Conservative Cabal

Though it’s been ages.. AGES… since we’ve blogged, we (or maybe it’s just me) still feel as strongly that the healthcare bill needs to be repealed and replaced as. soon. as. possible. November can’t come soon enough, though now I’m a little worried that Republicans feel like it’s already a fait accompli and therefore almost useless to fight against it any longer. That would be a terrible, disastrous choice for their campaigns. And oh yeah, for the economy and for healthcare in general.

May we remind the good congressmen and women that the healthcare bill was passed late in the dark of a winter’s night, and only after Ms. Pelosi twisted so many arms the Indian burn was felt all the way to Michigan, and was so uncomfortable it caused sudden and unexpected resignations across the fruited plain. This means, people DON’T LIKE IT. (Republicans, if they’re smart, will capitalize on this.)

And then businesses did what businesses are legally bound to do — their accountants wrote down the massive charges the companies would take. And Democrats, many of whom are absolutely clueless about business, complained that companies were only publicizing their charges because they are all against Obama.

But why should we repeal the whole thing? Continue reading ‘Repeal and Replace’ »

So sayeth the prophet of Obama.

44 - Gibbs says health-care will become law this week, but House Democrats still short of votes

And the arrogance of this administration continues apace.

What worries me is that many Democrats who are not Obama/Pelosi/Reid just DON’T care about the political fallout of this thing. Many have announced they won’t be seeking reelection this year — so essentially they can do whatever they want between now and November. And we’ll thank them for their sacrifice later, or something.

Let us be clear once more — health care is NOT a right. It is NOT.  Neither is wealth, shelter, or frankly, friendship.  The “progressive” push has been to eliminate the view of natural rights on which this country, like it or not, was founded. The U.S. was not founded by members of  the Frankfort School or Hegelianism or the other REALLY BAD ideas that came out of Germany in the last part of the nineteenth century.

The founders did not all agree with one another, and obviously there are academic debates about how Christian they were, or if they were, or how centralized they felt the government needed to be. But they did all believe that as a republic, we had to be a moral country, or we would fail. They all agreed that there are “certain inalienable rights” — healthcare was not listed.

I mention our founders because I do believe that the arrogance of this administration is at least reminding many people of our founding principles, and there may in fact be a rebellion against this “revolution” that the true-blue Obama voters believed they were ushering in.

It was a good week for conservatives, more or less: Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts, thereby putting Obamacare on indefinite hold; the Supreme Court’s decision for the First Amendment in Citizens United vs. FEC, which was correct in upholding the Constitution  (though we’re thinking this could benefit statists, since big business (along with unions, ironically),  is actually not conservative. But again, the law is the law); and the bankruptcy of Air America — no more Ron Reagan, Jr.? Perish the thought. (though one could argue that this will just be another excuse for the Left to pass the Fairness Doctrine) .

So about what can we be gloomy?

How about Eric Holder’s Justice Department? They have just announced the release from Gitmo of Hassan Zumiri, a guy who wanted to bomb Los Angeles Airport in 2000. To Algeria. Gee, that sounds like a great idea. And let’s not  forget that this is the same Justice Department that has decided that those who plotted 9/11 — like the mastermind of it all Kalid Sheik Mohammad — should be tried in civilian court. Even though he already confessed and said he wanted to be executed. Military commissions are apparently okay for lesser-known terrorists, but the big guys deserve respect.

Here are former Bush official John Yoo’s comments about what the U.S. Constitution will now offer our enemies::

The Constitution requires that we have an open public trial for any criminal defendant tried by our government, and one of the rights that every defendant has is to force a government to open up its files and provide all the information it has on the defendant.This is going to be terrible for our efforts against al-Qaeda because we will have to explain, for example, how we knew where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was, how we were able to intercept his cell phone calls, how we were able to read his e-mails, and how we captured him. All of this is going to have to be made public.

Feel better? Let’s not rest on a couple victories, friends.

Let’s hope it’s heard in DC.

Amazing history made tonight in Massachusetts. Scott Brown is the first Republican elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts in 38 years.  40-55% voter turnout — in a special election. In January.

What’s more ironic? That a Republican won in Massachusetts on a platform, in part, against Obama’s healthcare plan, or that he replaces the very man who pushed so hard for so long for that very bill, and for whom the bill is named??

And in case you were watching MSNBC or CNN and therefore missed Senator-elect Brown’s acceptance speech, see this text  (from The Corner). (It is missing his jokes about his daughters, alas.)

as prepared for delivery:

Thank you very much.  I’ll bet they can hear all this cheering down in Washington, D.C.

And I hope they’re paying close attention, because tonight the independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken.

From the Berkshires to Boston, from Springfield to Cape Cod, the voters of this Commonwealth defied the odds and the experts. And tonight, the independent majority has delivered a great victory.

I thank the people of Massachusetts for electing me as your next United States senator.

Every day I hold this office, I will give all that is in me to serve you well and make you proud.

Most of all, I will remember that while the honor is mine, this Senate seat belongs to no one person and no political party - and as I have said before, and you said loud and clear today, it is the people’s seat.

Continue reading ‘Shot Heard ‘Round the World’ »

Really, it’s the only thing Coakley in Massachusetts has to run on .. Scott Brown is Republican! Scott Brown would vote against the healthcare bill! How can a Republican hold Teddy Kennedy’s seat? Teddy KENNEDY’s seat?

Inevitable, we suppose. Ben Nelson has asked that the provision in the healthcare bill that would have exempted Nebraska from new Medicaid costs be removed.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nelson-seeks-deletion-of-apf-1525519888.html?x=0&.v=1

Meanwhile, he is booed in Pizza Hut in Nebraska.  He seems to misunderstand their anger.

It’s not pretty, what is currently going down in Washington, DC. And I’m not talking about the snowstorm or even  Sen. Coburn’s remarks about Sen. Byrd, which has Dana Milibank in a tizzy of disgruntlement. (Why, by the way, is it unseemly for Sen. Coburn to say he hopes - devoutly - that the Dems won’t have enough members to pass the bill tomorrow, while it’s okay for Dems to drag a sick man from his bed to pass something four days before Christmas that not even a majority of Americans WANT? )

Does anyone — ANYONE — really know what is in the bill? And if  you do, HOW could you in good conscience vote for it? As James Taranto noted last week in the Wall Street Journal, even socialist Bernie Sanders was (at least at one time) opposed to it because it is simply not socialist enough.

But here’s this, from Yuval Levin on the Corner:

The CBO assessment of the bill tells the appalling story. We are going to raise taxes by half a trillion dollars over the next ten years, increase spending by more than a trillion dollars, cut Medicare by $470 billion but use that money to fund a new entitlement rather than to fix Medicare itself, bend the health care cost curve up rather than down, insert layers of bureaucracy between doctors and patients, and compel and subsidize universal participation in a failed system of health insurance rather than reform or improve it.

Again, we must wonder WHY Democrats are in such a panic? I mean, don’t they believe they have a mandate from the people? If so, what are they so worried about? Maybe it’s because what the bill will really do and who it will affect is leaking out. See this Sunday evening Wall Street Journal editorial:

Never in our memory has so unpopular a bill been on the verge of passing Congress, never has social and economic legislation of this magnitude been forced through on a purely partisan vote, and never has a party exhibited more sheer political willfulness that is reckless even for Washington or had more warning about the consequences of its actions.

Democrats say that Republicans have no alternatives. That is, of course, hogwash. How about making more minor adjustments to current insurance coverage so that it is portable, available across state lines, gives the same tax benefits to individuals as companies receive, and still ensures coverage for those with preexisting conditions? I HAVE in fact read many ideas from conservatives and Republicans that espouse just this route, and give details on how this could be done, at FAR less cost to taxpayers and patients alike.

Let’s hope the House members want to go home to a HAPPY holiday, and not one where their tax-paying constituents will be openly rioting.

This is the price we must pay so that white liberals could soothe their racial guilt? I feel sick. Guess I should call my doctor before another layer of bureaucracy wants to know WHY.

The economic truth, that is. As Obama meets with banks to try to loosen lending practices, and as he invites luminaries from private companies, the government, and, err…SEIU and other unions to forums about how to create more jobs (sigh), there is hope in this: students and younger workers are hip to the truth.

See, for example, this post by David Huffman of Chicago Young Republicans, wherein he is shocked to agree with Paul Krugman that the recent “good news” of 11,000 new jobs isn’t that good. But then the agreement with Krugman ends there, as Krugman argues for even more stimulus funds, etc etc.

And then the following note,  by Loyola University Chicago student Elizabeth Davidson about a Wall Street Journal video, reveals an understanding of Keynesian versus supply-side economics, and a thirst for rational thought: Continue reading ‘Hope is not lost — the future knows the truth’ »

Celebrations are kicking off in Berlin in honor of the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.  And this should be celebrated. The Berlin Wall was a symbol, and a potent one, of the lack of freedom and choice in communist Europe. When it fell, it proved that there is indeed a beautiful power in hope –  when that hope is for freedom from tyranny.

And this brings us to healthcare, and the passage last night in the House of the most “sweeping overhaul” of healthcare in our nation…ever.

Here’s a simple analogy. You have a yard that is 85% green and growing, but 15%  is in the shade and doesn’t get the water or sunlight it needs. To fix this, you tear up the entire yard with a bulldozer. And so there is no grass and nothing grows. Only Uncle Sam can plant the seeds now. And the seeds he will plant will be dictated by what’s politically useful and popular, not by what people need or, heaven forbid, want.

Rep. Paul Ryan put it well: “Does this bill mean the government will take over running health care? Yes. But what’s worse, this bill replaces the American idea with a European-style social welfare state.”

Socialism, friends is bad. If you’re under 25, you might just know this in theory. But it is bad. It seems like a good idea at the time, because it means you’ve appointed a middle man.  You’ve “done something” to help, but all you’ve done is passed the buck. You don’t have to take care of anyone. Someone else — Uncle Sam (or his appointed and unelected bureaucracy)– will do it.  When we take the choice and, frankly, burden away from individuals to help or serve other individuals, we have done something dangerous to the fabric of who we are as human beings. We have fed our most selfish whims. We have become something less than human. We are like those who stand by while someone is robbed and cheated, and hold up our hands and say “not my problem” and point to the government.

If you believe  that the best way to ensure everyone has access to healthcare is by making it the law (requiring all but the smallest employers to provide healthcare or pay an 8% fine), jobs will be fewer, and  good healthcare hard to come by. Pharmaceutical innovations will wither. And instead, research funding will be handed out like defense contracts are now, and pulled at whim depending on who is in office. And people will die or be crippled because of it.

It is a testament to our humanity if we wish to help others. We should help our brothers and sisters. We should care for them when they are sick. But this is the role of family and friends. Or if we don’t have those, others who we pay to help us.  And if we have no money, friends, or family — private charity.  And if you think private charities are like char houses, start your own or band with others to do the same.  And there would be more charity if people who had money were free to use it to fund what they wish — churches, local community centers, etc. The point is — it’s not someone else’s job to help someone. It’s YOUR job. The government will be happy to do your job for you for now. But, like Faust,  you will pay in the end.

Comfort can be taken by those of us who cherish freedom and liberty in that the bill passed on a narrow margin — 5 votes.  Would have been 4 had Rep.  Cao of Louisiana not crumbled. But may this socialist healthcare “wall” against freedom and innovation crumble before it’s even had a chance to be built.

This may be belated, but we wanted to honor Irving Kristol, who passed away last week at the age of 89. Known in some outlets as the father of “neoconservatism”, he was actually a forward thinker. He saw problems with “progressivism” and chose to address them honestly, and was critical in helping the Republican Party (through Reagan) embrace supply-side economics. A congenial and warm soul from all accounts of those who knew him personally, we can only point to his writing. And this quote, which we read in an obit, struck us strongly.

It seems to me that the politics of liberal reform, in recent years, shows many of the same characteristics as amateur poetry. It has been more concerned with the kind of symbolic action that gratifies the passions of the reformer rather than with the efficacy of the reforms themselves. Indeed, the outstanding characteristic of what we call ‘the New Politics’ is precisely its insistence on the overwhelming importance of revealing, in the public realm, one’s intense feelings — we must ‘care,’ we must ‘be concerned,’ we must be ‘committed.’ Unsurprisingly, this goes along with an immense indifference to consequences, to positive results or the lack thereof.

And knowing the truth of this, as we do, is it any shocker that we distrust ‘healthcare reform’?

In any case, RIP to a great thinker and man.