THE PLAN IS WORKING

President Obama recently stated that:

"We tried our plan - and it worked"

Needless to say, right-wing blogs ran with this and the left pretty much ignored it.  But it is an important quote, and something to keep in mind as we inch ever closer to November.  Today I'm going to do something that I try very hard to avoid.  I'm going to take a step into the realm of conspiracy theory (hey, if it's good enough for a former cabinet-level advisor, it's good enough for me!)  I generally try to stay away from those rabbit holes of circular logic and half-truths.  I guess I just don't have that much paranoia in me.  But there are a few - a very few - theories that have some weight to them, some merit.  Sometimes it is possible to prove or disprove these theories over time.  One such theory which is in the process of being proved and which I became acquainted with during the 2008 presidential election, involved something called the "Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Chaos". 

This strategy, cooked up in the 1960's by Columbia University professors Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward, is a plan to bring down our capitalist system by overwhelming it and causing it's collapse.  What would they replace the capitalist system with?  Why, a European-style cradle-to-grave nanny state, of course.  A collapse would be the excuse needed to throw out the constitution and, as Obama himself said just days before his election, "fundamentally transform America".

Transition to socialism is usually achieved through revolution or war.  We have neither on our shores,  and the wars we fight half a world away don't cause the deprivations that triggered the socialization of Europe after the two world wars decimated that region.  In the absence of those things, then, how is change brought about?  By overwhelming our system in other ways.

Why is it important to talk about this theory now?  Because, as President Obama says, he has implemented his plan, and it is working, right before our eyes:

PROJECTION AND REVERSISM Updated

In yet another glaringly obvious case of projection, our esteemed President said a mouthful while attacking the republican agenda at yet another fundraiser last night (via the Weekly Standard):

"The very core of what this country stands for is on the line"

Now, of course he was referring to the eeeeevil republican candidates destroying America as we know it.  In reality, what he is trying to do is about as far from the core of what this country stands for as possible.  Isn't that, in fact, what his claims to "fundamentally change" America were all about?  Ostensibly, his point was that republicans won't make you your neighbor's keeper, but when was that ever the core of what this country stands for?  It doesn't really jibe with our signature rugged individualism, but then, we all know how he feels about that little foible.

SAN FRANCISCO SAVORS THE GOURMET WAIVER FAVORS

Two hundred and four new Obamacare waivers were issued by the Obama Administration last month, for a grand total of more than thirteen hundred waivers.  Of those 204, thirty-eight - nearly twenty percent - went to Nancy Pelosi's home district, namely to high-end establishments like TRU Spa - the "best day spa in San Francisco" -  posh restaurants boasting $50+ entrees, luxury hotels and nightclubs.  These latest waiver recipients join quite a long list of previous waiver winners, a majority of which seem to be comprised predominantly of labor unions and democrat supporters (but I repeat myself). 

This is bad optics on two levels.  First, it once again illustrates how deeply the corruption and cronyism goes in this administration.  Considering we are entering what is sure to be a contentious election cycle, exempting businesses in her district make it look like Pelosi is doing favors in return for local support.  Whether that assertion is true or not is moot - perception is reality, and this looks really bad.  You can rest assured, though, that conservatives will be watching those businesses during the election cycle to see what level of financial support they offer her campaign.  There will also most likely be increased scrutiny (and lots of google mapping) of waiver winners to find other potentially advantageous groupings elsewhere.

Second, it illustrates what a mess the healthcare legislation really is - it was supposed to bring down costs and provide access to coverage for everyone but instead costs have continued to rise and people who currently have insurance now find it threatened.  Even staunch supporters are looking for an escape hatch.

Pelosi's response is that criticism of the waivers is "pathetic" (please note the usual Alinskyesque derision):

"It is pathetic that there are those who would be cheering for Americans to lose their minimum health coverage or see their premiums increase for political purposes. These waivers are reviewed and granted solely by the Administration in an open and transparent process so workers currently enrolled in 'mini-med' policies like those in San Francisco and across the country will not be punished and lose the minimum coverage they already have. These waivers will be eliminated in 2014 when Americans will have an opportunity to shop for affordable coverage on the health exchanges and will no longer be at the mercy of insurance companies placing coverage limits on policies.

The complaints coming from this crowd that supports ending Medicare is just another example of putting politics first."

What is really pathetic is her spin on this issue.  It almost sounds like she is slamming her own legislation - "It is pathetic that there are those who would be cheering for Americans to lose their minimum health coverage or see their premiums increase for political purposes."  That line could also be used to describe the jubilation with which she celebrated the passage of that horrible bill.  Her attempt to make her critics look bad in reality only makes her signature piece of legislation look like what it is - an over-reaching, unsustainable jumble of crippling regulations that is so bad that it requires exemption.  Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) said the waivers constitute:

..."tacit admission that the health care law is fundamentally flawed."
"Despite the president's promise, it appears that just because you like your health care plan does not mean that the administration will allow you to keep it," Upton said.

And to think this 'historically bad legislation' is the thing in which this administration is most proud.  Now that's pathetic.

Many of the groups that received waivers were some of the biggest, most vocal supporters of the legislation - particularly the labor unions.  The fact that they are now getting waivers is no surprise, however.  After all, they already got one heck of a concession before the bill was ever even passed.  This was after a failed attempt to exempt them from the law altogether.  But fear not, union cronies - this administration is adept at making end runs around things they find inconvenient.  Since they couldn't exempt them directly in the legislation, they will simply hand out waivers instead.  That waivers are now being given at this level begs the question, who really is yoked to this harness?  So far, it seems only those opposed to the law are being forced to comply - almost like a punishment. 

The waivers are for only one year! supporters will cry.  But congress just loooooves to extend things, like debt ceilings, the Patriot Act, and Pelosi's personal favorite, continuing resolutions - CRs must be her favorite, since she seemed to prefer them to passing an actual budget last year.  This desire to continue things ad infinitum is evident in their deep and abiding affection for tenure (or is perhaps an explanation for it).  The waivers are only available in yearly increments until 2014, but, if past experience is any indication, that date, too, will be extended.

What is becoming more and more evident is that under the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate, there are two laws of the land - one for the average Joe, and another for the administration and their supporters. 

VOID

A Florida federal district judge found Obamacare's individual mandate to be unconstitutional, and argued that since the mandate was an integral part of the legislation, the entire bill should be declared void:

"While the individual mandate was clearly 'necessary and essential' to the act as drafted, it is not 'necessary and essential' to health care reform in general," he continued. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

The best part, though, is that Judge Vinson used then-candidate Obama's own words against his signature legislation (via the Washington Times):

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.

As the kids say, 'aw, snap!'.

The feds have sworn to appeal the ruling (no doubt that isn't the only swearing going on), and so it is on to the 11th Circuit.  There have been requests to skip the appeals and take it directly to the Supreme Court, but the Dept. of Justice refuses to fast track the process.  Why skip to the final authority when we can spend millions of taxpayer and state dollars dragging this thing through the appeals process?   

A DoJ mouthpiece stated that:

"We are analyzing this opinion to determine what steps, if any -- including seeking a stay -- are necessary while the appeal is pending to continue our progress toward ensuring that Americans do not lose out on the important protections this law provides, that the millions of children and adults who depend on Medicaid programs receive the care the law requires, and that the millions of seniors on Medicare receive the benefits they need," she added.

Well imagine that.  Repealing Obamacare will somehow stop SCHIP, Medicaid and Medicare from serving the people who need it.  How did that happen?  Or could it be that it's yet another straw man argument from the left in a desperate ploy to gin up support?  You know, scare all those old and poor people and parents into thinking they will lose SCHIP or Medicare/aid if Obamacare is repealed.   Well, it's time to call BS on this ridiculous line of thinking right now.  If this nightmare of a bill is struck down, those programs will continue on as usual - which still isn't good in the case of Medicare, but isn't as bad as with Obamacare.  Actually, repeal will save having $177 billion stripped from the Medicare Advantage program alone, which would have effectively done away with the popular program's perks.

Let's also address the spin about Obamacare "saving" over $200 billion in it's first decade, while we're at it. What a load of bunk.   Now technically speaking, it's true, because the law will be taxing us to death $800+ billion over the next 10 years, while the actual cost of Obamacare for those first 10 years will be about $600 billion - thus $200 billion in "savings".  Unfortunately, those $800+ billion in taxes will only be covering 6 years of the decade.  So how much will we be "saving" in the next decade and beyond?  Or will we only be offering 6 years of coverage per decade of taxation from here on out?

This law is a terrible thing for our country.  The few things that are good about it - no more preexisting conditions, for instance (which is easily regulated, no 'comprehensive overhaul' required) - are far outweighed by the things that are bad about it, like, well, $800 billion of new taxes, for starters, as well as the fact that the bill will now be forcing people to buy a good or service (not to mention it is so convoluted and byzantine that it will take years - and lots of lawsuits, no doubt - to figure out).  It would be far easier to repeal and replace than "fix" Obamacare.

What seems to have been lost in the debate is the fact that we are forgetting how we were originally sold the need for health care "reform".  Let's not forget that the original argument for comprehensive reform was because there were so many people uninsured namely because they couldn't afford it.  Well, all that has happened is that those same people still can't afford insurance, but now they face fines and penalties if they don't comply - enforced by the dreaded IRS, no less.  Not to mention the increase in rates since Obamacare passed means even more people can't afford insurance now.  Way to legislate, 111th Congress! 

Above and beyond all that, how good can the bill possibly be if over 700 companies, unions and even states have received waivers protecting them from it?  Many of those companies and unions were big supporters of the law while it was being shoved down our throats working it's way through Congress.  Now that they have to live under it and are seeing the real numbers involved, suddenly it's waiver city.  It's no surprise the unions got waivers - there was talk back during the making of this mess of a law to waive them from certain responsibilities.    Since they couldn't do it by the front door, they just snuck around the back. 

This decision was big, for a few reasons.  First, not only does Judge Vinson say that the mandate is unconstitutional, he also says the necessary removal of that unconstitutional clause makes the entire bill collapse, and as such, the entire bill should be struck down.  Second, his 78 page decision will be closely scrutinized by future appeals courts as well as the Supreme Court.   It is well reasoned and very thorough, and will present quite an obstacle for the DoJ in future appeals.  Third, this gives those in opposition to the law a second wind and affirmation that their argument is sound.  Oh, and the professional left is trying to say that the score is 2-2, which apparently in their world means it's some sort of judicial draw.  Unfortunately for them, the two findings in their favor are from lower courts, which means this finding, as well as the one preceeding it, both overrule the two earlier findings.  It's not about how many decisions go your way, it is the standing of the court that counts. 
Ultimately it is up to the Supreme Court.  Unfortunately, that could be years away.  In the meantime, this is a strong victory for supporters of repeal, and a big blow to the DoJ's case.  Good job, Bill McCollum, Pam Bondi, et al!

AH, CIVILITY

The House voted to repeal Obamacare today, 245-189.  It comes as no surprise, just as it won't be surprising when Harry Reid pretends HR2 doesn't exist and refuses to bring it up for a vote. 

This was the first full debate on the House floor since the Tuscon shootings.  The new Era of Civility™  has started off with quite a bang (am I allowed to say that anymore?).  Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN)  got the civility theater going today with his comparison of his Republican peers with Nazi propagandist extraordinaire, Joseph Goebbles. 

What class.  What style.  What civility(?).

Maybe I just don't understand the meaning of the term "civility".  After all, I'm conservative, so I must be mentally deficient, right (just ask Janeane Garofalo)?  Well, according to Merriam-Webster, civility is:

a polite act or expression

Now, maybe I'm crazy, but comparing more than half of your colleagues to a vicious,  soulless slaughterer of innocents on a massive scale seems a bit, well, uncivil, does it not?

When questioned about his...unique take on civility, his answer was quite a feat of verbal gymnastics (via HotAir):

“I don’t think I was comparing the Republicans to Goebbels. I was saying that lies are lies and Goebbels was the great perpetrator of lies and that’s a danger, and if you look at Goebbels you can see the lie that he told about Jews which he constantly did, became considered fact in Germany that the Jews were evil, and people got involved and didn’t stand up.”…


“I think civility is not lying, and if you can’t come up and say that somebody is lying when they’re lying, then the lie becomes the truth. That’s not uncivil to say somebody lied,” he said.

So apparently, his definition of civility is "not lying".  Which dictionary did that definition come from, Rep. Cohen? 

Beyond that, what he has done is set up a sort of 'incivility word problem'.  If lies = lies + Goebbels = lies then lies = Republicans means Republicans = Goebbels.  Deductive reasoning, anyone? 

CNN, (former home of a political talkshow called Crossfire) in their desperation to set the 'tone' (and hopefully boost ratings), have become whimpering pc apologists.  The national attempt to have this 'conversation on violent rhetoric' has made it very clear to almost everyone (even the women on The View) that not using martial phraseology is nearly impossible, even in everyday, non-vitriolic, non-hate speech.  Sherri Shepard went so far as to throw her hands up in disgust and say, "I give up" after several attempts to describe how the crosshairs rhetoric was 'under fire'.

These phrases are commonly used because they are apt analogies.  Not being able to use common phrases like 'battleground', 'targeted', 'under fire', or even Joy Behar's comedic reference to 'killed it' should open up a whole new dialogue, the stifling of free speech. 

Ultimately though, we also need to have a dialogue on mental illness.  The biggest failure in this whole situation was that Loughner was obviously disturbed, the police and college were involved, and yet he never received any psychiatric help.  It seems Arizona's 5150 laws are pretty robust, though, considering how little Eric Fuller did to warrant a 72 hour psychiatric hold and evaluation (although the "ear necklace" thing was pretty creepy).  Perhaps if Loughner had undergone the same thing, 6 people wouldn't be dead today.  The ball was dropped here.  This kid was so crazy that people got a malevolent vibe just sitting near him.  Not just his teachers, but his fellow classmates feared for their lives to the point where they had planned out an exit strategy if he pulled a gun in class.   He built a shrine to a human skull in his backyard, for heaven's sake, and ranted about mind control through grammar online.  And yet, to date, there is no evidence that he had any sort of psychiatric evaluation whatsoever. 

Jared Loughner was crazy.  Period.  Rep. Giffords was unable to answer one nonsensical question from him back in 2007, and she was targeted.  In the ironic twist of the century, the non-conservative lunatic gunman tried to kill her not because of violent right-wing rhetoric, but, technically, for no rhetoric at all. 


Stifling speech to make a political point is unacceptable.  Yet again, the neo-pravda media, in their eternal conservative witch hunt, have attempted to 'frame' a debate that has nothing at all to do with the tragedy they are exploiting.  Here's a little hint guys - your job is to report the news, not opine on what you think might have motivated the killer.  And if you absolutely must, well, that's what editorials are for. 

As for people like Cohen, who demand civility from one side of their mouth while spewing vitriol out the other, you are a huge part of the problem.  This practice isn't about 'furthering debate', it's all about shutting down debate.  And that's NOT what this country is all about.  You may not be happy about what the opposition is doing, but repealing an unpopular bill is in no way equitable with the Final Solution.  Above and beyond that, if you insist, Rep. Cohen, on going down that path, that is your right as a citizen of this country.  However, you then forfeit your right to criticize anyone else who does so, or risk losing credibility permanently. 

HERE WE GO AGAIN Updated

I have mentioned many, many times how much I dislike my congressman, Alan Grayson.  I know that I am not alone in this feeling.  Every time I see that smug, smarmy face I cringe with embarassment, knowing he "represents" me.  I am in the midst of a bout with stomach flu and was not going to post for a few more days, but his latest antics have propelled me from my sickbed in protest.  

Mr. Grayson has yet again shown what little regard he has for basic American rights.  His first foray into squelching his fellow Americans first amendment rights was when he demanded Atty. General Eric Holder investigate, fine, and imprison a Clermont, FL woman for starting an anti-Grayson website.   Now he is demanding the investigation and possible revocation of a Mount Dora urologist's license.  Way to go, chump - after all, it's not like we're smack in the middle of a doctor shortage already.

Grayson claims that Dr. Cassell is in violation of his hippocratic oath.  This from a man who stomps all over the Constitution, which he made an oath to, on a daily basis.  Dr. Cassell is not in violation of his oath, because, contrary to Mr. Grayson's allegations, he has not turned down a single patient due to their political views:

"I'm not turning anybody away — that would be unethical," Dr. Jack Cassell, 56, a Mount Dora urologist and a registered Republican opposed to the health plan, told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday. "But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it."

 That is his choice, as he is a free man in a free country.  A concept that seems alien to Mr. Grayson.

As usual with the left these days, when there is no rational argument for their ridiculous agenda and demands, they turn to the race card for vindication.  Grayson is saying that Dr. Cassell's motivation for his anti-Obamacare notice is all about racism.  Mr. Grayson's attempt to make this a race issue shows that he has no leg to stand on, and thus must resort to bomb throwing.  Even Anderson Cooper wasn't buying what Grayson was selling:

REP. ALAN GRAYSON: ...What he's doing is no different from saying, "I will not treat a black person. I will not treat a Catholic."
I thought that we, as a country, has moved beyond that.

COOPER: But wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
I mean, I'm not taking a side. I'm not taking anybody's side in this, but, just for accuracy's sake, he has said nothing about race. And race is a protected category. I mean, there are -- it is illegal to discriminate someone based on race. It is not illegal to say you don't want to treat somebody because you don't like their politics. Politics is not a protected class.

GRAYSON: Well, in fact, where he lives, in Mount Dora, which is in my district, many, many of the Democrats who live in Mount Dora happen to be African-Americans.So, by saying that he will not treat somebody who supported Obama, he's saying that he's not going to treat a large number of African-Americans in the community.

COOPER: Wait. So, you're saying race is at the core of this? Come on. There is no evidence of that at all.

First of all, Grayson is alluding that only blacks voted for Obama, and yet he won with 52% of the vote - the numbers just don't add up, Teacups.  He also alludes that blacks only voted for Obama, although there are those who would disagree with that idea.   His entire statement is just classic race baiting at it's worst.  Now, merely because there is a black presence in an area, any opposition to Grayson and the democrat's agenda can be called racist?  That is a mightly dangerous game he is playing at.  So, just how many of Mount Dora's residents are black, anyway?  Well, having spent a few pleasant Saturdays there, I can assure you, Compton it ain't.  To be more specific, the breakdown is this (via ePodunk):

White -7,277   77.3% 
Black or African American - 1,806    19.2%
American Indian and Alaska native 16     0.2%
Asian - 65    0.7%
Native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander - 5    0.1%
Some other race - 140    1.5%
Two or more races - 109     1.2%
Hispanic or Latino - 628    6.7%

According to WebMD, there are 28 urologists within a 25 mile radius of Mount Dora.  If a patient of Dr. Cassell's doesn't approve of his notice, they have 27 other urologists in the area to choose from, and Dr. Cassell is merely making them aware of his views so they are free to choose someone they agree with (if they can).  

Back in 2001, I was in the dentist chair and was treated to my dentist's opinion of Clinton and the right's "witch hunt" over the Lewinsky affair.  His opinion was that those crazy conservatives went overboard with the impeachment trials just because he was cheating on his wife.  My mouth was full of hands and drills, or else I would have reminded him that Clinton was impeached because he perjured himself in front of a grand jury, not because he cheated on his wife.  For normal peons like you and me, perjury would be a felony offense punishable with jail time.  Clinton was found to be guilty of perjury, not infidelity - a fine line that apparently the left is incapable of understanding.  Did I report my dentist for offensive political views?  No.  I found another dentist.  The  only thing worse than having your teeth drilled is having them drilled by a Clinton apologist who deifies the man as he drills.  It's a bit ironic, really - being drilled by a guy who worships a guy who loves to drill people....

But I digress. 

Honestly, I shouldn't even give Grayson a forum, but at some point, you just have to call BS on people.  One could argue that just about everything out of Grayson's mouth is BS, but this latest attack was particularly aggregious.  Even Anderson "Teabagger" Cooper couldn't get behind it.  No doubt Olbermann will be celebrating him as a great American - as if that really matters.
 
Hopefully more doctors will follow suit and state their displeasure with the government takeover of health care.  For those lefties who argue that the AMA endorsed Obamacare, please note that the AMA only represents less than 20% of American doctors.  The fact that 46% of doctors polled would consider quitting their practices says quite a lot - perhaps some of them should stand with their brother physician and state their displeasure more firmly.  Doctors, for the most part, have been a silent group in the health care "debate". 
 
Dr. Cassell could remain silent no longer, and I, for one, applaud him for his bravery.  Let's not forget - not only is he a doctor, he's also a small businessman who needs to protect his own interests and those of his employees.  The health care "reform" is going to cripple his business and potentially do far more harm to his patients than a notice on his door might do.  The bottom line is, if he offends a few people, so be it, it's his right.

UPDATE:  Good gracious, the man is an ass.  It seems to me the pressure is getting to him.  There are a dozen possible contenders for his job, and people now know that he is a far-left liberal "representing" a conservative district.  He is accusing the republicans at the Perkins meeting of "spying" on an Organizing for America meeting.  One wonders when he is going to start accusing squirrels of inflitrating the ranks....November just can't come soon enough.

TIME FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

The Lieutenant Governor of South Carolina, Andre Bauer, has announced that he is attempting to convene a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution to protect Americans from Obamacare's individual mandate. 

This is a very intriguing development.   It takes 34 states to convene a Convention, and whatever comes out of the convention will require 38 states to ratify it.  There has never been an amendment ratified through the states - they have all come from the federal government.  But just because it has never happened before doesn't mean that it never will - although it's almost guaranteed that will be the left's argument against it.  So the big question is, can it be done?  Well, conveniently enough, there are 38 states either preparing or actively pursuing lawsuits against the federal government over Obamacare and the individual mandate.  Interesting, no?

A Constitutional amendment would ensure that never again would our government try to force us to purchase a good or service that they mandate.  The amendment would make Obamacare null and void by making it officially and uncontrovertably unconstitutional.  It could take years for the lawsuits to wend their way through the court systems to the Supreme Court and might not even kill the bill altogether, just pieces of it, so a convention might be a faster solution as well as more comprehensive. 

The problem with the Obamacare individual mandate is that it opens the door to future mandates, so it needs to be blocked, and soon.  If the government is able to tell us not just that we have to buy health insurance, but what level of health insurance we have to buy, where does it end? Let's take, for example, GM.  Even with bailouts and government intervention, GM is still in the red.  Their prospects in the future aren't very rosy, and the odds of more bailouts are pretty good - after all, the unions are running the show now, and no one does unsustainable quite like the unions.  Instead of a bailout next time, what is to stop the government from mandating that all new car purchases must be GM cars?  Perhaps multi-car households might be required to own at least one domestic (read: GM) vehicle.   Sure, it sounds far-fetched, but stranger things have happened.  After all, our government just authorized the IRS to enforce health care.  Who would have thought of that just a few years ago?

Here's hoping this idea of a Constitutional Convention gains momentum.  It is insanely difficult to dislodge an entitlement - usually the best that can be done is 'reform'.  We need more than reform - this legislation is such a mess that there is really no way to fix it - just look at the so-called 'fixes bill' they passed - even at 2,000+ pages, it doesn't seem to really 'fix' anything.  The taxes, fees and penalties are threatening to cause serious damage to our economy and overburdening our health care system with an influx of some 30 million new enrollees will cause long waits and rationing.  We need to rid ourselves of this albatross around our collective necks and a state convened constitutional convention is just the way to do it.  Our federal masters have gone completely mad with their own power - it's time to remind them who really calls the shots.

While they are at it, how about amendments requiring the federal government balance the budget, eliminate the fed, and maybe a national sales tax in lieu of yearly income tax?  If they're going to do it, they may as well go big, right?

OBAMARAMA

It's Obamarama Day!  All Obama, all the time - just the way he likes it!  In honor of Obamarama Day, I just had to share this with you before we get down to business, so check it out!  Gotta love Pelosi's crazy eyes and the Barry Soetoro exec. producer credit at the end.  Did you ever think America would have a president with an a.k.a.?

The Bret Baier interview was pretty good, in that although there was no new information (shouldn't the president know more about what is and isn't in the bill?) it was rather revealing:

“I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or Senate,” Obama said.

You don't say.  That news flash isn't just the quote of the day, it's the quote of the year.  Isn't that also Rule #3 in the Alinsky's Means v. Ends handbook? 

On a side note, in my hunt for a link to Rule #3, I came across this post, and it struck me how much of it pertains to our current situation.  The post was written back in September, but if you read it, you will see that there are a few correlations to what the administration is saying right now.  It discusses calling any  opposition immoral (siding with insurance cos./hate poor and minorities) or cowardly, and special attention should be paid to rules #3, 8, 10 and 11.

Back to the interview.  Obama was quite defensive, and Baier was surprisingly aggressive, but respectfully so.  He interrupted a lot, which the lefty blogs will most surely be all over tomorrow, but it was because his questions weren't getting answered, not out of disrespect.  Time was short; Baier (and America) wanted answers.  Too bad he didn't get any.

As usual, the President painted with a broad brush - you're either for their utopian vision or you are against humanity:

And if they don’t, if they vote against it, then they’re going to be voting against health care reform and they’re going to be voting in favor of the status quo.

It's either all or nothing with these people (see the above referenced post for more insight).  If you don't vote for this stinking carcass of a bill, then you don't want any reform at all.  This is the same response the Republicans got when they presented him with their proposals, which included free market principles, minor regulation and tort reform.   That doesn't sound like the status quo we keep hearing about, does it?

And who's really in bed with the insurance industry - the ones who want to increase competition in a free market way, or the ones who are handing over some 30 million hostages mandated to purchase not just insurance, but comprehensive (read: more expensive) insurance?  Let's not forget, too, that those who are already minimally insured will have to purchase more coverage to meet the new mandates. 

Obama also said:

“What I can tell you is that the vote that’s taken in the House will be a vote for health care reform. And if people vote yes, whatever form that takes, that is going to be a vote for health care reform. And I don’t think we should pretend otherwise.

There are two things wrong with this statement.  The vote taken in the House will not be a vote for health care.  Nor will it be a vote for the nationalization of the student loan system.  It will be a vote for a rule.  But, following his logic, if it is a vote for health care, then he is saying the people who vote for it will have to own up to it.  So why the subterfuge?  Yes, whoever votes for this is going to have to answer for it, whether it is passed by a direct vote or whether it is passed as a rule. Is the reason for technically not voting for it because there some way they can 'take it back' under demon pass if the Senate doesn't pass the reconciliation measure?  That seems pretty unlikely, so democrats in the House just need to trust the Senate to pass a reconciliation bill that is acceptable to them and  "man up" and own the vote - and that means actually cast one.

All in all, this was more damaging to Obama than helpful.  He was definitely not in control of the interview, he didn't have any answers (or at least refused to give them), he was spewing the same old talking points, and was insincere and unconvincing. 

The last ditch, hail Mary (hail Obama?) pass most definitely did not end with a touchdown.  The problem with this bill is that it only appeals to the indoctrinated - mainly because they don't question.  They should have waited another 20 years - you know, get another generation or two through the public school indoctrination system.

Unfortuantely for them, they miscalculated silence for acquiescence and jumped the gun.

NO TO YES

Is anyone surprised that Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) changed his vote on health care to yes?  I know - you're shocked - shocked - to hear the news, aren't you?  After his magic carpet ride with The One, there really was no doubt that he would switch.  Today's press conference to state his change of heart was just an exercise in self-importance - a naked ploy for press coverage and national attention.

The man is as far left as possible.  The reason he voted against the original House bill is because the public option didn't go far enough.  All  the Chosen One had to do was assure Kucinich that this bill was just the beginning and that full-blown single payer was just a few steps down the road and Denny-boy was all over it like a rat on a moldy piece of cheese.

This whole spectacle was a waste of time. 

HERE WE GO AGAIN Update

Hey, guess what?  The Campaigner-in-Chief is on the campaign trail again for ObamaCare.

What a surprise.

As usual, his "town hall" is by invitation only.  I wonder if the union member audience is getting paid to sit and listen to him, and do they get a bonus for bringing their pre-printed, SEIU/OFA approved 'handmade' signs, or is this one on the house? 

I'd report it if he had something new to say, but, of course, it's the same old talking points.  Evil Republican obstructionists, status quo, time to decide, simple up or down vote, blah, blah, blah.  I'm surprised he still needs a teleprompter - I could give his speech off the top of my head.

The reports on yea or nay votes has been varied and confusing, but I think it's safe to say they just don't have the votes yet.  After all, if they did, you know Pelosi would call for a vote immediately, no matter the time or day, just in case someone came to their senses.  This is a very fluid situation, however, and you just never know who is going to flip.

Pelosi has even, according to Rep. Massa (D-NY), resorted to making up scandals in order to toss out 'no' votes and bring herself closer to the magic number.  That whole mess is a head scratcher all the way around - it's just generally unsavory and the morals and ethics of all parties involved are questionable, at best - but the point is that, whether artificially engineered or not, it does bring her one vote closer to victory.

Whether the bill passes or not, I, for one, will be permanently scarred by the imagery of Rahm Emanuel viciously dressing down Massa with 'Little Rammy' swinging in the breeze.  Ugh.  It all just makes me wish even more for an end to this "debate".  Could it possibly sink any lower than it already has?

We have nine days to kill this thing for good, provided Obama actually sticks to his deadline of March 18th (I'm not holding my breath on that).  Well, hopefully it can be killed - this thing has more lives than a cat.  Actually, that is doing a disservice to cats.  This thing is like Ryan Reynolds' character "Deadpool" at the end of the X-Men Origins: Wolverine movie.  Just when you think you've killed it and the end credits are rolling, suddenly its laserbeam eyes open and its headless body rises again.  And, much like the movie version of Deadpool, this legislation is sure to disappoint.

I'm not surprised that some democrats might be changing their vote - even I sometimes wish they would throw in the towel if it would make this nightmare end.  Luckily, horrific visions of life under the legislation snap me out of it right quick.

Enough already, people - aren't there more pressing items that need attention?

UPDATE:  Here's a fun game for you (via KeithHennessey.com).  I got ten right - how did you do?

BEWARE THE TRAP Updated

I was quite skeptical of the 'health care summit' proposed by President Obama.  Considering the sneaky, backdoor dealings of this administration so far, I figured it was just a trap. The more I hear about it, the more I think my first instinct was right.  I had hoped that the democrats had seen the writing on the wall and were tacking to the center, but, as usual, it seems to be all smoke and mirrors. 

This whole things smacks of  a show for the American people by a remarkably media savvy administration.  The Democrats are attempting to look reasonable and willing to compromise.  If the republicans refused the meeting, they would look surly and partisan.  Unfortunately, accepting is just as much of a trap, because now they will be harangued, browbeaten and used as political cover for the mess of a bill that democrats are single-mindedly trying to ram down our throats.   Republicans requested starting from scratch and the Democrat's response is to bring their 2000 page nightmare of a bill (public option included) to the table, along with the hollow threat of reconciliation.

It's incredible that they are still talking about reconciliation - if this is possible, why haven't they done it?  Why bother with this meeting?  This whole exercise is pure propaganda, in my opinion.

Obama saying he will look at any options the Republicans bring to the table is more empty talk.  Sure, he'll look at their proposals - and then discard them for the behemoth public option he is so desperate to pass.  This isn't about reconciliation and compromise - it's about the Republicans bending to Obama's will and passing the 2,000 page nightmare Pelosi and Reid have cooked up and can't get enough of their own people to vote for.

This is just a dog and pony show to try to make the Republicans look like the party of no yet again.

Personally, I think the 'party of no' designation is a good thing.  They have been staunch in their denial of all things socialist.  They have been united in their condemnation of the insane spending policies of this administration.  They have held the line and refused to bend to pressure, bribery and threats.  They listened to the millions of Americans protesting the actions of this administration and tried their best to do the will of the people.  They said no to the radical agenda being pushed on us, and I, for one, am grateful, because it seems like those in power just aren't listening.  So, please 'obstruct' away!

This whole 'summit' idiocy is a desperate ploy by the Democrats to place the blame on the Republicans for health care reform not passing, because they realize the American people know that the only thing holding them back is themselves. 

Democrats are great at shifting blame - after all, they managed to blame all of Nancy Pelosi's spending and deficit inducing policies on George Bush (oh, and Pelosi refused to approve a 2009 budget from Bush, so the whole "budget for the entire [2009] fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House" argument is a load of hooey).  The President may suggest the budget and spending policies, but Congress holds the purse strings. 

We were finally bouncing back from 9/11 and Katrina and bringing down the deficits when Pelosi took over.  In 2007, the year Pelosi became Speaker, the deficit was $163 billion - down from a high of $413 billion in 2004.  In 2008, Pelosi's agenda started to affect the country.  The result?  A $455 billion deficit, which has been blamed entirely on Bush.  But that wasn't enough.  They have also tried to blame the staggering $1.3 trillion deficit of 2009 on Bush and the Republicans as well.  They blame TARP for most of the deficit - a bill they voted for as well, including Pelosi, Reid and then-Senator Obama.  But TARP wasn't what blew up the deficit - Stimulus, the omnibus spending bill and a $3.6 trillion budget did that.  They increased spending by about 18%, and are still trying to blame the resulting deficit on a man who hasn't been in office for over a year.

Over and over again this administration has proven themselves to be duplicitous, conniving, hyper-partisan and willing to stoop to any low to further their socialist agenda.

I personally hope the Republicans boycott this sham of a summit.  It's a trap, pure and simple.  I suggest they embrace the title 'Party of No' and say no to this summit and this health care plan.   They are in agreement with more than 60% of the country if they do.

UPDATE:  Via HotAir' s Quote of the Day:

“And then when unemployment numbers started proving to be much, much tougher and it started becoming more clear that the stimulus package hadn’t worked properly, they just kept plowing ahead on health care. And this isn’t a communications problem. This is a reality problem. And I think they just made some grave miscalculations and as it became more clear that they had screwed up, they just kept doubling down their bet.
“And so I think, no, this is one of the biggest miscalculations that we’ve seen in modern political history.”

The exit quote for Cook's interview is fantastic:

But if I had a choice of the Republican Party's problems right now or the Democratic Party's problems, I think you could triple the Republican Party's problems and I'd still rather have their problems than the problems facing Democrats.

Amen, brother....

A 'HEALTHY' DOSE OF DENIAL

In an interview with Katie Couric, President Obama defended his hopey-changey message.  "Democrats wrote to me," Katie began with an apologetic smile, "saying you campaigned on a slogan of change you can believe in, but their lives and the ways of Washington, they wrote, haven't changed at all."

President Obama then launches into a denial-filled explaination of how transparent his administration is.  He mentions the fact that his visitor logs for the White House are available to the public - something unheard of with other administrations (and you know who he means!).  Of course he neglects to mention that those same logs were kept locked up (even after two federal rulings that the informtion was public), until November of '09 and even then, the list wasn't quite complete, it just went back to Sept. '09.  The new era of transparency leaves much to be desired, in my opinion.

But it gets better.  "We are eliminating lobbyists from boards and commissions," Obama insists.  And what is happening to those lobbyists who are suddenly jobless in DC?  Why, they miraculously get waivers to work in the White House

He finishes up with "There's more transparency on something like the Recovery Act and how taxpayer dollars are being spent than there/s ever been on a project of this size and scale." (has there ever been a project of this size and scale?)  Sure, as long as you don't mind phantom zip codes and congressional districts that don't exist.  And why, exactly, does the website say that about 650,000 jobs have been 'saved or created', but the administration keeps citing 1.5 - 2.4 million?  Easy - they have now changed the rules so that if a company receives stimulus funds, any job within that company now counts as 'saved or created'.  Quite a racket, no?

Obama, Pelosi et al have a little problem.  They truly believe perception is reality, and that if they simply say something often enough, with enough conviction, it will be so.  For the rest of us living in the real world (which luckily has internet access and youtube - something the administration, as tech-savvy has it has been touted as being, seems to have forgotten about), we can hear the spin and find out what's really going on.  Apparently, for about 60% of Americans, their BS detectors are set to ultra sensitive, and claptrap like he was peddling to Couric just doesn't sell anymore.

Now Obama is calling for a health care summit, this time including Republicans and C-SPAN cameras.  I guess bipartisanship and transparency are only necessary if you can't manage to pass it strictly on party lines and behind closed doors.  Can you say 'political act of desperation'?  I know that he is 'pivoting' to jobs, but why can't he just drop the whole health care thing completely for a while?  Get the economy running again and then take up health care over the summer or fall (or, more realistically, next year).  Unfortunately, the administration has managed to sell to their progressive base that economic recovery just won't happen until the health care system has been reformed. 

One thing this administration has gotten really, really good at is painting themselves into corners.

What really strikes me, though, is the petulant tone of the democrats - particularly Obama.  Well, except for Pelosi, who apparently has decided that tone-deaf defiance is the way to go.  Hey Queen Nan - when you said you would "Go through the gate.  If the gate's closed, we'll go over the fence.  If the fence is too high, we'll pole vault in.  If that doesn't work we'll parachute in but we're going to get health care reform passed for the American people", who do you think is making all of those obstructions?  That would be the American people, Nan.  You know, your bosses? 

The woman is the poster child for power drunk career political hacks. 

She is the snarling, snapping, rabid pitbull to Obama's shivering chihuahua, barking furiously to cover his uncertainty and incompetence as he hides behind her.  If the republicans can manage to take back the House, she will be neutralized, and that is more than half the battle.    The spin for this administration has become so lame and transparently, patently false that it is hard to believe anyone is falling for it anymore.  Well, except for their hard-core base, which only comprises about 20% of the voting pool, thankfully.  The rest of us respond to the desperate spin with a hearty chuckle these days, as we mark off one more day on the calendar.

The administration will be learning a hard lesson that perception is not reality, come November.  Until then, let them spin away. 

SHEER INSANITY

It has really been a trip listening to the progressive spin coming out of Washington.  They just don't know what to do with themselves about the Scott Brown election.

It's not just that they have lost touch with the American people, it's that they seem to have lost touch with reality.  Robert Gibbs' performance on Sunday with Chris Wallace was jaw dropping.  At least, that's what happened to me when I heard this:

"More people voted to express their support for Barack Obama than to oppose him."

Whaaat???  Maybe Gibbsy got 'support' and 'oppose' confused.  Those opposites can be tricky......

Thankfully, Congressman Marion Berry has brought the peons the word from On High - his Supreme Oneness is not concerned about the upcoming elections.  After all, the difference between the 1994 election and the 2010 election, according to the Teleprompter Kid, is "me".  Cue the choir of angels (ugh - it sounds suspiciously like a drunken Janeane Garofalo karaokeing "Obama Girl"). 

It's a good thing the White House is a big place with high ceilings - Ego Boy needs the clearance.

Meanwhile, David Plouffe is urging immediate passage of ObamaCare, arguing that once it's passed and we find out what's in it, we will love it.  Tell you what, Mr. Plouffe - why don't you have your masters put the bills online like they promised so the people who are paying for this mess will know what bill of goods they are really being sold.  That way we can let you know if we like it before they vote for it.

It seems our esteemed Leader has been busy with a make-or-break speech at Graham Road Elementary, so his distraction is excusable.  BTW - what really bothers me about that picture is twofold:  first, does he really need the podium, complete with Presidential Seal, and teleprompters to address school kids?  And second, am I the  only one alarmed that he requires two teleprompters for 'spontaneous' questions from the press pool?

But I digress. 

It's all getting a bit bizzarre lately.  My initial euphoria over the events of last week and the potential demise of ObamaCare have receded into a wary edginess.  After a few sporadic statements of defeat, Obama seems to be rallying the troops to pass something (anything).  It's rather like a
 trapped animal - they seem resigned to their fate, but that is when they are their most dangerous and unpredictable, because they are desperate.

Make no mistake - the democrats are desperate.  And like many trapped animals, they are willing to chew off their own leg and potentially bleed to death to escape.  Unfortunately for us in this case, if they do chew their leg off, we will be the ones stuck trying to stem the bleeding with their nightmare health care bill.

The icing on the cake is the new, improved packaging they are wrapping Obama in.  After all, it's all about the presentation, now isn't it?  No need for substance with this party - perception is reality!  Let's see - a tax and spend progressive who is blatantly ignoring his constituency suddenly pivots to become Mr. Populist less than a week after a major loss.  Sure, that's believable. 

Rebrand, rename, realign!  It's a good thing they are rudderless and not anchored down with pesky morals and principles.  Boy, can they put a damper on overreaching, unpopular agendas!

It all seems to be falling apart, though.  Democrats are abandoning ship at a surprising clip.  Benedict Arlen is off in a corner banging his head against the wall groaning "act like a lady, act like a lady" while various factions tear each others throats out and Valerie Jarrett wanders aimlessly, fingers in her ears, babbling "I disagree with everything you just said".

And all the while, our intrepid Captain is at the stern of the Ship of State pointing at the sunset shouting "Damn the Tea Partiers, full speed ahead!"

Fear not, fellow sailor - the democrats won't sink the ship.  One of the terrorists they farmed out to Yemen or let off on a technicality in criminal court will blow us up long before the democrats do.

THE BEAST IS DEAD

Praise God, hallelujah!!  The beast that is Obama Care is dead!!

Pelosi finally gave up the ghost after a last ditch closed door negotiation session with House democrats.  I guess all the arms that could be twisted have been twisted:

"In its present form without any changes I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," Pelosi said, adding, "I don't see the votes for it at this time."

Don't worry, though, they are still scheming to try to pass something.  Anything.  But the Senate bill as it stands is dead.

Thank you, Scott Brown.  Thank you, People of Massachusetts.  I, for one, am eternally grateful.

IN THE DOGHOUSE Updated

I have been riveted to the media today, watching the fallout from last night.  I'd say the mood in Washington is....subdued.  It's rather like the people of Massachusetts rolled up a newspaper and whapped the democrats on the nose with it, and the liberal hangdogs aren't sure exactly what happened or why.  They know they did wrong and are getting punished, but they aren't sure what they got caught doing - probably because there are just so many things they've done - bad dogs, bad dogs!

The Queen of the Kennel is still defiant -

"Heeding the particular concerns of the voters of Massachusetts last night, we heard, we will heed, we will move forward with their considerations in mind, but we will move forward for health care."

God, the woman really has no rhyme or reason to her wild gesturing, does she?  And since when is health care 'reform' all about jobs?  Did I miss something?? 

The once and future 'centrist democrats' are suddenly rushing to prop up their moderate credentials, with Evan Bayh leading the pack.  (via Politico):

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who now might draw a challenge from Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), said the party needs to rethink its entire approach to governing.

There are still those who refuse to acknowledge that this was a referendum on health care, of course.  It's just alarming that one of those people is Obama top dog David Axlerod, who insisted (incorrectly) on the morning shows today that Brown never ran an ad against ObamaCare, somehow translating that into health care not being the prime motivator.

The liberal blogosphere is like a pack of super caffeinated rabid pitbulls who have been hit with a baseball bat.  As usual, their arguments are well thought out, respectful and rational (warning: language).

The election strategies are starting to drift out now, too.  It's a toss-up between vicious negative campaigns linking republicans to George Bush, or, believe it or not, the new 'democrats are down-to-earth populists, just like Scott Brown' tactic.  I'd say they'll most likely combine the two, because, let's face it, they can't run anything but vicious negative campaigns featuring George Bush - they're just going to add in the populist pap like a cherry on top because they apparently think we all suffer from short-term memory loss and won't be able to remember the past year by November.

Seems like the bad doggies need another whap....

UPDATE:  Mark Steyn nails it with a post titled "Happy Anniversary!" .  He perfectly encapsulates the Obama campaign push for Coakley on Sunday - which is still being pushed for November hopefuls, if you can believe it:

"We understand why you're angry. But don't let your anger with George W. Bush allow you to get tricked into voting for a Republican who'll obstruct the reform agenda you're crying out for."

Exactly.

IBD/TIPP SHOCKER

Proving they have the tenacity and single-mindedness of a pit bull, the Obama administration is once again trying to rally the troops to pass ObamaCare. There is a full court press going on right now, but the ACORN scandal has sucked all the oxygen out of the room, so little attention is being paid to reports like this stunning IBD/TIPP poll.

The administration insists that there will be no rationing of care (death panels, if you prefer Palinese). Even with every doctor and nurse practicing now, there will most definitely be rationing when 47 million (or is it 30 million - the numbers keep changing) are added to the insurance rolls. This will not cut down on emergency room visits - one of the many reasons health care is so costly - just the opposite, actually. It will take months to see a general practitioner, so people will instead prefer to spend hours waiting their turn at the ER.

The IBD poll, showing a full 45% of our doctors would retire upon adoption of ObamaCare, proves adoption will put us immediately into crisis. This country already has a nursing crisis, as well as a shortage of general practitioners, and that crisis will become a catastrophe if what the IBD poll predicts will happen really does.

This poll is remarkably damaging to ObamaCare, so it is no surprise that it is getting little play. The poll finds many results in complete opposition to what the administration - and the AMA, for that matter - has been saying:

• More than seven in 10 doctors, or 71% — the most lopsided response in the poll — answered "no" when asked if they believed "the government can cover 47 million more people and that it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better."
• Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This contradicts the administration's claims that doctors are part of an "unprecedented coalition" supporting a medical overhaul.
• Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind.

The American Medical Association (AMA) has been cheer leading the efforts of the Obama administration, including lobbying and advertising to sway public opinion. However, the AMA only represents about 18% of doctors, and has been losing support amongst those still members of the organization. The public view has been that doctors are behind ObamaCare, but nothing could be further from the truth.

None of this information seems to have slowed the ObamaCare express one iota, which is truly troubling. The purpose of this plan was to help the American people who have no health coverage. The result of the plan will be that even more people will be unable to access a doctor when they need one. And yet, the administration still plows ahead, even when the experts, practicing doctors, tell them it is a mistake.

Just this fact alone makes one wonder - even though it is becoming more and more clear that this plan will do more harm than good to the country, both economically and in terms of quality and quantity of care, why is the administration so adamant to pass it?

Seems to me to have more to do with power over one-sixth of the American economy than caring for the American people.

But, if the opinion of doctors in the field doesn't matter, what does my lowly opinion mean?

Good thing there are a few million other voices joining mine, and, with the downfall of ACORN imminent, a midterm election turnover is looking better and better. If congress doesn't pass a health care bill by November, it most likely won't pass at all, because they will be too busy campaigning to keep their seats next year.

After all, re-election is far more important than forwarding the business of the country, and, for once, that will work in our favor!

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

The 'Obama as Joker' poster has gotten a lot of press lately, and, when there was not a hue and cry against it, Obama's supporters turned to their old friend, the race card. If you don't see anything wrong with this poster, you are a racist. If you protest that you are not, you are a subconscious racist. http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/14/la-weekly-if-you-object-to-calling-the-obama-joker-poster-racist-youre-probably-racist/#comment-2573585 Here's an exerpt:

""No, dude, it’s all about race. Racial anxiety and racism are social pathologies that adapt to changing conditions and evolve over time. Conservatives don’t burn crosses at their rallies - contemporary political theater and its language have moved on with the times. Still, I remember that even back in the days when cross burnings were in vogue — and when it seemed that civil rights workers were being killed every month in the Deep South — even then you would rarely find a segregationist proclaiming, on television at least, that he was a racist and believed blacks were inferior. Instead, the racist argument was usually couched in terms of “state’s rights,” “mutual benefits,” of how Negroes themselves didn’t want race-mixing, that they were basically good, hard-working people who were being duped by Communists…""

I have had it up to here with the racial accusations by democrats about republicans. It is ridiculous. I know that they have been busily rewriting history in their textbooks and college classes, but that doesn't change the truth. Here's the truth:

The DEMOCRAT party was the party of southern white slaveholders.

It was DEMOCRATS who started the KKK after the Civil War as a way to keep the black population under the boot.

It was DEMOCRATS who burned crosses and hung black men for such minor things as looking at a white woman and killed civil rights workers like Medgar Evers (Byron De La Beckwith, Evers' murderer, was a lifelong KKK member who later in life attempted a run for the democratic nomination to be Lt. Governor of Mississippi.)

It was DEMOCRATS who expanded and then fought to keep the Jim Crow laws.

It is DEMOCRATS who rely, to this day, on the politics of race to keep this country separated and fighting amongst itself.

The REPUBLICAN party was created in the 1850’s specifically to oppose slavery and the induction of pro-slavery states into the Union.

REPUBLICANS fought and died to free the slaves - it's called the Civil War.

REPUBLICANS supported civil rights and fought to get rid of Jim Crow laws.

REPUBLICANS include Matin Luther King Jr., Homer Plessy (who’s lawsuit, Plessy v. Ferguson, which he lost, ushered in the Jim Crow laws), Booker T. Washington, Ida B. Wells (founder of NAACP), Sojourner Truth, Jackie Robinson, James Meredith (civil rights leader), Alveda King, James L. Farmer Jr.(civil rights leader), Charles Evers (civil rights leader and brother of Medgar Evers), Eldridge Cleaver (civil rights leader), the list goes on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_American_Republicans

Look them up. Please. Information is power.

Many black civil rights leaders were republicans, because they were fighting against democrats. While you're at it, you should also check out the early years of the Progressive (liberal) party. Quite an eye opener. Look into Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood) and her belief in eugenics - she used to speak on the subject at KKK rallies. I will be writing more about her and the Progressive movement in the future.

They can try to project the crimes of the Democrats onto the Republicans, but history proves them wrong, time after time.

HOLD THE PHONE (Updated)

My first post on this blog was about why the ObamaCare protesters are so angry and shout their representatives down. I think that this perfectly illustrates the point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L3FnWNkIzU

If no one is listening to you, you tend to shout. Please note the lady asking the question remained polite and just kept trying to get her question heard.

(BTW - Did anyone else notice that Ms. Jackson-Lee was speaking into the top of her phone, the earpiece, not the bottom, the mouthpiece, where you're supposed to speak? She can't figure out how to use her phone properly, but we're supposed to believe that she can fix our healthcare system?!)

The democrats are demanding civility, and yet refuse to show any common courtesy.

This is another example of why people are so angry:

http://www.breitbart.tv/town-hall-goers-to-senator-mccaskill-we-dont-trust-you/

I don't know what's more offensive - her condescension and disdain or her threat to use her 'Mom voice'. Hey Claire, they may respond better if you actually listen to and answer their questions instead of just spewing the same tired old talking points. Stop hiding behind your podium, talking down to the peons. It's obvious you don't want to have to deal with them - do you think they don't pick up on that?

Stop talking AT your constituents and start talking TO them. Like Arlen Specter, you might just be surprised at how well informed they are.

BTW I was struck by how well his TH went, once he started to truly engage his audience. Yes, they were passionate, but they were also, for the most part, respectful, once he really started to listen to them. His tactic of walking to each speaker and making eye contact gives the impression of respect and interest in what they have to say. The crowd responded positively

They just want to be heard.

UPDATE: This might be another reason why people are angry:

http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/08/busted-obama-as-hitler-poster-was.html

Queen Pelosi put out the Nazi accusation, now the army of 'bot's are making sure she is proved right. Aren't they subtle? Good thing we are too stoopid to figure it out!