America's Truth Detector has, as usual, hit the nail on the head.  If the GOP is to be salvaged after the damage done by years of a bastardized, lukewarm, smiley-faded, big-government, open-borders, "compassionate", Bush-wacked version of conservatism, it must teach.  It must lead.  As the band of Ponce de Listeners traverses the country in search of the Republican Fountain of Moderate Voters, real leaders like Jim DeMint, Paul Ryan, Mark Levin, Thomas Sowell, David Keene, and Sarah Palin are leading a movement.  These patriots refuse to soften their message.  There is no need to moderate the truth.  There is no need to moderate ordered liberty.  There is no need to moderate a principled philosophy.  There is no need to moderate the message of the founders.

To those who urge moderation, I would reinforce the point made by Rush in asking for someone to point out how many stops there were on the Reagan listening tour.  Exactly none.  Reagan hammered home a consistent message of liberty, small government, self-reliance, and free market capitalism for sixteen years before being elected in a landslide.  His speeches inspired and educated a generation of voters and politicians.  He refused to waver and pander John McCain-style to the left.  He refused to let them define him and his message.  Instead, he took them on and defeated them with truth, logic, faith, and an impeccable understanding of the principles upon which our nation was founded.

To those who argue that America is just not that conservative, I would ask them to remember just how much ground McCain made up in the polls and how much money he took in after selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate.  I would ask them to remember how energized the party was for a fleeting moment as someone with a clear message was brought into the forefront.  Sarah attracted people in droves to listen to a message of strength, of liberty, of values.

Ask yourself, "how many times have I been lead by a moderate anything?"  Was Washington a moderate?  Are "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" the impotent words of a moderate?  Do the words "Perfect freedom is as necessary to the health and vigor of commerce as it is to the health and vigor of citizenship." sound like the words of a "centrist"?  Patrick Henry would say not.  Who are the great moderates?  What invigorated followers have they led?  

"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." ~ Ayn Rand

"Moderates" should move out of the way or be run over.

      

      

      

Environmentalists are urging Congress to adopt a global warming policy in advance of international climate talks in Copenhagen scheduled for December, where leaders have agreed to update the Kyoto Protocol, which the Bush administration refused to sign.

But, the fearless author bravely failed to mention that the Clinton administration of which, alarmist-in-chief, Algore was a part, was the first administration to reject the Kyoto Protocol.

Some economic sectors, geographic regions, and income groups
may be disproportionately impacted by both climate change
impacts and mandatory GHG reductions. Any climate protection
program needs to take account of these impacts and
provide appropriate assistance to those disadvantaged or disproportionately
impacted by such program.

Yes, because sending the third-world our tax dollars ensures that fairness is fairly, equitably, impartially, even-handedly, and benevolently distributed.

We, the members of the U.S. Climate Action
Partnership, pledge to work with the President,
the Congress, and all other stakeholders
to enact an environmentally effective,
economically sustainable, and fair climate
change program consistent with our
principles at the earliest practicable date.

Thanks to these geniuses:

      

Michelle Malkin notes Glenn Beck’s questioning of Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut here.

Need-based justice…Asshats indeed…

      

Recently Dennis Prager noted on his show that Democrats don't speak of money spent, instead, they speak of investments.  This has been proven repeatedly over the past few years by our Investor-in-Chief.  Why is this type of doublespeak harmful?  All political speech of this kind is very dangerous because, while there is some truth allowed to show through, it is mostly obscured by a veil of inaccurate or misleading data or buzz words with vague-at-best meanings.  "Create new jobs" and "40 million without health care" come to mind...

      

      

By decree of The Great One, the word statist will now replace liberal or socialist…

Really? We’re supposed to be outraged by AIG’s paying of contractually obligatory bonuses when the statists in congress were not only fully aware of the bonuses, but gave the failed company the money in the first place? Ask yourselves what taxing 95% of these bonuses is going to do to help the left-handed, homeless, transgendered, mill rat. HOW does confiscating AIG executives’ private property help you? It may make the drooling mobs feel better temporarily, but be warned, you are next! Your company, your bonus, your earnings.

These statists will not stop with AIG. These poor schlubs are simply a convenient target of outrage. Head statist, Barack Obama recently said that he wants to channel the public outrage in order to ram his agenda through congress. Yes, while we have thuh peeple lathered up real nice like, we’ve got to convert the potential energy of rage to the kinetic energy of destruction to shred capitalism and constitution and any other pesky hindrance to their 5 Year Plan. Why aren’t ye of the misplaced anger not scared to death by the seizure of property or the threats by Barney Frank to subpoena names of executives without assurance that these names will be held in confidentiality? These folks’ families are being threatened. What if your company or even you were to err, should your family be targeted for harassment or worse?

Where is the outrage that Obama and Dodd received more than a tenth as much of the bonuses in campaign contributions? Where is the outrage that the government has just taken out a $215,000 mortgage in your name?

Garroted with piano wire? I’m simply baffled that this is going on in my country. You damn morons. We do not convict anyone without a trial. Why is anger this not directed at Dodd, Frank, Paulson, Obama, Bush, or Clinton? This feigned outrage by these carpetbaggers is nothing short of asinine.

Look, I’m in no way an apologist for AIG. They should have failed. They should have been allowed to fail. The soothsayers may have very well been correct in saying that there would have been great pain if AIG was allowed to fail. But this would have been greatly favored over the slow and extremely costly death that we’re now causing.

It’s easy to go along with groupthink. It’s easy to be spoon-fed your opinion from the Obama Whitehouse spokeswhores who pretend to be journalists. Reason and thought are more difficult and may require pain. I speak from experience. This administration is asking you to suspend logic. They are asking you to be led by nothing but pure emotion. Wake up and think before it’s too late.

      

In his latest attempt to cobble together some sort of legacy, former Federal Reserve Board Chair, Alan Greenspan attempts to deflect blame for the bursting of the housing market bubble and collapse of the credit markets. One of the most interesting proclamations is the following:

There are at least two broad and competing explanations of the origins of this crisis. The first is that the "easy money" policies of the Federal Reserve produced the U.S. housing bubble that is at the core of today's financial mess.

The second, and far more credible, explanation agrees that it was indeed lower interest rates that spawned the speculative euphoria. However, the interest rate that mattered was not the federal-funds rate, but the rate on long-term, fixed-rate mortgages.

So, banks offering nothing for savings accounts, easy credit, and ridiculously low rates for home equity lines of credit had nothing to do with it? Sorry Mr. Greenspan, I’m not buying it. While long-term mortgage rates, both fixed and adjustable (although arguably, some ARM’s are affected), do not have a direct correlation with fed funds rates, these other rates do.

I argue that it was a perfect storm of these two and other factors. I agree with Mr. Greenspan in that the Fed was not solely responsible. There were plenty of other factors involved - the low interest rates, President Bush’s lack of interest in defending the currency through fiscal policy and the Fed through monetary policy, the huge upswing in the cost of energy in 2007 and 2008, the short-selling of the dollar, the risky lending encouraged by the government through Fannie and Freddie, the Community Reinvestment Act all were contributors, but the Fed did create an environment for banks to increase borrowing and for both small businesses and consumers to become more heavily leveraged.

I also agree with Mr. Greenspan that the answer is not to over-steer and over-regulate, but, he concludes:

“Our challenge in the months ahead will be to install a regulatory regime that will ensure responsible risk management on the part of financial institutions, while encouraging them to continue taking the risks necessary and inherent in any successful market economy.”

I have two problems with this. The first is that you will have to convince the same law-makers who brushed off the demands for regulation by Bush and McCain in 2003 and again in 2006 that responsible regulation is needed. The second is that you have to trust financial institutions to take their own risks and be allowed to fail if they take on more risk than they can handle. The bankers are big boys, they should know what they’re doing and they should definitely have the fear of failing to aid them in decision making, not a regulatory agency that they can look to as a safety net.

      

From Red State.com

"At the Washington Post, Ceci Connolly reports President Obama’s proposed budget will create a $634 billion health care fund to partially pay for a vast expansion of the U.S. health system.

According to the Post, Obama’s health care overhaul will cost as much as $1 trillion over the next decade.

Obama would pay for the expansion by trimming tax breaks for the wealthy and tightening payments to insurers, hospitals and physicians, according to a senior administration official."

http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2009/02/25/obama-budget-creates-634-billion-health-care-fund/

+++++++

You see how he's going to implement socialized medicine now don't you? Medicare/Medicaid only reimburses around 60% of the cost of the procedures/visits of recipients to the care providers. If these socialists compel insurers, hospitals, and physicians to provide increased care for less compensation, they are not going to be able to remain in business, and don't kid yourselves, a doctor's office or hospital is a business. Businesses have (used to - before bank/automaker bailouts) to make a profit or they go under. The math is very simple. As the private sector responds to increased public (government) pressure, it will shrink as capital is diverted elsewhere. Once again, big federal government to the rescue and substandard, rationed care for all - except for politicians of course. They won't be susceptible to waiting lines or lack of choice. Socialism for thee, but not for me is their motto...

++++++

Here's an article discussing the trend of Dr.'s opting out of Medicare/Medicaid. What happens when they aren't given the choice to opt out? What will suppressed salaries and increased patient loads do to incentives where bright people who are considering becoming doctors and nurses are concerned?

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5326078&page=1

++++++

The key to understanding why the free market is a better arbiter of health care is one simple thing - price. The difference between government-run health care and free market health care is how one arrives at the price of health care. The free market begins with someone calculating the costs of doing business by making informed decisions on buildings, equipment, location, staff required, and ability of customers or patients to pay for the services/products provided. A combination of the amount of competition, cost of business, barriers to entry into the market, and the amount a customer is willing to voluntarily pay determines price.

The government does not approach things in such a way. The government may start with good intentions (usually the case), but when health care becomes a "right", there are no price controls. All of a sudden, everyone who has the sniffles wants to see a specialist. The government is faced with a dilemma. On one hand, they have to pay for hospital building and equipment maintenance, supplies, and salaries. They can only tax the wealthy so much before they take their ball and go home so to speak. On the other, they have ever-increasing demand. They can't raise prices to compensate because health care is "free" and a "right". Guess what starts to suffer? At first, maybe hospital administrators can't afford to maintain the landscaping the way they used to or maybe the food quality suffers (more) in the cafeteria. Maybe the hospital can't afford that extra nurse they need or can’t afford to upgrade to the latest in imaging technology. You can forget new development, discovery, or any type of research. Who's going to do it? Who's going to pay for it? Where will be the incentive to develop new compounds or new uses for existing approved drugs? Will it be compelled Soviet-style at the muzzle of a gun?

At some point after all of the cut-backs comes rationing. Maybe grandma doesn't really need that hip replacement. Maybe grandpa only has one antihypertensive from which to choose. Maybe it doesn't work as well or causes a reaction that precludes him from taking it. I guess they're old anyway right? They've lived long enough. What about the child that needs a bone marrow transplant? That's way too expensive of a procedure. I guess pain management would be best for him. AIDS, cancer? No soup for you.

We've sat back for the last 80 years as our individual liberties are slowly eroded. We've allowed the federal government to decide for us how much water we can flush in our toilets, what kind of light bulbs we can have in our homes, what kind of car we can drive, how much and what types of energy we can produce in this for country, where we can live, how to conduct business, how much of our personal property we are allowed to keep... We've been told election cycle after election cycle how greedy we are and how evil capitalism is as a form of economics. How many drugs have been developed by sponsors hoping a profit? How many innovations have been made in every industry where there is still incentive? I say enough! Talk to your neighbors and friends. Tell them to get their heads out of the sand and vote for their liberty. Tell them to read and understand the Declaration and the Constitution and read the words of our founders without the filters of some leftist textbook or clouded by the rhetoric of a politician...