Democrats in Republican clothing.

Now that this is done, it’s time to focus on Tuesday. We have an election to win!

Cross posted from Blue Collar Muse

The Times reported the drop in Consumer spending was “tied to the end of the government’s cash-for-clunkers program, which gave car buyers thousands of dollars in vouchers for the purchase of new vehicles.” I would add to that the end of the Government’s program to give money to home buyers.  I call it cash-for-condos.

It’s hard not to note this is what Administration critics predicted.  Stimulus plans costing taxpayer billions have not produced a recovery.  There are only blips here and there as people take advantage of “free government money” (read “tax dollars taken from someone else and given to them”, remember Joe the Plumber?). After Cash for Clunkers and Cash for Condos produced their false positives the Economy retreated to a more accurate picture of consumer confidence.

The Times also noted “The drops were led by stocks in banks and financial firms …” Yet just just a month ago this Economic sector was posting record profits. The Times failed to remind readers what the Government did in that sector. President Obama told some in the financial sector they could no longer pay their employees as they saw fit and called for a maximum wage when it comes to CEOs. Administration members ominously said they hoped the rest of the industry would voluntarily comply with the new wage structure.

Investors took one look at the President’s plan and bolted with their cash.  Investors put cash in firms headed by those making millions seeking a good ROI from the plans and minds worth that sort of money.  Investors rightly understand their return is jeopardized in the hands and minds of lesser corporate leaders.  People who understand Economics told the President this would happen. They were ignored and, for their trouble, they were pilloried as racists.

The Times reports the most important facts in two separate paragraphs.  They note “The revival of the consumer sector is considered paramount in turning the United States economy around, since purchases by consumers make up about two-thirds of the nation’s spending” shortly after revealing “Consumer spending in September dropped by the largest amount in nine months …”  When the false positives of Cash for Clunkers and Cash for Condos are stripped away, consumer spending is getting worse, not better. What’s more, the rate of decline is escalating.  After 9 months of Stimulus, consumer spending had its worst month in September.

The only question now is how long the administration will pimp failed New Deal era policies to solve the economic problems of another century.  Perhaps if Barack Obama took time from date nights, golf games, begging for the Olympics and disrespecting Constitution and Liberty loving Americans to pay serious attention to the Economy he’d realize the only “economic boom” he’s likely to experience will come from the Economy imploding on his watch.

Cross posted from Blue Collar Muse

Even in light of the inherent weaknesses in polling and the legitimate arguments available that a poll is merely a snapshot of the country at the time of the poll and things can and do change, these results seem to say a few things to me and hopefully to the GOP.  These poll results are not merely a picture of what the country is thinking about today.  They are a picture of what the country thinks about what the Obama administration and the Democratic majority has actually done and how that relates to what they believe about the country and themselves.  In short,  it is a mini-referendum on the last 9 months of “Yes, we can!”

When the President gratuitously inserts himself in criminal investigations but won’t protect your 2nd Amendment rights to protect yourself from criminals, these results shouldn’t be surprising.  When the President spends more time with the IOC to bring the Olympics to Chicago than he does with his military commanders to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan and our troops home safely, these results shouldn’t be surprising.  When the President tells the country to judge him by the people he surrounds himself with and then surrounds himself with people like Tim Geithner and Van Jones, these results shouldn’t be surprising. When the President promises Change to bring Hope to America and proceeds to Alter America so radically we all Hope we are dreaming, these results should not be surprising.

The bottom line is that the GOP and grassroots organizations looking ahead to 2010 and 2012 should pay attention to what the President has actually done and the results his actions have actually produced.  Then they should busy themselves doing the opposite as much as possible.  The more Americans learn about the intent and results the administration want for America, the less they agree with it. The more Americans realize that if the President’s plans are indicative of what it means to be Progressive and Liberal, then they are Conservative.

Giving the majority of Americans what they want is easy.  Vote to Limit Government, Lower Taxes, Increase Transparency, make States Sovereign, increase personal and economic Liberty, reduce unconstitutional Regulation, reduce and control Spending, Balance the Budget, Reduce the Deficit, Protect the Country, Secure the Borders and Secure the Rights of the Individual.

These ideals are among those that created and sustained the Republic for the first 150 years or so and built the economic and idealistic engine that transformed the planet.  Only in the last 75 years or so has Progressive nonsense been artificially imposed on a thriving system to muck up not only the process but the results as well.  We can enjoy the incredible prosperity and Liberty that we once knew as Americans.  But we can’t do it via Progressive policies.  The polls referenced above show Americans are aware of that.  It remains to be seen whether or not the GOP and others entrusted with implementing and defending a conservative, constitutional Republic will get the message.

Crossposted from Blue Collar Muse

In what will no doubt be a visual aid for examples of “GOP behaving stupidly”, a group of Arizona Republicans (likely outmaneuvered by the lone Democrat involved), has decided that the 1st Amendment’s guarantees don’t extend to residents of Maricopa County if the people doing the speaking happen to also work for the Government.

At issue are relationships members of the County Attorney’s office have with the media, including a few bloggers. Not all the media, however, just those beating up on the Maricopa County Supervisors County Manager’s office.  Seems the Board of Supervisors has been feuding with other state departments for some time, including messing with Maricopa County’s best known government employee, Sheriff Joe Arpaio.  Not only that, the same Supes squeezing the County Attorney employees have a really bad track record when it comes to things like character and integrity.  The gaggle of liberal GOP Supes and the lone Dem in their midst have been accused of “wasteful spending, power grabs and criminal investigations” and there’s even a Twitter account, CorruptAZSupes.

The dispute with the County Attorney’s office got so bad the County Supervisors fired the County Attorney as their legal representative.  And now the County Manager, David Smith, has decided to divert attention from his own side’s misbehaving by brow beating those pesky bloggers and their friends.

Smith sent a letter to the County Attorney’s office demanding to know who had relationships with bloggers - or else! They even specifically demand to know about activity that might have taken place on an employee’s personal time and their personal computers!  Specifically named in the letter is Michael Scerbo, the County Attorney PIO, who is SUPPOSED to be in touch with the media!  While there are some traditional media outlets mentioned, blogs are specifically targeted.  The Sonoran Alliance, The Cactus Alliance and Intellectual Conservative Arizona are all named in the letter as being eeeeeeevil bloggers that bad County Attorney employees shouldn’t have anything to do with.

Given the dust-up going on inside the GOP in places like NY-23 and Doug Hoffman v Dede Scozzafava and Florida’s Senate race with Marco Rubio v Charlie Crist where GOP stalwarts cling to Liberal policies and personalities, I shouldn’t be surprised to find Republicans squelching free speech and trying to use the power of their office - not to serve the people but to intimidate them.

One hopes that Arizonans have the ability to recall County Managers who seem ignorant of 1st amendment provisions or at least that the Supes are elected and must face the voters of Maricopa County for this.

Cross-posted with links to additional blog coverage at Blue Collar Muse.

In arguing for a Public Option in any health care reform she could vote for, Rep. Pingree laments the current lack of competition in Maine to benefit consumers. She actually says, on camera, in an interview with FOX’s Neil Cavuto, that in Maine, “We’re down to just about 1 insurance company.” What?? ONE insurance company? Wikipedia has an admittedly incomplete list of health insurance companies showing only those with a “strong national or regional presence.” That list has 27 entries.

Why is only one of these companies doing business in Maine? I thought the insurance industry was filled with nothing but money-grubbing, profit-seeking, expletive-deleteds. I thought all they cared about was their fatcat CEO and bigwig salaries. Per Rep. Pingree’s own admission, insurance costs are high in Maine. Why aren’t more companies out to get a piece of that pie? Or is it, perhaps, more than slightly disingenuous of the good Congressman to claim there is a lack of competition in Maine which only Government intervention can help. She claims the Maine legislature “…has tried every possible kind of insurance reform, a lot of the things that are being talked about …” But their costs are still out of control and only one insurance company wants any of the profit to be made in Maine.

Curious. One has to ask, if Maine really did do all they could to address insurance reform, doesn’t that mean Maine had a lot of screwed up insurance regulation to begin with? When did all this regulatory correction happen? It seems reasonable that if Maine had passed tough tort reform laws and taken the shackles off of their insurance industry so as to permit real competition and truly done everything possible to reform the problems with insurance someone other than Rep. Pingree would know about it. Either the Right would be screaming about the success or the Left would be screaming that they tried it the Conservative way and it failed.

Rep. Pingree finally tosses out her real reason for wanting a public option when she laments that all of the state’s effort at insurance reform “…still hasn’t been what we needed to make sure everybody in our state was covered.” The clatter of the other shoe dropping is enough to pull me back to reality.

I remember Rep. Pingree is a Democrat. I remember Maine’s federal delegation also contains Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. I recall Rep. Pingree proudly notes her own daughter is Speaker of the House in Maine. And I can’t help but think perhaps the good Congressman is exaggerating when she claims Maine did everything it could to enact insurance reform significant enough to bring about the kind of change Americans are really hoping for. If they had, the market would have spoken and Rep. Pingree wouldn’t have to. She’s right. Maine needs competition because real competition increases quality and drives down prices. If Maine had been serious about promoting competition, they wouldn’t have the situation they are currently lamenting. If the Maine legislature was serious about insurance reform, the proof would have been a lot more than a lone player in the Maine market.

But if your goal isn’t competition; if what you really want is universal coverage - your efforts and their success or lack thereof will be evaluated very differently. And therein lies the problem when the Left tries to sound Conservative without a true commitment to Conservative principles. Liberal ideas cannot bring about Conservative solutions.

Universal coverage is a Government imposed mandate on the insurance industry. It’s precisely the sort of regulation that discourages competition, drives up prices and reduces the number of insurance companies willing and able to compete in Maine. Competition is a Market driven choice by consumers based on their own needs and interests. It includes the choice not to have insurance at all. Perhaps Maine would be better served if their Democratic leaders understood what Rep. Pingree calls “… the economics of it …” At least then the good people of Maine would have information they could trust when it comes to making good choices when they are shopping for insurance.

In arguing for a Public Option in any health care reform she could vote for, Rep. Pingree laments the current lack of competition in Maine to benefit consumers. She actually says, on camera, in an interview with FOX’s Neil Cavuto, that in Maine, “We’re down to just about 1 insurance company.” What?? ONE insurance company? Wikipedia has an admittedly incomplete list of health insurance companies showing only those with a “strong national or regional presence.” That list has 27 entries.

Why is only one of these companies doing business in Maine? I thought the insurance industry was filled with nothing but money-grubbing, profit-seeking, expletive-deleteds. I thought all they cared about was their fatcat CEO and bigwig salaries. Per Rep. Pingree’s own admission, insurance costs are high in Maine. Why aren’t more companies out to get a piece of that pie? Or is it, perhaps, more than slightly disingenuous of the good Congressman to claim there is a lack of competition in Maine which only Government intervention can help. She claims the Maine legislature “…has tried every possible kind of insurance reform, a lot of the things that are being talked about …” But their costs are still out of control and only one insurance company wants any of the profit to be made in Maine.

Curious. One has to ask, if Maine really did do all they could to address insurance reform, doesn’t that mean Maine had a lot of screwed up insurance regulation to begin with? When did all this regulatory correction happen? It seems reasonable that if Maine had passed tough tort reform laws and taken the shackles off of their insurance industry so as to permit real competition and truly done everything possible to reform the problems with insurance someone other than Rep. Pingree would know about it. Either the Right would be screaming about the success or the Left would be screaming that they tried it the Conservative way and it failed.

Rep. Pingree finally tosses out her real reason for wanting a public option when she laments that all of the state’s effort at insurance reform “…still hasn’t been what we needed to make sure everybody in our state was covered.” The clatter of the other shoe dropping is enough to pull me back to reality.

I remember Rep. Pingree is a Democrat. I remember Maine’s federal delegation also contains Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. I recall Rep. Pingree proudly notes her own daughter is Speaker of the House in Maine. And I can’t help but think perhaps the good Congressman is exaggerating when she claims Maine did everything it could to enact insurance reform significant enough to bring about the kind of change Americans are really hoping for. If they had, the market would have spoken and Rep. Pingree wouldn’t have to. She’s right. Maine needs competition because real competition increases quality and drives down prices. If Maine had been serious about promoting competition, they wouldn’t have the situation they are currently lamenting. If the Maine legislature was serious about insurance reform, the proof would have been a lot more than a lone player in the Maine market.

But if your goal isn’t competition; if what you really want is universal coverage - your efforts and their success or lack thereof will be evaluated very differently. And therein lies the problem when the Left tries to sound Conservative without a true commitment to Conservative principles. Liberal ideas cannot bring about Conservative solutions.

Universal coverage is a Government imposed mandate on the insurance industry. It’s precisely the sort of regulation that discourages competition, drives up prices and reduces the number of insurance companies willing and able to compete in Maine. Competition is a Market driven choice by consumers based on their own needs and interests. It includes the choice not to have insurance at all. Perhaps Maine would be better served if their Democratic leaders understood what Rep. Pingree calls “… the economics of it …” At least then the good people of Maine would have information they could trust when it comes to making good choices when they are shopping for insurance.

Of course, testosterone only measures bravery, not intelligence.  It would appear that Democrats, at least those in DC, are also displaying legendary levels of ignorance and stupidity as well in pursuing this strategy.  On the same day the NY Times reports Democrats are considering going solo on Health Care, Rasmussen reports that their poll numbers have reached yet another new low.  These are numbers for a “Generic Congressional Ballot”, to be sure.  But such things aren’t tracked just to give idle pollsters busy work early in the election cycle.  The news isn’t good for Democrats.

Republican candidates have now matched their biggest lead over Democrats of the past several years on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

…

Democrats held a six- or seven-point lead on the ballot for the first few weeks of 2009. That began to slip in early February, and from mid-April through June the two parties were roughly even. Republicans have held a lead on the ballot since the last week in June, the first time they’d been on top in well over a year.

For the second time in three weeks, women favor Republicans slightly more than Democrats, 41% to 39%. Men prefer the GOP by a 45% to 36% margin this week.

Among voters not affiliated with either party continue to strongly favor the GOP, 45% to 18%.

The figures the Dems should be most concerned with are the last ones. With numbers like that showing up in the Center, if the Democrats keep pushing their agenda in this political climate; if they continue to insult and denigrate the electorate; if they continue to ignore the real passion against their policies and ascribe the national push back on the issue to hacks paid by the GOP and insurance companies; if they continue this blind lemming-like plunge off the cliff of Fascism and Socialism they are asking to be thrown out of Washington DC.

Last weekend it was reported that a presenter at the NetRoots Nation conference in Pittsburgh told the assembled liberals “the truth” that they needed to prepare to lose 15 to 20 seats next fall. Another presenter is said to have opined the number might be as high as 50 seats. At the same conference, former President Clinton claimed that as soon as Obama signed a Health Care Reform bill, support for the President would skyrocket. Both of these scenarios cannot be true. Given the depth of the passion in the opposition to the President’s plans and the breadth of it - it spans Right, Left and Center - my money is on the Democrats losing in 2010. The only question then is, how bad will it be. If they insist on passing Health Care Reform against the will of the vast majority of Americans, it won’t be a mid-term correction, it will be a blood-bath. It will be a massacre.

Not that I think that’s a bad thing, you understand …

The exact language of the article posted on the blog at WhiteHouse.gov reads:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

This request, posted on the official White House site no less, cannot help but raise questions. Why President Obama wants to know who disagrees with him is not a concern. Both sides of the political spectrum routinely subscribe to the other side’s emails and newsletters to keep up with what their opponents are doing. The interesting question is, given such material is already widely available to Democratic operatives, what is it the White House is looking to gain that they don’t already have? More disturbingly, what is it they intend to do with the information they obtain?

Perhaps the White House has a perfectly rational and logical explanation for their request. However, I must confess my first thought upon hearing of their interest in those opposing their position was the following excerpt from Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism. Goldberg reminds us that today’s Liberals are not the first group of Liberals to call themselves Progressives. The Liberal Democrats of Woodrow Wilson’s day also went by that name. Today’s Progressives know that fact and are just fine with adopting the term “Progressive” to describe themselves.

Woodrow Wilson’s Progressives conceived and implemented several plans to silence and punish dissent and objection to the Government’s plans. Goldberg writes

Even as the government was churning out propaganda, it was silencing dissent. Wilson’s Sedition Act banned “uttering, printing, writing, or publishing any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United States government or the military.” (Editor’s Note: I don’t know if “fishy” language would have been covered) The postmaster general was given the authority to deny mailing privileges to any publication he saw fit - effectively shutting it down. At least seventy-five periodicals were banned.

…

Then there was the inevitable progressive crackdown on individual civil liberties. Today’s liberals tend to complain about the McCarthy period as if it were the darkest moment in American history after slavery. … But nothing that happened under the mad reign of Joe McCarthy remotely compares with what Wilson and his fellow progressives foisted on America. Under the Espionage Act of June 1917 and the Sedition Act of May 1918, any criticism of the government, even in your own home, could earn you a prison sentence … In Wisconsin a state official got two and a half years for criticizing a Red Cross fund-raising drive. A Hollywood producer received a ten year stint in jail for making a film that depicted British troops committing atrocities during the American Revolution. One man was brought to trial for explaining in his own home why he didn’t want to buy Liberty Bonds”.

…

The Justice Department created its own quasi-official fascisti, known as the American Protective League, or APL. They were given badges - many of which read “Secret Service” - and charged with keeping an eye on their neighbors, co-workers, and friends. Used as private eyes by overzealous prosecutors in thousands of cases, they were furnished with ample government resources. The APL had an intelligence division, in which members were bound by oath not to reveal they were secret policemen. Members of the APL read their neighbor’s mail and listened in on their phones with government approval.

There’s more, but you get the point. I’m bright enough to know all this happened 90 years ago. But when in 2008 and 2009 a new group of liberal Democrats arises and boldly and proudly adopts the name Progressive, when their leader calls for a well funded and large Civilian National Security Force with little explanation why he chose that particular name and then proceeds to call for Americans on his side of an issue to tell him about other Americans who don’t share his values and principles - do you wonder why I might wonder just what in the world is going on?

The Governor’s race in California can help illustrate this. Last November, 3 Republicans and 8 Democrats were being vetted for the job. Not having quashed speculation they were running, and looking to improve their standings, one would think candidates would be eager to tell their story to Californians to determine who best represents them. Isn’t that what politicians do?

Not if you’re Steven Poizner. Poizner is California’s Insurance Commissioner and a Silicon Valley entrepeneur who made a fortune inventing a GPS chip for cell phones so 911 dispatchers and others with whom you want to communicate can tell exactly where you are. Too bad Poizner won’t turn his own political phone on so we can locate him. He appears uninterested in being located at all.

Consider that the day before last year’s elections, in November of ‘08, The Sacramento Bee, arguably one of the most influential papers in California, asked the 11 likely candidates for Governor about their positions on a wide range of issues then facing voters. Perhaps it wasn’t a timely piece. After all, none of them were on the ballot the next day. On the other hand, it was very relevant as the ‘08 election cycle was over and the only thing keeping the ‘10 cycle from kicking off was the passage of 24 hours. Certainly it was fair in that a good measure of how a candidate will serve tomorrow is to find out how he feels about things today.

But when asked about the issues, including Prop 8’s contentious gay marriage question, Poizner’s campaign responded, “The next time voters have to make a decision on Steve Poizner is almost 20 months away and there’s plenty of time for voters to get to know him and to get to know his views on the issues.” Hellooo … that’s exactly what the article was intended to do … give you a jump start on that 20 month process! What sort of a response is that? This was a newspaper interview. Poizner had plenty of time to submit a clear, concise response which accurately represented his views. He chose instead to acknowledge it was important for voters to know where he stands and to refuse to provide that information.

How is this not politically “taking the 5th” and refusing to answer on the grounds his own words might incriminate him? A reasonable person might conclude Poizner couldn’t answer because voters hadn’t yet made their views clear and so he didn’t know what to tell them. A thoughtful person might conclude he didn’t respond because there was no definitive core to Steven Poizner. He needed 24 more hours to figure out where the public was headed so he could try and run to the head of the crowd as opposed to asking the crowd to follow him.

If that sounds harsh, let’s fast forward just 90 days to a Hugh Hewitt interview in February of ‘09. There, in a far more “seat of the pants” environment, Poizner plainly and openly says “I do think that marriage should be defined between a man and a woman. I’m fine with domestic partnerships and all. That’s just fine. That’s government staying out of people’s private lives. But marriage is a sacred thing, and the voters of the state of California have voted now not once but twice to define marriage between a man and a woman.”

That’s the sort of statement Californians deserved to hear when they had only voted once to define marriage. With such a definitive statement in February of ‘09, why didn’t Mr. Poizner provide something similar in November of ‘08? Might it be that in November of ‘08 Mr. Poizner was unsure if Californians still felt that way and thus was unwilling to go on record with a position? Might it be he “feared” the People in precisely the wrong way? Might it be Poizner is a “Me, too!” politician, waiting for the people to gather before revealing his views are perfectly in line with the majority? As opposed to a “This is my view on the matter!” leader who makes clear his position and works to rally the crowd around his banner?

It’s 2009 and it’s time for politicians to fear, not what their honesty will produce, but what their dissembling and their dishonesty will produce. The majority of us have access to computers and Google. These sorts of things are not at all hard to find. It’s increasingly hard for politicians to get away with blatant pandering and empty posturing. Today as never before, we need leaders and statesmen; candidates unafraid to tell us what they think and what they plan to do. Candidates unafraid of their views and unafraid of what will happen if they make those views public. Candidates willing to let us decide if they represent us as they are as opposed to morphing into what they think best represents us. One politician respects the People and properly fears them for who they are. The other deceives the People out of fear of what they might do.

As Poizner points out, we have months to go and people have plenty of time to get to know the candidate. For some of us, however, we may have already found out all we need to know.

Blue Collar Muse

Of all the Orwellian nightmares people have suggested you be concerned about, it would be difficult to find one more universally despised than the idea one’s medical records are available to the state. The potential for abuse and discrimination under such a scenario are legion. Some possibilities are obvious. Like the discrimination against a woman because she might become pregnant, imagine the potential impact on your credit, work or chances for a promotion because of your medical history were it to be known. Others are more fantastic and insidious, bordering on science fiction like the movie “Gattaca”, where all of society - social position, who you marry and your value as a person are based, not on your character but on your genes and how they impact your health. The point being, knowledge of and control over information, especially medical information, carries such potential for abuse and is so personal it has traditionally been held as the most private of private information.

But for how much longer?

TN House Bill 2289 (HB2289) and Senate Bill 2239 (SB2239), according to the state’s website, are innocuous bills on insurance, medical fees and accreditation typical of the uninteresting legislation passed nationwide. Reading the text of HB2289, it is anything but.

It establishes an All Payer Claims Database (APCD). The APCD requires private insurance companies to report to the state the details on the claims they process. For perspective, one particular Tennessee insurer processes 32,000 of those details every hour. That’s 250,000 details per day about private citizens the state wants turned over to them.

In fact, there are over 6000 details which might be reported about you under HB2289 including data on prescriptions, medical conditions, sexually transmitted diseases, surgeries and more. If I know Government, 6000 is nothing but a good start!

Your file is cumulative in nature, established for you with future medical details added over time. Older folks might not have large files, children would have their entire life’s medical history recorded. The Government is not asking you for it. This is not voluntary. The information is being legislated away from your control. You cannot opt out. You are not even a part of the process. The bill requires your insurance company to report to the Government all the things it did for you as its customer. Just because the Government wants to know.

The bill assures Tennesseans their data will be kept private. But from whom? While you can’t get your neighbor’s data, the state can share data with a host of entities. HB2289 promises to abide by existing HIPAA laws. But the National Institute of Health’s own account of how such data is handled notes while HIPAA laws require the removal of 18 separate personal identifiers from data before it can be released without specific authorization, such personal identifiers may be released

To health oversight agencies for oversight activities authorized by law that are necessary, for example, for the appropriate oversight of government-regulated programs. For example, because Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) is a health oversight agency under the Privacy Rule, a covered entity may disclose PHI, without Authorization, to OHRP for purposes of determining compliance with the HHS Protection of Human Subjects Regulations.

All it takes is being designated an oversight agency and they can get all the data they want about you. Interestingly, HB2289 calls for the formation of a Tennessee Health Information Committee. Its duties, responsibilities and functions are not defined but it’s not hard to imagine it being given oversight authority.

There are fiscal and quality of care issues to consider as well.

Compliance with the legislation will require more personnel and time. That cost to doctors and insurers will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher costs and premiums making health care even more expensive. The bureaucracy to establish and manage this will increase the size of the state Government. More Government means more taxes or cuts in other services to pay for it.

Many people are already uncomfortable sharing intimate details of their life with relative strangers, even if it’s their doctor. Common sense tells us people already omit information or lie in response to diagnostic questions out of fear, embarrassment and the like. What happens when it becomes known that faceless bureaucrats have access to your health care records? What happens when someone gives a wrong answer out of fear and gets a prescription that interacts badly with another med or undergoes a procedure a doctor would never recommend if he knew the truth?

These concerns are nowhere near the full measure of just how bad this legislation is. But the solution is simple - contact your legislators. Politely tell him or her, in no uncertain terms, you consider your medical information private and you expect it will be kept that way. Politely, clearly and firmly make it known you are requesting him or her to vote against HB2289 and SB2239. Let them know you will be following up to see how s/he votes and that the matter will be a factor in deciding how you will vote. You can find your Representative and contact him or her here. Your Senator’s information is here.

Then tell your family, friends, neighbors, church members, and co-workers about HB2289/SB2239 and suggest they do the same. Give them the link to this post and return often for updates and for more information about what is happening. See you then.

Blue Collar Muse

I could imagine the same scene repeating itself in churches across the country. I wondered how many of them recognized our military members. More importantly, I wondered how many did not and how many may have actually spoken against them. It’s hard for me to imagine but I know there are people in our country who are willing to take the safety and security provided for us by our military and yet excoriate and denigrate the very men and women who make their objections possible. I need only remember what happened to our troops in Oakland, a politician’s disrespect for them and a celebrity’s dismissal of them as ignorant to know not everyone in our country honored our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in church yesterday. Nor will some do so today.

Which is strange to me considering what this country owes to its military. There are, perhaps, more significant moments in the history of the world that have taken place thanks to the US Armed Forces than owe their existence to anything else.

Consider the events of April 19th, 1775. As the poet wrote, “By the rude bridge which arched the flood/their flag to April’s breeze unfurled/here once embattled farmers stood/and fired the shot heard round the world”.

Consider the Revolutionary war and the moments it provided at the Delaware’s crossing and at Valley Forge.

Consider the Barbary Wars of the early 1800s in which the American military first fought against Islamic fanatics on “… the shores of Tripoli.”

Consider the War of 1812 which saw the Battle of New Orleans fought by a future President and the defense of Baltimore which inspired the Star Spangled Banner.

Consider the Civil War, fought to preserve the Union and to extend the rights provided by our Constitution to humans long denied Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Consider the Spanish-American War which produced the phrase “Remember the Maine!” for a destroyed American Man o’ War, the charge of the Rough Riders up San Juan Hill and which brought into the orbit of the United States both Cuba and Puerto Rico, among others. It’s the reason we have a base at Gitmo in the first place.

Consider WWII which saw the US military free one continent from the brutality of a dictator and another continent from the brutality of an Empire. The Cold War which followed resulted in the US once again freeing the world from the threat of a totalitarian regime and bring Liberty, both national and individual, to millions.

Consider the Korean War with its use of our military to again liberate a people invaded and oppressed by usurpers. It signaled our willingness to not only oppose Communism born in the USSR and its satellites but that born in China and its satellites as well.

Consider the War in Viet Nam which continued that opposition to the spread of Communism in Asia.

Consider the first Gulf War and its swift and decisive end to yet another despot’s designs on the effects of a weaker neighbor.

Consider the Second Gulf War and its stand for Liberty and Independence as well as for the voices of the nations which failed in their call for a peaceful resolution and could not find it in themselves to do what must be done to ensure their joint safety.

All these conflicts and more have seen the US Military as the point of the spear which served to bring about Liberty and the Prosperity which naturally follows.

That is what Memorial Day means to me. When I think of Arlington and the resting places at Normandy and thousands of unmarked graves in far flung lands and of the anguish of families who have a loved one classified as POW or MIA. The greatness that is America; the economic engine that drives the world’s economy, the gains in industry, science, politics, art, religion and any other field of human endeavor one cares to name - all of them owe their very existence to the men and women who have answered their country’s call, as conscript or volunteer, that it was time once again for America to save the day or pave the way.

Call me naive. Call me simple minded or my premise overly simplistic. Call me whatever you like. It matters not. Because I, and people like me, know who you call when the realities of life outside of the haven American military force has built for humanity come a callin’. You don’t crack open Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals to see what you should do in a situation like this. You don’t cry out to those who, in the name of Hope and Change, denigrate our nation while abroad and apologize for it. You don’t run for the intellectuals who are free, courtesy of the soldier, to have and read 20 biased newspapers a day.

No. You call for men and women like my son. For men and women like the husbands and wives, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters of so many of my friends and family, on- and offline. You call, not just for the guys with the guns, but for Americans with guns, for the US military. Because you know they’ll come, they’ll help and they’ll leave. And all they ask in payment is a “Thank you!” one day a year - Memorial Day.

I remember … as do so many. Thank you! For all that all of you have done. Its value is beyond measure.

Blue Collar Muse

Art Laffer and Stephen Moore have written “Rich States, Poor States” for the American Legislative Exchange Council. The good folks at Net Right Nation pointed me at a Wall Street Journal column based on their work.

“Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich” tells what happens in states which enact high taxes, especially on the wealthy, and what happens in states which consciously enact lower taxes, especially on the rich. In a modern day rendition of “Atlas Shrugged”, no one should be surprised to find the wealthy tend to flee from where they are seen as merely a payday. It remains for the states so foolishly engaged to see whether they understand the real world implications of such events.

Laffer and Moore refer you to their research on New York and California and how they are faring. They also mention Texas and Tennessee and how they are faring.

Should whatever taxes you have be raised or lowered in these times? Should your state have an income tax or not? And what bearing does this information from the state level have on our national debate? At a minimum, it ought to make us consider again whether an Income Tax, high or low, is the best way to collect our needed revenues. It ought to keep us talking about the idea of the Fair Tax and its elimination of taxes based on earnings and its move to taxes based on consumption.

Most important, it ought to help us understand any plan, state or federal, attempting to tax its way into prosperity will fail, because it depends on the willing participation of those being taxed. The currently wealthy will avoid the taxes and the nature of the tax discourages the creation of new wealth. Time need not be counted on to tell us that about the President’s plan. We can see it in Laffer and Moore’s research. Then again, there are none so blind …

Blue Collar Muse

Anyway, thanks to my friend Doug at Stixblog who got it from another friend, Steve, at No Runny Eggs, (in the interests of full disclosure, both of these guys are white) I present to you a simple visual explanation of part of the reason people are screaming far louder now that President Obama is spending than they were when President Bush was spending. Please note, this comparison assumes rational understanding of the public record. It assumes you recognize objections to GWB’s spending sprees when you see them. It assumes there’s a reason the response to spending by the current Administration is more severe than response to Bush spending was. It also assumes you are in touch enough with reality to understand race has no bearing on the matter.

Let’s take a federal spending, national debt producing road trip …