However, many people were concerned that the Connector was being granted too much regulatory authority. It was given the power to decide what products it would offer and to designate which types of insurance offered "high quality and good value." This phrase in particular worried many observers because it is the same language frequently included in legislation mandating insurance benefits.

At the time the legislation passed, Ed Haislmaier of the Heritage Foundation reassured critics that "the Connector will neither design the insurance products being offered nor regulate the insurers offering the plans." In reality, however, the Connector’s board has seen itself as a combination of the state legislature and the insurance commissioner, adding a host of new regulations and mandates.

In the 1970's and 1980's, when the mafia did it, it was called racketeering. When Wall Street financiers did it, it was called insider trading. Today, when the government does it, it's called acting in the public interest and being stewards of the environment.

During the 1970's, people were buying pet rocks. They were personal and unique. That's how they were marketed. Yes, they were the same rocks that you could have picked up in your backyard for free. Before you say how stupid these people who bought these things were, just remember they purchased a real product of their own free will.

During the 1980's shady investors sold junk bonds, some legitimate and some not. There were stories in financial publications of scam artists selling penny stocks in companies that didn't exist. There was Michael Milken, who manipulated the junk bond market through insider trading. He went to jail.

In colleges across the nation, economics classes use a fictional product called a widget to demonstrate how supply and demand works. But no one actually sold them for real. Prepare yourself, America, the first fictional product is about to go on sale. It's called a carbon credit.

Companies owned by Al Gore and other members of the environmental movement are positioning themselves to get very rich off this new fictional product. GE is rumored to already be putting infrastructure into place to trade carbon credits. It will work like the stock market, and a lot of people on the inside have an opportunity to get rich quick - with the help of the federal government.

The difference between pet rocks and carbon credits is that you will have no choice but to buy the product, whether directly as a manufacturer or energy producer or indirectly as a taxpayer. Environmentalists are poised to make a killing at the business owner's, taxpayer and consumer's expense. And the government is going to get a nice cut.

The government will be able to redistribute the wealth from the folks who pay for electricity, purchase products that are manufactured in plants that give off CO2 emissions and who buy food from stores who rely on fossil fuels to have their shelves stocked.

This has grave ramifications on our economy and our quality of life. In a Washington Post op-ed Sarah Palin wrote "In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax program." 

In a previous op-ed, Palin wrote:

I am deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president's cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.

Backed by manipulated data, the environmental movement creates this false market by first advocating the theory that man made global warming is causing our planet to head toward a catastrophic disaster. Then it seeks to get the market created by the force of federal law. Many liberals (who pride themselves on intellectualism) don't like real capitalism because they see it as a a corrupt and exploitive system. Yet, they have no problem with supporting an extortion scheme designed for members of their movement to line their own pockets as long as everyone else's wealth is being redistributed in a game of global socialism cloaked in the moniker of environmentalism, even if intellectual thuggery is involved in manipulating the data.

The Tom Becket Show references the article that blew this whole thing wide open:

In this explosive article from the Telegraph UK, author James Delingpole reveals the most pointed sections of e mails discovered by hackers, between researchers at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (front and center in proclaiming Anthropogenic Global Warming, i.e. manmade). In the e mails, the "scientists" admit that the evidence does not align with their theories, that they ought to conceal that fact, and that they ought to continue to silence dissenters.

When the mafia did it, it was called paying for "protection." When businesses did it, it was called collusion or anti-trust. When Michael Milken did it, it was called insider trader. For that, they could go to jail or suffer harsh penalties.

But, when the government does it, it's called public interest and environmental stewardship. Racketeering and extortion is legal only if it sanctioned by an act of Congress and signed into law by the president.

If you don't pay for your carbon emissions, "tings" can happen. We are going to be forced to buy these "widgets."

The 'Cap And Tax' Dead End by Sarah Palin

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? by James Delingpole

Copenhagen's political science by Sarah Palin

Instead of falling on their faces, the way they are supposed to in a free market system, these ineffective corporate managers are propped up and allowed to keep their failed businesses in tact because they are too big to fail all because some liberals are afraid too many jobs will be lost. So they interfere with that process instead of allowing the banks and the auto companies to fail in such a way that the strongest components of their businesses can be taken over by more qualified, more competent executives with better senses of integrity, industry knowledge and bigger bankrolls.

Our government looks to bailout banks and companies whose management approaches, structure, philosophy and accounting procedures are old school. Those in charge now have outlived their usefulness. In the socially Darwinist world of true capitalism, two of the big three auto makers would disappear, only to re-emerge as stronger, more fiscally sound businesses capable of competing with European companies because they will be owned by a new set of executives and stock holders. Free market capitalism would allow them to become efficient again.

The snapshot in time shows people losing their jobs. The long running movie shows them coming back to better jobs with stronger companies down the road. During the snapshot in time, the blow to the economy would be staggering. There is no sugar coating this. This is an economic crisis, and there are going to be bad things that are going to happen. But no one has ever remained permanently unemployed because their employer went under. They merely struggle until their next opportunity.

This blow can either happen now, with no bailouts, or it can happen later over and over again every time an industry runs into trouble and every time the government has to tap into taxpayer money to fix it.

Yes, I'm saying that bailout or no bailout, a lot of people are going to get hurt. The only difference is, if we can get the hurt behind us now, the companies and the economic system that redevelops later will be stronger, better and less and less likely to be subject to the same type of collapse.

Ronald Reagan has said all there needs to be said in 1975 address to CPAC. Those principals still ring true today. Why? Because there are certain constants in our Founders' vision for the United States. Knowing that the winds of tyranny would always blow when the resolve for freedom was at its most complacent mements, they instituted into our constitutional form of government one simple fundamental principle: that government should be limited.

It becomes the responsibility of each passing generation that this fundamental principle be maintained. If we and the generations to come do not repeatedly stand up for that one basic principal and its underlying tenet that human freedom comes from God, we are dead in the water. 

Now there has been a lot of discussion about forming a third political party born out of frustration with the current state of GOP, particularly after election losses in 2006 & 2008. There is a mentality inside the beltway that Republicans can moderate its message and tone to attract liberals and centrists. They believe falsely in the inevitability of business as usual and still think we need to peddle questionable influence in a political landscape that is perceived to be becoming more and more liberal in order to survive.

Our nation is at a crossroads, and this is once again a "time for choosing."

Political parties must stand for something. When Republicans were in the wilderness in the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan knew that the doctrine of "blurring the lines" between parties was not an appropriate way to win elections. Unfortunately, the Republican Party today has decided to choose a candidate (Dede Scozzafava) who more than blurs the lines, and there is no real difference between the Democrat and the Republican in this race. This is why Doug Hoffman is running on the Conservative Party's ticket.

Republicans and conservatives around the country are sending an important message to the Republican establishment in their outstanding grassroots support for Doug Hoffman: no more politics as usual.

If creating a third party is not the way to go, then what do we do about a party that cost us two of the biggest elections in our history? The Republican party is not a bad party. It has just gone astray. A third party, like a public option in health care, would only drive the one party that (albeit imperfectly) has kept us viable all these years out of business. 

Instead, we need to look at what the liberals did. Study how they slowly and steadily infiltrated the Democrat party from the 1960's until now. Did radical socialists need a third party to advance their agenda? The answer is obvious. And so, conservatives now must take up the mantle of doing something very important for the future of our republic. 

If we are ever, EVER, going to take our country back, we need to take our party back first. 

The Republican party IS the conservative party in America just as the Democrat party is the liberal party. Those who run from the contrast avoid the great Ronald Reagan's call for "raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people..." 

The Republican party is Ronald Reagan's party. We are Ronald Reagan's people. We love a country that is without compare because Ronald Reagan was true to the spirit of our Founders and knew exactly what the role of government was. And when implemented properly, the Constitution worked - giving us the strongest period of peace time prosperity in history and protecting us from outside aggressors such as the Soviet Union. 

I listen to all the discussions on the direction of America and the direction of the GOP and scratch my head thinking "if what Ronald Reagan did worked best, why mess with that?" Why not just take Reagan's principles and apply them to today's problems? The answer is that simple. Listen to Reagan. Listen to the TEA Party movement. Listen to Sarah Palin.

It's time to make the "RINO" an endangered species. 

First we must take our party back. Then we can take our country back.

Tea Party protesters and Town Hall meeting attendees have been mocked and vilified by the American left in such a nasty hateful way, you wonder if liberals ever had an ounce of decency to begin with. Last week, we had a G20 Summit with hundreds of arrests after protesters threw rocks and became violent. Liberals were silent. We had hundreds of thousands, possibly a million people in Washington DC for the 9/12 Tea Party with no arrests. Liberals were outraged, calling them "angry mobs." The ugly political discourse we are witnessing today is a direct result of the fact that liberals are hypocrites, intellectually inconsistent and downright intellectually dishonest.

After the Tea Parties, Nancy Pelosi accused American citizens who were exercising their right of free speech of carrying swastikas and being part of a funded AstroTurf movement. The president also chided his own citizens in a way most management and leadership trainers will tell you is destructive to the relationship between a leader and his people.

Many liberals who accuse the Tea Party and Town Hall movements of being racist, hate mongering, anti-American are the same people who burned American flags and acted violently at anti war protests during the Vietnam and Iraqi wars. The Snooper Report said:

I didn't see anyone dropping their trousers and crapping on the American Flag at any of the Tea Parties. Did you? I didn't see anyone dragging the American Flag behind them as they walked around. Did you? I didn't see anyone vandalizing any private or government property at the rallies. Did you? Apparently, that is reserved for the anti-Americanist crowds to do and Nancy Pelosi says that they can do that because it is OK with her.

For years, liberals have screamed "freedom of speech" when protesting. But when the shoe is on the other foot, they don't think very highly of freedom of speech. They considered it patriotic to protest. Now, right wing protesters are considered unpatriotic.

"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this (the Bush) administration somehow you're not patriotic," a shrill-sounding Clinton shouted during her address to Connecticut's Jefferson Jackson Bailey dinner. Oh well, you can throw that argument out the window. The shoe is on the other foot. That argument is no longer convenient for them.

It's the epitome of irony that the president of the United States goes before Congress and calls American citizens and government leaders liars and a few days later, he is complaining to the press about the political discourse on health care reform.

Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple. - President Obama

I think it's important for the media, you know - not to do any media-bashing here - to recognize that right now, in this 24-hour news cycle, the easiest way to get on CNN is or Fox or any of the other stations, MSNBC is to say something rude and outrageous," Obama said on CNN's Sept. 20 "State of the Union." "If you're civil and polite and you're sensible and you don't exaggerate the-bad things about your opponent and you know, you might get on one of the Sunday shows. But you're not going to be on the loop. And, you know, part of what I'd like to see is all of us reward decency and civility in our political discourse. - President Obama

The liberal media, of course, continues the hypocrisy. Gary Fouse of Radarsite writes: 

It's hard to put into words just how arrogant a man Keith Olbermann is after watching his performance on "Countdown" tonight, which was devoted to insulting the thousands of Americans who turned out to demonstrate against high taxes and profligate government spending today. And why did he insult them? Was it because they threw rocks at police, rioted or had to be taken off to jail? Hardly because that did not happen. No, Olbermann attacked them for having the temerity to protest high taxes and out-of-control spending.

Pop culture also rears it's ugly head as the godless wonder himself decides he is going to take a "righteously indignant" position regarding health care reform on the Jay Leno Show:

Sarah Palin is the one who brought up death panel... And you know what, Sarah Palin? I got news for you, honey. If we were gonna get rid of useless people, you would be the first to go. -Bill Maher

There is no worst example of leftist hate mongering, hypocrisy and leftist lies than what comes out of the mouths of liberal bloggers, pundits and talk show hosts when discussing Sarah Palin. They have become a caricature of cynicism and negativity, demeaning themselves and making a mockery of the political debate as a whole.

It's as if liberals become mentally ill and deranged individuals who are reduced to drooling, frothing at the mouth, soiling themselves and wetting their pants at the mere mention of her name. Because she is such a formidable threat to the very existence of their ideology, they can't ignore her. Yet they keep trying to convince us that she's irrelevant, a lightweight and not intelligent enough.

The constant regurgitation of the "she's an idiot" argument makes me and anyone with half a brain immediately suspicious. Why, if the sky isn't purple with green polka dots, do I need to be told so forcefully every day that it is?

Ironically, in their zest to destroy Palin, liberals use the weakest and most childish arguments. They call her dumb and even go as far as to say stupid crap like she wrote her book in crayon. It's simply moronic to think that an intelligent person would even listen to that kind of drivel. Adults with a sense of respect for their fellow man can logically debate, argue and articulate their reasons for disagreeing with someone politically or why they don't feel someone should run for a particular political office.

No one's saying you don't have the right to oppose or disagree with Sarah Palin. We're just saying grow up! Intelligent Americans recognize childish and nasty behavior and are turned off by it.

Sad individuals with tortured souls who choose hate filled rhetoric actually don't say a convincing word anyway. Reduced to name calling, they write blog after blog of second grade nonsense. Yet after a few hundred blogs and several hundreds of thousands of words, they have given us nothing of substance or value. The Alaska bloggers who spewed lies about Palin at the direction of David Axelrod and the DNC during the presidential campaign remain obsessed mental patients who, rather than go on with their miserable insecure lives in quiet obscurity, continue to flaunt a "thought salad" mentality which causes them to throw everything they can at Palin with the hopes that something will stick.

This open display of their inner hatred resulting from a comparative juxtaposition to Sarah Palin reveals them as insecure, incomplete and vapid individuals. Why they wouldn't hide that is beyond me. If you don't want people to think you're ugly, don't stand next to the pretty girl in order to try to convince us that she's the ugly one.

Hypocrisy at its most obvious level is vividly visible in the intellectual inconsistency of an argument that was made in support of Van Jones. Arianna Huffington wrote:

Isn't it time we acknowledge that no human being with any passion and deeply held beliefs ever emerged flawless into the world? And that if every mistake, misstep, boneheaded decision, or error in judgment becomes an automatic disqualifier for public service, then we're going to be left with a political landscape filled with nothing but wrinkle-free, foible-free, passionless automatons who have never made a mistake because they never took the risk of having an original thought.

This would have been an eloquent argument for Sarah Palin, don't you think? So now it's been proven. Liberals use one set of standards while judging their own, but conveniently toss those standards aside when judging conservatives like Palin. If it feels good just do it. There is no need to have sound footing for a liberal argument. It merely needs to float on whatever the "premise du jour" is.

Read the rest of Huffington's article. The part about how quitting his job will help Van Jones be more able to effect change without being shackled to the desk of the green job czar is side splitting.

It gets better:

Contrary to the media caricature (emphasis added after the soda went up my nose), the real Van Jones is a thoughtful leader who knows how to use words to move people to action. To stick him behind a desk, working out the details of tax credits for green jobs -- incredibly important though the job is -- was never the best use of his unique and abundant skills.

Poll results found 83.6% saw national news media organizations as very or somewhat biased while just 14.1% viewed them as somewhat unbiased or not at all biased. Some, 2.4%, were unsure.

A large majority, 89.3%, suggested the national media played a very or somewhat strong role in helping to elect President Obama. Just 10.0% suggested the national media played little or no role. Further, 69.9% agreed the national news media are intent on promoting the Obama presidency while 26.5% disagreed. Some, 3.6% were unsure.

 

Over half of Americans surveyed, 56.4%, said they agreed that the news media are promoting President Obama’s health care reform without objective criticism. Another 39.3% disagreed and 4.3% were unsure. Further, a majority, 57.6% of those surveyed agreed that the news media appear to be coordinating efforts to diminish the record of former Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin. One third, 34.6%, disagreed and 7.9% were unsure.

Perhaps journalists are no more trusted than politicians these days, or many folks never saw the knockdown stories. But this was a stunning illustration of the traditional media's impotence.

 

Still, it was a stretch for White House officials, who have a huge megaphone, to blame media coverage for the sinking popularity of health reform. It was equally odd for Gibbs to tell reporters that stories about Obama backing away from a government-run health plan were "entirely contrived by you guys" -- this after Gibbs and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had said on Sunday morning shows that such a plan was not an essential part of Obama's proposal.

For all the sound and fury, news organizations have labored to explain the intricacies of the competing blueprints. "NBC Nightly News" ran a piece examining how Obama's public health-insurance option would work. ABC's "World News " did a fact check on the end-of-life provision in the bill. "CBS Evening News" highlighted problems with the current system by interviewing some of the 1,500 people waiting at a free makeshift clinic in Los Angeles. Time ran a cover story on health care, titled "Paging Dr. Obama." And major newspapers have been filled with articles examining the nitty-gritty details. Those who say the media haven't dug into the details aren't looking very hard.

But the healthy dose of coverage has largely failed to dispel many of the half-truths and exaggerations surrounding the debate. Even so, news organizations were slow to diagnose the depth of public unease about the unwieldy legislation. For the moment, the story, like the process itself, remains a muddle.

The Senate Finance Committee will drop a controversial provision on consultations for end-of-life care from its proposed healthcare bill, its top Republican member said Thursday.

The committee, which has worked on putting together a bipartisan healthcare reform bill, will drop the controversial provision after it was derided by conservatives as "death panels" to encourage euthanasia.