Those who pound their guns into plowshares will plow for those who did not.

http://writingplaces.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/obama-hosts-muslim-prayer-day-in-the-white-house/

I saw you on Solomon’s blogroll. Nice blog.

There is overwhelming evidence that Obama is in fact a Muslim, and of the traditional deceptive jihadist type, but mis-stating the context of a photo only makes it harder to get that information out.

The EPA, like many other federal agencies, has failed to live up to the purpose for which it was ostensibly created, is nothing more than a drain of taxpayer dollars, and should be abolished. The few good things it has done are outweighed by the hindrance that they are to our economy. We all want clean air and water, but there has to be a better, more efficient way to go about it. Before you jump to the conclusion that I am saying this merely because they are supporting Obama’s cap-and-trade agenda, understand that I have been saying this about the EPA and many other federal agencies for a long time. My opinion has not changed regardless of which of the last several presidents were in office. The Department of Energy is another prime example. They were supposedly created to “reduce dependence on foreign oil,” but have failed miserably at that goal. Now they are a bloated bureaucracy sucking up hundreds of millions of dollars per year for little demonstrated benefit. The same can be said of the Department of Education. Since their entry into the education arena, the level of education at all levels has demonstrably fallen dramatically. Do I even need to discuss the IRS? What a waste of BILLIONS of dollars every year.

The Supreme Court may have said that the EPA can do what they will, but does that make it right? There have been many Supreme Court decisions that can be legitimately argued as violating the constitution. The way our government is supposed to be set up, the congress makes the laws. Executive orders have come to have the weight of law, but technically violate the constitution. Should the Supreme Court be stepping in to stop the President from making executive orders? Maybe.

Would I be worried about the EPA doing what they are doing if that were the only thing to worry about? Not much. However, the EPA is only one cog in a machine that is grinding America into sausage. It is part of what I now see as a concerted effort to intentionally bring down the American economic and social system. Mr. Obama and the democrats are following the Cloward and Piven strategy to a T.

As Jim Hoft asks, “ask yourself, what would Obama be doing differently today if he intentionally set out to destroy the American economy?”

Obama inherited a $400 Billion deficit (although he just lied AGAIN the other day saying he “inherited a $1.3 Trillion deficit), and has managed to turn it into a $2 TRILLION deficit. He has increased the DEBT to $12 TRILLION, and that’s only the reported debt. CBO and other sources say that if you add up ALL of the government books the real debt is closer to $106 TRILLION. The non-stimulating stimulus was bad enough, but if you pile on a $2-plus Trillion health care takeover, and a cap-and-trade scheme that will simply ship hundreds of billions of dollars and most of what remains of our industry overseas (industries which generates much of our wealth), our economy can’t sustain or recover from that. Obama continues to say we have to “spend our way out of this mess.” Please tell me you don’t actually think this strategy will work. If you have 5 maxed out credit cards, do you improve your credit rating and get out of debt by getting another credit card? Does spending more money that you don’t have do ANYTHING for your financial position but make it worse? This is simple common sense. The Keynesian economics, combined with the Saul Alinsky tactics, and the Cloward-Piven strategy that Obama is employing are GUARANTEED to destroy our nation.

The next few months will determine the fate of this nation for decades, perhaps centuries to come. If Obama and the democrats generate the total collapse power grab that we are currently moving toward, it will take a long time and a revolution to overcome it.

Greetings. Ironically you and I chose the same topic to write about, only came at it (perhaps expectantly) from different angles.

Naturally, the Obama administration is not giving new power to a governmental office, but rather that office is choosing to exercise a power that they have had all along (confirmed by the supreme court). No freedoms are being taken away from anyone. The Clean Air Act has been around for a while.

Part of the reason why this could seem shocking is that we have been lulled into thinking the EPA does nothing given that the Bush administration EPA was undoubtedly the worst EPA staff to ever exist in our government. They failed in every way to uphold their job of regulating environmental indiscretions in our country. Can’t really blame them though– they were just following orders.

Even so, I don’t think you should be worried. As much as I would be fine with the EPA taking charge, it’s probably not going to happen. Obama has already made it clear that he prefers legislative methods for carbon over management by the EPA. This is most likely just a political prod to get Senators and lobbyists moving on making a bill get through Congress–and well done. They should dump the health care bill (I imagine we agree on that) and focus on passing climate legislation.

I don’t think the status quo with insurance companies is the answer for health care either. Why do you think we have the system we have that makes it NECESSARY to have insurance? What do you propose as the answer?

The biggest culprits of high health care costs, and in turn high insurance rates, are TRIAL LAWYERS. The answer to this problem is TORT REFORM. No one disagrees that a plaintiff should be awarded actual monetary damages for lost wages, medical treatment, etc. when a defendant is at fault. Where the argument comes in is the nebulous and MASSIVE “pain and suffering” awards, the size of which is determined by the skill of the lawyer in manipulating the EMOTIONS of the jury. Should a STUPID woman who burns herself with coffee in a McDonald’s drive through get a multi-million dollar settlement because unlike 99% of functional adults she apparently did not know that HOT coffee is ACTUALLY HOT? Should John “Breck Girl” Edwards be able to channel the spirit of a tragically killed girl to garner a multi-million dollar “pain and suffering” award? Before you answer these questions, realize that the trial lawyer on average gets 54% of these awards. They are getting rich while costing ALL OF US money because the companies we buy things from must pass on the costs to us in the form of higher product costs. As the likelihood of getting sued, and the likelihood of losing those suits increases, the necessity of having insurance to cover you from being sued increases, as does the necessity to have insurance to protect you from those who do not. Limiting these “jackpot justice” awards is a COST FREE way to bring down the costs of health care. Why not try the free stuff first before mortgaging the future of the next 4 generations?

“Millions uninsured and dying for lack of care?” Really? That’s a liberal talking point that has already been debunked. Princess Pelosi and the Court Jester Harry Reid tell us that there are approximately 40 million people without health insurance. Proving that statistics can be made to say anything you want them to say if you don’t tell the whole story, once you take out those who CHOOSE not to spend their money on insurance (young, invincible, want BMW’s more than health care insurance, etc.), those who are eligible for various state programs and Medicaid but who have not signed up for them, and illegal aliens, you are left with at best 10 million people without health insurance. So, let me see if I understand you. Since conservative estimates (that’s “cautiously moderate,” not politically conservative) peg the cost of the democrats health care takeover at $2.5 Trillion, you’re saying you think it’s OK to take that money from people who have actually EARNED that money and essentially pay $250,000 EACH for those 10 million people to have health care insurance? And in addition to the confiscation of $2.5 Trillion of American wealth, you think it’s OK for the government to then decide who gets what health care, how much of it they get, and when? The democrats even admit that after this plan goes into effect, there will still be 4 to 6 million UNINSURED. That basically doubles the amount per person “insured” under the democrat plan to HALF A MILLION DOLLARS. Can you use “government” and “inefficient” in a sentence? I knew you could.

On average, a pretty good health care insurance plan costs about $5,000 per year. For all of the 10 million supposedly uninsured and “dying” people in the country, you could just outright buy them insurance for $50 Billion for a year. That’s $500 Billion for 10 years worth of insurance. That’s still less than 1/4th of what the Obama/democrat plan will cost, yet you would still have CHOICE in your health care. Can you still justify a blind support for this “reform” plan?

Less government = MORE FREEDOM

As for Afghanistan, it started as an attack against Al Qaeda who attacked us, and who were hiding in Taliban controlled Afghanistan. Both G.W. Bush and Obama have let it evolve into a quagmire because both lacked/lack the political will to do what was/is necessary to secure VICTORY. IF the military will be allowed to do what is necessary to win, then let’s stay and finish it. However, it’s becoming pretty obvious that the Campaigner-in-Chief isn’t going to allow that to happen. We have rules of engagement that prevent us from engaging the enemy who is right in front of us. We have our own government PROSECUTING Navy SEAL’s who captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq. This is a terrorist who brutally tortured, murdered, and burned 4 U.S. contractors, and was the leader behind the Fallujah uprising causing hundreds of Iraqi and American deaths. What atrocity were these SEAL’s guilty of? Giving this son-of-a-female-dog a bloody lip.

Contrast FDR’s “Infamy” speech following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to that of Obama announcing his “strategy” for Afghanistan. You have FDR and the American people united to do anything necessary to DEFEAT the enemy. That means WIN, or to achieve VICTORY. Then you have Obama saying we really don’t want to be in Afghanistan, and we’re going to send in more troops but we’ll bring them home in 18 month, or begin our reevaluation or something in 18 months. With his strategy, the only thing that will result is hundreds, perhaps thousands more dead Americans, a defeated withdrawal from Afghanistan, and an emboldened enemy not afraid to bring the fight to us. If he’s not going to let us win, skip the dead soldiers part and BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!