Events lead Kowalski to resist a local takeover by a Hmong youth gang. The Hmong are an ethnic Southeast Asian people, primarily from Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand. In real life Michigan, they are among the fastest growing immigrants. Many Hmong people emigrated from South Vietnam after Democrats shamelessly withdrew monetary support from South Vietnam in 1974. The Paris Peace Agreements thus became toothless and North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam. “Boat people” fled Vietnam and the insane, murderous Pol Pot created the Cambodian Killing Fields.

Gran Torino can be viewed as metaphorical microcosm of the Vietnamese conflict with an alternate ending. Eastwood, the quintessential symbol of American independence and strength, helps defend a group of Asian Americans against a gangster group of other Asian Americans. Kowalski’s courage and independence led to his death and the defeat of the gang members. The image of protagonist Thao Vang Lor (Bee Vang) driving in Kowalski’s Gran Torino, left to Thao in his will, cements the “good Hmongs” victory, and ultimate commitment to America. The juxtaposition of this scene, versus Kowalski’s children trying to unload him in an old age home is striking.

Another morality play is occurring today in the real Michigan. Michigan has a 15% unemployment rate. Detroit’s auto industry, which made the 1972 Ford Gran Torino, has been decimated in large part by federal regulations. In classic “anti-comparative advantage” style, a sclerotic EPA required individual auto companies to meet mandated “CAFE” standards. Even if one wanted the nation’s entire car fleet to meet CAFE requirements on average, the EPA implemented it in the most inefficient way possible.

US automakers’ comparative advantage was in SUVs and small trucks. To keep their fleet within mandated averages, they were forced to build unprofitable, uncompetitive small cars. If the Feds just let comparative advantage work, the US auto fleet would have likely met federal CAFE standards without each company being compelled to build every type of car. But Government does not know economics. They simply know better.

Obama’s “new environmental energy plan,” the Waxman-Markey “Cap and Trade” bill, is a ruse. It is not an energy bill, but a regressive consumption tax in disguise. It is favored by Wall Street, George Soros, Al Gore, GE and other corporatists looking for subsidies paid for by the tax payer. Cap and Trade is the ultimate economic destruction machine. The bill passed the House of Representatives this summer by six votes, 219-213. Forty-four Democrats voted against it. The Senate has not yet voted.

Michigan Congressman Thaddeus McCotter, a real life political “Kowalski” and GOP Policy Committee Chair, opposed this monstrosity. He is among a group of opponents being targeted for attack in the next few weeks. Others include House Minority Whip Eric Cantor and Missouri’s Roy Blount. The campaigns are funded by Soros’ groups MoveOn.Org and Americans United for Change. The attack is preposterous, as this video shows (Groups target GOP on cap-and-trade). What is the goal of the bill?

The goal of the bill is to replace cheap energy with expensive energy. This is called “saving the environment.” This is accomplished by requiring consumers to purchase more expensive electricity, biomass power for example, while also paying taxes to subsidize these enterprises. As we consume more expensive energy, the same amount of labor and capital creates less output. Even if one believed the ridiculous 1.7 million “green job” increase advertised, it doesn’t factor the lost jobs from lower productivity and higher energy costs. The manufacturing heavy states and big users of energy, like Michigan, are clearly poised to be the big losers in such legislation. They are already seeking “exemptions” from regulations because of the bill’s potential economic devastation (Michigan Economic Impact on the State from the Waxman-Markey Bill).

Meanwhile, Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs, and self important financial traders like George Soros, strongly support this legislation because they get to buy and sell “CO2 credits.” The rationale is this legislation will combat “global warming.” Climatologist Chip Knappenberger estimates the best case impact of the bill would be to lower global temperature by “0.1″ degree centigrade in the year 2100. This bill does not address global warming. The bill’s costs exceed its “benefits” by a factor of at least ten, using the UN’s officially approved climate models. This means lost jobs and/or lost real income. This is also why Greenpeace joined with pro-growth conservatives and opposed it. The whole thing is a sham.

So why do Democrats want this bill? They want to raise your taxes under the cover of “climate change” reform. It also gives Government the power to decide which industries get benefited more heavily than others. It is part of the transformation from a free society to a government controlled society. This is yet another highway toward the ultimate c goal of centralized government planning.

McCotter understands, like Walter Kowalski, what it means to be an American. A great American can be a first generation “Hmong” from Vietnam, like Gran Torino’s Thao Vang Lor. Conversely, a treasonous American can be born in Chicago to great advantage, like Weatherman terrorist and Obama supporter Bill Ayers. This speech by Congressman McCotter provides a very clear vision of what America is and should be about. Let’s not permit anti-American fakes, like George Soros, sacrifice McCotter’s (or Cantor’s or Blount’s) “political life” by trying to pull the wool over our eyes. “Green jobs” are a wolf’s tax in sheep’s clothing.

There was no debate, no discussion; in fact the bill wasn’t even finished when they started voting on it. Yet they all knew they would like everything in the bill, and rushed the vote. I’m somewhat envious of the common goal they all seem to share, but I’m also suspicious of why nobody bothered to read it. Granted it was fifteen hundred pages, Fourth of July recess, and the deposit on the Martha’s Vineyard cottage wasn’t refundable.

I think there is also something else at work here: Democrats tend to have more faith in the system than they have in the individual. When President Reagan tried to close the Department of Education, he was considered to be against education. It’s not just spin, Democrats really think that way. They feel it’s important to keep the Department of Education, because without it, there will be no education. Without the Department of Health, we would all be sick; without the Department of Commerce, the economy would fold. Ditto for the FDA, the FCC, FAA, and the rest of the alphabet soup.

I’ve been a fan of Rush Limbaugh for quite some time; he is an incredible source for information and salient points. Unfortunately, I can’t repeat anything I hear in front of Democrats, because once you do, your point is considered moot. It doesn’t matter if the statistic you quote comes from the Congressional Budget Office or the United Nations, if you say you’ve heard it on Rush Limbaugh, your point is dismissed, and the conversation is over. (Not only don’t Democrats want to listen to Rush, they don’t want to listen to anyone who admits to listening to Rush.) Yet, these same people claim to know everything about Rush. How is that possible?

Democrats don’t have to listen to Rush, (or Fox News either) because there are other people charged with that task. Organizations like Media Matters do all the dirty work then translate it for all the Lefties. So they never have to soil their mind by exposing it to a contrary opinions, or risk being converted to Conservatism. (For some reason, people on the Left believe they are incredibly susceptible to brainwashing, so they feel it is better not to listen to anything contrary.)

I assume the same thing happened with the energy bill. Like the trust they put on Media Matters to tell the truth about Rush, there are people in the Party they trust to read the bill. Since it had the Waxman-Markey brand on the label, Democrats knew there was nothing but good old-fashioned Marxism inside.

There is nothing more secure to Democrats than a big bureaucracy–it makes them feel safe. Perhaps that’s why so many of them linger on in colleges longer than the average American. Inefficient bureaucracies and musty old buildings with union swept halls are warm fuzzy places for them.  These people are the kind that like being looked after–it is the natural state of the Left.

They want to live under a huge bureaucracy that will direct their life, from the time they are born into a government hospital through their time in government schools, then punch the clock at a government job until a government appointed doctor gives them an assisted suicide. A Democrat Utopia would be like a human zoo where the lions are kept separate from the zebras, every one is fed, and the doctor comes round once a year. Just keep re-electing Democrats who will insure the air is clean, your food is safe, your retirement is secure, and the tithe is paid.

That’s a big one. When you decide to become a Democrat, the need for you to ever contribute to charity is completely eliminated. Every election cycle Democrat candidates are exposed for being skinflints when the 1040s are released. There is always a ridiculously small number on the lines of where charitable deductions are listed. The contribution is always so small you would think it was an accident, like they thought their $100 donation to the Breast Foundation was a subscription to a porn site.

In actuality, I think they believe that membership in the Democrat Party is their donation to charity. The Party is their Church and the leaders are their clerics. Why should Al Gore give more than a couple hundred bucks to charitable causes when he has made his life work saving the earth from prosperity? (That could explain why so many of Obama’s appointees didn’t feel the need to pay taxes–churches are tax-exempt.)

Never mind that Gore’s “charitable’” works have netted him billions. That’s just a bonus, and as most people like Gore will tell you, the nature of his job requires certain amenities. The Pope doesn’t fly coach either.

I’ve yet to meet a public “servant” that didn’t whine about being underpaid and brag about how much more they could make in the private sector. Personally, I think it is the duty of Americans to help out these dedicated “servants” by removing them of their obligation and set them free to find their fortune.

If you don’t want to read your assignments, it’s time to get a job. We need to make Democrats learn responsibility. Call it “tough love.” We need to lock the Democrats out of Government, the same way that a parent might eventually need to change the locks on the house while a 30-year-old child is at the Arcade. We need to tear down their posters, throw away the bongs, and put their X-boxes out on the back porch. Let’s turn the basement into an exercise room.

Our next opportunity is coming in 2010.

Mama’s in the factory, she ain’t got no shoes. Daddy’s in the alley, he’s lookin’ for food; I’m in the kitchen with the tombstone blues. “Tombstone Blues” – Bob Dylan

Perhaps the sudden death of pop icon Michael Jackson had many Hollywood stars contemplating their own future obituaries. But the industry, which has been strongly committed to promoting the dangers of man-made global warming, was strangely silent on the Waxman-Markey bill which squeaked though the House last week. The United States economy, i.e., actual real human beings who live in America, continues to suffer from the enormous Obama-lead government’s allocation of resources by massive deficit spending and taxes. The axis of deception changes with each specific fiscal proposal.

The latest comedy of abominations, named–with its usual Orwellian precision–The American Clean Energy and Security Act, was passed Friday by the House of Representatives. The Pelosi/Waxman/Markey trio lead this charge. The winners, in this latest travesty, are that new breed of Obama entrepreneur, the mega wealthy looking for Government handouts. But the Country “has no need to be nervous.” After all, they are simply fixing the “failed policies of the Bush Administration.” But as legislation goes, this Energy Act really takes the cake. As Arnold Kling so succinctly put it, “The cap and trade legislation maximizes rent-seeking (favoritism toward particular businesses) and minimizes carbon reduction.”

This bill was resisted both by Greenpeace and those growing numbers who realize the whole premise of this Act of Congress, “man-made global warming,” is a farce. I have written about global warming before: James Hansen: Man of Science » , Al Gore’s Animal Farm and “Red Flags,” and Short Update on Squealer Al and a Compliant Brokaw. The Global Warming Petition Project has 31,000 signatories from scientists in the US who oppose the so-called climate crisis “consensus.” Their work is summarized in this this paper. The EPA’s own suppressed report skeptical of global warming can be read here CEI Releases Global Warming Study Censored by EPA . And the Senate Minority Report, with 650 signatories, can be read here US Senate Minority Report on Global Warming.

There is no consensus on “man-made” global warming. There are no demonstrated falsifiable theories that support this concept. It started out as an ideological movement and has gradually morphed into a game of crony-capitalism. Much of the world has already moved on. The two fastest growing economies, India and China, don’t even pretend they will participate. This bill will only add further costs to our already over burdened economy. I clearly don’t expect any reasoned argument to persuade those who have chosen to believe in “man-made” global warming. That would be too much to wish for. But what one should expect proponents of that view to be true to their principles. Greenpeace Opposes Waxman-Markey because, in their view, it “sets emission reduction targets far lower than science demands, then undermines even those targets with massive offsets. The giveaways and preferences in the bill will actually spur a new generation of nuclear and coal-fired power plants to the detriment of real energy solutions. To support such a bill is to abandon the real leadership that is called for at this pivotal moment in history.  We simply no longer have the time for legislation this weak.” While I obviously disagree, at least they know a pig when they see one. They know this bill does little to eliminate greenhouse gasses.

Where do those Hollywood promoters of the catastrophic dangers of global warming stand on this bill? Are they on the same side as Greenpeace? Not from what I can tell. The Hollywood eco-establishment are those guys who made hundreds of millions trying to terrify the public into action. Given this bill will reduce global warming by “seven percent in 40 years,” according to those who believe in this “science,” one would think these highly visible committed Hollywood activists would be in a state of outrage. But then one would be wrong. Let’s start with “An Inconvenient Truth” Academy Award winning Director Davis Guggenheim and his star Nobel Prize winning docu-hero, Al Gore.

Guggenheim, who said upon first meeting with Al Gore, “I left after an hour and a half thinking that global warming is the most important issue, and if I do one thing in my life it’s to help more people see Al Gore do this. I had no idea how you’d make a film out of it, but I wanted to try.” Al Gore gave a speech in DC on July 17, 2008 and called on Americans to completely abandon electricity generated by fossil fuels within 10 years, and replace them with carbon-free renewables like solar, wind and geothermal. He said “the survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk….{and} the future of human civilization is at stake.”

What does this bill propose? That in ten years, 15%, not the 100% Gore says is needed, of the United States energy (not global energy) needs must come from “renewable” sources. By 2020, “greenhouse gas emissions” must be reduced by 17%.  However, “offsets” can be purchased that permits no reduction at all in CO2 emissions. These offsets include “activities such as protecting rain forests in Brazil — that are deemed climate-friendly.” Who will decide when an “offset” is appropriate? How much do you think those offset decisions will be worth? These are mere details that no one knows the answer to–but we can easily guess. This bill will also tax imports from countries that do not have the same standards as the US, which is a direct sales tax on the US consumer. This is absurd beyond belief. It is no wonder people who care strongly about this issue oppose it, regardless of which side they are on.

The entire premise of “An Inconvenient Truth” is the need for radical action now. So Al Gore must oppose this bill, correct? No. Instead Al Gore is the leading “rent seeker,” heavily lobbying Congress to pass this bill calling it “as important to our time as the Civil Rights legislation was to the minorities of the 1960’s and the Marshall Plan of was to America during the 1940’s.” Coincidentally, his venture capital firm is heavily invested in…….Global warming money making schemes. Guggenheim is onto other projects and has been silent on this bill. Davis Guggenheim documents Jimmy Page. But Guggenheim and Gore do not stand alone.

Leonardo DiCaprio has also been a very visible proponent of the dangers of global warming.  He was honored by Mikhael Gorbachev earlier this year when he received the International Green Film Award in Berlin. His website is dedicated to various “green” causes and has even written columns in Time Magazine in support of Van Jones, Obama’s advisor on “green jobs.” Congress is debating the most important pieces of legislation on global warming to date, yet he is silent on his website about its passage. Keanu Reeves and Alanis Morrisette narrated The Great Warming, an absurd ideological screed based on the book by Lydia Dotto. Where do they stand and Waxman-Markey? They, too, are silent. How about Oprah Winfrey, Laurie David , and Bill Maher? The list is endless. If they have spoken out, I have not seen it. These people are always at the forefront of appearing morally superior. So why aren’t they publicly involved in arguably the most important political Energy debate this country has had? Why aren’t they on their megaphones urging true reform?

But this is not really surprising. Being green in Hollywood has usually been about moral preening and self-aggrandizement, not actual legislative change. They are no different than Al Gore. This is a promotional device designed to advance their careers by being both visible on these causes yet indifferent to actual legislation. In fact, they may even have a direct interest in no serious legislation passing. This way, they can keep themselves relevant. Eventually, I hope and believe, this issue will die a deserving death.

Like modern day Leni Riefenstahls, Hollywood has been at the ideological forefront in support of the dangers of man-made global warming. But few change their lifestyles. Oprah bragged openly about her private jet at a graduation speech at Duke University. Like Al Gore, they give every indication of being in on the con. It does not really affect them. Paying a few thousand more a year in fuel costs is irrelevant. So what if we have another tax on the rest of the country?

The good news, if one can possibly call it that, is this bill has smoked out the fakes, who many of us have known were there all along. Plus the Senate may finally put the final stake in this vampire’s heart. If so, perhaps the Obama honeymoon can be declared officially over.

The scam–ur uhm–I mean the idea works like this: government will set a limit on the amount of CO2 companies may produce. Companies will then be forced to purchase emissions permits for every ton of CO2 produced. Companies that exceed their limits will be able to purchase or trade for additional permits with companies that emit less than their allotted cap. Waxman-Markey seeks an “80 percent reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050”?  And a “100 percent auction to ensure every ton of carbon is paid for.”

While supporters of Cap and Trade attempt to direct our attention to large-scale carbon emitters in the coal and oil industries make no mistake; the repercussions from this tax will be felt in every American household.

The Congressional Budget Office noted that cutting carbon emissions just 15% would result in customers facing “persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would.” This conclusion is echoed by the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, which further determined that Waxman-Markey will reduce GDP by $9.6 trillion, increase the federal debt by 26%, kill 1.1 million jobs, increase peak year unemployment to 2.5 million workers and raise the energy bill paid by a typical family by about $1,500 annually.

Of course what is a little economic hardship if it means saving the sky from falling?

Every day new scientific discoveries emerge calling into question the computer models on which this carbon hysteria is based.

Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Langley Research Center realized the models rely on mathematical equations derived more than 80 years ago. These differential equations ignore proper boundary conditions and assume an atmosphere that is infinitely thick. Miskolczi derived a new solution using the proper boundary conditions (the atmosphere is 65 miles thick) and viola no more global warming.

There is also a new study conducted by the university of Wisconsin and the US National oceanic and atmospheric administration, which concludes that 70% of the sharp temperature rise in the North Atlantic over the last 30 years is due to dust blowing out to sea from the deserts of North Africa – A small detail the computer models failed to account for.

What is more remarkable is that, even assuming some human component, if Waxman-Markey meets all its goals of reducing carbon emissions, the EPA calculates that the impact on world temperature would be no more than two-tenths of a degree Celsius at the end of the century. Found here

That is a lot of pain for very little gain.

But Global warming is not about science it is about politics and this administrations choice to ignore facts is about a political means to social control. The President’s own lawyers admit as much.

Three weeks ago Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) produced a white house memo to the EPA that, in his words, repeatedly suggests “a lack of scientific support for this proposed finding” [that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health]. Barrasso then quoted directly from the document, “making the decision to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the US economy, including small businesses and small communities.” If that’s not change you can believe in I don’t know what is.

There is an old joke that if the government could it would tax the very air that we breathe. As social commentary Waxman-Markey’s assumption that we can save the planet by taxing CO2 – a substance every human being emits with every breath taken–is absurd indeed. It’s also an old joke that is not very funny.