OBAMA'S 'ACADEMICALLY APPROVED' APPROACH TO HEALTH CARE

It should not be forgotten that Obama has talked about his desire to re-write our Constitution, because it "is a charter of negative liberties; says what the states can't do to you; says what the federal government can't do to you; but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf". Exactly!! They knew exactly what they were doing, and it is not your place, Mr. Obama, to change it. This is the underbelly of the man we now have in our White House. It should not be a surprise. This information was out there, but America was sold on his "hopie, changie" thing.

Obamacare is not going away, no matter how unpopular, no matter how many Americans do not want it, and no matter how many elections he loses. But, he tells us he is not an ideologue, so we are sheeple who are to believe in his word, and let him reconstruct our Constitution, 'cause remember, it's 'deeply flawed".

I think not!

This tongue-in-cheek is excellent, while quite eerie, by Andy Wickersham in Pajamas Media:


Obama’s ‘Academically Approved’ Approach to Health Care
The president's Super Bowl Sunday interview provided more evidence of his disdain for the Constitution.
by Andy Wickersham, February 10, 2010

From the president’s interview with Katie Couric prior to the Super Bowl:

Look, I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, you know, academically approved approach to health care. And didn’t have any kinds of legislative fingerprints on it. And just go ahead and have that passed. But that’s not how it works in our democracy.

As you can clearly see, this man’s genius is being terribly underutilized here. All of these brilliant solutions to all of these great problems, but the delivery system is unfortunately quite antiquated. And as a result we have a terrifically wise and benevolent leader who is at the moment a bit hamstrung by a process that could certainly use some streamlining.

Sure, he’s done a pretty masterful job given the restraints that the American system of government have placed on him, but this health care thing has really highlighted the regrettable fact that the Founders really only left him with so much room to maneuver. If only someone as gifted and righteous as The One were able to work freely on behalf of the common good, all would be well. After all, how could America go wrong pinning its destiny to a man that uses the word “elegant” and the phrase “academically approved” in the same sentence? You certainly weren’t going to get that from George Bush.

So you can see where a man of Obama’s brilliance would be a bit frustrated at having to get involved in such a messy legislative process. But you do have to admire his willingness to do so. As he said in his State of the Union address, he “never suggested that change would be easy” or that he could “do it alone.” He knew full well that with the checks and balances the Framers had put in place and with America’s traditional reliance on the rule of law, it was going to take some time to remake this country. Kingdoms simply aren’t created in a day, you know.

In all seriousness, though, this is really quite a statement. First off, Obama puts his freakish arrogance on display, yet again, for those on the left and right to marvel at — albeit for very different reasons. Because, you know, if left to his own devices, our president could come up with a splendid approach to health care, it would receive that all-important academic approval, and it really wouldn’t be all that difficult.

Of course, the ridiculousness of this statement, as is the case with many of the gems that come from this president, goes beyond simply its epic grandiosity. Notice he uses the word “approach” instead of “plan.” Isn’t this precisely what he tried to do in the first place: approach Congress without an actual plan? And I don’t think you can get an “approach” passed. But then, I’m not The One. Although I do know that America is a republic, not a democracy.

But alas, the president is not left to his own devices and the good doctor is instead restrained from being able to liberally apply that miraculous Obama salve to the wound inflicted on America by those awful insurance companies. And this brings us to what I believe is the most disconcerting aspect of this statement. Yet again, Obama is making it abundantly clear that he does not hold our form of government in the highest regard.

While on the surface it may seem that this is simply a candid statement by a person who is confident that he has the best “approach” to fix America’s health care system and that he would obviously like to see his ideas enacted, there is on closer examination a whole lot more going on here than that.

There are Americans everywhere that feel they have better ideas than this president does with respect to improving America. But I doubt too many of them would “love nothing better” than for the Constitution to be discarded in order for these ideas to be implemented. I know I certainly wouldn’t. While I personally would love to see an America freed from a crushing regulatory structure, an America utilizing its natural resources to their fullest potential, an America with a much different tax code, etc., I certainly don’t want the Constitution circumvented in order to accomplish these things.

But then this statement makes perfect sense if you consider it within the context of what we know about Barack Obama. He has said the Constitution “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.” He has bemoaned the fact that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution is that it is “generally a charter of negative liberties” that doesn’t “say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.” He has talked to Joe the Plumber about the merit in spreading the wealth. And the list goes on.

Oh, if only The One could be freed from those constitutional chains that bind.


Andy Wickersham has a master's in public policy from Claremont Graduate University. He is the former producer of a prominent Southern California land development publication.

ANTI TEA PARTY WEB SITE PART OF SCHEME TO FUNNEL FUNDS

The Tea Party movement is under attack again, and this time it's by the very people who recently thrashed the Supreme Court for their narrow decision to preserve freedom of speech. With all the noise Obama and his defenders made against this decision, they are the biggest offenders. A group of big corporate companies have organized a new web site targeting the tea parties under the guise of a grassroots organization. It's a very tangled web of corporations, big labor unions, tons of money, and political slush funds to counter the tea party movement.

Ha! Obama said the Supreme Court decision would "open the floodgates for special interest." Hypocrites! Wonder if he's planning on investigating these infractions.

Joseph Abrams of FOX News writes in detail:


Anti-Tea Party Web Site Part of Scheme to Funnel Funds
By Joseph Abrams - FOXNews.com, February 10, 2010

A new Web site targeting the tea parties is a part of a complex network of money flowing from the mountainous coffers of the country's biggest labor unions and trickling slowly into political slush funds for Democratic activists.

A seemingly grassroots organization that's mounted an online campaign to counter the tea party movement is actually the front end of an elaborate scheme that funnels funds -- including sizable labor union contributions -- through the offices of a prominent Democratic party lawyer.

A Web site popped up in January dedicated to preventing the tea party's "radical" and "dangerous" ideas from "gaining legislative traction," targeting GOP candidates in Illinois for the firing squad.

"This movement is a fad," proclaims TheTeaPartyIsOver.org, which was established by the American Public Policy Center (APPC), a D.C.-based campaign shop that few people have ever heard of.

But a close look reveals the APPC's place in a complex network of money flowing from the mountainous coffers of the country's biggest labor unions into political slush funds for Democratic activists.

Here's how it works: What appears like a local groundswell is in fact the creation of two men -- Craig Varoga and George Rakis, Democratic Party strategists who have set up a number of so-called 527 groups, the non-profit election organizations that hammer on contentious issues (think Swift Boats, for example).

Varoga and Rakis keep a central mailing address in Washington, pulling in soft money contributions from unions and other well-padded sources to engage in what amounts to a legal laundering system. The money -- tens of millions of dollars -- gets circulated around to different states by the 527s, which pay for TV ads, Internet campaigns and lobbyist salaries, all while keeping the hands of the unions clean -- for the most part.

The system helps hide the true sources of funding, giving the appearance of locally bred opposition in states from Oklahoma to New Jersey, or in the case of the Tea Party Web site, in Illinois.

And this whitewash is entirely legal, say election law experts, who told FoxNews.com that this arrangement more or less the norm in Washington.

"It's not illegal but it is, I think, dishonest on the part of the organizations," said Paul Ryan, a legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. "And there's a reason they do it: they know voters don't like outsiders coming in to sway the vote."

Calls and e-mails to the Maryland-based consultant firm Independent Strategies, run by Varoga and Rakis, were not returned.

Outside of that firm, the center of their activity appears to be a single office in Southeast D.C. -- 300 M Street, Suite 1102 -- which plays host to a sprawling political shell game they have established.

Public records show at least seven political shops listed in Suite 1102, most of which are essentially clones of one another, but all of which have offered money -- from measly thousands to game-changing millions -- in state-level elections across the country:

-American Public Policy Committee - Donations | IRS forms
-Patriot Majority - Donations | IRS forms
-Citizens for Progress - Donations | IRS forms
-Oklahoma Freedom Fund - Donations | IRS forms
-Mid Atlantic Leadership Fund - Donations | IRS forms
-Public Security Now - Donations | IRS forms
-Pioneer Majority - Donations | IRS forms
-Bluegrass Freedom Fund - Donations | IRS forms

The APPC, which developed the anti-tea party ads, has gotten all of its money for 2010 from Patriot Majority and from Citizens for Progress, which is also called Patriot Majority West.

Patriot Majority West sent them $25,000 in January, and Patriot Majority added another $5,000. The groups, both run by Varoga and Rakis, also swap hundreds of thousands of dollars between themselves, money often buttressed by gifts from Patriot Majority Midwest, seen above as the Oklahoma Freedom Fund.

The confusing naming system is intentional, say election law experts, who generally disapprove of the practice.

"I do take issue with and have long complained about groups that shield particular special interests with innocuous-sounding names like ... 'Americans for America,'" said Ryan. "That type of naming of an organization, I believe, is specifically intended to obscure the true sources of funding of special interest groups behind political activity."

These three Patriot Majority groups also send checks to Independent Strategies, the strategy firm run by Varoga and Rakis. And some of the 527s have sent money to VR Strategies, another firm run in part by and named after Varoga.

The most recent backers of the Patriot Majority and Patriot Majority West, which helped fund the APPC and thus the Tea Party site, form a veritable Who's Who of the country's top labor unions: the Service Employees International Union, Change to Win, the Communications Workers of America, the National Education Association, the Teamsters Union, the United Food & Commercial Workers Union and others besides.

But by far the largest donations have come from a collection of unionized government workers, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) -- which in 2008 alone donated $5.8 million to Patriot Majority and another $4.1 million to Patriot Majority Midwest.

Using this arrangement, Varoga and Rakis are managing what NPR called a "never-ending pot of union money" that they dispense among the 527s they run, which in turn pay for ads in hotly contested election districts.

That means that taxpayer dollars, sent up as union dues, have been going to fund a host of Democratic causes and help quash the tea party movement.

What's more, Varoga and Rakis are not actually present in Suite 1102. That is the office of their lawyer, Joseph Sandler, a longtime general counsel to the Democratic National Committee.

Sandler, whose firm and trust account raked in over $500,000 in Democratic party money in 2009 alone, told Fox News that there was nothing irregular in their setup.

"That's common practice," said Sandler, a renowned expert on election law who served as general counsel to the Democratic National Committee until February 2009, and whose firm, Sandler Reiff & Young, continues to work for both the Democratic party and numerous left-wing 527 groups.

Sandler noted that political committees and groups are often run by multiple people and don't have a central office, but need a place where they can be in ongoing contact with the IRS and other federal agencies that track election funds.

"It's very common for a law firm to give their address ... as the official address for the organization where correspondence can be received," he said.

It has the effect of confusing the ultimate sources of election funding, but also serves an important practical end, say election law experts.

"As a practical matter there's not a huge universe of lawyers in the United States that know political law all that well and most of them are here in D.C., said Ryan, of the Campaign Legal Center. "It's not uncommon for political organizations to be using lawyers in D.C. or starters, even if they're all over the country."

It is not clear whether TheTeaPartyIsOver.org is the start of a larger campaign run by Varoga and Rakis to target tea party activists. Additional attempts to reach Varoga at a California number were unsuccessful. A staffer answering the phone in Varoga's Oakland office last week told FoxNews.com that he was unavailable for comment and hung up.

GOP'S HEALTHCARE MOMENT

By now, it should be pretty apparent Obama has no intention of a bi-partisan reconciliation on his non-existent [health care] 'Plan' or the House plan or the Senate plan. We all know it's a trap to hog the mike, which is not exactly a meeting. As we speak, Pelosi is scheming a new way to shove her plan through, so why the meeting, when he plans to ram it through anyway? This is another showboating appearance to look 'presidential', when the past year has shown he is anything but. No president would tell you to borrow money to expand your payroll. No president would call his military corpsemen ... multiple times. Jimminy Christmas!

But -- this is a very slippery slope, just as Republicans are beginning to win back their positive image. They are smart to see this is a trap, but if they do not show up, the negative effect will pretty much destroy their new found popularity. If handled properly, the Republicans will maintain popularity and gain more points in the process. We cannot afford to lose any ground.

Dick Morris writes a clever piece on how they can accomplish this:


GOP'S HEALTHCARE MOMENT
by Dick Morris, February 9, 2010

President Barack Obama has so lowered expectations for the Republican Party that if they come to the healthcare summit he has called at the White House with concrete and well-articulated proposals, it will blow the country away. Repeatedly, the president has fashioned the GOP as the party of "no," goading them by saying, "If you have any ideas, bring them on."

Well, let them do it.

Republicans need to be on their toes and aggressive in the meeting and not let it devolve into a question-and-answer session with the president hogging the mike. He asked for a meeting, not a lecture or a media conference, and Republicans need to demand equal time to present their ideas.

Start with tort reform. The Republicans need to explain how much of the unnecessary medical costs are being driven by useless tort litigation. In Mississippi, where they acted to preclude much of it, malpractice premiums have declined by 50 percent.

The GOP needs to explain to the nation that when the president says he is going to cut costs by eliminating tests that aren't necessary, he is catching doctors in a vise. On the one side, they have the government prohibiting or discouraging them from tests, and on the other, the trial-lawyer bar waiting to pounce on them for failing to administer the proper tests if their care has a bad outcome.

The Republicans need to make the cost-cutting part of the healthcare summit about tort reform, constantly raising the subject as the counter to the president's proposed $500 billion cut in Medicare.

Then Republicans need to discuss other cost-saving measures such as allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines and other measures to encourage competition.

Republicans should also zero in on the need for more doctors if we are to expand the number of patients covered. They must articulate the conclusion so much of the nation has come to (but official Washington has never embraced): that you cannot have more patients without more doctors unless you want to impose rationing. They should make the case that you need to phase in coverage for those who are not now covered so that you can increase the supply of doctors and nurses at the same time. Supply must keep pace with demand so that artificial scarcity does not leave the nation short of doctors.

The Republicans need to point out that in Massachusetts, where Romney inflicted a version of ObamaCare on the state, the waiting time to see a doctor in Boston is now 63 days. They need to stress that any rationing will be felt primarily by the elderly and will lead to premature deaths.

Finally, Republicans need to explain their own proposals for reforming healthcare -- including Medical Savings Accounts and expansions of current tax breaks to encourage people and small businesses to purchase insurance.

Then, Republicans need to keep up a steady drumfire of criticism of the president's proposals. They need to:

• Attack the proposed cuts in Medicare.

• Criticize the individual mandate as unconstitutional and paint a vivid picture of how much it will cost young families.

• Demand that young people be permitted to purchase catastrophic coverage to satisfy any mandate, rather than full coverage they don't need.

• Spell out, in detail, how the tax on medical devices will raise the cost of pacemakers, automated wheelchairs, arterial stints, prosthetic limbs and all manner of necessary medical equipment.

• Attack the proposal to make a taxpayer spend 10 percent of his income -- as opposed to 7.5 percent at present -- on medical expenses in order to deduct them. Expose this tax as a tax on the sick.

• Criticize the idea that people could be imprisoned for failing to have health insurance or paying the fine the legislation imposes. There is a big difference between tax evasion and failing to have health insurance.

With proper preparation, the Republicans can turn this healthcare summit into a nationally televised town meeting such as those that frustrated Democratic congressmen last August.

Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!

DEMOCRATS, MEET YOUR BIGGEST NIGHTMARE

Over the past 18 months, I have learned more than I ever thought possible, and done things completely outside my little private lifestyle, as have hundreds of thousands -- no millions -- have done. A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step. What we saw happening got us out of our comfort zone, to become engaged in unknown territory, because the very definition of Conservatives is non-combative, who works hard to earn a decent living, and take care of family.

Many of us saw that our country's foundation was in great peril. We became engaged as never before, and thanks to the invaluable information we absorbed from scholars such as Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, confirmation from people such as Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, endless brilliant bloggers, we were able to take action. As the months went by, we became stronger and more outspoken. Our numbers grew to astonishing proportions, and we were unavoidably visible at rallys, Tea Party rallys, and Town Hall meetings. So much so, that we have been demonized by the leftist loons, who have the media to promote their vile rhetoric.

That means one thing -- it's working. We only have to look at the stunning success in Virginia, New Jersey, and the Massachusets Miracle. But, one thing is very clear. If we are to preserve our great republic, we can no longer take our eye off of government officials. If history has proven anything, it is that people crave power, and left unattended, they will take freedom away in order to gain more and more. Our Founding Fathers knew what it was like to live under tyranny, and they constructed our Constitution carefully to protect us from ever losing freedom, but it, too, must be protected. We have seen our Constitution ripped to shreds, especially lately.

A quote from [highly recommended] Mark Levin's last chapter 'A Conservative Manefesto' in his book, LIBERTY and TYRANNY:

The Conservative must become more engaged in public matters. It is in his nature to live and let live, to attend to his family, to volunteer time with his church and synagogue, and to quietly assist a friend, a neighbor, or even a stranger. These are certainly admirable qualities that contribute to the overall health of the community. But it is no longer enough. The Statist's counterrevolution has turned the instrumentalities of public affairs and public governance against the civil society. They can no longer be left to the devices of the Statist, which is largely the case today.

A moving piece written by Carol Peracchio, a nurse, in American Thinker speaks volumns of this phenomenon, and I shared Paulette's emotions on that glorious night.


Democrats, Meet Your Biggest Nightmare
by Carol Peracchio, February 9, 2010

My husband's cousin Paulette called me the morning of January 20 from Massachusetts. Breathless with excitement, her words tumbling out so fast I could barely keep up, she recounted the joy of Scott Brown's win in the special election to the U.S. Senate.

Paulette is 66 years old. She and her husband are retired. She has an active social life which includes lots of friends and competitive amateur tennis. She babysits her granddaughter and checks on her 92-year-old father in Florida every day. She told me she'd never been politically active, "except for voting, of course."

But all that changed after Barack Obama's election. Paulette started watching FOX News and listening to Rush Limbaugh. Health care reform, with its 500-billion-dollar Medicare cuts, scared her out of her wits. When she learned I write articles for AT, mostly about health care, she started calling me periodically last summer. We'd commiserate on how discouraging it was that no one in Washington is listening, or even seems to care. Paulette, like so many of us, felt frustrated and helpless.

Then Senator Kennedy passed away, and a political activist was born.

Paulette described her first meeting with Scott Brown. A friend called one morning in late November to tell her that State Senator Brown was coming to town that day to open a campaign office.

"I barely had time to throw on clothes. I didn't care how I looked," she told me. She rushed over to the office and signed up that day to work. "I told Scott Brown that we are going to win this." I asked her how she could be so certain back in November, when absolutely no one out here believed Brown had a chance.

"I knew we would win because I lived there. I talk to lots of people. I knew how we all felt about what Obama and the Democrats were doing."

Then she added, "I just couldn't take any more."

So Paulette went to work. She staffed the office several days per week, answering phones and handing out signs and literature. She knocked on doors all over her neighborhood. She visited shut-ins and helped them request absentee ballots. She helped organize volunteers to drive voters to the polls. Just before Christmas, she called to give me another update. She was off to follow up on some of those absentee ballots. "There's a family down the street that has four. I need to make sure they got mailed."

Every day when Paulette would drive to the elementary school to pick up her granddaughter, she would stand next to her car and wave her "Scott Brown for U.S. Senate" sign at the passing traffic. "I get a few thumbs down," she reported, "but most people honk their horns and smile."

When Paulette called me the Friday before the election, she hadn't a scintilla of doubt that Brown would win. "We're going to do it, Carol!" she exclaimed. "We're going to stop Obama!" The polls reflected her optimism. But on the political shows over the weekend, conservatives appeared afraid to be hopeful. More than once I heard it expressed that a Brown win was a long shot. They consoled themselves by saying that even if he lost by a narrow margin, that would be a victory in blue, blue Massachusetts.

A loss for Brown wouldn't be a victory for Paulette, however. To Paulette, victory meant Scott Brown would be senator.

Conservative internet forums were just as pessimistic as the TV pundits. Over and over I read comments gloomily describing how Brown would have to win by double digits to overcome the inevitable ACORN and union fraud. I asked Paulette about it. She laughed it off. "We're going to win," she repeated.

So on Tuesday night, as Martha Coakley conceded hours, if not days, earlier than the conventional wisdom predicted, I had the feeling that Paulette was the only person who wasn't surprised. The next morning, I could do nothing but offer my deep gratitude to Paulette and the others in Massachusetts who "just couldn't take any more."

Scott Brown deserves credit, of course, for fighting an amazing campaign. But I think it's the Paulettes in Massachusetts who have the most to teach us. Such as:

1. There are a lot of voters out there who agree with us. Poll after poll shows that conservatives make up the largest voting bloc in America. It's high time we conservatives actually believed it.

2. There is no substitute, absolutely none, for personal, grassroots involvement in campaigns. Too many of us want to just "mail in" our support. That way, none of our neighbors will know that we are actually (gasp!) conservative. Go back and reread #1. There's a good chance your neighbors are conservatives, too.

3. Democrat and ACORN fraud cannot overcome a tidal wave of conservative and like-minded independent voters, even in liberal Massachusetts and New Jersey. For far too long we have accepted the inevitability of losing because of Democrat voter fraud. Then we just throw in the towel and don't even try to defeat the entrenched liberals. I'm certainly not saying fraud doesn't exist and that we don't need to be diligent in our efforts to combat it. But ACORN is no match for energized, intelligent, informed conservatives.

4. We have to get involved early. Signing up to make telephone calls the last weekend of a campaign, while better than nothing, isn't good enough. It was almost sad to see busloads of SEIU members rolling into Boston for President Obama's speech two days before the election. Outside of giving the media a thrill and depressing Beltway conservatives, the whole effort was a waste of time. Primaries for this year's congressional elections are starting now.

The time for conservative involvement is yesterday. Brown's win taught us that no seat is 100% safe. (My dream is to see that proved again in Barney Frank's district.) My own congressman is a blue dog Democrat who voted for cap-and-trade. I wonder if he has any idea what's in store for him this election year.

So here's to you, Paulette, and all your fellow patriots in Massachusetts. I can almost hear our Founders saying, "Ya done good!"

Carol Peracchio is a registered nurse.

THE ELECTORATE vs. OBAMA'S AGENDA

Webster's New World Dictionary: ideologue

n.

[[Fr idéologue, back-form. idéologie: see fol.]]

1 a zealous exponent or advocate of a specified ideology

If the shoe fits........ Since Obama's State of the Union address is almost identical to his Joint Session of Congress speech a year ago, after astounding defeats in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, of course he's not an ideologue. Wonder why he felt compelled to profess this in another speech before the recent Republican Conference. Straw man! Jeeze, when does this man 'preside'?

All signs point to his continuing with his unpopular agenda, talking down to us as though he knows better, and counseling us to turn off our TVs and stop reading unfavorable blogs. They are going to make the decision for us, because 'Father knows best'.

But there is hope, as shown in Virginia, New Jersey, and, miraculously, Massachusetts. Common sense will level the playing field -- better than Obama and his ilk.
The magnificent Charles Krauthammer writes a brilliant piece on this in Real Clear Politics:


The Electorate vs. Obama's Agenda

by Charles Krauthammer, February 5, 2010

WASHINGTON -- "I am not an ideologue," protested President Obama at a gathering with Republican House members last week. Perhaps, but he does have a tenacious commitment to a set of political convictions.

Compare his 2010 State of the Union to his first address to Congress a year earlier. The consistency is remarkable. In 2009, after passing a $787 billion (now $862 billion) stimulus package, the largest spending bill in galactic history, he unveiled a manifesto for fundamentally restructuring the commanding heights of American society -- health care, education and energy.

A year later, after stunning Democratic setbacks in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, Obama gave a stay-the-course State of the Union address (a) pledging not to walk away from health care reform, (b) seeking to turn college education increasingly into a federal entitlement, and (c) asking again for cap-and-trade energy legislation. Plus, of course, another stimulus package, this time renamed a "jobs bill."

This being a democracy, don't the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don't they understand Massachusetts?

Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.

Liberal expressions of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-Massachusetts, remarkably unguarded. New York Times columnist Charles Blow chided Obama for not understanding the necessity of speaking "in the plain words of plain folks," because the people are "suspicious of complexity." Counseled Blow: "The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, 'Mr. President, we're down here.'"

A Time magazine blogger was even more blunt about the ankle-dwelling mob, explaining that we are "a nation of dodos" that is "too dumb to thrive."

Obama joined the parade in the State of the Union address when, with supercilious modesty, he chided himself "for not explaining it (health care) more clearly to the American people." The subject, he noted, was "complex." The subject, it might also be noted, was one to which the master of complexity had devoted 29 speeches. Perhaps he did not speak slowly enough.

Then there are the emotional deficiencies of the masses. Nearly every Democratic apologist lamented the people's anger and anxiety, a free-floating agitation that prevented them from appreciating the beneficence of the social agenda the Democrats are so determined to foist upon them.

That brings us to Part 2 of the liberal conceit: Liberals act in the public interest, while conservatives think only of power, elections, self-aggrandizement and self-interest.

It is an old liberal theme that conservative ideas, being red in tooth and claw, cannot possibly emerge from any notion of the public good. A 2002 New York Times obituary for philosopher Robert Nozick explained that the strongly libertarian implications of Nozick's masterwork, "Anarchy, State, and Utopia," "proved comforting to the right, which was grateful for what it embraced as philosophical justification." The right, you see, is grateful when a bright intellectual can graft some philosophical rationalization onto its thoroughly base and self-regarding politics.

This belief in the moral hollowness of conservatism animates the current liberal mantra that Republican opposition to Obama's social democratic agenda -- which couldn't get through even a Democratic Congress and powered major Democratic losses in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts -- is nothing but blind and cynical obstructionism.

By contrast, Democratic opposition to George W. Bush -- from Iraq to Social Security reform -- constituted dissent. And dissent, we were told at the time, including by candidate Obama, is "one of the truest expressions of patriotism."

No more. Today, dissent from the governing orthodoxy is nihilistic malice. "They made a decision," explained David Axelrod, "they were going to sit it out and hope that we failed, that the country failed" -- a perfect expression of liberals' conviction that their aspirations are necessarily the country's, that their idea of the public good is the public's, that their failure is therefore the nation's.

Then comes Massachusetts, an election Obama himself helped nationalize, to shatter this most self-congratulatory of illusions.

For liberals, the observation that "the peasants are revolting" is a pun. For conservatives, it is cause for uncharacteristic optimism. No matter how far the ideological pendulum swings in the short term, in the end the bedrock common sense of the American people will prevail.

The ankle-dwelling populace pushes back. It re-centers. It renormalizes. Even in Massachusetts.

Copyright 2010, Washington Post Writers Group

BEHIND OBAMA'S PHONY DEFICIT NUMBERS

Over and over again, Obama spouts "I inherited this deficit, I inherited this recession, I inherited this financial crisis, I saved America from the brink, I gave tax cuts (REBATES) to of America". I -- I -- I, and still it's not about him. Uh-huh. Of course, the numbers are a lie in order to show off his magnificence, but the true numbers are far more interesting.

Dick Morris outlines the difference between truth and fiction in his interesting new piece:


BEHIND OBAMA'S PHONY DEFICIT NUMBERS
by Dick Morris, February 1, 2010

President Obama is being disingenuous when he says that the budget deficit he faced "when I walked in the door" of the White House was $1.3 trillion. He went on to say that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and was raising it to $1.6 trillion in 2010.

Congressman Joe Wilson might have said "you lie," but we'll settle for "you distort."

(As Mark Twain once said, there are three kinds of lies: "lies, damn lies, and statistics.")

Here are the facts:

In 2008, Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started on October 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was about $600 billion at the start of the fiscal crisis. That was the real Bush deficit.

But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass TARP in the final months of his presidency which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit -- officially -- up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won't be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.

Then...he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. This $300 billion was, of course, totally qualitatively different from the TARP money in that it was spending not lending. It would never be paid back. Once it was out the door, it was gone. Other spending and falling revenues due to the recession pushed the final numbers for Obama's 2009 deficit up to $1.4 trillion.

So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit.

Obama seems not to understand that the deficit is the jobs problem. To add to the deficit in the hope of creating more jobs is an oxymoron. Additional deficit spending just crowds out small businesses trying to borrow money to create jobs and consumers seeking credit to buy cars and homes.

Soon, when the Fed stops printing money and we have to borrow real funds from real lenders, the high deficit will send interest rates soaring, further retarding growth and creating a cost-push inflation.

The interest rate we are now paying for the debt -- about 3.5% -- is totally artificial and based on the massive injection of money supply created by the purchase of mortgage backed securities by an obliging Federal Reserve. Once these injections of currency/heroin stop, the rate will more than double, sending our debt service spending into the stratosphere. Once we had to choose between guns and butter. Now we will have to choose between guns and butter on the one hand and paying our debt service on the other.

Obama's program of fiscal austerity in this new budget is a joke. He freezes very selected budget items while he shovels out new spending in his stimulus packages. If he wanted to lower the deficit, here's what he could do:

1. Cancel the remaining $500 billion of stimulus spending and

2. Cancel the $300 billion of spending in stimulus II.

Those are the real numbers. Or, as Al Gore would have it, "the inconvenient truth."


Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!

WHAT I SAID TO THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

We recently witnessed another photo-op, as Obama graced the Republican conference with his presence filling the room once again with more lies and re-writing history about inherited deficits. He inherited it from a Democratic congress, and forgets that he voted for every spending program from 2005 onwards. Once again he is delusional and disingenuous. He tells his own story about the economic decline, while preaching how health care will save the day. Yes, of course, Mr. President. You are not an ideologue, nor a Bolshevik.

When this administration began, we had a few Republicans cross the aisle to vote with Obama and his "transformation of the United States of America". As the weeks and months went by, it became obvious (even to the RINOs) that what Obama and his crew were doing was not good for America. Since then, the Republicans have been united in trying to stop this runaway train, with the exception of Congressman Joseph Cao - the male version of Whorehouse Mary Landreiu. He was the single Republican vote in the House to pass the atrocious health care bill, where a shaky Speaker Pelosi meekly tapped the gavel announcing the bill had passed in the late late dark of night. What a dark day in our history, and it was just the beginning.

That was the beginning of the eye-opening lesson we were all about to witness - that the Left was willing to go down in order to carve themselves out another huge piece of the private sector. God knows when they would have this chance again, and time was of the essence (you never want to waste a crisis yada-yada-yada). But, rising from the Phoenix were the Republicans -- finally -- in unison to stop this takeover.

Dennis Prager was also an invited guest at the Republican conference, along with a couple of his collegues. He writes:


What I Said to the Republican Members of Congress
by Dennis Prager, February 02, 2010

This past weekend, after President Obama addressed the annual retreat of Republican Members of the House, I, along with my Salem Radio colleague Hugh Hewitt, and John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, were also invited to address them.

This is an abridged and edited version of my remarks.

Thank you for this honor.

I have never been as proud to be a Republican as I have this past year with your unanimity in opposing Obamacare and the other bills that would transform America. Please know -- you need this feedback -- that your having been able to stand together and do this has been a luminous moment in Republican Party history.

I would like show you some of the large themes involved in your present work.

First theme: It is harder to sell truths than to sell falsehoods.

It is very easy to say, "Vote for us and we will give you, we will give you, we will give you." It is much harder to advocate what is right and to say, "Vote for us, but no, we won't give you" -- even though that is the more moral and the more American position. So you have the far more difficult task.

John Rosemond, who writes books on child rearing, says that the most important vitamin you can give to a child is Vitamin N, his term for the word "No." You have given America Vitamin N.

America needs it terribly because of another way in which God has stacked the deck against the fight for goodness in human history: Every change for good must be constantly renewed, but changes for the worse are often permanent. Goodness must be fought for every day, over and over. That is why every American generation has to be inculcated with American values. But once the change for bad is made, it is close to irreversible. The Democratic attempt to vastly expand the state's power would likely be a permanent change for the worse in American life. When they're candid, they admit that the health care bill is their way to get to single-payer medicine and, more importantly, to a government takeover of another sixth of the American economy.

You have to know how important your work is, and how many of us know this.

Second theme: You are not fighting liberals. You are fighting the Left. Democrats were once liberals. But you are not fighting liberals any longer. You are fighting the Left. And as leftists, they do not like to confront reality, even if it means rewriting it.

I'll give you two examples.

This Jew battled to keep the cross in the Los Angeles County seal. Liberals and leftists in California fought to remove the smallest image -- a cross -- from the county seal. Through my radio show, on a day's notice, we gathered about a thousand people to demonstrate at the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors when the board voted. The vote went along ideological lines: three liberals to two conservatives, to remove the cross.

I remember testifying before the supervisors and telling them, "You are rewriting our county's history. This county was founded by Christians. That's why there's a cross. Had it been founded by Wiccans, I would fight to keep a broom on the seal. But it wasn't founded by Wiccans. It was founded by Christians. That's why it's named "Los Angeles." It is not "Los Secularistos." If it were "Los Secularistos," I would expect an empty seal. But it is not empty. It was founded by Christians. It's not even a religious issue. You're rewriting my history. And it's frightening to see you do that."

The other example is what is now happening with Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts. Everybody knows why he was voted in. It was, after all, Scott "41" Brown. We all knew why he was elected. But if you read left-wing commentators, this history is being rewritten. They say it had nothing to do with opposing Obamacare. Nothing to do with it! In the Soviet Union, it took 10 years to write Trotsky out of the Russian Revolution. But this is a rewrite of history in one week! Scott "41" Brown's victory was not about opposing Obamacare.

In fact, the Left argues that the Massachusetts voters were for the health care bill, but simply "wanted to send a message" to Washington. I must say the voters of Massachusetts are not only not bright, they must be truly stupid if they are for Obamacare and send the man who will undo Obamacare as a protest on behalf of Obamacare. This is what we are told by the Left.

Third theme: Most people on the Left are True Believers. This is critical to understand. They are willing to lose Congress; Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are prepared to lose both houses to get this through. Why? Because losing an election cycle means nothing compared to taking over more of the American economy.

I can give you an example from our side. There are many folks on our side who, if they could pass an amendment against abortion, would happily sacrifice both houses for a period of time. Understand that just as strongly as some are pro-life or religiously Christian or Jewish, that is how strongly many leftists believe in leftism. Leftism is a substitute religion. For the Left, the "health care" bill transcends politics. You are fighting people who will go down with the ship in order to transform this country to a leftist one. And an ever-expanding state is the Left's central credo.

And finally, theme four: I have a motto that I offer to you because this is the ultimate moral case for us: "The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."

We have to learn to make our complex beliefs simple -- though never simplistic. And this is our powerful response to government doing more and more for people: "The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."

And here's how we explain it: The bigger the government, the less I do for myself, for my family and for my community. That is why we Americans give more charity and devote more time to volunteering than Europeans do. The European knows: The government, the state, will take care of me, my children, my parents, my neighbors and my community. I don't have to do anything. The bigger question in many Europeans' lives is, "How much vacation time will I have and where will I spend that vacation?"

That is what happens when the state gets bigger -- you become smaller. The dream of America was that the individual was to be a giant. The state stays small so as to enable each of us to be as big as we can be. We are each created in God's image. The state is not in God's image, but it is vying to be that. This is the battle you're fighting. You are fighting a cosmic battle because this is the most important society ever devised, the United States of America.

You can easily forget the big picture -- how could you not? You're there every day, battling. You are in dense jungle -- excuse me, rainforest -- you are in a rainforest/jungle, fighting, and I am, because of the nature of my work, in a little helicopter above the jungle telling you what it is you are fighting. America really is the last, best hope of mankind.

That is how important I consider the fights that are going on now, especially with regard to the takeover of health care. How can they, with a serious face, tell us that Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security are going bankrupt, and therefore the solution is to take over more of health care? How does one say that with a straight face? How does one look a fellow American in the eye and say, "Yes, we have failed in almost every way that government has significantly intruded, and that's why we need more government intrusion"?

It is mind-boggling. But that is what has happened. People get smaller and pettier, as the government and state get bigger. That's what you are fighting. And that's why I came to tell you this is the proudest moment in my life as a Republican. Thank you for doing what you are doing.

Read more Dennis Prager here