The following was sent to me via email.  Author unknown.

Dr. Krauthammer is on Fox News. He is an M.D. and he is paralyzed from the neck down. Be forewarned on what is happening. A friend went to hear Charles Krauthammer. He listened with 25 others in closed room. What he says here, is NOT 2nd-hand, but 1st. You would do well to read and pass this along to EVERYBODY that loves his country. This is VERY serious for the direction of our country. The ramifications are staggering for us and our children.

Last Monday was a profound evening, hearing Dr. Charles Krauthammer speak to the Center for the American Experiment. He is brilliant intellectual, seasoned and articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fear monger nor an extremist in his comments and views. He is a fiscal conservative, and has a Pulitzer Prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post. The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. I have shared this with many of you and several have asked me to summarize his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally.

Even 2 Dems at my table agreed with everything he said! If you feel like
forwarding this to those who are open minded and have not drunk the Kool-Aid, feel free. Summary of his comments:

1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be
underestimated. He is a cool customer who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's behind the mask. Taking down the Clinton dynasty from a political neophyte was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.

2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!

3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. not come to Washington to make
something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can't be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, and wants to level the playing field with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada .

4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, AND NATIONAL HEALTH CARE by the Federal government. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada. God forbid.

5. He has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they are going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can't work in the long run. Obama is not a socialist; rather he's a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.

6. Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the United States , but
more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to
orchestrate and coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America, as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!

7. He is now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not
come due until after he is re-elected in 2012. He would like to blame all
problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, and Mr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist.

8.. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong.
We're pining for another Reagan, but there will never be another like him.
Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she is to be a serious candidate in the future. We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and states rights.

9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We are
spending trillions that we doen't have. This could lead to hyper-inflation,
depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bail outs didn't work, nor will the stimulus package. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama's allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.

10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman brothers failed, fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of change caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.

11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about the economy. I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening in Washington and Congress. There is a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we're right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it's far too late.

by Harrison Price

Ironic in Greek literature the blind character was the only one who could see the truth.  New York’s Gov. Paterson is legally blind but he can’t see what an idiot he is making of himself… even President Obama has backed away (rightly) from comments made regarding race:

The governor is blaming race for his political troubles again - saying some people are uncomfortable seeing so many black politicians in power.

“Part of what I feel is that one very successful minority is permissible, but when you see too many success stories, then some people get nervous,” Paterson told political blogger Gerson Borrero in a report posted Monday.

The big difference between Obama and Paterson is that Obama was elected whereas Paterson was appointed after the previous govenor quit after a hooker sex scandal.  Also, Paterson is facing a very trying time what with budgets under fire, tax revenues down, and voters itching for change:

A defensive - and at times self-pitying - Paterson told Borrero he’s been stewing about his treatment for some time.

“I have been quiet for 17 months on this issue,” he told Borrero over the weekend.

“I played by the rules. It was a very difficult position to find myself in, and I’ve given it my best. I’ve done the best I can under the very trying circumstances the state is facing.”

He said he understands the criticism over the budget and the Senate leadership battle, but Paterson suggested to Borrero that he is held to a different standard.

“It seems I have to work twice as hard as others,” he said.

And it still bothers him that people refer to him as the “accidental governor.” He took office last year after former Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned amid a prostitution scandal.

“It was not an accident. … I became governor by a constitutional mandate,” Paterson said.

Sounds to me like the govenor has a bit of a chip on his shoulder about something and chooses to blame his race for that.  If you want to hear his excuses you can click here.

In that post he tries to explain how it is his race not the economy that is causing his low approval ratings.  As if there are not plenty of other governors in the same boat (including a certain Austrian).  He then goes on to say that the next guy will be Barack Obama because he tried to reform healthcare!

Might want to look for some others.

According to the article Paterson has very low ratings right now:

Meanwhile, a new Siena Research Institute poll taken before the governor’s comments Friday showed his job approval rating at a meager 23% and his favorability rating at just 32%.

A whopping 68% said they would prefer someone else if Paterson runs for a full four-year term next year, while 52% said they would prefer Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to run for governor rather than seek reelection to his current office.

Cuomo’s favorability rating is at a sky-high 70%.

Nobody elected Paterson to be governor and, like Gerald Ford who was also never elected to be president, suffered from low approval ratings (rarely above 50% often far less than that).  It is also tough to argue “race” when the country just elected a half-black president who enjoyed sky high ratings until he actually started making policy.  To his credit, Obama has distanced himself from such comments as Paterson (maybe he learned from the Gates Gate backlash).

Paterson may be a good guy but I’d submit there is a reason he never ran for governor and it could be he doesn’t have the right stuff to hold that office no matter what his race.

Should we blame California’s woes on the Austrians?  New York City’s woes on the Jews, or, if things turn bad for Cuomo if he is elected, on the Italians?

Hopefully Americans won’t let people use cruches like this to slide on by and absolve themselves of responsibility.

by Dacia Nichol

We've all had enough of the debate already, wouldn't you say so? "Trudge along" is still the order of the day unfortunately. While yours truly would love to just pick a side, one cannot merely dismiss the chaos and inherent lack of logic found in both arguments.

If polls mean anything to you, it seems the country is not in the mood for a few things:

1) more debt;
2) more government;
3) the partisan attitude of Congress; or
4) socialized medicine.

Unfortunately for Democrats this health care bill, lovingly coined "Obamacare", appears to contain all four elements. After the administration threw us some bread crumbs suggesting socialized medicine could be removed, they had to come quickly back around with a dust buster to clean up after the backlash.

A couple of backlashes actually - one from the hard left demanding that socialized medicine was not an option open for discussion (this one even had Jon Stewart questioning Barry's testicular fortitude), and the other one claiming that the public option was such a huge part of Obama's campaign platform, that turning back on the promise to push for one was a sign of shortage in political capital.

Thus far, the administration has been bombarded with unsolicited advice from every nook and cranny in the literary world. Every study presented has had zillions of anecdotal evidence and stories brought to counter against it. Lists upon lists have been drafted to offer solutions....some even of the familiar "12-step" variety. From the looks of it, one might conclude that this phenomenon could be useful for the White House, meaning they can rest well knowing that yes, the American people DO want health care reform. Er...health "insurance" reform rather? Or whatever...we'll see what the winds bring tomorrow.

That being said, we'll move onto the topic of who is most evil in this debate.

First, let's start by acknowledging the bipartisan conclusion that health care needs fixing.

Second, let's define what exactly we agree on:

1. Health care costs are outrageous;
2. Insurance companies are profit ventures and conduct business as such - even at the expense of human life.
3. Medicare is an implosion waiting to happen;
4. The poor and middle class are the most vulnerable and under-served in the health industry;
5. Things like transparency, a good doctor-patient relationship, coverage for pre-existing conditions, and portable care are highly desirable features; and
6. Tort law is out of control.

In sum, we all want health care to cost less, be more accessible to individuals, and have lots of choices like our doctors, our hospitals, and our coverage options.

So what's getting lost in translation? The role of government. This entire debate is winding down to the fundamental differences between the parties - big government vs. small government. Here's the other kicker - instead of reaching for compromise, both parties have fallen back to semi-yellow-journalism tactics (sensationalist journalism dating back to the pre-Revolution days).

Democrats - "We can't do nothing - nothing isn't an option! If we don't do this now, people will die! It's all the evil insurance companies' fault!"

Republicans - "If this plan goes through, government will take over your lives! They'll ration your care! They'll decide who lives and who dies!"

Democrats point to long lines at medical clinics in poor neighborhoods with countless video testimonials to justify their points. Republicans point to the histories of any and all countries with similar systems to what is proposed as examples of the failure of the social medicine side of the bill. Their claims also come with complimentary video footage.

Question - with all the advice and proposals and ideas circulating around America, with public support for reform high, but support for this reform in its current state low, why aren't the necessary nips, tucks, and alterations being made?

The Republicans have decided to take the approach of being stalwarts. Apparently, Obama is not doing so hot in the "bringing people together" promise, and that means he's built himself a loyal opposition. Not good news when you're trying to overhaul a major system in the country that will affect every single American...oh and most Americans don't identify with your party either. In fact, a new Gallup poll says that Vermont, Hawaii, and Massachusetts would be your only solid supports in the end.

The Democrats aren't taking a very "group-hug" approach either. Some want to drop the public option for the sake the country for the time being, but others - far louder than the compromise crowd - demand that no concessions shall be had, and want the bill pushed through regardless of its popularity. The "we won" mentality still runs strong, but now it also appears to be tainted with the acknowledgment that political winds do change and a rush job is needed to preserve the social justice they live, breathe, and would die for. Well...at least they act like they would.

Then there's the president himself. Strangely, he continues to stay in campaign mode, generating more questions than answers with each appearance in the public forum. It's not the questions - some of them have been phenomenal. It's the overall candy coated shell slick smooth talk that still doesn't give the hint as to whether we're talking peanut, plain, or crunchy.

In another stroke of irony - one of the only things we all agree on in this country about health care also happens to be the one thing Obama is not interested in addressing: tort reform. Further, Democrats are trying to marginalize anything and everything Republicans object to with the argument "Republicans have no alternative". Except they do. And demanding that the minority party devise an entire plan of their own that they know has no chance of passing is just an avoidance strategy - avoiding the debate that is.

See, the idea behind a president who campaigned on being "bipartisan" and "reaching across the aisle" kind of centered on the notion that you know...you'd include the opposition party in whatever it is you're doing. Sure, politics-as-usual wouldn't find any of this current fiasco surprising, but that's the downside of having promised to get past all that in exchange for a new beginning if elected. We all must have forgot about the reasons why we don't get along to begin with, for they are certainly on display now.

So - who's most evil? It wouldn't be accurate to paint Republicans in any kind of saintly light, but they are there, with ideas, now using stalling measures in response to being shut out (or so it seems). If the health situation really is as dire as Democrats claim it to be, they'll agree to gamble pulling the public option, reducing costs by working with Republican ideas, have sweeping reform, then hope that the cost of health insurance will have lowered so significantly, there is no longer a need for a federal health insurance option. Or perhaps the public would be open to a much smaller price tag on a public option after said reform takes place? No…apparently the public option is a sticking point not worth sacrificing for all the poor that are being used as pawns in their quest for socialization of our country.

Verdict: Democrats.

by Terence P. Jeffrey

Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.
 
At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years.

In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either “conservative” (31%) or “very conservative” (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.

Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are “liberal” and 5% who say they are “very liberal.”
 
Thirty-five percent of Americans say they are moderate.

During Republican President George W. Bush’s second term, the number of self-identified conservatives as measured by Gallup dropped, riding at a low of 37% as recently as last year.
 
According to new data released by Gallup on Friday, conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states--including President Obama’s home state of Illinois--even though Democrats have a significant advantage over Republicans in party identification in 30 states.
 
“In fact, while all 50 states are, to some degree, more conservative than liberal (with the conservative advantage ranging from 1 to 34 points), Gallup's 2009 party ID results indicate that Democrats have significant party ID advantages in 30 states and Republicans in only 4,” said an analysis of the survey results published by Gallup.

“Despite the Democratic Party's political strength-- seen in its majority representation in Congress and in state houses across the country--more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal,” said Gallup’s analysis.

“While Gallup polling has found this to be true at the national level over many years, and spanning recent Republican as well as Democratic presidential administrations, the present analysis confirms that the pattern also largely holds at the state level,” said Gallup. “Conservatives outnumber liberals by statistically significant margins in 47 of the 50 states, with the two groups statistically tied in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts.”
 
Massachusetts, Vermont and Hawaii are the most liberal states, even though conservatives marginally outrank liberals even there. In Massachusetts, according to Gallup, 30% say they are conservative and 29% say they are liberal, a difference that falls within the margin of error for the state. In Vermont, 29% say they are conservative and 28% say they are liberal, which also falls within the survey’s margin of error for the state.  In Hawaii, 29% say they are conservative and 24% say they are liberal, which falls within the margin of error for that state.

In one non-state jurisdiction covered by the survey, liberals did outnumber conservatives. That was Washington, D.C., where 37% said they were liberal, 35% said they were moderate and 23% said they were conservative.

Even in New York and New Jersey, conservatives outnumber liberals by 6 percentage points, according to Gallup. In those states, 32% say they are conservative and 26% say they are liberal.  In Connecticut, conservatives outnumber liberals by 7 points, 31% to 24%.
 
Alabama is the state that comes closest to a conservative majority. In that state, according to Gallup, 49% say they are conservative and 15% say they are liberal.
 
In President Obama’s home state of Illinois, conservatives outnumber liberals, 35% to 23%.

Gallup's results were derived from interviewing 160,236 American adults between Jan. 2, 2009 and June 30, 2009.
 
Even though conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states, in 21 of these states self-identified moderates outnumber conservatives, and in 4 states the percentage saying they are conservative and the percentage saying they are moderate is exactly the same.

The two states with the highest percentage of self-identified moderates are Hawaii and Rhode Island, where 43% say they are moderate.
 
For a ranking of all 50 states by the advantage that self-identified conservatives have over self-identified liberals see the Gallup analysis here.

by Byron York

It's not getting much attention, but the Netroots Nation conference (formerly known as YearlyKos, a spinoff from the left-wing website DailyKos) is going on in Pittsburgh this weekend.  Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg has conducted a straw poll of the participants and found that a majority of those surveyed, 53 percent, say they "cannot support a health care reform bill that does not include a public option."  Other results include word that most of the attendees are willing to compromise a bit on environmental legislation, even though it gives a lot of benefits to big corporations, and the finding that, amazingly enough, attendees voice near-unanimous approval, 95 percent, of the job Barack Obama is doing as president.

What's truly striking in Greenberg's poll is the degree to which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have fallen off the progressive radar.  I attended the first YearlyKos convention, in 2006, and have kept up with later ones, and it's safe to say that while people who attended those gatherings couldn't stand George W. Bush in general, their feelings were particularly intense when it came to opposing the war in Iraq.  It animated their activism; they hated the war, and they hated Bush for starting it.  They weren't that fond of the fighting in Afghanistan, either.

Now, with Obama in the White House, all that has changed.  Greenberg presented respondents with a list of policy priorities and asked, "Please indicate which two you think progressive activists should be focusing their attention and efforts on the most."  The winner was passing comprehensive health care reform, with 60 percent, and number two was passing "green energy policies that address environmental concerns," with 22 percent.  Tied for eighth place, named by just eight percent of respondents, was "working to end our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Then Greenberg asked which one of those issues "do you, personally, spend the most time advancing currently?"  The winner was health care reform, with 23 percent, and second place was "working to elect progressive candidates in the 2010 elections," with 16 percent.  In 11th place -- at the very bottom of the list -- was "working to end our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan."  Just one percent of Netroots Nations attendees listed that as their most important personal priority.

Many observers have remarked that Obama's decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan, and also to escalate the campaign of targeted assassinations using drone aircraft, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, will cause him trouble on the political left.  Indeed, some members of Congress have suggested that the president has just a year to show significant results in Afghanistan before lawmakers begin to pressure him to pull back.  But if the Netroots Nation results are any indication, Obama may have more room than previously thought on the war.  Not too long ago, with a different president in the White House, the left was obsessed with America's wars.  Now, they're not even watching.

by Harrison Price

I found this to be a rather disturbing article from England about their National Health Service and the rationing of care.  Let me share just a few points from this article:

Tens of thousands with chronic back pain will be forced to live in agony after a decision to slash the number of painkilling injections issued on the NHS, doctors have warned.

The Government’s drug rationing watchdog says “therapeutic” injections of steroids, such as cortisone, which are used to reduce inflammation, should no longer be offered to patients suffering from persistent lower back pain when the cause is not known.

Instead the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is ordering doctors to offer patients remedies like acupuncture and osteopathy.

So when the state decides what is “acceptable” care for its citizens, those taxpayers, who shell out their income to “participate” in socialized medicine are denied the care they need they have to spend what little money they have left over to buy their own care:

Specialists fear tens of thousands of people, mainly the elderly and frail, will be left to suffer excruciating levels of pain or pay as much as £500 each for private treatment.

The NHS currently issues more than 60,000 treatments of steroid injections every year. NICE said in its guidance it wants to cut this to just 3,000 treatments a year, a move which would save the NHS £33 million.

The article continues with more “great” news for victims of socialized medicine:

The NICE guidelines admit that evidence was limited for many back pain treatments, including those it recommended. Where scientific proof was lacking, advice was instead taken from its expert group. But specialists are furious that while the group included practitioners of alternative therapies, there was no one with expertise in conventional pain relief medicine to argue against a decision to significantly restrict its use.

He said: “The consequences of the NICE decision will be devastating for thousands of patients. It will mean more people on opiates, which are addictive, and kill 2,000 a year. It will mean more people having spinal surgery, which is incredibly risky, and has a 50 per cent failure rate.”

What President Obama wants to do is to give us a similar system.  For those who say this is a lie spread to instill “fear” into people here is Obama saying it in his own words:

What we are now seeing in England we could very well see in the U.S.  The article finishes:

“It was horrendous, I was spending hours lying on the sofa, or in bed, I couldn’t spend a whole evening out. I was referred to a specialist, who decided to give me a set of injections. The difference was tremendous”,

Within days, she was able to return to her old life, gardening, caring for her husband Herbert, and enjoying social occasions.

“I just felt fabulous – almost immediately, there was not a twinge. I only had an injection every two years, but it really has transformed my life; if I couldn’t have them I would be in despair”.

I know what some of you might be saying… “Isn’t our healthcare rationed now under private insurance policies?”  The answer is “yes” certain procedures and treatments are not covered however take a look at these facts:

• Survival rates in the U.S. for common cancers are higher, and in some cases much higher, than in Europe and Canada.

• Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed nations and spend less time waiting for care than Canadians and Britons.

• Americans have more access to new medical technologies than Canadians and United Kingdom residents, and are responsible for most health care innovations.

• Americans are more satisfied with their care than their counterparts in nations with socialized medicine.

by Dacia Nichol

This debate has whittled down to a point that Administration 44 needs to just acknowledge already: Americans do want health reform, but they don't want a government option. Even Barry's state media forces (formally known as the mainstream media) are coming out with polls and research articles acknowledging this. Further, they're even dissecting the healthcare industry as a whole, coming up with savings options, major problems which need to be addressed such as tort law atrocities, and their results essentially give Congress a nice road map to a successful reform bill.

The Democrat response? Push harder. Make demands. Throw around radical vocabulary to describe the opposition. The will of the people is being misled by "fishy" media outlets, not common sense or rational thought.

Senator Jim DeMint said what we're all thinking - "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him." Barry obviously called DeMint out on it because he knows it's true.

Now, from the spirit of boredom and aggravation with this round and round again debate (GOP presents facts, issues, concerns - Obama repeats himself minus whatever language was causing controversy...still no "how", just vague ideas about "what"), this author would like to approach this health care thing from another angle - getting to the bottom of the "entitlement" mentality.

So...this nation has lived a life of certain excess in recent years. Advances in our sciences tell us that mixing a high-cholesterol diet with a desk job is not a good idea. One donut is okay, but a box is ridiculous. A "Quarter Pounder" is fine on occasion, but a "Third Pounder" has more calories than the average person needs in an entire day (I know - they're required to post the calories on the menus here in NYC to "protect" the consumer...still fast food is pulling in record profits...). On the flip side, induced vomiting strains your heart, starving will kill you, and single-food diets deprive you of necessary nutrition, spiraling all sorts of deficiency problems.

Whatever. Eat what you want. It's your choice, your freedom, your personal peril.

Whoa now...what do you mean you want me to pay for your cholesterol meds? AND your Viagra?? Hold it right there Kimosabe - I smell bull$hit.

People want to screw up their lives and have someone else pay to fix it? I'm confused...where else in our lives does this logic apply?

- When you're in an at-fault car accident, who pays for the damage? (Don't look my way)

- When you drop out of college because you're failing, who's responsible for your student loans? (Not me)

- When you lose your driver's license, who pays for the replacement? (Nope)

- When you break your glasses, who pays to fix them? (No way)

- When your cat starts spraying the house, who pays to neuter him? (Oh hell no)

In an additional stroke of irony, when you get sick from things that aren't lifestyle driven such as a cold or flu virus, who pays for the over-the-counter meds to help you make it through? That's right - unless you end up hospitalized, you can just take your happy self to the drugstore on your own tab.

Given the above, where is this entitlement mentality coming from? Perhaps it's been slowly seeping in disguised with "consumer and worker protection" labels.

Consider the following (BIG Bill Nye the Science Guy fan as a kid):

- Why do we have unions?

- Why do we have the FDA?

- Why do we have tort law?

The whole idea behind all three of these concepts is that there is an existing evil which people need to be protected from. FDR's "New Deal" was essentially based on this idea - all of his programs were crafted with the idea of reducing the "harshness" of American life which had increased exponentially during the first part of his reign.

So what did that lead to? An expectation that the government would protect the people not just from enemies abroad, but also from enemies within the framework of the force behind our prosperity - capitalism. While some regulation is good, and part of the "necessary evil" behind limited government, the overall mood of the New Deal opened the doors to a very dangerous idea:

I am not responsible for my own choices.

And thus began the manifestation of the entitlement disease. It took a couple of generations, but the notion that the government is responsible for saving you when you've made a bad choice took hold and spread. Once this mentality was fully implanted in the American mind, it began to swell and infest all aspects of our lives...leading to program after program that started with the the best of intentions and ended with slop and greed.

Interesting enough, the times where the citizen is held responsible tends to be the times when they really weren't at fault. You've all heard about the lady spilling hot coffee on her lap and suing McD's. Maybe you've also heard about a burglar injuring himself upon breaking and entering and subsequently suing the family for his injuries. There's a reason we call ourselves a "lawsuit happy nation". How about the woman who spills her drink in a retail store, slips on it, and sues? Do you think these lawsuits would be possible without a government fostering the idea behind is - that you're not responsible for your actions, someone else is?

When a judge can try to sue a dry cleaning company for millions after losing his pants, are we shocked that tort law has driven medical insurance through the roof? Does that roll into the outrageous cost of health care? You better believe it.

More babble on this another time...

by Harrison Price

We’ve all been reading about how the town halls have become “town hells” with angry voters shouting down Democrats who try and preach Obamakare and even seniors turning against AARP meetings (with the AARP shutting them down when the seniors start asking tough questions).  With the Obamakare vote delayed until after Labor Day one has to ask two questions: 1) Will Democrats “get it” and 2) Why do they always think they know best?

To start with the second question first here’s an interesting analysis from the Baltimore Sun:

America’s liberals have gone from swooning over Barack Obama’s ascension to the White House and gloating over their Bush-induced domination of Congress to near-hysteria because ordinary middle-class Americans are rising in anger against the Democrats’ planned hijacking of the nation’s health care system.

How dare these people adopt the tactics of the left, like the ACORN or SEIU organizers, and plan demonstrations of political dissatisfaction. The left would have us believe that such actions are illegitimate if performed by any other than their own supporters.

Liberals (by these I mean the Far Left ones) are generally elitist who are well-educated, high income earners, urban dwellers, “trend” setters, and think they have all the answers.  They remain safe in the knowledge that should Obamakare provide them and their families with inadequate coverage they can simply pay privately for the care they need.  In fact, even President Obama admitted were his family sick he would pay for any care that it took to cure them.  He is a millionaire, he can afford this option just as Al Gore can fly in private jets, burn through enough electricity to power a small town and pay carbon offset “credits” to assuage his guilt.  Like the Tea Parties a few months ago, we are seeing the Silent Majority rise up to overthrow their masters… and the masters don’t like it with many trying to blame Republicans and discredit ordinary Americans by comparing them to NAZI Brown Shirts.

Investor’s Business Daily makes this point:

Their increasing anxiety and fear of failure are typified in the words of the leader of their party, who wants Republicans to keep their mouths shut while he “fixes” health care.

“I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking,” the president said Thursday at a political rally in Virginia. “I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.”

“The plan for August is to have a discussion, to listen carefully to what people are saying, what ideas they may have to improve the legislation as it affects them,” Pelosi said. In other words, Americans can suggest changes, but the elitists in Washington will not withdraw plans to take over the best health care system in the world.

Earlier in the week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid walked the same line as Pelosi, making it clear that the Democratic leadership had no intention of listening to fed-up voters.

“In spite of the loud, shrill voices trying to interrupt town hall meetings and just throw a monkey wrench into everything,” he said, “we’re going to continue to be positive and work hard.”

How Liberals view Americans.

One has to ask oneself the question as to how Democrats, who yelled for years about George W. Bush trying to threaten and scare the opposition (Democrats) into going along with his “War on Terror,” can adopt much harsher techniques themselves.  I guess that makes them hypocrites on the worst order and no better than jihadists who claim only they know what is right (in the former case it is elitism that speaks the truth while in the latter it is Allah).

As to the first question… will the Democrats “get it” or not?  I certainly hope they don’t until the point when the votes are cast and Obamakare fails.  This way the Democratic party will once again damage itself in the way they did back in 1992-1993 when Hillarykare was making the headlines and the Republicans soon took over Congress.

Americans have a healthy distrust of their government and, indeed, with news that the Democrats just approved over $500 million to be spent on private jets for their personal useage, they should.

by Jennifer Rubin

Candidate Barack Obama ran a brilliant campaign, convincing moderates and even some conservatives that he was no radical while keeping the netroot base fully engaged. But seven months after taking office, the list of disappointed voters (at least those willing to admit they were had) is growing.

Fiscal conservatives who bought the spiel that he’d go line by line through the budget have seen the most fiscally irresponsible president ever. After a $787B pork-filled stimulus, a supplemental spending measure with 9,000 earmarks, a $3.5 trillion budget, and a trillion dollar health care plan, Obama has managed to exceed the worst predictions of his critics. And now at least some of his advisors are letting on that his promise not to hike taxes on 95% of taxpayers is going to be cast aside. After all, the deficit is now so huge we must plug the gap, right? (Robert Gibbs said Obama would never raise taxes on the middle class – well, except for those cigarette and energy taxes.)

Then there are the good government types who fancied a new era of transparency and lobbyist-free government. Well, not quite. We have had the long list of tax cheats and the lobbyists who needed ethics waivers to squeeze through the revolving door. Again and again — whether on the stimulus plan or on cap and trade — gargantuan legislation has been rushed through without public scrutiny. Well, if the public figured out what was on some of those thousands of pages, they might have objected.

There were gay voters who felt certain this contemporary president understood their concerns. Unlike all the other liberal pols he would finally deliver on gay marriage, they hoped ( after all he came out against Proposition 8 in California) and repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Well, as James Kirchick explains, “Whatever he ‘really’ thinks, Obama’s stance on gay marriage is virtually indistinguishable from that of John McCain.” And re-examination of “don’t ask, don’t tell” remains far down on the priority list. (As Reason magazine’s Shikha Dalmia put it, “President Obama is pleading for time to push this issue until after, presumably, he has averted global warming, revived the economy, and implemented universal health coverage.”)

That’s nothing compared to the betrayal of American Jews and other pro-Israel voters. During the campaign he came on bended knee to AIPAC, made little if any mention of Israeli settlements, and sneered at those who might question his Zionist bona fides. After receiving the money and votes of gullible Jewish voters, as president he has now declared his intention to put “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel and has embarked on an openly hostile approach to the Jewish state. And if that wasn’t enough, he chooses to honor, with America’s highest civilian award, Mary Robinson, who presided over the anti-Israel hate-fest at Durban in 2001 when serving as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Then there are the poor benighted pro-life voters who listened to the likes of Doug Kmiec and believed Obama would be someone more pro-life than his prior political record had demonstrated. But sure enough, he repealed the restriction on funding international groups which provide abortion services, nominated a Supreme Court judge who his advisors assured pro-choice groups would be solidly in their corner, and has done nothing to alter the Democrats’ aversion to any restrictions on abortion. (Indeed, Democrats will almost surely insist that abortion services be provided under Obama’s universal health care proposal.)

Perhaps the pro-life voters should have compared notes with the libertarians who were convinced that Obama was somehow going to limit the reach of government. But instead, the nanny state reigns supreme, stronger than ever. Obama is regulating tobacco, cheering on a massive energy tax and regulatory scheme, and planning a massive new consumer protection agency. Not very free market friendly, is he?

When you tally the list it’s an impressive record. He’s managed to offend or disappoint a diverse array of voters — everyone from Jews, to libertarians, to green eyeshade conservatives. Then you add in seniors who are more wary of his health care plan than younger voters and pro-defense voters who were lulled into his promise to expand the military (and now find that the Department of Defense is on a strict diet while the rest of the federal government is gorging).

So it’s not hard to see why the winning coalition of voters who put Obama in the White House is slowly crumbling. Essentially, anyone who expected something other than an ultra-liberal intent on vastly expanding the power of the federal government and retreating from America’s position of leadership in the world was taken for a ride.

Whether Obama can recapture the support of these voters and get them to turn out to the same degree that they did in 2008 remains to be seen. But you can’t win elections with only the left sliver of the electorate. And it’s going to be hard to fool all the rest of the voters a second time.