It’s All About Me :)

Today is primary day in Arizona. But as a registered Independent I have become used to the way of things. I am not allowed to vote today because I am not a partisan of either main party.

I have no voice.

But our President has a voice. And boy does he love the sound of it.

From David Limbaugh’s new book Crimes Against Liberty: Who is Barack Obama? To say that he has an enormous ego is an understatement. Many commentators, including psychological analysts and foreign leaders, have described him as a narcissist.

Obama’s patent self-confidence is not just posturing. It’s evident he truly believes he is special. He did, after all, pen two largely autobiographical books before he had accomplished much of anything. He once told campaign aide Patrick Gaspard, “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that . . . I’m a better political director than my political director.”

Obama’s belief that he is a gift to the world is a theme he would carry forward into his presidency. He truly believes he alone has the power to reverse the mess America has allegedly made of world affairs, and that only he can restore America’s supposedly tattered reputation.

Indeed, it often seems that for our president, American policy is not about the United States, but about him personally. At the Summit of the Americas, Obama sat through a 50-minute harangue against the United States by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, who eviscerated the United States for a century of “terroristic” aggression in Central America. When it was Obama’s turn, he did not defend the United States, but made himself the issue: “I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old.”

Obama’s numerous self-references soon became legendary. Obama referred to himself 114 times in his first State of the Union. By September 23, 2009, Obama had given forty-one speeches so far that year, referring to himself 1,198 times.  At his West Point speech in December, he referred to himself forty-four times. In a speech in Ohio in January, Obama referred to himself no fewer than 132 times and, in the same speech, had the audacity to proclaim, “This is not about me.”

That phrase, “This is not about me,” cropped up in many of Obama’s speeches, signaling that whatever “this” is, it’s precisely about him—his ego, his ideology, his agenda, his legacy, or his unbending ambition to have his way. The rhetorical device, “It’s not about me,” is a long established pattern in which he self-servingly pretends to project an air of humility to leave the impression that he is modest about accomplishing great things—thereby shamelessly seeking credit both for his modesty and his greatness.

Yet Obama continues to tell us—either as a brazen practitioner of Orwellian deception or as a poster child for political tone-deafness, “I won’t stop fighting for you.” If he were truly fighting for the people, he wouldn’t have mocked the tea partiers or closed his own counterfeit public forums on health care to all but union and other special interest supporters of ObamaCare.

Candidate Obama overtly cultivated a messianic image, from the grandiose pomp accompanying his campaign speech in Berlin to the Greek columns that adorned his acceptance speech at Chicago’s Invesco Field. His advisers fully bought into the façade, especially to the idea that Obama possessed a superior intellect—so far above the masses that it was difficult to convey his ideas in terms simple enough for the people to understand.

At a forum at the Kennedy School of Government, one participant suggested to Obama’s adviser and long-time confidant, Valerie Jarrett, that Obama’s ideas were so complex that the administration should consider writing simple booklets to explain them to ordinary people, just like the computer industry originally wrote DOS For Dummies. Jarrett said it was an excellent idea. “Everyone understood hope and change” because “they were simple . . . part of our challenge is to find a very simple way of communicating. . . . When I first got here people kept talking about ‘cloture’ and ‘reconciliation’ and ‘people don’t know what that’s talking about.’” Then it really got thick as Jarrett proclaimed, “There’s nobody more self-critical than President Obama. Part of the burden of being so bright is that he sees his error immediately.”

Obama didn’t exactly discourage this quasi-deification. In noting Obama’s “pathological self-regard,” former George W. Bush aide Pete Wehner reported that Obama surrounded himself by aides who referred to him as a “Black Jesus.” Wehner noted, “Obama didn’t appear to object.”

Surrounding himself with sycophants and egged on by an adoring media, Obama assumed the presidency with the arrogant ambition of transforming America. He believed he was The One—a visionary whose great deeds would be remembered generations from now. But while his charisma was a great asset on the campaign trail, as president he quickly found that his trademark oratory could not convince a skeptical nation of the wisdom of his extravagant plans.(Daily Caller)

“We were told we were getting a cool, calm, steady leader who could rise above emotional impulses to deliver classic statesmanship and prudent governance. But all too often we witness in him a petulant and vindictive bully who doesn’t seem to understand why anyone would challenge his omniscience,” Limbaugh writes.

Leftist Comedian Bill Maher in 2008: “New Rule: Republicans need to stop saying Barack Obama is an elitist, or looks down on rural people, and just admit you don’t like him because of something he can’t help, something that’s a result of the way he was born. Admit it, you’re not voting for him because he’s smarter than you. Barack Obama can’t help it if he’s a magna cum laude Harvard grad and you’re a Wal-Mart shopper who resurfaces driveways with your brother-in-law. Americans are so narcissistic that our candidates have to be just like us. That’s why George Bush is president.” 🙂

One of the questions a lot of pundits are speculating on is whether Barack Obama will make the great pivot after 2010, the way Bill Clinton did after 1994. Remember, Clinton made a big pivot to the right. Privately, a number of Democratic pollsters and others tell me they fundamentally believe Barack Obama is ideologically incapable of such a pivot. Limbaugh’s book provides the first real evidence that this is true. After 2010, there will be no moderation or pivot right. Obama is wedded to the failed liberal policies of the past hundred years that again and again the American public has repudiated.

But Obama holds that repudiation in contempt. As Limbaugh writes, “Obama’s disingenuousness is not just a matter of stretching the truth once in a while or engaging in a little old-fashioned hyperbole. His outright, habitual lies are a fundamental aspect of his governance…Inside a few months, he showed himself to be deeply racial, aggressively partisan, grossly incompetent, often verbally awkward apart from his teleprompter, an inflexible liberal ideologue, secretive, dishonest, undemocratic, dogmatic and dictatorial, and intolerant and dismissive of his opposition.”

“Based on his behavior as president, it is clear he truly believes his own hype, for we have discovered that instead of messianic, Obama is acutely, perhaps clinically, narcissistic…. Unless stopped, and reversed, the casualties of Obama’s systematic assault on this nation will be our prosperity, our security, and ultimately, our liberty.”(Red State.com)

On Fox Last Night: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSBnzFtN6tk&feature=player_embedded

But don’t worry, he’s on vacation, AGAIN.

“It’s really inspiring, this vision they have for the future,” The president said at an event for Sen. Patty Murray. “Gives you a little pep in your step when you hear it.” referring to his new slogan for the GOP, “No We Can’t”.

Now that’s not petulant and childish now is it folks! 🙂

The net result of Obama’s failed policies is that consumers are reluctant to spend, entrepreneurs are reluctant to invest, and employers are reluctant to hire to the degree necessary to spur economic growth.–Doug Schoen, Democrat Strategist

But there’s always spin from the Ministry of Truth, In this case, CBS:

“President Obama’s approval ratings are certainly lower than they have been in the past, but it is worth noting they’re higher than President Clinton’s approval ratings were in 1994 at the same time and even higher than President Reagan’s approval ratings were in 1982 at this same time. I think the Reagan and Obama situation are sort of good comparisons because Reagan also had inherited a very difficult economy,” Jennifer Palmieri, of the liberal thinktank Center for American Progress, told the “Early Show.”

“The president’s had a lot of legislative victories but the White House understands very clearly that you don’t get points with the American people for legislative victories. They want to see results. The uncomfortable truth the white house is wrestling with [is] a lot of these policies they’ve enacted take time for people to see results in their everyday lives … that’s just going to take some time.”

Or put another way by major leftist Maureen Dowd of the New York Times:

Dumb and bigoted.

That’s Maureen Dowd’s assessment of her fellow Americans in a piece that ran in Sunday’s New York Times, “Going Mad in Herds.” According to Dowd, we are a tribe of unenlightened Islam-haters, who obtusely believe President Barack Obama is a Muslim. All this, she says, is evidence of something I’m sure she knew all along — that Americans lack Obama’s stirring intellect.
“Obama is the head of the dysfunctional family of America — a rational man running a most irrational nation, a high-minded man in a low-minded age,” she writes.

Be patient. He’s genius takes a long to appreciate, if you’re smart enough that is. 🙂

Reach for that Hope!

Anyone got Sisyphus on speed dial?

Trust Me

When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property. –Thomas Jefferson

Trust, but verify. –Ronald Reagan

If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists – to protect them and to promote their common welfare – all else is lost. –Senator Barack Obama August 2006

25% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17. (Rasmussen)

For the past year, those giving Congress good or excellent marks have remained in the narrow range of nine percent (9%) to 16%, while 53% to 71% have rated its performance as poor. (Rasmussen)

Guess when the 71% was. Health Care “deem and pass” cram down talk in February. Right before they did cram it down your throat! 🙂

30% of Likely Voters say the country is heading in the right direction, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey taken the week ending Sunday, August 8.

Confidence in the nation’s current course has ranged from 27% to 35% since last July.

Pew Research Center:

Distrust

Thomas SowellDemocracy: It’s an awful thing in a country when its people no longer believe the government protects them and their rights. Yet, a new poll shows that’s exactly where Americans are headed right now.

In a Rasmussen poll of 1,000 adults taken last Friday and Saturday, nearly half, or 48%, said they see government today as a threat to their rights. Just 37% disagreed. The poll also found that only one in five (21%) believe current government has the consent of the governed.

In other words, people think much of what our government does today is illegitimate — possibly even illegal.

For a democratic republic such as our own, this is extraordinarily dangerous. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were created explicitly to protect Americans’ rights by limiting the scope, reach and power of the federal government.

The Declaration promises “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” and goes on to say that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

In short, our government was designed to protect our rights — not to serve as an all-embracing nanny state that slowly, silently strips us of our ability to act as free individuals.

Bailouts, TARP, the takeover of the auto industry, nationalization of health care, the micromanagement of Wall Street and the banks, the expected $12 trillion explosion in U.S. publicly held debt over the next decade — all this and more adds up to a feeling of loss of control by the American people over their lives, both public and private, and a diminution of their rights.

The Founding Fathers understood this could happen. “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence,” George Washington presciently warned. “It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

His generation understood it would be up to us, the citizens, to ensure government wouldn’t trample our rights. That’s what the Constitution was — an agreement to limit government to certain, carefully prescribed duties. And that’s why we vote.

Today, Americans feel their rights are threatened by a government that has grown beyond its constitutional bounds. Once merely a dangerous servant, our federal government is on its way to becoming a fearful master. The only question is, will we let it?

How did we get to the point where many people feel that the America they have known is being replaced by a very different kind of country, with not only different kinds of policies but very different values and ways of governing?

Something of this magnitude does not happen all at once or in just one administration in Washington. What we are seeing is the culmination of many trends in many aspects of American life that go back for years.

Neither the Constitution of the United States nor the institutions set up by that Constitution are enough to ensure the continuance of a free, self-governing nation. When Benjamin Franklin was asked what members of the Constitution Convention were creating, he replied, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

In other words, a Constitutional government does not depend on the Constitution but on us. To the extent that we allow clever people to circumvent the Constitution, while dazzling us with rhetoric, the Constitution will become just a meaningless piece of paper, as our freedoms are stolen from us, much as a pick-pocket would steal our wallet while we are distracted by other things.

It is not just evil people who would dismantle America. Many people who have no desire to destroy our freedoms simply have their own agendas that are singly or collectively incompatible with the survival of freedom.

Someone once said that a democratic society cannot survive for long after 51 percent of the people decide that they want to live off the other 49 percent. Yet that is the direction in which we are being pushed by those who are promoting envy under its more high-toned alias of “social justice.”

Those who construct moral melodramas– starring themselves on the side of the angels against the forces of evil– are ready to disregard the Constitution rights of those they demonize, and to overstep the limits put on the powers of the federal government set by the Constitution.

The outcries of protest in the media, in academia and in politics, when the Supreme Court ruled this year that people in corporations have the same free speech rights as other Americans, are a painful reminder of how vulnerable even the most basic rights are to the attacks of ideological zealots. President Barack Obama said that the Court’s decision “will open the floodgates for special interests”– as if all you have to do to take away people’s free speech rights is call them a special interest.

It is not just particular segments of the population who are under attack. What is more fundamentally under attack are the very principles and values of American society as a whole. The history of this country is taught in many schools and colleges as the history of grievances and victimhood, often with the mantra of “race, class and gender.” Television and the movies often do the same.

When there are not enough current grievances for them, they mine the past for grievances and call it history. Sins and shortcomings common to the human race around the world are spoken of as failures of “our society.” But American achievements get far less attention– and sometimes none at all.

Our “educators,” who cannot educate our children to the level of math or science achieved in most other comparable countries, have time to poison their minds against America.

Why? Partly, if not mostly, it is because that is the vogue. It shows you are “with it” when you reject your own country and exalt other countries.

Abraham Lincoln warned of people whose ambitions can only be fulfilled by dismantling the institutions of this country, because no comparable renown is available to them by supporting those institutions. He said this 25 years before the Gettysburg Address, and he was speaking of political leaders with hubris, whom he regarded as a greater danger than enemy nations. But such hubris is far more widespread today than just among political leaders.

Those with such hubris– in the media and in education, as well as in politics– have for years eroded both respect for the country and the social cohesion of its people. This erosion is what has set the stage for today’s dismantling of America that is now approaching the point of no return.

“To those who claim omnipotence for the Legislature, and who in the plentitude of their assumed powers, are disposed to disregard the Constitution, law, good faith, moral right, and every thing else,” Lincoln declared in an early speech to the Illinois legislature, “I have nothing to say.”

In Lincoln, we have a glimpse of prudence in a liberal democracy; but it is also our best glimpse of it, and perhaps our best hope for understanding and recovering it, and our best hope for the possibility of statesmanship in an age of the partisan absolute, where ignorant armies clash by night. (Heritage.org)

Or on the Internet and the 24/7 News cycle…:)

Trust:
reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence.confident expectation of something; hope.the condition of one to whom something has been entrusted.the obligation or responsibility imposed on a person in whom confidence or authority is placed: a position of trust.charge, custody, or care: to leave valuables in someone’s trust.something committed or entrusted to one’s care for use or safekeeping, as an office, duty, or the like; responsibility; charge.

The new “reach for hope” should be a renewal of trust. But Verify 🙂

Reach for Hope

“Don’t give in to fear,’’ Obama said yesterday, urging voters to turn back GOP efforts to gain control of the House and Senate in November’s midterm elections. “Let’s reach for hope.’’

Elect me, and I will bring Hope and Change. 18 months later, Reach for that same hope.

Do you suspect that the reach will be like Sisyphus and the rolling the boulder up hill. For his assignment was to roll a great boulder to the top of a hill. Only every time Sisyphus, by the greatest of exertion and toil, attained the summit, the darn thing rolled back down again.

Obama and the Democrats thrive on stress, fear, anxiety and lack of hope. So just in them and all will be wonderful…someday….maybe…but if it’s not it’s Bush’s Fault and you just have to re-double your faith in “hope”. 🙂

They don’t want to actually thrive because you won’t want them to run your life for you then. So it’s better to just “hope”.

WASHINGTON  — Nearly half of the homeowners who enrolled in the Obama administration’s flagship mortgage-relief program have fallen out.

A new report issued today by the Treasury Department said that approximately 630,000 people who had tried to get their monthly mortgage payments lowered through the effort have been cut loose through July. That’s about 48 percent of the 1.3 million homeowners who had enrolled since March 2009. That is up from more than 40 percent through June.

The report suggests foreclosures could rise in the second half of the year and weaken the ailing housing market, analysts say.

Another 421,804, or 32.3 percent of those who started the program, have received permanent loan modifications and are making their payments on time.

Many borrowers have complained that program is a bureaucratic nightmare. They say banks often lose their documents and then claim borrowers did not send back the necessary paperwork.

The banking industry said borrowers weren’t sending back their paperwork. They also have accused the Obama administration of initially pressuring them to sign up borrowers without insisting first on proof of their income. When banks later moved to collect the information, many troubled homeowners were disqualified or dropped out.

(Should sound familiar–Community Reinvestment Act anyone?) 🙂

Obama officials dispute that they pressured banks. They have defended the program, saying lenders are making more significant cuts to borrowers’ monthly payments than before the program was launched. And some of the largest mortgage companies in the program have offered alternative programs to those who fell out.

The Obama plan was designed to help people in financial trouble by lowering their monthly mortgage payments. Homeowners who qualify can receive an interest rate as low as 2 percent for five years and a longer repayment period.

And These are the bureaucrats who are going to save you on Health Care? 🙂

Well, at least that’s what they said during the 15 month fight. As was pointed out yesterday, it’s not what they want to tell you now.

And that Mandate that wasn’t a Tax, is a Tax. They admit it now.

But you’re going to love having government bureaucrats decide how you live and when you die. 🙂

Reach for Hope!

Essentially, we’ve now transitioned from the aforementioned terminology (Saved or created jobs), on to ‘jobs funded’, and eventually landed on something reminiscent of an after school special, ‘lives touched’.

So what exactly defines a touched life?

A spokesperson from the CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company explains:

“Lives Touched” is a figure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) uses to track the amount of people who have been positively affected by the Recovery Act funds.  This total would include people who have been provided full time employment (i.e. saved and created jobs) through the Recovery Act and people who at some point have supported a project funded by the Recovery Act.

In other words, the administration has stumbled upon another way to inflate their job numbers.  They were already reporting on those saved or created, but will now include ‘people who at some point have supported a project.’

Lies, Damned Lies, and Stimulus Statistics! 🙂

NEW YORK: In signs of persisting financial woes in the US, the count of bankruptcy filings jumped as much as 20 per cent to 1.57 million in the year ended June 2010, the highest in four years.

The number of businesses going bankrupt climbed eight per cent to 59,608 during the same period, despite signs of economic recovery.

“A total of 1,572,597 bankruptcy cases were filed in federal courts in that period (year ended June 30, 2010), compared to 1,306,315 bankruptcy cases filed in the 12-month period ending June 30, 2009,” according to the latest data available with the Administrative Office of the US Courts.

Moreover, the bankruptcy filings are the highest since 2006 when the number stood at 1.48 million. (Economic Times)

“The President has shown he is willing to work with anyone who will join us to figure out new ways to create more jobs. The Vice-President spends each week making sure we’re squeezing job out of every Recovery Act dollar,”-White House Spokesman on The Summertime Blues list of 100 stimulus ‘projects’ that don’t create anything but debt.

The biggest circumvention of “we the people” was of course the so-called “health care reform” bill. This bill was passed with the proviso that it would not really take effect until after the 2012 presidential elections. Between now and then, the Obama administration can tell us in glowing words how wonderful this bill is, what good things it will do for us, and how it has rescued us from the evil insurance companies, among its many other glories.

But we won’t really know what the actual effects of this bill are until after the next presidential elections– which is to say, after it is too late. Quite simply, we are being played for fools.

Much has been made of the fact that families making less than $250,000 a year will not see their taxes raised. Of course they won’t see it, because what they see could affect how they vote.

But when huge tax increases are put on electric utility companies, the public will see their electricity bills go up. When huge taxes are put on other businesses as well, they will see the prices of the things those businesses sell go up.

If you are not in that “rich” category, you will not see your own taxes go up. But you will be paying someone else’s higher taxes, unless of course you can do without electricity and other products of heavily taxed businesses. If you don’t see this, so much the better for the Obama administration politically.

This country has been changed in a more profound way by corrupting its fundamental values. The Obama administration has begun bribing people with the promise of getting their medical care and other benefits paid for by other people, so long as those other people can be called “the rich.” Incidentally, most of those who are called “the rich” are nowhere close to being rich.

A couple making $125,000 a year each are not rich, even though together they reach that magic $250,000 income level. In most cases, they haven’t been making $125,000 a year all their working lives. Far more often, they have reached this level after decades of working their way up from lower incomes– and now the government steps in to grab the reward they have earned over the years.

There was a time when most Americans would have resented the suggestion that they wanted someone else to pay their bills. But now, envy and resentment have been cultivated to the point where even people who contribute nothing to society feel that they have a right to a “fair share” of what others have produced.

The most dangerous corruption is a corruption of a nation’s soul. That is what this administration is doing. (Thomas Sowell)

Hope and Change!

Reach for the Hope!

IBD: The consequences of government involvement in health care have become more and more apparent as people have become informed about what the health overhaul law would do. No longer does the government seem to be a fairy godmother but rather a tough enforcer of an avalanche of new mandates, taxes and regulatory requirements.

The assurance that government would make sure all Americans have health care coverage has turned into a mandate that we all must have insurance defined by the government and with the government determining what our “choice” of health policies will be.

The latest example of our loss of individual control over health care decisions is playing out deep in the weeds of definitions over what must be counted as medical care and what counts as administrative expense in health insurance — the so-called “medical loss ratio,” or MLR. According to the new law, at least 85% of premium dollars must be spent on medical care for large firms and 80% for smaller ones.

Or put it this way. You spend 75% of your premiums collected on claims. But now the government mandates 85% because that’s “fair”. So where do you get the extra 10%??

Since you aren’t the government and just raise taxes or print more money you have to either cut services or other expenses, or increase the premiums.

And if you increase the premiums the government and the liberals will scream that you’re ‘raping’ the people with greedy capitalism.

Sucks to be you.

It sounds like a simple and straightforward issue, but a world of challenges and complexity lies beneath the surface. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has been charged with making recommendations to the federal government about what should and should not be counted in the equation.

To show how consequential the decision is, President Obama briefly scheduled, then canceled, a trip to speak to the NAIC meeting in Seattle in mid-August where the MLR issue was being debated.

Many of the decisions being made by regulators could make it almost impossible for private insurance companies to comply, leading inevitably to a government-run health system.

Connecticut state insurance commissioner Thomas Sullivan warned, “What we’ve learned since March, is that if you like your health insurance you may not be able to keep it,” he told the Seattle meeting, “and state regulators will have a role in implementing health care as long as that role supports the goals of HHS (the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), which may not necessarily be what’s in the best interest of consumers.”

He later told reporters: “I’m concerned there’s still a lot left to be done in interpretation … I fear that some have an agenda to interpret … with the express purpose of getting to a single-payer option.”

Many other health actuaries and experts at the Seattle meeting said they believed the MLR was meant to be so disruptive to private insurance that it would eventually push us into a single-payer system.

HHS is not obligated to take the recommendations of the NAIC. Ultimately, the bureaucracy will decide. And their decision will be hugely consequential.

Let the minutiae wrangling begin! And heaven help you if you’re on the wrong side of a bureaucrat!

An issue that is being most hotly debated right now is whether the federal, state and payroll taxes that insurance companies are required to pay must be counted today as administrative expenses or whether they can be subtracted from premium collections before the calculations are made.

Health insurers say the decision could determine whether they have the money to invest in fighting fraud, setting up networks of qualified physicians and updating information technologies. For other companies, the decision very well could determine whether they survive.

Six senior members of Congress also weighed in on the issue with a letter to the president of the NAIC, saying they meant for taxes to be counted as an administrative expense.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, which represents insurance companies, countered that the legislation specifically says taxes shouldn’t be counted. Other independent analysts have validated the AHIP position.

So the politicization of health care begins, with even the president set to weigh in on a decision that would make most people’s eyes glaze over in the minutia. The president will meet with the NAIC at the White House in September or so to discuss the issue.

It now is clear that decisions about what kind of health insurance we have, how much we must pay, what it covers or doesn’t cover, will be made by politicians and bureaucrats.

This evokes a statement by health economist Paul Starr in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, “The Social Transformation of American Medicine”: “Political leaders since Bismarck seeking to strengthen the state or to advance their own or their party’s interests have used insurance against the costs of sickness as a means of turning benevolence to power.”

The process has begun. Unless ObamaCare can be rolled back, the politicization of American medicine will reach into the smallest decisions affecting our medical care for decades to come.

And, just five months after the health overhaul law was enacted, we see how the regulatory bureaucracy may well push us into the single-payer, government-run health care system that even the very liberal 111th Congress couldn’t enact. (Even with all the bribes!)

But was predictable given that the Health Care Reform debate was about control, not Health Care.

Just like Immigration enforcement is about Amnesty, not security.

Global Warming is not about the planet.

Financial Reform wasn’t about reform, as much as it was about control.

Remember, Tort Reform was completely ignored during the Health Care debate because Trial Lawyers are too big to ignore Democrats. And Fannie and Freddie were ignored by Financial Reform because the government and the liberals doing the reform were at fault for it’s continued collapse!

It’s about what the politicians want, not what the people want or need.

You are being told you want this, when in fact they want you to want it.

The Drug Addicts want to addict you to their drugs so you’ll demand more of them from them and to do that they will take more of your soul in the process.

Reach for the Hope, Sisyphus!
Trust in them to bring you the Hope all wrapped up in a pretty bow and all nice and shiny.
They would never take advantage of you.
No, they just want what’s “fair”.
What’s so wrong about that…. 🙂

Stop Me Before I Lie Again!

A Democrat advocacy group that was essential to the passage of ObamaCare has come out with a new Powerpoint presentation on how to sell ObamaCare, aka sell a 5-gallon jug of water to a drowning man.

And the most interesting revelation: They Lied!

Shocking though that may seem, it seems that in this presentation on the last page of “don’t”s they don’t wanna anyone to talk about the cost savings, deficit reduction, and the lower premiums that was there mantra for 15 months as they crammed it down everyone’s throat in the most partisan vote in memory.

It seems, they might have ‘misspoke’ 🙂

The presentation also concedes that the fiscal and economic arguments that were the White House’s first and most aggressive sales pitch have essentially failed. “Many don’t believe health care reform will help the economy,” says one slide.

When you see this first panel, think Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals, Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

It’s hard to overstate how important the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)—which makes the official judgments on how much bills cost and save—is in Washington. “I consider CBO God around here,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, recently said during the Health Care Debate.(Newsweek– our “islamophobic” fear mongers)

I wonder if he feels the same way after yesterday’s report that showed what the deficit spending has done to the economy? 🙂

“We think the numbers are now pretty well set from CBO,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said. “We think it will post the largest deficit reduction of any bill that we’ve adopted in the Congress since 1993.”

CBO told lawmakers that the health package would cost $940 billion over the next decade, reducing the deficit by $130 billion. It will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion in the second decade of the plan’s implementation, according to those who have seen the score.

“We are absolutely giddy” about the score, Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said during an interview on Fox News on Thursday. About the deficit-reduction figures, he added, “This is great news for the American people.”(The Hill)

So without further adieu…

Key White House allies are dramatically shifting their attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and deficit and instead stressing a promise to “improve it.”

The messaging shift was circulated this afternoon on a conference call and PowerPoint presentation organized by Families USA — one of the central groups in the push for the initial legislation. The call was led by a staffer for the Herndon Alliance, which includes leading labor groups and other health care allies. It was based on polling from three top Democratic pollsters: John Anzalone, Celinda Lake and Stan Greenberg.

The confidential presentation, available in full here and provided to POLITICO by a source on the call, suggests that Democrats are acknowledging the failure of their predictions that the health care legislation would grow more popular after its passage, as its benefits became clear and rhetoric cooled. Instead, the presentation is designed to win over a skeptical public, and to defend the legislation — and in particular the individual mandate — from a push for repeal.

The presentation concedes that groups typically supportive of Democratic causes — people under 40, non-college-educated women and Hispanic voters — have not been won over by the plan. Indeed, it stresses repeatedly that many are unaware that the legislation has passed, an astonishing shortcoming in the White House’s all-out communications effort.

“Straightforward ‘policy’ defenses fail to [move] voters’ opinions about the law,” says one slide.  “Women in particular are concerned that health care law will mean less provider availability — scarcity [is] an issue.”

The presentation also concedes that the fiscal and economic arguments that were the White House’s first and most aggressive sales pitch have essentially failed.

“Many don’t believe health care reform will help the economy,” says one slide.

The presentation’s final page of “Don’ts” counsels against claiming “the law will reduce costs and deficit.”

The presentation advises, instead, sales pitches that play on personal narratives and promises to change the legislation.

“People can be moved from initial skepticism and support for repeal of the law to favorable feelings and resisting repeal,” it says.  “Use personal stories — coupled with clear, simple descriptions of how the law benefits people at the individual level — to convey critical benefits of reform.”

In other words, get ready for more grandma has to use someone else’s dentures stories!  Get out the hankies, it’s America’s Most Outrageous Sob Stories Season 2!.

Appeals to emotions, not logic.

Hmmm, the exact opposite of the Ground Zero Mosque where the supporters are totally devoid and deaf to emotions. Curiouser and Curiouser.. 🙂

Could it be manipulative?  Nahh…. 🙂

The presentation also counsels against the kind of grand claims of change that accompanied the legislation’s passage.

“Keep claims small and credible; don’t overpromise or ‘spin’ what the law delivers,” it says, suggesting supporters say, “The law is not perfect, but it does good things and helps many people. Now we’ll work [to] improve it.”

The “free” Miracle Cure is just snake oil after all. But don’t tell the customer who had it force down their throat that. 🙂

The Herndon Alliance, which presented the research, is a low-profile group that coordinated liberal messaging in favor of the public option in health care. Its “partners” include health care legislation’s heavyweight supporters: AARP, AFL-CIO, SEIU, Health Care for America Now, MoveOn and the National Council of La Raza, among many others.

Let’s see, A Seniors advocacy group that has it’s own Health Insurance arm, Government Unions who have been getting most of the bailouts, Liberal advocacy group funded by a Billionaire Socialist, “The Race” (La Raza) a racist hatemongers group of Latinos who believe in (amongst other things) giving parts of Arizona and New Mexico back to Mexico and are as Open Borders as it gets.

Interesting grouping… 🙂

The presentation cites three private research projects by top Democratic pollsters: eight focus groups by Lake; Anzalone’s 1,000-person national survey; and an online survey of 2,000 people by Greenberg’s firm.

“If we are to preserve the gains made by the law and build on this foundation, the American public must understand what the law means for them,” says Herndon’s website. “We must overcome fear and mistrust, and we must once again use our collective voice to connect with the public on the values we share as Americans.” (Ben Smith-Politico)

Water anyone? 🙂

“We thought the best thing to do now was to remind people why they personally wanted reform in the first place.”–Spokesman for Families USA.

Wanted it? It was running at 66% against when it was passed and that hasn’t improved one  bit since.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% of U.S. Likely Voters favor repeal of the health care bill. That’s down from 59% a week ago, but support for repeal has ranged from 52% to 60%since the law was passed by Congress in March.

I guess follows my new rule that if 60+% of the people are against it, the Democrats are for it and you should be too! 🙂  (Health Care, Ground Zero Mosque, Deficit Spending, Continued Bailouts…et al)

A recent Government Accountability Report (GAO), finding that each job ‘created’ by the stimulus bill costs an average of $194,213.

But, fear not! The Government is here to save you…money! 🙂

Just over 70 days. I can see November from my house… 🙂

The Ditch of Tolerance and Debt

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Free Speech: The speaker of the House wants to know how opponents of the Ground Zero mosque are being funded. When Americans can be investigated for their opinions, our republic has arrived at a dangerous place.

This is how tyrants act, not U.S. lawmakers — especially those two heartbeats from the presidency. Elected and appointed officials in this country have a duty to tolerate dissent, and in some cases even promote it. Our constitutional safeguard of free speech is one of the principles that sets us apart from repressive nations.

Should the speaker get her way, that will be some drawn-out probe. The number of Americans she would charge with being the “opposition” is considerable.

A Sienna Research Institute poll found that 63% of New York state voters are against the Cordoba House. When polling all Americans, CNN found that 68% oppose the mosque, and Time discovered that 61% don’t like the idea. Only 29% told CNN they favor the plan, while 26% in the Time poll said they support it.

No matter how odious an idea or speech may be to those in power, the state doesn’t have the moral standing to punish or re-educate those who express unpopular positions or annoy the authorities.

Anyone who wasn’t chilled by her statement is part of the problem.(IBD)

But the New TIME Magazine Cover: Is America Islamophobic?

Now that’s your “tolerant” Ministry of Truth.  who don’t even read, understand,or just ignore their own Polls!! 🙂

But don’t worry, the Left doesn’t even call it a Mosque anymore, you notice, in large part they just call it a “Community Center” or a “community outreach” center.

So the PC Thought Police have struck again.

And if this whole thing is about tolerance why is the Left and the Mosque supporters the most intolerant of dissent and least willing to listen?? 🙂

Washington (CNN) — Memorial crosses erected along Utah public roads to honor fallen state highway troopers have been found unconstitutional by a federal appeals court.

A three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the 14 large crosses would be viewed by most passing motorists as “government’s endorsement of Christianity.”

“We hold that these memorials have the impermissible effect of conveying to the reasonable observer the message that the state prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion,” concluded the Denver, Colorado-based court. The state of Utah and a private trooper association have the option of appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

While placed on public land and with the state’s permission, the crosses themselves are privately owned and maintained. The state expressly noted it “neither approves or disapproves of the memorial marker.”

But that’s Christianity!  That’s Evil! That’s the real objection.

Maybe they should have erected mini-mosques as memorials then the Left would have no problem with them. 🙂

Because, remember, just like “sensitivity”, the Left will tell you how you are supposed to feel and think and anything else is “insensitive”. Same here, “tolerance” is what is defined by the Left not be logic, reason, or consistency.

No one one Left will understand their own hypocrisy. Face that fact.

*********************

Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in its mid-year budget update, has projected that the 2010 budget deficit will be the second highest on record since the end of World War II, eclipsed only by the deficit of 2009.

The CBO says that the total 2010 deficit will reach $1.3 trillion, down slightly from 2009’s $1.4 trillion record. All told, CBO projects that the government will run up a total of $6.2 trillion in new deficits between 2011 and 2020.

Making it over $20 Trillion, double what it was in 2007 and 4 times what it was 20 years prior! a 400% rise in a generation!

But don’t worry it’s all George W Bush and The Republicans Fault! 🙂

During his speech, the president likened Republicans to the “folks who drove the car into the ditch.”

“And so we decided, you know what, we’re going to do the responsible thing,” he said. “We put on our boots, we got into the mud, we got into the ditch. We pushed, we shoved, we’re sweating. They’re standing on the sidelines sipping a Slurpee, sort of watching us, saying, ‘Well, you’re not pushing hard enough,’ or ‘Your shoulder is not positioned the right way,’ giving us a whole bunch of advice on how to push — not lifting a finger to help.

“And finally we get this car up back on the road again, and finally we’re ready to move forward again,” Obama said. “And these guys turn around and say, ‘Give us the keys.’ Well, no, you can’t have the keys back — you don’t know how to drive.”–President Obama

So, children, you can’t hand the keys back to those morons. You have to trust me, I know what I’m doing. 🙂

And I’m so much smarter, and so much better than you! 🙂

Yeah, the car is back on the road alright, it has a whole in the gas tank, the fuel system is running rich, the steering wheel veers violently to the Left, the muffler has a hole in it and is dragging on the ground. The windows are broken, the transmission needs an overhaul,  and the tires are bald.

But it runs. And you should have more respect and reverence for your Elite Superiors, you ungrateful louts! 🙂

And it’s all George W Bush’s Fault after all! 🙂

Relative to the size of the economy, the 2010 deficit will reach 9.1 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, according to the CBO’s projection. The deficit in 2009 was 9.9 percent of GDP.

“As was the case last year, this year’s deficit is attributable in large part to a combination of weak revenues and elevated spending, associated with the economic downturn and the policies implemented in response to it,” the CBO explained.

The current economic downturn is expected to last for several more years, the non-partisan office said, predicting that unemployment will not fall to around a healthy 5 percent until at least 2014.

Oh goody, just in time for the Health Care Mandate and the other taxes to start kicking in!!!

Rejoice!! 🙂

After a year and half of “stimulus” and bailouts gone bad, what has the shift towards higher government spending and an encroaching nanny state cost you? This year, it has cost you 231 days out of your life, or 63 percent of 2010.

Every year, the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation and its Center for Fiscal Accountability calculate the day on which the average American has paid off his burden of federal, state and local spending and regulations. This year that day falls on August 19, a full eight days later than last year’s date.

That was yesterday folks! Rejoice! 🙂

Federal spending, always the largest contributor to the Cost of Government Day, cost taxpayers 104 days this year. This is up from 90 days in 2008, when Cost of Government Day fell on July 16. This is to say that the ill-conceived spending policies of the past two years have cost taxpayers over a month of their lives, and show few signs of abating.

President Obama has proposed spending $3.8 trillion in 2011, a 40 percent increase from pre-bailout, pre-“stimulus” levels. (Daily Caller)

And they want to raise taxes in a recession…sorry “Summer of Recovery”.  Hope 2.0…Recovery from what? a Marxist drunken stupor?

Does it kind of remind you of Hollywood rehab, where they go and attend a rehab then come out and do it all over again and go back to rehab and then come and do it again, ad nauseum…?

But don’t worry, if you’re mad about it,remember  it’s all George W. Bush’s Fault you islamophobic,racist,insensitive, ignorant low country moron! 🙂

Listen to your Masters, the Insufferably Superior Left. 🙂

They are just better, smarter, more tolerant, and sensitive than you could ever be.

And that’s just the facts, ma’am. 🙂

The Fakevoer

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Our dear President is out on the Campaign trail yet again, touting how great he is. And he saved America! Rejoice!

It’s Hope 2.0!

<<barf bag on standby>>

They passed a sweeping Financial Reform bill. But like the Health Care bill where one the biggest problems was totally ignored for political reasons, Tort Reform, in the Financial Reform bill, Fannie & Freddie and the shadow of the subprime mortgages still out there, was ignored.

The Democrats, who created this mess, want to ignore the 800 lb Gorilla Cancer in the body.

With good reason, they were the main force behind creating it!

You can’t talk about the housing crisis or reforms without talking about the affordable-housing goals HUD slapped on Fannie and Freddie. That is, unless you’re Tim Geithner.

The Treasury secretary hosted a summit Tuesday to discuss redesigning the mortgage-finance system — 75% of which is still controlled by Fannie and Freddie, which are still bleeding billions at taxpayer expense.

Geithner vowed to fundamentally “change” the failed government-sponsored mortgage giants. Yet, suspiciously, he didn’t offer how. Nor did he explain why they lowered their underwriting standards and collapsed under the weight of subprime loans and securities. So here’s a refresher:

• In 1996, as part of Clinton housing policy, HUD required that 42% of Fannie’s and Freddie’s mortgage financing go to “underserved” borrowers with unproven or damaged credit.

• To help them meet that goal, HUD, their regulator, authorized them to relax their lending criteria.

• HUD also authorized them to buy subprime securities that included loans to uncreditworthy borrowers.

• Unhappy with the results — despite Fannie and Freddie committing trillions in risky low-income loans — HUD in 2000 raised its affordable-housing target again, this time to 50%.

• By 2008, HUD’s target had topped out at 56%. And Fannie and Freddie had drowned in a toxic soup of bad subprime paper.

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan insists that affordable-housing goals aren’t to blame. “We should be careful not to learn the wrong lesson from this experience,” he said, “and sacrifice an important feature of the current system: wide access to mortgage credit.”

This is revisionist history. Fannie and Freddie e-mails confirm that executives then were under huge pressure to meet “HUD goals.”

But as Orwell warned, whoever controls the present controls the past. And right now, the people who pushed Fannie and Freddie — along with our entire financial system — off the cliff in the name of “affordable housing” are running the show.

Just look at some of the experts Geithner invited to his Potemkin summit. Like ex-Clinton aide Ellen Seidman, who became head of the Office of Thrift Supervision. She aggressively enforced Clinton’s beefed-up Community Reinvestment Act, which codified the “flexible” underwriting that Fannie and Freddie adopted.

You can’t talk about the housing crisis or reforms without talking about the affordable-housing goals HUD slapped on Fannie and Freddie. That is, unless you’re Tim Geithner.

The Treasury secretary hosted a summit Tuesday to discuss redesigning the mortgage-finance system — 75% of which is still controlled by Fannie and Freddie, which are still bleeding billions at taxpayer expense.

Geithner vowed to fundamentally “change” the failed government-sponsored mortgage giants. Yet, suspiciously, he didn’t offer how. Nor did he explain why they lowered their underwriting standards and collapsed under the weight of subprime loans and securities. So here’s a refresher:

• In 1996, as part of Clinton housing policy, HUD required that 42% of Fannie’s and Freddie’s mortgage financing go to “underserved” borrowers with unproven or damaged credit.

• To help them meet that goal, HUD, their regulator, authorized them to relax their lending criteria.

• HUD also authorized them to buy subprime securities that included loans to uncreditworthy borrowers.

• Unhappy with the results — despite Fannie and Freddie committing trillions in risky low-income loans — HUD in 2000 raised its affordable-housing target again, this time to 50%.

• By 2008, HUD’s target had topped out at 56%. And Fannie and Freddie had drowned in a toxic soup of bad subprime paper.

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan insists that affordable-housing goals aren’t to blame. “We should be careful not to learn the wrong lesson from this experience,” he said, “and sacrifice an important feature of the current system: wide access to mortgage credit.”

This is revisionist history. Fannie and Freddie e-mails confirm that executives then were under huge pressure to meet “HUD goals.”

But as Orwell warned, whoever controls the present controls the past. And right now, the people who pushed Fannie and Freddie — along with our entire financial system — off the cliff in the name of “affordable housing” are running the show.

Just look at some of the experts Geithner invited to his Potemkin summit. Like ex-Clinton aide Ellen Seidman, who became head of the Office of Thrift Supervision. She aggressively enforced Clinton’s beefed-up Community Reinvestment Act, which codified the “flexible” underwriting that Fannie and Freddie adopted.

Seidman argued that Fannie’s and Freddie’s support for “low-income and minority communities” — especially now amid a wave of foreclosures — is “absolutely critical.” She wants government to take an even larger role in pushing housing for “underserved markets.”

The “underserved” were the poor, and minorities, that couldn’t pay them anyhow. But what the hell, if you can get a million dollar house with a multi-thousand dollar mortgage and a job at 7-11 for nothing down, why not. 🙂

Let’s buy some votes. Then when it all blows up in our face, blame it on “the rich” and George W. Bush!!

Yeah, that’s the ticket!! 🙂

Comment on the article: It’s simple! Underserved means undeserved but we will give it to you anyway in exchange for your vote. Problem is it works, for the short term but with h*** to pay in the long term.

Seidman argued that Fannie’s and Freddie’s support for “low-income and minority communities” — especially now amid a wave of foreclosures — is “absolutely critical.” She wants government to take an even larger role in pushing housing for “underserved markets.”

“The private sector will not do it on its own,” Seidman said, “and we should just stop having that debate.”

Excuse us, but homes aren’t a right. People who lost their homes can go back to renting. There’s no shame in that. The shame came when government pushed them into homes they couldn’t afford. And the housing bubble it created hurt everybody in the end.

Echoing Seidman, Geithner asserted that whatever replaces Fannie and Freddie must continue to “provide access to affordable housing for lower-income Americans” and to guarantee loans.

In other words, Fannie and Freddie aren’t going anywhere. They’ll just be absorbed into the government, most likely Treasury or HUD, or both.

Why must taxpayers continue subsidizing homeownership through a government-guaranteed secondary mortgage market run by a government-protected duopoly?

Within the proper framework, we’re confident that private firms can originate and securitize mortgages more efficiently — and do so without the politically injected risk or taxpayer liability.

Wells Fargo, for one, would gradually replace Freddie and Fannie with private “mortgage conduits” that buy loans on the primary market and roll them into a common mortgage-backed security.

They’d assume the risk on the underlying mortgages, while the government would guarantee only the MBSes. To protect taxpayers, the conduits would pay into an insurance fund.

The plan maximizes the use of private capital while limiting Washington’s role to assuming catastrophic risk.

Other charter privileges enjoyed by Fannie and Freddie would be eliminated, including their Treasury line of credit, state and local tax exemptions, and weak capital requirements.

Above all, the plan would curb HUD’s interference in the mortgage market. No more unrealistically high affordable-housing goals. No more NINJA — no income, no job or assets — loans.

After years of dissembling and denial, Rep. Barney Frank has finally come out. He now says bankrupt government mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “should be abolished.” Better late than never.

‘There were people in this society who for economic and, frankly, social reasons can’t and shouldn’t be homeowners,” Frank said in an interview with the Fox Business Network and sounding a lot more like an elephant than a donkey. “I think we should, particularly, stop this assumption that you put everybody into homeownership.”

After years of blaming heartless Republicans and Wall Street for the crisis caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — and their predominantly Democratic supporters in Congress — it’s refreshing to hear a member of the Democratic Party admit his mistakes.

It’s especially true of Frank, who, more than any other elected official, championed the cause of the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Indeed, Frank is most responsible for stopping GSE reform in the early 2000s, at a time when such a move might have prevented the financial meltdown.

Maybe Frank, like so many others in his party, is feeling the heat in this November’s election. Democrats’ popularity is plunging after years of economic incompetence that has left America’s once-thriving economy a shambles.

But give him his due: Frank’s comments mark a major departure.

In 2000, when Rep. Richard Baker proposed more oversight for the GSEs, Frank called concerns about Fannie and Freddie “overblown,” claiming there was “no federal liability whatsoever.”

In 2002, again, Frank said: “I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems. I regard them as assets.”

In 2003, he repeated himself in opposing reform, saying he did not “regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems.”

Even after a multibillion dollar accounting scandal hit Freddie Mac just a month after those remarks, Frank insisted nothing was wrong. “I do not think we are facing any kind of crisis,” he said.

By 2004, Fannie had its own accounting scandal. Frank again insisted it posed no threat to the U.S. Treasury. Even if the two went belly-up, he said, “I think Wall Street will get over it.”

Of course, he had it exactly backward. We’ve already spent $148 billion of taxpayer money on the two losers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it will ultimately cost taxpayers $389 billion to bail them out. Even that may be too little; at least one private estimate put the final toll at $1 trillion.

No surprise here. Even today, more than half of all mortgages are funded or underwritten by Fannie and Freddie. They hold more than $5 trillion of the $10.7 trillion or so in total U.S. mortgages.

We’ve spent a lot of money for Barney Frank’s education in financial reality. Today, he’s basically saying he and his party were wrong all along.

That’s a good start. But how about an apology? Or even a frank admission that his party’s indefatigable support of Fannie and Freddie — which, prodded by the Community Reinvestment Act, created and funded the massive subprime market that later collapsed — was to blame for our multitrillion dollar meltdown and the loss of millions of jobs?

Others are edging in that direction. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner this week held a conference on Fannie’s and Freddie’s future, and he too seems chastened. “We will not support returning Fannie and Freddie to the role they played before conservatorship, where they fought to take market share from private competitors while enjoying the privilege of government support,” he said.

That, too, is good to hear. As we have advocated for years — since 1996, to be exact — Fannie and Freddie should be dismantled or privatized.

We hope actions match the rhetoric — that Geithner’s “conference” on Fannie and Freddie wasn’t just political window dressing before November’s midterm elections.

Let’s get government out of the business of encouraging homeownership, an undertaking at which it has failed miserably.

Now that the idea is dead, let’s bury it once and for all.

As late as 2008, after the tide of losses and foreclosures washed away Fannie’s and Freddie’s remaining capital, Frank was adamant that it was all Wall Street’s fault: “The private sector got us into this mess … the government has to get us out of it.” (IBD)

But dear, Barney, it was thy.

“Slowly but surely, we are moving in the right direction. We’re on the right track,” Obama told a group of about 40 in the backyard of Rhonda and Joe Weithman’s home, a Cape Cod on quiet E. Kanawha Avenue in Clintonville,OH. “After 18 months, I have never been more confident that our nation is headed in the right direction,” Obama said.

Rasmussen:  Twenty-eight percent (28%) of Likely Voters say the country is heading in the right direction, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey taken the week ending Sunday, August 15.

While down slightly from the last two weeks, confidence in the nation’s current course has ranged from 27% to 35% since last July. Following Congress’ passage of the national health care bill in late March, the number of voters who said the country was heading in the right direction peaked at 35%, the highest level of optimism measured since early September 2009.

Fifty-four percent (54%) of Democrats feel the country is heading in the right direction. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Republicans and 77% of voters not affiliated with either political party feel the country is heading down the wrong track.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of all voters say the country is heading down the wrong track, up two points from last week.

So let’s review: 60+% are against the Health Care Bill. 60+% are for a secure border. 60+% are against the Ground Zero Mosque. 60+% are saying we are on the “wrong track”.

Sixty percent (60%) of U.S. voters say most members of Congress don’t care what their constituents think, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

So that’s why Democrats think they are doing a good job! 🙂

After all, your alternative is…<cue evil organ music> REPUBLICANS! <<dramatic music sting>> and we all know that is the way to Hell itself! 🙂

Personally, I’d rather just have Conservatives. Which leaves out Democrats anyhow but also leaves out the RINOs.

What we don’t need now is to go from a Progressive Cancer to a RINO Virus.

But we really don’t need is more government “involvement”. 😦

We The People

It has often been a theme in my blog for this nearly first year about the dishonesty of this administration, the Orwellian Tactics, and the Alinsky maneuvers. How the dripping contempt for the ‘little people’ from the political Elite Class has boiled over and how the Ministry of Truth (The Mainstream Media) is both a partner, a sucker, and a toadie for it all.

How the Left like to define everything in their own terms and you aren’t allowed to disagree with them.

Leaving you and me, the average citizen, hung out to dry.

Now Thomas Sowell, a evil abomination that liberals don’t want to exist – a black Conservative- a great piece today.

‘We the people” are the central concern of the Constitution, as well as its opening words, since it is a Constitution for a self-governing nation. But “we the people” are treated as an obstacle to circumvent by the current administration.

One way of circumventing the people is to rush legislation through Congress so fast that no one knows what is buried in it. Did you know that the so-called health care reform bill contained a provision creating a tax on people who buy and sell gold coins?

You might debate whether that tax is a good or a bad idea. But the whole point of burying it in legislation about medical insurance is to make sure “we the people” don’t even know about it, much less have a chance to debate it, before it becomes law.

Did you know that the financial reform bill that’s been similarly rushed through Congress, too fast for anyone to read, has a provision about “inclusion” of women and minorities? Pretty words like “inclusion” mean ugly realities like quotas. But that too isn’t something “we the people” are to be allowed to debate, because it too was sneaked through.

Not since the Norman conquerors of England published their laws in French, for an English-speaking nation, centuries ago, has there been such contempt for the people’s right to know what laws were being imposed on them.

Yet another ploy is to pass laws worded in vague generalities, leaving it up to the federal bureaucracies to issue specific regulations based on those laws. “We the people” can’t vote on bureaucrats. And, since it takes time for all the bureaucratic rules to be formulated and then put into practice, we won’t know what either the rules or their effects are prior to this fall’s elections when we vote for (or against) those who passed these clever laws.

The biggest circumvention of “we the people” was of course the so-called “health care reform” bill. This bill was passed with the proviso that it would not really take effect until after the 2012 presidential elections. Between now and then, the Obama administration can tell us in glowing words how wonderful this bill is, what good things it will do for us, and how it has rescued us from the evil insurance companies, among its many other glories.

But we won’t really know what the actual effects of this bill are until after the next presidential elections — which is to say, after it is too late. Quite simply, we are being played for fools.

Much has been made of the fact that families making less than $250,000 a year will not see their taxes raised. Of course they won’t see it, because what they see could affect how they vote. But when huge tax increases are put on electric utility companies, the people will see electricity bills go up. When huge taxes are put on other businesses as well, they will see the prices of the things those businesses sell go up.

If you are not in that “rich” category, you will not see your own taxes go up. But you will be paying someone else’s higher taxes, unless of course you can do without electricity and other products of heavily taxed businesses. If you don’t see this, so much the better for the administration politically.

This country has been changed in a more profound way by corrupting its fundamental values. The Obama administration has begun bribing people with the promise of getting their medical care and other benefits paid for by other people, so long as those other people can be called “the rich.” Incidentally, most of those who are called “the rich” are nowhere close to being rich.

A couple making $125,000 a year each are not rich, even though together they reach that magic $250,000 income level. In most cases, they haven’t been making $125,000 a year all their working lives. Far more often, they have reached this level after decades of working their way up from lower incomes — and now the government steps in to grab the reward they have earned over the years.

There was a time when most Americans would have resented the suggestion that they wanted someone else to pay their bills. But now, envy and resentment have been cultivated to the point where even people who contribute nothing to society feel that they have a right to a “fair share” of what others have produced.

The most dangerous corruption is a corruption of a nation’s soul. That is what this administration is doing.

I would add in the socialist corruption of the Education process so that even if they can’t destroy you they can destroy the future and the little darling brains full of mush will never know because they will never tell them.

It starts in grade school where you just don’t mention certain things, events and concepts and moves on through college life. So that by the end of 16 years of “education” you’re effectively a mindless idiot willing do what the government says because “it’s fair” and “it’s sensitive”.

And you wouldn’t want to be “unfair” and “insensitive” now would you? 🙂

A central goal of these programs is to uproot “internalized oppression,” a crucial concept in the diversity education planning documents of most universities. Like the Leninists’ notion of “false consciousness,” from which it ultimately is derived, it identifies as a major barrier to progressive change the fact that the victims of oppression have internalized the very values and ways of thinking by which society oppresses them. What could workers possibly know, compared to intellectuals, about what workers truly should want? What could students possibly know, compared to those creating programs for offices of student life and residence, about what students truly should feel? Any desire for assimilation or for individualism reflects the imprint of white America’s strategy for racial hegemony.

Planning for New Student Week at Northwestern University, a member of the Cultural Diversity Project Committee explained to the Weekly Northwestern Review in 1989 that the committee’s goal was “changing the world, or at least the way [undergraduates] perceive it.” In 1993, Ana Maria Garcia, assistant dean of Haverford College, proudly told the Philadelphia Inquirer of official freshman dormitory programs there, which divided students into two groups: happy, unselfish Alphas and grim, acquisitive Betas. For Garcia, the exercise was wonderfully successful: “Students in both groups said the game made them feel excluded, confused, awkward, and foolish,” which, for Garcia, accomplished the purpose of Haverford’s program: “to raise student awareness of racial and ethnic diversity.”

In the early 1990s, Bryn Mawr College shared its mandatory “Building Pluralism” program with any school that requested it. Bryn Mawr probed the most private experiences of every first-year student: difference and discomfort; racial, ethnic, and class experiences; sexual orientation; religious beliefs. By the end of this “orientation,” students were devising “individual and collective action plans” for “breaking free” of “the cycle of oppression” and for achieving “new meaning” as “change agents.” Although the public relations savvy of universities has changed since the early 1990s, these programs proliferate apace.

The darkest nightmare of the literature on power is George Orwell’s 1984, where there is not even an interior space of privacy and self. Winston Smith faces the ultimate and consistent logic of the argument that everything is political, and he can only dream of “a time when there were still privacy, love, and friendship, and when members of a family stood by one another without needing to know the reason.”(reason.com)

Let’s take that a step farther. The liberal left says that you are “insensitive” to muslims if you object to the mosque being built next to Ground Zero.

But you also “insensitive” to Latinos if you want the border secured. That’s “racial profiling”. You’re a “racist”.

But yet, if you’re a devout Christian who doesn’t believe in Gay marriage, because of your religion, You’re an insensitive, homophobic bigot!

So you’re insensitive to the Muslim religion if you object, but if you object based on your Christian religion you’re also insensitive.

And if you tell the proponents of the mosque that building it there is “insensitive” they will shoot back that you’re stereotyping all Muslims and that the Constitution protects there right to build it there.

So they can tell you you’re “insensitive” but you can’t tell THEM they are “insensitive” because they are your Insufferably Moral Superiors and you can’t even begin to judge them.

Orwell couldn’t do much better than that. You’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.

O’Brien’s re-education of Winston in 1984 went to the heart of such invasiveness. “We are not content with negative obedience…. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will.” The Party wanted not to destroy the heretic but to “capture his inner mind.” Where others were content to command “Thou shalt not” or “Thou shalt,” O’Brien explains, “Our command is ‘Thou art.'” To reach that end requires “learning… understanding [and] acceptance,” and the realization that one has no control even over one’s inner soul.

The school must become a therapeutic and political agent of progressive change. For your own good. But especially, before you figure out you’ve been had.

And the liberal media is there to reinforce it.

Look at how they frame the Ground Zero Mosque issue, for instance.

It’s all about Constitutional Right to worship as they please. The fact that this is a perversion of the First Amendment aside, it’s a clever little Alinsky tactic. Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

So you wouldn’t want to go against The Constitution now would you? 🙂

The fact that that isn’t even the real issue isn’t even the point. It’s a tactic. They don’t care about the Constitutionality of it. They know that’s irrelevant.

But they also know they can off-put you by pushing it. Just like when they call you a “racist” when you object to illegal immigration.

And if that’s the only argument you hear, then that’s they only argument you know.

If the free speech and religious freedoms protected in First Amendment are suddenly so sacrosanct, why is it that Obama and his left-wing allies continuously push for a return of the fairness doctrine and for getting religion (except islam) out of schools and everywhere else??

And if the Constitution is so all important to Liberals all of the sudden why do they continuously push for gun bans (aka The Second Amendment)?

And where in the Constitution does a Health Care Mandate come from? And what other Mandates can they come up with if they think there is??

And then you get the counter. It’s not the Imam and the Mosque next to Ground Zero that is the problem, it’s YOU who object to it, you’re the problem.

Speaker Pelosi on a radio show: “There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,” she said. “How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we’ve been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City.”

Calls to investigate the funding for those proposing the $100 million “Cordoba House” have fallen on deaf ears, though, as New York’s Mayor Mike Bloomberg has described such an investigation as “un-American.”(Washington Times)

The only thing the majority of American opposed to this haven’t been called yet is…. RACIST! 🙂

But I’m sure it’s coming. It’s always coming…

And have you noticed, the proposed memorial to the victims of 9/11 hasn’t been finished 10 years later?

And a Greek Orthodox church crushed by the twin towers falling can’t get the zoning and building permits to rebuild?

Funny that. 🙂

And the final word today goes to former Obama Communication toadie Anita Dunn on MSDNC when challenged by Pat Buchanan on “tolerance”,“Anita, let me ask you about this word tolerance. I mean, what about tolerance for the views of the thousands of families of those who died on 9/11, the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who are saying, ‘Please, you have a right to move the mosque there but please don’t do it. It doesn’t belong there,’ and the vast majority of Americans who say the same thing?” Buchanan said.

“They have a right to build a mosque, but for heavens’ sakes given the fact that the terrorists were Islamic, it was crucial to their identity and their mission, please don’t put an Islamic mosque just two blocks from where this happened. What about tolerance for the vast majority of Americans and their opinions?” he said.

Dunn responded: “Well, you know, I have to ask, it’s two blocks … It’s a center that is supposed to be about promoting interfaith, and really reaching out, which in many ways is I think what President Bush back in those horrible days of 2001, really tried to promote.”

“And how many blocks is ok? Is nine blocks okay? Is 10? I don’t know where you go with this argument,” Dunn said.

“Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski ended the segment with a non-sequitur.

“And Anita, they have, like, other things that a lot of people have issues with, like peep shows. So, I mean, I think you bring up a really good point,” Brzezinski said.

Last impression: it’s about peep shows, not “sensitivity”.

Doing Orwell proud. 🙂