The simple reasons for the decline of Conservatism and how to change it...

I self published this book in early 2010 to voice my concerns of what I was seeing take place. I wanted to share what I believe is one of the very rational and underlying reasons contributing to the decline of our country, our culture, and the American way. Check out my book and learn how we can start bringing this country back to the conservatism that started it.

TUSC
 


Time to use the f-word about Obamacare (FRAUD)...

This should be the mantra of every republican soundbite: "Fraud & Bait and Switch" when referring to Obamacare. This is the tactic the dems would use because IT WILL WORK. It must be used ruthlessly, without apology, without too much explanation, and WITHOUT MERCY...

Obamacare was brought about by FRAUD.
Obamacare is here because it was a BAIT AND SWITCH con on the people.

TUSC

__________________________________________

Time to use the f-word about Obamacare

Thomas Lifson
The word is "fraud." It is now clear that the American people and their representatives in Congress were lied to, in order to obtain passage of Obamacare. When someone is induced to undertake an action based on false representations, that constitutes fraud. Investor's Business Daily  lays out the calculation that motivated the fraud.
Back in 1994, when Bill Clinton was pushing his own version of "comprehensive health reform," the insurance industry launched its infamous "Harry and Louise" ads to deliver a simple message: The Clinton plan would force families to give up their own health plans.
In one of these, the middle-class couple pours (sic) over a pile of documents at the kitchen table, while a narrator intones about how "things are changing, and not all for the better," and how "the government may force us to pick from a few plans designed by government bureaucrats."
"Louise" then complains that "having choices we don't like is no choice at all," and the ad concludes with the couple saying, "They choose, and we lose."
The campaign was devastating. Even though Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress, Clinton's bill never made it out of congressional committees.
So when President Obama decided to take another stab at health care, he was determined to avoid that pitfall. He endlessly promised in the most emphatic way possible that under his plan, Harry and Louise would have nothing to worry about.
"Let me be exactly clear about what health care reform means to you," the president said at a July 2009 rally in New Jersey. "First of all, if you've got health insurance, you like your doctors, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you."
NBC News has already uncovered evidence that members of the president's staff knew that millions of people would not be able to keep their insurance. It may be possible to claim that the president was so preoccupied with his golf game, bracketology, parties, and TV that he was unaware. "President Bystander" as the GOP now correctly labels him. But incompetence does not negate the fraudulent nature of the passage of Obamacare.  
On this ground alone, aside from all the others, the law ought to be repealed.

Living under a government of the lie.

There are Lies, Damned Lies and Democrats

Selwyn Duke


Steny Hoyer certainly is a creative man. Asked about Barack Obama's promise that everyone would be able to keep his health coverage if he liked it and the recent revelation that the Democrats knew all along that millions of Americans would lose their health plans under ObamaCare, he had an answer.

"I think the message [the promise] was accurate. It was not precise enough...[it] should have been caveated with - 'assuming you have a policy that in fact does do what the bill is designed to do,'" reports National Review.

My, that's rich.

Almost Frank Rich.

Since Hoyer's lie about a lie speaks for itself, let's just have a little fun here. Try this on for size:

Subject: "But you said that if we supported your law, no one would lose his freedom of speech!"

Leader: "My message was accurate. It just wasn't precise enough. It should have been caveated with, 'assuming you agree with me.'"

Or how about this:

Subject: "But you said that if we gave you power, no one would be killed!"

Leader: "My message was accurate. It just wasn't precise enough. It should have been caveated with, 'assuming I like you.'"

Man, I'm good at this. Hey, DNC, do I have a future?

If you're old enough to have lived through the days of "no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe" (hat tip: the liberal Gerald Ford), you may remember the spectacle of a Soviet government representative being interviewed on American television. He would just tell the most ridiculous lies. I mean, up was down, black was white, day was night. It really was laughable for any quasi-informed American viewer.

For Soviet subjects, however, it was no joke.

They were living under a government of the lie.

You see, one thing about this big, crazy world we live in where there's one in every bunch is that -- no matter how corrupt or wicked you are -- you can always find someone to do your bidding. There are always a few people willing to stuff the ballot boxes, intimidate political opponents, pull the gas-chamber lever or the trigger, or tell any lie you want told with a face straighter than the last man in a world of women (Jay Blarney comes to mind -- the straight face part, not the man part). "I vas just following orders, you zee."

Of course, we see people telling little lies all the time, lies that don't exceed the boundaries of their moral framework (it's not right, just reality). But do understand that with some people, there's only one limiting factor determining what lies they'll tell:

What they can get away with.

So it shouldn't surprise anyone that Hussein Obama (PBUH) said, when ObamaCare was up before the U.S. Extreme Court, that he was confident the "Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." Of course, as many know, it was only unprecedented when men still wore powdered wigs -- the Court has been overturning laws enacted by "democratically elected" Congresses for 200 years. It's called "judicial review."

Now, being a former constitutional law lecturer, Obama (PBUH) knew this full well. But he also knew the media wouldn't call him on his ridiculous Sovietesque lie and that the average reality-TV-watching American hasn't the foggiest idea what the Court's role is, anyway. Heck, recent man-on-the-street interviews show that some Americans don't know what the Holocaust was and that others were willing to sign a petition advocating an "Orwellian," "Nazi-style police state."

This, by the way, is why Obama (PBUH) et al. want to import and legalize as many low-info undocumented Democrats as possible. Many people in this world are accustomed to overlords with whom they have a patron-client relationship, and they accept government lies as long as the slave pork barrel is kept stocked. It reminds me of a Mexican fellow I saw a few years ago wearing a shirt stating, "Everybody lies. Nobody cares." Well, I care, even though I realize many Americans don't care that I care.

The increased acceptance of lies is a sign of a nation in decline. But the good news -- or the bad news (depending on whether or not one is a liar) -- is that you can well live a lie, but you can't live well with the consequences of living a lie.

The Psychology Behind Leftist Lies...

Liberals comprise only about 20 percent of the voting public. So, how has the left been so successful in swaying the majority of voters to believe what they feed them, when most often what the left says is not supported by the facts and what they do actually does harm to their voting constituents?
In mine and Tim Daughtry‘s recent book, Waking the Sleeping Giant: How Mainstream Americans Can Beat Liberals at Their Own GameThe Psychology Behind Leftist Lies, we discuss the issue of the misinformed and the uninformed voter typically voting for Democrats. Rush Limbaugh often refers to this voting segment as the “low information” voter. It is from this set of voters that the left is able to draw the additional 30 – 35 percent of the votes that they need to win elections, taking our country down the path of socialism.
How do they do this?
They lie.
The uninformed voter will not take the time to learn the facts.
Share:
For example, Democrats have convinced the nation that people are poor because they have been treated unfairly and are victims of greedy capitalists. To address this purported social injustice, President Obama’s approach is to “re-distribute” the nation’s wealth. President Johnson pushed through “The War on Poverty” as part of his “Great Society” platform to rectify, supposedly, the “social injustice” committed by those “evil capitalists.”
The fact is that poverty levels in the United States since The War on Poverty was implemented are unchanged in 50 years – despite the re-distribution of literally trillions of dollars. Since President Obama’s first inauguration, poor people are notably poorer now than when he took office in 2009, only five years ago!
Household median income, since President Obama took office, is down $3,000. Since 2009 the poverty rate has risen from 14.3 percent to nearly 17 percent in 2013.  Additionally, 20 percent of the nation’s children live in poverty.
And the blunt force to the face of Obamacare hasn’t even hit yet. As has been said for years:  “If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it is free!”
Example after example of this could be given, but the point is made. Democrats continue to win over public opinion despite the facts. People largely blame the Republicans for things like government shutdowns, as has been the case throughout recent history, despite the facts to the contrary.
The left must have a cadre of psychologists advising them. Let’s look at the deeper dynamics of how liberals are so effective at influencing the misinformed and the uninformed.  To do this, we must look to psychology – the underpinning of absolutely everything that happens in humankind.
The dirty little secret is that the left recognizes, at least de facto, if not deliberately, that the human mind is both logical (the left hemisphere of the neo cortex) and emotional (the limbic system). We are all pretty familiar with the linear logic of the left hemisphere of the human brain, but most of us are unfamiliar with the most powerful part of the brain – the limbic system.

It is the limbic system that has been the foundation of our survival as a species since time began. It is the center of the survival emotions, most powerfully of which are fear and anger: the flight and fight emotions.
These powerful survival emotions get triggered whenever the brain senses a threat to its survival, setting up a series of responses and reactions in the brain and in the body to prepare to run away from the threat, or fight it if escape is impossible.
The left uses this knowledge about how our brains work to garner massive support for their big government policy by painting a picture of Republicans as a threat.
The lies from the left about Republicans are designed to be threatening (e.g.., the Republicans won’t negotiate with us Democrats on the debt ceiling, threatening the country with default and catastrophic economic collapse). This in turn triggers the limbic system.
The misinformed believe it because it is consistent with the lies they have always been told and already believe. The continuous stream of lies from the left make them feel even more threatened and even angrier.
After all, in their mind, if the president is saying this, it must be true?  Right?
Currently, the left is blaming Republicans for the government shutdown, painting Republicans as uncaring, greedy, hateful and corrupt. According to Democrats, Republicans don’t care about children, veterans, seniors, African Americans and the poor.
They spew forth lie after lie about how Republicans want to push granny off the cliff, cut social security, school lunches, veteran’s benefits, welfare, etc., indeed wanting to keep the disenfranchised, well, disenfranchised.
One cannot listen to the news for more than a minute to see this reflected in the thinking of Republican politicians.
On Oct. 7, 2013 on the Kelly File on Fox News, Senator Ted Cruz said that the Veteran’s Administration was closed in the recent government shut down even though the House Republicans had put forth a bill to the senate to fund the agency. But, he goes on to say, Senator Harry Reid won’t bring the bill to the floor.
Senator Cruz’s analysis:  “This just doesn’t make any sense!”
Logically, he is right, it makes no sense.
But from a psychological, limbic perspective, it makes perfect sense.
By stopping the funding to the VA, Senator Reid and his fellow liberals can blame the Republicans for stopping the funding, and anger the voting public against Senator Cruz and the Republicans.
The uninformed voter will not take the time to learn the facts. They will listen to a sound byte from Senator Reid, which will be blasted all over the mainstream media, and that will define their understanding of the situation.
Score one for the limbic system.
Historically, polls will show that the voting public blame the Republicans for these things when that’s not entirely true.  But because the left has created a massive population of misinformed and uninformed voters (who are often angry, aggressive and attacking) these delusions prevail.
If Republicans don’t wise up to the tactics and manipulations of the left, and continue to appeal exclusively to reason, as Senator Cruz did, it soon will be too late. If we aren’t at the tipping point, can it be anything more than just around the corner?

 

Can We Finally Stop Pretending?


By Jeffrey T. Brown


Every day, it seems, more people who have been screaming their hatred for those who predicted all we see coming true are admitting what we have known all along. The president is incapable of telling a truth, and what conservatives have been predicting for three years about ObamaCare has been entirely correct. Indeed, we haven't seen anything close to the worst of what is to come, since the system hasn't even begun to function in its utmost state of disarray and confusion. We've seen a website and estimates of premium and deductible figures which have been panic-inducing all on their own. There is not one single fact about this monstrosity that has been truly presented by the president, and his law, its destruction of lives and fortunes, and the pattern of fraud that have accompanied it rest solely and squarely on the Democratic Party. They did this to the United States of America and they did it on purpose.
The left has fought the factual arguments of their opponents with screaming accusations, smears, slanders, and character assassination, with the hysterical label of "racist" trumping all others. It has become reflexive, and thus almost meaningless in its lack of substance, but not entirely so. It bespeaks a psychosis that infects every response of the left to facts, experience, knowledge, and hard-earned wisdom. The finger pointing has been calculated and malicious. And it has been sadly effective with the indoctrinated. Many on the left actually believe that reasoned, factual opposition to policies founded on lies is motivated by racism, rather than what such policies have done and are doing to those who have the courage to speak out against them.
In truth, conservatives care little about race, other than in its use as a weapon by the left. Conservatives embraced Dr. King's message from the outset, at the same time that liberals were setting up a grievance system designed to pollute and exploit it. Conservatives care about policies, not skin color. Opposition to ObamaCare was never about bigotry or hatred. It was about logic, and foresight, and reaching self-evident conclusions. It was about the truth. So mentally conditioned to acceptance of the smear has the left become, however, that they are entirely unprepared to coherently explain what is now unfolding before their eyes.
For those on the left who seem befuddled by the train wreck that is ObamaCare, perhaps some introspection is in order. The political lynching of conservatives for the last five years has been an unmitigated lie. Everything conservatives predicted is coming to pass. Every truth they told is playing out publicly. The serial prevaricator who is our president has finally been exposed in ways that even his staunchest spinners cannot spin. The crashed $643 million dollar website, the skyrocketing premiums, the job losses, the dropping of plans by insurers, all of it is out there now regardless of the president's skin color, which was never the issue except to the extent that it has protected him from responsibility for what he has purposefully done, even to his supporters.
So, can we finally stop pretending that the left has a positive plan for the United States? Can we stop pretending that the president meant to do anything other than destroy a system he has hated since his socialist-influenced youth? Can we dispense with the unhinged rants about dog whistles and face up to the fact that conservatives have been right about this all along? Can we finally openly discuss that the left's own hatred and bigotry are largely to blame for where we are now, not just regarding ObamaCare? They have protected, helped and worshiped an illusion, with pure malice toward those who have loved and fought for this country, and are entirely complicit in the damage now being done to every fiber of our nation. They have intentionally derailed reasoned opposition to purposefully detrimental policies, and have exploited hatred and bigotry to do it. Their own hatred, now so clearly shown to be unfounded, doesn't just inform the left with regard to health care, or opposition thereto. It informs everything the left does, every position they take, every feeling they have. It is their malignant security blanket.
For decades, every time we have faced serious issues as a country, the outcome has had more to do with liberals' hatred of their opponents and traditional American values than with solving problems constructively. Before so immediate and punitive a mess as has been the implementation of ObamaCare, we have been without a single, irrefutable teaching device with which to demonstrate the utter malice that is all of progressivism and liberalism, or what it portends for the future of every citizen of our country. We can argue reasoned predictions and logic until the cows come home, but nothing is as personal as a direct assault on those who have loyally bought and perpetuated the lies through their well-conditioned hatred and bigotry of those who, shockingly, were actually correct.
We now have a teachable moment. A window has opened for many who have been lifelong Democrats to see what they have been suckered into doing to themselves and their fellow citizens, and for whom. Perhaps they possess enough remnants of objectivity, and a long enough memory, to recognize in hindsight the purposeful falsity of the vicious and very personal attacks they saw, and possibly cheered, from their own party representatives during the recent government shutdown, and for years before that. Maybe there is enough intellectual honesty left in some of them to finally understand the extent to which they are misled, misinformed, manipulated, and misrepresented by those who pretend to stand for anything constructive or beneficial to their country or its future. The very same people angrily uttering those lies proudly voted to impose ObamaCare upon them, along with financial hardship and the loss of health insurance. Pathological liars are not especially selective. They lie about everything to everyone.
Can we finally stop pretending that they are not also lying to us about everything else? Can we stop pretending they are not lying to us about guns, and abortion, and voter fraud, and voter ID laws, and taxes, and the economy, and the environment, and education, and energy, and job creation, and national security, and international relations, and Islam, and their assault on Christianity, and amnesty, and entitlements, and stimulus, and recovery, and Fast and Furious, and Benghazi, and the IRS scandal, and a war on women, and our borders, and domestic surveillance, and weakening us militarily, and their supposed loyalty as Americans, and their phony patriotism, and American Exceptionalism, and our history, and our national character, and the historical good our country has done, and what they really have planned for us, and what we will achieve when we are out from under the heel of burgeoning socialism and despotism?
And yes, can we finally stop pretending that we are a racist country? Can we stop pretending that perceived racial problems don't derive from Americans who profit from oppressing and discouraging other Americans, and that the profiteers don't share the same party affiliation, and often the same skin color, as the "oppressed"? Can we stop pretending that the American left is not irrationally bound and determined to remake our country into a cesspool of misery and failure allegedly out of some demented sense of fairness, to be ruled over by those who seek only to control, rather than improve the lot of the people they are supposed to raise up?
When that light finally comes on, let us not miss the opportunity to drive home what conservatives have always known. We cannot emerge from this darkness and achieve our full potential as a nation until we stop pretending that everything we are told by the left is not a lie.

Obama and the Willful Blindness of the Conservative Beltway Intelligentsia


By Victor Volsky
Fox News is justifiably proud of its star commentator Charles Krauthammer, widely considered to be the most influential conservative journalist in the country. In an hour-long interview with Fox News 6 P.M anchor Brett Baier that fist ran last Friday, the usually reticent Krauthammer told the fascinating story of his life, relating how he coped with the crippling accident that left him forever wheelchair-bound and how he almost inadvertently traded the psychiatrist's couch for the journalist's keyboard. Listening to this remarkable man, one couldn't help admiring his spunk, his strength of character and, above all, his towering intellect. And then out of the blue came a sharply discordant note alertly picked up by Rush Limbaugh.
Krauthammer mentioned the well-known story of how in January 2009, a week before the inauguration, President-elect Barack Obama met a group of five or six leading conservative pundits at George Will's residence. Prior to the meeting, Krauthammer and Will shared their puzzlement at how little was known about Obama's philosophy and ideological leanings. "Was he a centrist Democrat who would occasionally throw a bone to the left, or a man of the left who would occasionally throw a bone to the center?" wondered Dr. Krauthammer.  George Will concurred, likening the new President of the United Sates to a Rorschach inkblot test into which people read their own preferences.
In the course of the soiree that lasted three hours, Obama's interlocutors found him charming and engaging, but when it was over, they were nowhere near cracking the enigma:  the President's inner persona remained as elusive as ever. And it was not until five weeks later that Dr. Krauthammer, listening to the President's maiden State of the Union address, realized with a shock that the new occupant of the White House was a dyed-in-the-wool socialist.  But why did it take him so long? Was Obama really that inscrutable? Had Krauthammer, Will and other conservative pundits taken in by Obama's charm followed him on the campaign trail?
If they had, how could they have missed the numerous signs that Barack Obama was a far-left ideologue? They say that the past is prologue, and Obama's past offers more than enough clues as to his true identity. Was it possible to miss the significance of Obama's 20-year close association with the Rev. Jeremiah "God damn America" Wright, whom Obama called his friend and mentor, who married the Obamas and baptized their children. Could anyone believe that Obama, who for two decades had regularly attended the services at the Trinity United Church of Christ and listened to the Reverend Wright's fiery sermons pulsating with insane hatred and fury, never heard a disparaging word about America, as candidate Obama averred on the campaign trail?
Was it possible not to recognize the implicit threat in Obama's Philadelphia speech ostensibly designed to "explain" his relationship with that fervent proponent of the black liberation theology, but actually aimed at intimidating his opponents by warning that any further mention of the Reverend's name would be denounced as a racist provocation?  For that matter, could anyone miss the delightful spectacle of a racist card played by Obama on the past masters of racial demagoguery, the Clintons, that left them sputtering in helpless fury? Did anybody believe Obama's pathetic lies about his long association with unrepentant Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers?
And if circumstantial evidence was not enough, why not rely on what was coming straight from the horse's mouth. Obama was so confident of his invincibility that from time to time he let the mask of a moderate slip to reveal his true identity. Remember how he promised to a group of Democratic donors in San Francisco he would kill the coal industry even at the price of skyrocketing electric power rates for the consumers? Remember how he lectured Joe the Plumber on the need "to spread the wealth around?" Remember how he informed the stunned Charlie Gibson of ABC World News that he planned to raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 28% because "social justice" trumped the adverse effect such a measure would inevitably have on the economy. Was there anything ambiguous in Obama's pledge to radically transform America?
In short, Obama was all but shouting from the rooftops that he was an Alinskyite socialist harboring revolutionary designs. Millions of Americans heard him loud and clear -- but not the intellectual class, including some of the most prominent conservatives, notably George Will and Charles Krauthammer.    "Having eyes, see ye not? And having ears, hear ye not?" (Mark 8:18).  But whoever shuts his eyes, won't see. Whoever plugs his ears, won't hear. And that's exactly what some of the leading lights of the American intelligentsia did: they chose not to know the truth. Why?
Clearly, they were swept up by the wave of enthusiasm that carried Barack Obama to his electoral triumph. They thought they were witnessing an event of immense historic magnitude: the election of the first black president. Finally the era of racial antagonism will be over, the nation will see its curse receding in the rear-view window, and the great uniter Obama will usher in a new era of harmony. Certainly one couldn't help exulting at the dizzying vista, now could one? Couple that with the sure prospect of being branded a racist and cast out of polite society at the slightest critical remark about Obama. It was also a class thing; to be lumped together with the unwashed masses, who would not give the historic president the benefit of the doubt? Horrors, no!
Equally, if not more, important was the fact that Obama was an author, with a genuinely good book, "Dreams from my Father," to his credit. Conservative intellectuals were rapturous. The best book ever written by a President of the United States, better even that Ulysses S. Grant's Memoirs! Finally one of us, a true intellectual, ensconced in the White House! Who could not be elated? They had no inkling that by all indications, the President's signal literary achievement had actually been ghost-written by none other than Bill Ayers, as brilliantly exposed by Jack Cashill in his book "Deconstructing Obama." Also, the conservative journalists who hobnobbed with Obama understandably felt flattered that the President -elect sought their company, acknowledging their lofty status among Washington heavy-hitters.
The Ohio plumber easily saw through Obama, but the truth about him eluded many conservative intellectuals who bought into the Obama myth. Apparently they convinced themselves that the evidence of Obama's radicalism, too massive to be ignored, was just so much campaign hokum, Obama just being a "politician," and that once he was safely elected, his inner Ronald Reagan would assert himself and lead the country to the sunny uplands.  They wanted to believe no matter what and if the facts don't fit the theory, so much the worse for the facts, as Hegel taught them. Their powerful intellectual equipment helped them willingly suspend disbelief. While common people saw things the way they were, the sophisticates processed reality through the filter of wishful thinking, buttressing their delusion. A clear-cut case of willful blindness if ever I saw one.

Why the Limbaugh/Krauthammer/Will Tiff is Healthy


By C. Edmund Wright
Rush Limbaugh won't say it in so many words, but he (very correctly) called into question the discernment capabilities of Charles Krauthammer and George Will this week on his show. Rush insists he was "merely flabbergasted" at their slow to evolve perception of Barack Obama -- and was only using them as examples to make a bigger point. That notion doesn't really line up with his very words however.
Very clearly, Rush is somewhat irked that Dr. K and George Will were so badly bamboozled by Obama -- while so many of us racist 'rubes' never were. To be fair, the word "dupe" was not spoken, but I think a case can be made that it was indeed implied. Somewhere, I suspect Sarah Palin -- who was never confounded by Obama and yet was widely insulted by both of these luminaries - must be having a well-deserved laugh, too. 
In case you missed it, this kerfuffle started Monday on Rush's show when he responded with incredulity to some quotes from Krauthammer on a Fox News Special prompted by his just released book, admitting he did not peg Obama until weeks after he took office. Dr. K said, "...you know, I haven't been able to figure this guy out.  Is he a centrist who will occasionally throw a bone to the left or is he a lefty who will occasionally throw a bone to the right?"  Nobody had any idea."
Well, yes, Dr. Krauthammer, some of us did have an idea of who he was. For example, Sarah Palin had an idea. The conservative base had an idea. That's why the Tea Party exploded onto the scene so quickly -- because millions of us had the idea down pat many months before Rick Santelli -- who also had an idea -- named the movement. And yes, Rush and Mark Levin and Sean Hannity all had him figured out too.
Obviously exasperated, Rush said Monday "I intellectually don't know how you can not figure out Barack Obama -- a liberal is a liberal. I know Obama, for the low-information crowd, could be whatever you wanted him to be, a blank canvas. But for crying out loud, we're not talking about low-information people here."
He then felt the need to revisit the issue Tuesday as Politico gleefully ran a piece called Limbaugh Versus Krauthammer. Limbaugh insisting over and over again his show Tuesday that this was "not a feud." - and Krauthammer himself responded to Steve Malzberg on Newsmax TV, sniping that certain "talk radio hosts...ought to listen to what I said." This response seemed to burn Limbaugh, who remained magnanimous nonetheless, insisting over and over that this was "not a feud."
Rush continued with his obvious consternation saying "I'm thinking particularly highly educated, profoundly aware people, know a socialist when they see one, know a liberal when they see one, and know that they don't tell the truth, know that they obfuscate, lie, and so forth.  So I was shocked, and George Will was quoted as saying much the same thing."
Let me translate: How could you miss this Charles, George?
And Limbaugh continued: "Now, of course I knew who he was without knowing him. He's a liberal.  That's all I need, and that's not a simplification.  Liberals are who they are.  Socialists are who they are.  They have techniques.  They have behavioral patterns.  You can type them.  They can't be honest about what they intend or they would never get elected."
Let me translate again: Duh.
So while Politico and other liberal outlets may be enjoying this little sideshow, I submit it is very helpful. This is part of the much bigger establishment versus the base movement that is taking place everywhere from CPAC to South Carolina to Kentucky to local GOP offices, not to mention all over conservative media outlets. The reason it is profitable is that this high profile struggle is making it crystal clear who has been right all along -- and who has not.
Krauthammer and Will, whom I took to task over their support of the Roberts ruling on Obamacare, have spent the last five years sitting in haughty judgment of Palin, the Tea Party, Ted Cruz and the like. They have been mighty conservative intellects for decades, but they have become increasingly Washingtonian and establishment over the past few years, a trend not missed by any conservative message board universe. They seem unfamiliar with a country they are handsomely paid to talk about.
This seems to happen to almost everybody who is isolated inside the beltway bubble for any length of time. Perhaps Dr. Krauthammer and Mr. Will should travel more in flyover country, instead of flying over it. They might learn something.  I was struck this week as Will proudly insisted that "of course I want Obamacare to fail."
George, welcome to the team. We've been waiting for you, and for Dr. Krauthammer, to join us. We need you, but we're way ahead of you.

Mandatory Debate Attendance and Term Limits...

I believe these two things would have great influence on getting our lawmakers back in line with the American people. First regarding debate attendance; debate for our lawmakers is nothing more than getting their opinion "on the record" so to speak. Debate rules need to be changed. How many times have you seen on CSPAN a speaker in either the house or senate where he is speaking to virtually an empty chamber? Don't we pay these people to sit in those seats? Do they have something better to do?  I believe if there is any action or debate on the floor, all members must be present. If they are not, what is the purpose of debate? Debate is to force everyone to hear the other's side of an issue. For our reps to make the case for the policies they are pushing. When no one attends during debate sessions except those presiding over it and the current person speaking, what is accomplished? By not attending, both sides never hear the others first hand and are never forced to look them in the eye during debate. They only go off soundbites created for press conferences. I would venture to state that forcing attendance to all debate sessions by ALL members of the chamber, much more insight as well as truly spirited debate would emerge. This never happens now except on the news, off the record, where total obfuscation can be used to hide true aspirations of policies forced on the American people. A nice pre debate speech is prepared, delivered, and entered into the record. Period. We don't get to see any back and forth which is really what is needed in order for Americans to truly understand issues. Questions should be allowed back and forth between members of other parties. This does not happen now. I believe because lawmakers do not want to look like they do not know that answers. They are right to be worried. Many of them would not be able to handle the pressure. They would not know answers or could not give meaningful rebuttals to points made. This would show who deserved to be there and who does not. If your rep or senator cannot persuade then they are inept at what they were elected to do by their constituents. I never hear anyone talk of this except I heard Ted Cruz mention it once recently. I have thought this for years. We need open, spirited, but not so overly structured debate in front of the American people and we need it now.

Regarding term limits. I have pondered this and was once against term limits with my thinking being that what if we get a really good rep, then we would not be able to keep them. I have realized that this is so rare and a non issue that it should not even be considered as a reason against term limits. I also had thoughts that term limits would also allow us, the people to become more lax in oversight of our reps knowing that even a bad rep would not last long because of term limits. Now I realized this would actually be a good thing. Human nature will always creep in if term limits are not instituted for our lawmakers. If they remain past 1 or two terms, their focus will always be on re-election instead of doing the right thing for the country as a whole. It is inevitable. The lack of term limits is establishing a ruling class that believes they deserve to stay in charge of us because of course they know better. They have experience because they have been in gov't for a long time. I would say this is exactly the  problem. They know too much. They know how to cause real damage and do.

Awaiting your reply and comment,

TUSC

ObamaCare Schaden-Fraud


By C. Edmund Wright
In his weekly radio address, President Obama preposterously pouted that "it's well past the time for folks to stop rooting for [ObamaCare's] failure," with the obvious implication that conservative Republicans are in fact cheering for the pain of the un-insured.

No, Mr. President, we are not.  We are, however, having a delicious moment of schaden-fraud.  This is the magnificent validation we are experiencing as all elected Democrats and members of the Jurassic media are fast discovering that the man and the plan they have so arrogantly shoved down our throats - and so naively placed their hopes in -- are simultaneously being exposed as shams. 

And sham-wow, is it ever cathartic, as we have been called racists, terrorists, hostage-takers, kooks, haters, and stupid for years -- all because we deigned to be correct about the biggest legislative boondoggle in American history.  Of course, only a few of the Kool-Aid drinkers are admitting this...yet...but we can sense that many of them are panicking on the realization that they might one day have to.

We told you so!  I think the technical term is ROTFLMAO.

Yes, there are some thirty million of us -- give or take -- who have known from 2007 (or earlier) that Barack Obama is a fraud, and known since 2009 that this particular health care plan had absolutely zero chance of working and would destroy our very free-market economy if ever implemented.  Many of us fought HillaryCare some two decades ago for the same reason.  So when Rush Limbaugh said of Obama, "I hope he fails" in January of 2009, the sentiment was understood instantly by many.  For America not to fail, Obama and Obama Care must fail.

Now whether or not Obama understand this is irrelevant, because he is playing to a base of low-information voters and reporters who really do equate Obama and government failing with America failing.  Thus, he has the audacity to say, as his world is becoming a punch line even for the liberals on TV -- and his very law is causing millions to lose coverage -- that it is we who are "so obsessed with denying ... people access to health insurance that [we] just shut down the government and threatened default over it."

Let me translate: conservatives hate me and my law so much -- probably because I am black -- that their hatred is causing the law to fail.  Blame them, not me!

Uh, no...that dog won't hunt, as they say.

We are not causing ObamaCare to fail, because we cannot cause it to fail.  We did not write it.  We did not buy the theory behind it in the first place.  In fact, not one of us voted for it -- not even any of our squishier cohorts.  Nor did we rig a Minnesota Senate election to make it happen.  We never said you can keep your doctor and your health plan if you like them, and we never said this would cause premiums to go down 2,500 dollars per family.

We did not threaten and bribe the few remaining free-market companies involved in health care to foolishly support it.  We did not elect Bart "Stupak is as Stupak does" and other dupes to fall in line at the last minute.  We did not play any role in the Cornhusker Kickback, and we did not prance around with a grotesque gavel when it was passed.  None of us ever said anything as brain-dead as "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it."

Because we know you, and what you stand for, we already knew more or less what was in it.

We did not grossly overpay cronies of yours to put the website together, and we did not forget the simple step of obtaining similar domain names to prevent cyber-squatting and identity theft.  You tech geniuses, you!  We did not hire ACORN and other known criminals as navigators to help get around the failing website, and we did not bring on sixteen thousand new IRS agents with the notion that they would help Americans stay healthier.  And we did not fire a polite operator who simply took a phone call from Sean Hannity.

Nope, this was all you.  And by "you," I mean the president and his economically ignorant cabinet and advisor team, the mainstream media, and the low-information bloggers and message board trolls who are going more silent by the second.

No, you guys did all this.  You perverted first the very meaning of insurance with the pre-existing condition rules, and then really thought you could balance that out by perverting the system on the other end by overcharging the young and healthy.  You are obsessed with five million lines of code glitches in the website software, while you are ignoring the billions of lines of code inside the strands of DNA that define human nature -- an essence you have misapprehended every way possible with this foundationally malignant idea.

You can never solve that human nature problem, by the way.

All we did was accuse you of doing every single thing that you were doing -- while you were doing it.  All we did was warn our fellow Americans every which way from Sunday that this legislative contraption was a guaranteed fiasco with catastrophic consequences.  All we did was support Sarah Palin when she warned about death panels and support Ted Cruz when he was putting everything on the line in a last-ditch effort to stop the train before it runs over us.

All we did was be right about every single thing -- every damned thing -- from the beginning.  And you were just as wrong on everything.  Now, people are figuring it out.  Even many of you.  And yes, it's ironically pleasing.  No, we're not rooting for failure, but we are experiencing a nice warm sensation: let's just call it schaden-fraud.

Obamacare and the Death of Liberalism

I think this article is very true however when you are living through a time like this in history it is hard for us to realize what is going on. Large scale political changes take years, decades, and unfortunately sometimes a century to come to fruition. I hope those at the mid point in our lives get a chance to see the positive effects of a death of liberalism.

TUSC

________________________________________________________________________

Bob Tyrrell was right.
The founder of The American Spectator penned — in 2011, two years ago — The Death of Liberalism.
In which Tyrrell investigated “the decline and impending death of the American Liberal movement in the United States today.” And said of President Obama that he was a “Stealth Fascist” who was “the pallbearer for American Liberalism.”
Notably, the last chapter of the book was titled: President Barack Obama, Liberalism’s Pallbearer. With considerable prescience, Mr. Tyrrell begins the chapter thusly:
Chairman Mao made the following statement on April 30, 1971, to Edgar Snow in an interview that he hoped would reach the ears of American policymakers. In it he said:
“China should learn from the way America developed, by decentralizing and spreading responsibility and wealth among the 50 states. A central government could not do everything. China must depend upon regional and local initiative. It would not do (spreading his hands) to leave everything up to him (Mao).”
Forty years later, China was on the brink of becoming the world’s largest economy, and President Barack Obama had not a clue about learning “from the way America developed” or about depending on its “regional and local initiatives.” He was lost in the sublime quiddities of his incomparable colleagues from the Ruling Class. That would be the yokels back at academe, drunk on their higher knowledge of “how-to” studies: how to teach (education departments), how to think and analyze (psychology and sociology departments), how to administer and govern (variations of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard State University) — all the trendy “studies” offered by the modern-day multiversity or whatever they call it. Obama does not have very many classically educated university graduates to call on. In fact, he does not have many educated people to call on.
Think of that.
The Great Leader of the Chinese Communist Party saying 42 years ago that “a central government could not do everything.” And that was 20 years before the Soviet Union, its centralized administrative planning and command economy imploding, finally did one last stagger and crashed onto the ash heap of history — as Ronald Reagan predicted was inevitable.
Just as Tyrrell predicted, Obama and company, believing the opposite and in denial over the reality of the Soviet lesson, made Obamacare the very face of “Friendly Fascism” and “Stealth Fascism.” Today the entire Great Leap Forward in American health care as envisioned by the liberal “yokels back at academe, drunk on their higher knowledge of ‘how-to’ studies” is a disaster collapsing in on itself faster than a Florida sinkhole.
All at once, the reality of the collective consequences of liberalism is glaringly in the spotlight — making Tyrrell’s point with an uncanny precision.
The worship of Big Government? The laughably arrogant “we-know-what’s-best-for-you” sense of moral and intellectual superiority? These “smart” people can’t even run a website. The eternal liberal dependence on class warfare and racism? Yes indeed, the party of slavery, segregation, lynching, the Ku Klux Klan, racial quotas and illegal immigration never blinked at the shameful firing of an Obamacare operator — a black single mom — for the “crime” of answering Sean Hannity’s questions honestly. And doing so while keeping on a rich white woman named Kathleen Sebelius whose management of Obamacare has been as incompetent as it is dishonest. Sebelius, the privileged white liberal daughter of a white liberal governor and a white liberal governor herself, acceded to the firing of Erling Davis, the black single mother whose only sin was answering Hannity’s questions and with no spin. Hannity, appalled, quickly re-contacted Davis and is picking up the tab for her year’s salary as well as finding her a job. “Are you surprised Kathleen Sebelius still has her job and you got fired for doing yours?” Hannity asked of Davis when he had her on his Fox TV show. To which Davis replied: “Yes sir.”
Well aside from the volumes this incident says about Hannity’s character, the incident speaks volumes about the core nature of liberalism itself and its dependence on both the sheerest, most blatant thuggery combined with a thick veneer of out-and-out racism. Which in turn goes directly to Tyrrell’s point that in reality Obama himself is turning out to be the pallbearer for a philosophy that is in fact unsustainable.
From one end of America to the other, some 16 million Americans are estimated to be losing their health insurance policies because of Obamacare. The Weekly Standard’s John McCormack leads us to health care expert Bob Laszewski, who writes:
The U.S. individual health insurance market currently totals about 19 million people. Because the Obama administration’s regulations on grandfathering existing plans were so stringent as many as 16 million are not grandfathered and must comply with Obamacare at their next renewal. The rules are very complex. For example, if you had an individual plan in March of 2010 when the law was passed and you only increased the deductible from $1,000 to $1,500 in the years since, your plan has lost its grandfather status and it will no longer be available to you when it would have renewed in 2014.
Over at Kaiser Health News the reporting says:
Health plans are sending hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters to people who buy their own coverage, frustrating some consumers who want to keep what they have and forcing others to buy more costly policies.
… An estimated 14 million people purchase their own coverage because they don’t get it through their jobs. Calls to insurers in several states showed that many have sent notices.
Florida Blue, for example, is terminating about 300,000 policies, about 80 percent of its individual policies in the state. Kaiser Permanente in California has sent notices to 160,000 people — about half of its individual business in the state. Insurer Highmark in Pittsburgh is dropping about 20 percent of its individual market customers, while Independence Blue Cross, the major insurer in Philadelphia, is dropping about 45 percent.
In Laszewski’s words? “This is a fine mess.”
Indeed.
Which brings us back to Bob Tyrrell and his sharp-eyed analysis on The Death of Liberalism. Tyrrell cites a figure offered up by Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute in Brooks’ own book The Battle, Tyrrell saying:
Conservatism has steadily spread throughout the Republic since its larval days in the 1950’s, and Liberalism has declined to its present need for a proper burial.
The reason is that the vast majority of Americans favor free enterprise and personal liberty. Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute, in his book, The Battle, offers a figure that roughly approximates other studies:70 percent of Americans who favor free enterprise and personal liberty versus 30 percent of Americans who do not favor such freedom.
Time after time in American history political arguments are made to seem ephemeral — until, with massive impact, they slam into the body politic with the force of a vast and violent tornado. Debates about slavery were just that for millions of Americans — until the abrupt arrival of the Civil War. Millions of American families were directly and permanently affected by the sea of clashing blue and gray armies that left behind one battlefield after another strewn with the brutalized dead bodies of over 600,000 husbands, sons and brothers. Likewise the distant voices of Adolf Hitler and Japanese war lords were nothing more than radio rantings and newsreel footage — until Pearl Harbor and the explosion of World War II. Over 400,000 Americans died on far away beaches, jungles and oceans, changing America and Americans forever.
Political change isn’t always about violence, either. The rise of the automobile and interstate highways, cable TV, talk radio and the computer, to name but four, brought sweeping change to America and its political habits. And in each instance they have in their own way, as Tyrrell notes, steadily spread conservatism throughout the Republic.
Now comes the utter disaster that is Obamacare. What once was a political debate mostly attracting the attention of activists is now slamming into the everyday lives of millions, as both Kaiser and Laszewski have documented. As with the Civil War or World War II and the other agents of change, Obamacare is having a political impact — and a big one.
The other day, the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel in a must-read column titled “Democrats Run for ObamaCare Cover” wrote:
Jeanne Shaheen doesn’t sound like a Democrat who just won a government-shutdown “victory.” Ms. Shaheen sounds like a Democrat who thinks she’s going to lose her job.
The New Hampshire senator fundamentally altered the health-care fight on Tuesday with a letter to the White House demanding it both extend the ObamaCare enrollment deadline and waive tax penalties for those unable to enroll. Within nanoseconds, Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor had endorsed her “common-sense idea.” By Wednesday night, five Senate Democrats were on board, pushing for… what’s that dirty GOP word? Oh, right. “Delay.”
After 16 long days of vowing to Republicans that they would not cave in any way, shape or form on ObamaCare, Democrats spent their first post-shutdown week caving in every way, shape and form. With the GOP’s antics now over, the only story now is the unrivaled disaster that is the president’s health-care law.
Strassel went on to note the problem causing this wave of panic among Democrats:
Hundreds of thousands of health-insurance policies canceled. Companies dumping coverage and cutting employees’ hours. Premiums skyrocketing. And a website that reprises the experience of a Commodore 64. As recently as May, Democratic consultants were advising members of Congress that their best ObamaCare strategy for 2014 was to “own” the law. Ms. Shaheen has now publicly advised the consultants where they can file that memo.
What Strassel is describing here is the real world political effect of what Tyrrell described as (bold print for emphasis added):
Liberalism’s distinctive trait: overreach. At times Liberals promise too much. At times they attempt too much. Occasionally they actually achieve too much, leaving many Americans fearing for their liberties and the contents of their wallets.
The Obamacare overreach is nothing if not a story of lost liberty (promises you can keep your doctor are up in smoke) and the contents of American wallets are being emptied to pay for skyrocketing premiums.
The Civil War produced an unbroken string of Republican presidents, broken only twice — in 1884 and 1892 — by the election and non-consecutive re-election of Democrat Grover Cleveland. Not until 1912 was another Democrat allowed inside the White House as occupant — the war producing 44 years’ worth of GOP presidents. World War II steamrollered considerable pre-war isolationist sentiments, with every Democrat and Republican presidential candidate from 1944 on until Democrat George McGovern’s anti-Vietnam War candidacy in 1972 producing internationalist candidates on both sides.
The automobile mass production of Henry Ford combined with the later interstate highway system of Dwight Eisenhower to speed up the move of millions into what we now call the suburbs — and giving conservative candidates a boost as the American population shifted from the urban Northeast to the South and West, producing the presidencies of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and both Bushes. Cable TV birthed Fox News, which, combined with the advent of talk radio, broke the Left’s media monopoly. And, of course, the arrival of the Internet has changed everything in terms of how politics is discussed and money raised for candidates both Left and Right.
Obamacare is hitting the American Left with another body blow. To some this is doubtless ironic, not unlike Frankenstein turning on his creator. Yet the real question is simple: how else could Obamacare possibly have turned out?
There is no accident that Mark Levin’s books Liberty and Tyranny, Ameritopia,  and the recently released Liberty Amendments have not only soared to the top of bestseller lists but made a major impact across the country with the Tea Party and well beyond into the halls of Congress and state legislatures. These books are the tip of the intellectual spear that are providing the grounding for the rising tide against not simply Obamacare but the larger move to reject the nation’s founding principles of liberty and freedom in a last desperate drive to socialize America, to make statism the real American religion.
In his book, Tyrrell cited this from Victor Davis Hanson, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution who was writing in National Review Online on July 4, 2011:
Here in the United States, we await the imposition of ObamaCare, despite the fact that the public does not want it, the nation cannot afford it, politicians regret it, and companies seek exemption from it. Our current pace of $1.6 trillion annual deficits, for all the talk of Keynesian gymnastics, is unsustainable — and even acknowledged as such by those who are most responsible for the latest round of fiscal irresponsibility. As we near fifty million Americans on food stamps, another year of 9-plus percent unemployment , and the third $1 trillion-plus budget deficit, even statists are beginning to see that statism does not work.
Tyrrell thought that last line was a bit over the top, yet two years later the sight of frantic Democrats running to keep from being run over by Obamacare as Strassel and others have noted is nothing if not a confirmation of both Tyrrell and Hanson. In fact, Hanson’s mention of “9-plus percent unemployment” understates. While the unemployment rate is technically listed at 7.2%, in fact, as is noted in Forbes back in July:
But the “official” unemployment rate doesn’t count men and women like G. — discouraged workers who have settled for part-time jobs or have given up looking altogether. Tracking those individuals, under what’s called the “U-6″ rate, gives a very different measure of the nation’s unemployment rate: 14.3%.
There are political consequences for things like this. The mistake too many people make is that in seeing no political consequences pop immediately in this or that election, they ignore the looming disaster that — whether it takes years or decades to appear — eventually and inevitably does hit. Debates over slavery had been ongoing since the Constitution was approved in 1787 — a full 74 years passing before the Civil War erupted at Ft. Sumter in April of 1861. A full two decades — plus had passed between the end of World War I and the attack on Pearl Harbor. These changes do not occur overnight. But when they arrive, they can change the country so thoroughly Americans find themselves looking backwards in wonder at a country they once knew well and no longer exists.
Tyrrell runs the list of progressive entitlement programs and their mind-bending costs speeding the country to bankruptcy. Medicare, estimated at its start to cost “no more than $12 billion by 1990” — and in fact cost $110 billion. Medicaid — $4 billion in 1966, $41 billion in 1986, $423 billion in 2010. All of this before one counts entitlements like public housing, food stamps, day care, home-heating assistance, sex therapy, and more — all unfunded.”
Collectively, this has left the United States with a $17 trillion debt and almost $90 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
An entitlement disaster looms, in the words of Harvard’s Niall Ferguson in the Wall Street Journal — and Mr. Ferguson is right.
Which brings us back to Bob Tyrrell and the Death of Liberalism.
It may have taken eight decades, but the self-destructiveness of what Tyrrell called a “strange and meretricious ideology” that was once quaintly labeled as “tax and spend” liberalism is finally overtaking its obsessive utopian addicts. “The nation has arrived at a great reckoning,” he wrote.
The tidal wave approaches, with Obamacare the leading edge of the wave.
And when it crashes, it will swamp American liberalism, with major political consequences.
Of which the Death of Liberalism will almost certainly be one.

Throw the Rascals Out?


Those we call “public servants” have in fact become public masters. 
Polls indicate that the public is so disgusted with Washington politicians of both parties that a surprisingly large proportion of the people would like to get rid of the whole lot of them.
It is certainly understandable that the voters would like to “throw the rascals out.” But there is no point in throwing the rascals out, if we are just going to get a new set of rascals to replace them.
In other words, we need to think about what there is about current political practices that repeatedly bring to power such a counterproductive set of people. Those we call “public servants” have in fact become public masters. And they act like it.
They squander ever more vast amounts of our tax money, and still leave trillions of dollars of national debt to be paid by our children and grandchildren. They intrude into our private lives with ever more restrictions, red tape and electronic surveillance. And they turn different groups of Americans against each other with class warfare rhetoric and policies.
None of this is inevitable. In fact, this pattern is largely the culmination of political trends set in motion during the 1930s, and reaching a climax today. During the 1920s, the national debt was reduced and the role of government scaled back. Unemployment went as low as 1.8 percent.
President Calvin Coolidge, with every prospect of being reelected in 1928, declared simply: “I do not choose to run.” Later, in his memoirs, he explained how dangerous it is to have anyone remain too long in the White House, surrounded by flattery and insulated from reality. What a contrast that attitude is with the attitude of the current occupant of the White House!
The contrast extends beyond these two presidents. What we have today that we did not have in the early history of this country is a permanent political class in Washington — a Congress and an ever growing federal bureaucracy composed of people who have become a permanent ruling class.
The United States was not founded by career politicians but by people who took time out from their regular professions to serve during a crucial time in the creation of a new nation, and a new kind of nation in a world ruled by kings and emperors.
In the nineteenth century, there was a high rate of turnover in members of Congress. Many people went to Washington to serve one term in Congress, then returned to their home state to resume their lives as private citizens.
The rise of the permanent political class in Washington came with the rise of a vast government apparatus with unprecedented amounts of money and power to control and corrupt individuals, institutions and the fabric of the whole society.
The first giant steps in this direction were taken in the 1930s, when the Great Depression provided the rationale for a radically expanded role of government that Franklin D. Roosevelt and his followers had believed in before there was a Great Depression.
There are now people in Washington whose entire adult lives have been spent in government, in one role or another. Some begin as aides to politicians or as part of the sprawling empires of the federal bureaucracy. From this they progress to high elective or appointed offices in government.
Turnover in Congress has been reduced almost to the vanishing point. Political alliances within government and with outside special interests, as well as the gerrymandering of Congressional districts, make most incumbents’ reelection virtually a foregone conclusion.
The ability to distribute vast amounts of largess to voters, at the taxpayers’ expense — President Obama’s giving away free cell phones during an election year being just the tip of the iceberg — further tilts the balance in favor of incumbents.
This kind of government must constantly “do something” in order to keep incumbents’ names in the news. In short, big government has every incentive to create bigger government.
Throwing the rascals out will not get rid of this political pattern. The first step in limiting, and then scaling back, government itself must be limiting the time that anyone can remain in office — preferably limited to one term, to make it harder to become career politicians, a species we can well do without.

Is Obama Still President?


His cadences soar on, through scandal after fiasco after disaster.­
 
By  Victor Davis Hanson 
 
We are currently learning whether the United States really needs a president. Barack Obama has become a mere figurehead, who gives speeches few listen to any more, issues threats that scare fewer, and makes promises that almost no one believes he will keep. Yet America continues on, despite the fact that the foreign and domestic policies of Barack Obama are unraveling, in a manner unusual even for star-crossed presidential second terms.
Abroad, American policy in the Middle East is leaderless and in shambles after the Arab Spring — we’ve had the Syrian fiasco and bloodbath, leading from behind in Libya all the way to Benghazi, and the non-coup, non-junta in Egypt. This administration has managed to unite existential Shiite and Sunni enemies in a shared dislike of the United States. While Iran follows the Putin script from Syria, Israel seems ready to preempt its nuclear program, and Obama still mumbles empty “game changers” and “red line” threats of years past.
We have gone from reset with Russia to Putin as the playmaker of the Middle East. The Persian Gulf sheikhdoms are now mostly anti-American. The leaders of Germany and the people of France resent having their private communications tapped by Barack Obama — the constitutional lawyer and champion of universal human rights. Angela Merkel long ago grasped that President Obama would rather fly across the Atlantic to lobby for a Chicago Olympic Games — or tap her phone — than sit through a 20th-anniversary commemoration of the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are beginning to see that the U.S. is more a neutral than a friend, as Obama negotiates with Putin about reducing the nuclear umbrella that protects America’s key non-nuclear allies. Perhaps they will soon make the necessary adjustments. China, Brazil, and India care little that Barack Obama still insists he is not George W. Bush, or that he seems to be trying to do to America what they seek to undo in their own countries.
The world’s leaders do not any longer seem much impressed by the president’s cat-like walk down the steps of Air Force One, or the soaring cadences that rechannel hope-and=change themes onto the world scene. They acknowledge that their own publics may like the American president, and especially his equivocation about the traditional role of American power in the world. But otherwise, for the next three years, the world is in a holding pattern, wondering whether there is a president of the United States to reckon with or a mere teleprompted functionary. Certainly, the Obama Nobel Peace Prize is now the stuff of comedy.
At home, the signature Affordable Care Act is proving its sternest critics prescient. The mess can best be summed up by Republicans’ being demonized for trying to delay or defund Obamacare — after the president himself chose not to implement elements of his own law — followed immediately by congressional Democrats’ seeking to parrot the Republicans. So are the Democrats followers of Ted Cruz or Barack Obama? Is Obama himself following Ted Cruz?
The problem is not just that all the president’s serial assurances about Obamacare proved untrue — premiums and deductibles will go up, many will lose their coverage and their doctors, new taxes will be needed, care will be curtailed, signups are nearly impossible, and businesses will be less, not more, competitive — but that no one should ever have believed they could possibly be true unless in our daily lives we usually get more and better stuff at lower cost.
More gun control is dead. Comprehensive immigration legislation depends on Republicans’ trusting a president who for two weeks smeared his House opponents as hostage-takers and house-breakers. Moreover, just as no one really read the complete text of the Obamacare legislation, so too no one quite knows what is in the immigration bill. There are few assurances that the border will be first secured under an administration with a record of nullifying “settled law” — or that those who have been convicted of crimes or have been long-time recipients of state or federal assistance will not be eligible for eventual citizenship. If the employer mandate was jettisoned, why would not border security be dropped once a comprehensive immigration bill passed? Or for that matter, if it is not passed, will the president just issue a blanket amnesty anyway?
In the age of Obama, we just ran up a $700 billion annual deficit and called it restraint, as if success were to be defined as not adding another $1 trillion each year to the national debt. The strange thing is that after the end of the Iraq War and the winding down in Afghanistan, forced sequestration, new taxes on high earners, and a supposedly recovering and revenue-producing economy, we are still running up near-record deficits. Stranger still, Obama is bragging that the deficit has been cut by billions — as if the 400-pound heart patient can be content that he lost 50 pounds in record time and so trimmed down to a manageable 350 pounds.
The Federal Reserve is pretty well stuck with near-zero interest rates. Even a slight rise would make servicing the huge debt nearly unmanageable. Yet continued record low interest, along with Obamacare, is strangling the economy. Millions of older Americans are learning that a mid-level government employee draws more in pension compensation than a private retiree receives in interest on 40 years’ worth of life savings.
“Millions of green jobs,” “cash for clunkers,” and “stimulus” are all now recognized as cruel jokes. Oddly, the more scandals come to light, the more immune the virtual president becomes. After the politicization of the IRS, the snooping on AP reporters, the Benghazi mess, the NSA eavesdropping, Fast and Furious, the multibillion-dollar overpayment in income-tax credits by the IRS, the Lisa Jackson fake e-mail identities, and the Pigford payments, the public has become numb — as if it to say, “Of course the Obama administration is not truthful. So what else is new?”
Three considerations are keeping the U.S. afloat without an active president. First, many working Americans have tuned the president out and simply go on about their business despite rather than because of this administration. If gas and oil leases have been curtailed on federal lands, there is record production on private land. Farmers are producing huge harvests and receiving historically high prices. Wall Street welcomes in capital that can find no return elsewhere. American universities’ science departments and professional schools still rate among the world’s best. There is as yet no French or Chinese Silicon Valley. In other words, after five years of stagnation, half the public more or less ignores the Obama administration and plods on.
Second, the other half of Americans gladly accept that Obama is an iconic rather than a serious president. Given his emblematic status as the nation’s first African-American president and his efforts to craft a vast coalition of those with supposed grievances against the majority, he will always have a strong base of supporters. With huge increases in federal redistributive support programs, and about half the population not paying federal income taxes, Obama is seen as the protector of the noble deserving, who should receive more from a government to which the ignoble undeserving must give far more. And if it is a question of adding another million or so people to the food-stamp or disability rolls, or ensuring that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon or that China does not bully Japan, the former wins every time.
Finally, the media accept that Obama represents a rare confluence of forces that promotes a progressive agenda. His youth, his charisma, his background, his exotic nomenclature, and his “cool” all have allowed a traditionally unpopular leftist ideology to enter the mainstream. Why endanger all that with a focus on Benghazi or the disaster of Obamacare? We have had, in the course of our history, plenty of Grants, McKinleys, Hardings, Nixons, and Clintons, but never quite an administration of scandal so exempt from media scrutiny.
As far as his image goes, it does not really matter to what degree Obama actually “fundamentally transforms America.” For the media, that he seeks to do so, and that he drives conservatives crazy trying, is seen as enough reason to surrender their autonomy and become ancillary to the effort. The media believe that once he is out of office, they can regain their credibility by going after the next president with renewed vigor as recompense.
In other words, the presidency has become a virtual office. Almost half the people and most of the media do not mind, and those who do just plod onward.

Michelle Obama’s Princeton classmate is executive at company that built Obamacare website

Well of course this is just a coincidence. Anyone that would think otherwise must surely be a racist...

I also was starting to wonder why moochelle has been so quiet over the last month. Usually you hear her blabbing her big mouth all the time. Guess now we know why she has suddenly shut her pie hole.

TUSC
---------------------------------------

Michelle Obama’s Princeton classmate is executive at company that built Obamacare website

Posted By Patrick Howley

First Lady Michelle Obama’s Princeton classmate is a top executive at the company that earned the contract to build the failed Obamacare website.
Toni Townes-Whitley, Princeton class of ’85, is senior vice president at CGI Federal, which earned the no-bid contract to build the $678 million Obamacare enrollment website at Healthcare.gov. CGI Federal is the U.S. arm of a Canadian company.
Townes-Whitley and her Princeton classmate Michelle Obama are both members of the Association of Black Princeton Alumni.
Toni Townes ’85 is a onetime policy analyst with the General Accounting Office and previously served in the Peace Corps in Gabon, West Africa. Her decision to return to work, as an African-American woman, after six years of raising kids was applauded by a Princeton alumni publication in 1998
George Schindler, the president for U.S. and Canada of the Canadian-based CGI Group, CGI Federal’s parent company, became an Obama 2012 campaign donor after his company gained the Obamacare website contract.
As reported by the Washington Examiner in early October, the Department of Health and Human Services reviewed only CGI’s bid for the Obamacare account. CGI was one of 16 companies qualified under the Bush administration to provide certain tech services to the federal government. A senior vice president for the company testified this week before The House Committee on Energy and Commerce that four companies submitted bids, but did not name those companies or explain why only CGI’s bid was considered.
On the government end, construction of the disastrous Healthcare.gov website was overseen by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a division of longtime failed website-builder Kathleen Sebelius’ Department of Health and Human Services.
Update: The Daily Caller repeatedly contacted CGI Federal for comment. After publication of this article, the company responded that there would be “nothing coming out of CGI for the record or otherwise today.” The company did however insist that The Daily Caller include a reference to vice president Cheryl Campbell’s House testimony. This has been included as a courtesy to the company.