Classic Diversions

So far, everything about the Obama administration has involved the President figuratively interrupting himself in mid-sentence to say, "...Hey, look up there!" His defense of the anemic economic situation has been that it "could be worse". Well, it is getting worse.

Now that the 2010 Census is over and those temporary workers find themselves jobless again, the numbers are reflected in the latest jobs report from the government. But they're trying to spin the news yet again, saying that only 131,000 people lost their jobs. Meanwhile, the Obamas are enjoying opulent vacations - separately - in Chicago and Spain. Swell.

As the First Family spends lavishly on leisure, the President continues to spend lavishly on measures that are clearly having a detrimental effect on the country. The national debt continues to climb out of sight, and despite the massive spending of money that does not exist, entities run by the government are losing even more money.

The United States Postal Service just reported a third quarter net loss of 3.5 billion dollars. Social Security will pay out more this year than it takes in for the first time since 1983, when it was overhauled. Fannie Mae is seeking 1.5 billion dollars from the treasury following a 12th straight quarterly loss. Uh, that's three years in a row for those keeping score.

So what does Obama want to do? He wants to pile more debt onto the backs of taxpayers by "forgiving" underwater mortgages or, more accurately, having Fannie Mae do it. Oh sure, the feds are denying it, saying that Obama has no plans at this time for any such program, but how many other things has he lied about in one and a half short years?

No new taxes? That one didn't last long as evidenced by the most punitive new tax of all on the poorest amongst us; smokers. When accused of a new tax in the form of mandated health coverage, the administration vehemently denied that it was a tax, referring to it instead as a "fee". However, when pressed by the states as to the constitutionality of mandated health care, the administration quickly changed its tune to invoke the Commerce Clause.

How about this one? “Under our Plan, No Federal dollars will be used to fund abortions and federal conscious laws will remain in place," Obama said. Uh-huh. Last month Maryland became the second state - joining Pennsylvania - to offer federally funded abortions, using the 85 million dollars it will receive from the federal government.

There are a plethora of smaller lies, demonstrating that the man is incapable of telling the truth regardless of the magnitude of the situation. Lies such as his claim that the Selma march was responsible for his existence, despite the fact that he was 3 and a half years old when the march took place. Or his claim that he was never a Muslim, which was later adjusted to never a practicing Muslim. Yet he fondly spoke of his years in Indonesia, recalling that the Muslim call to prayer was the "sweetest sound" he'd ever heard.

So to believe that he is planning to throw a lot more money down the drain is easy, no matter how the man doth protest.

Sphere: Related Content

The Love Boat (and Other Trappings of the Asylum)

Depending upon what news source you peruse, the Israeli raid on the Gaza flotilla a few days ago was either a criminal act by Israel or - in rare examples - an act of war by Turkey, or Hamas, or Iran. But the general consensus among the media at large and their parrots on the talk shows is that the Jews attacked the Love Boat in brutal fashion. Never mind that nothing could be further from the truth; with consumers who barely read beyond the headlines, or listen past the soundbites, nothing will convince them otherwise. It's like a judge in a criminal trial instructing a jury to disregard a previous statement or question.

For far too many people, Palestine actually exists, and the Israelis are their tormentors. And since the Israelis are wealthy, and the Palestinians live in relative squalor, it must because the Jews stole all of the Arabs' fortune. Funny how easily forgotten is the story of how the Jews have been pursued and persecuted across the globe through the history of Man. Resilience seems a vice these days.

So when the Arabs demanded a place for their Palestinian "brothers" - who ironically are not welcome in their own homes - Israel ceded the Gaza Strip to them, while Hamas quickly filled the void in governance there. Arabs leading Arabs did not work out so well for the poor Palestinians, either. They fared better under Jewish rule.

Since Gaza is bordered by land only in Israel and Egypt - and since Egypt cooperated in a blockade of Gaza - the only other way in is from the sea, which Israel guards alone. They have allowed food and medicine to pass through the blockade, but nothing else. (Hamas smuggles weapons through tunnels from Egypt anyway.) That wasn't enough for some, so there was a "humanitarian aid" flotilla formed and sent to Gaza.

Israel warned them not to come because they would be stopped. They didn't listen, so when they got there, Israeli commandos tried to board and were beaten by terrorists mingling with the "Love Boat passengers". In short, these were not only peacenik, flower petal-tossing do-gooders, but mean and armed Turks and Yemenis who wanted this conflict, and who also inflicted damage on the SEALS who descended from the helicopters.

In the bizarro world in which we now reside, Israel has borne the brunt of the criticism in this event. I agree that the Israeli command needs some scrutiny, but not because of the casualties that occurred. They should never have been caught so off guard, sending down men in single formation and armed only with side arms (paintball rifles notwithstanding).

Thanks to the techno age, this shrinking planet compels normally sane people to behave in irrational ways, concerning themselves with how they are perceived rather than performing proper duties. Hopefully Israel has learned an important lesson here, but I remain unconvinced that much will change, based on the irrational reaction of the media.

This is not the only example, either. We see the same insanity in America, where the state of Arizona is vilified for passing a resolution that enforces existing law. The press reports hysterically on the "racist" element in that border state so effectively that our own politicians react as fools, and even then, ordinary consumers of the news are oblivious, and not only formulate their opinions based on faulty intel, but pass them along to their even more sequestered friends who in turn feel empowered by a false wisdom.

It is evident in the fact that our own president seeks to strip his own country of nuclear weaponry while standing idly by as Iran and North Korea work feverishly to develop theirs. It has been obvious for decades as activists in the United States resisted clean nuclear power while turning a blind eye to the successes of the French in that arena.

It is clear in light of Canada recently realizing that universal health care might be too costly in the glare of multitudes of retirees even as the U.S. embarks on the same course despite an immense wave of "Baby Boomers", and against the boisterous wishes of the electorate.

And finally, we have the Gulf of Mexico crisis, made possible by none other than the very people who sought to "protect the Earth". As Charles Krauthammer so eloquently points out, this is made possible by the fact that the environmental lobby has been so successful in pushing exploration so far out to sea, and in a densely populated and crucially important region, no less. Had this been permitted in a remote region of Alaska, and on land, the leak could have been stopped within hours, not months, as is now predicted.

In the giant Asylum where we now live, however, BP is the villian and nothing Charles Krauthammer or I can say will change that, since no one will ever see our words but the choir. And if words such as these do manage to escape the sphere in which they're trapped, they will be easily dismissed as those of the heretic.

Grab yourself one of those rear-breasted blazers and make yourself at home.

Sphere: Related Content

Selling To The Gullible

Well, the goal line is in sight for the final destruction of America, and the team with the ball is playing dirty and pulling out every trick in the book to get into the end zone. The most frustrating part of this two-minute drill is that the referees (the media) have made this a much closer game than it really should have been through their myopic and selective officiating.

The road leading up to this weekends vote on health care "reform" is strewn with broken promises, bribes and outright lies. Those on the left - who probably bought every product Billy Mays ever sold - try to say that the outright lies belong to the opponents of ObamaCare, but that's what makes them so gullible. Let's examine the fuzzy math of the Democrats and the chicanery they have engaged in that is responsible for the littered avenue.

The inflated and exaggerated number of "uninsured" Americans was the catalyst for the journey upon which we now find nearly completed, but that was quickly supplanted by the economic crisis that befell us at the end of the 43rd presidency. Fortune - for lack of a better term - had it that Obama and his fellows of the Triad were handed the vehicle by which to facilitate their wicked dreams.

So Universal Health Care was suddenly being advertised not only as a compassionate product, but one of alleged fiscal responsibility. In the run-up to tomorrow's vote, the books have been cooked so badly it's a wonder they didn't suffer the same fate as the book-victims of Nazi Germany. We have been told of the benefit enacting Obama's heinous program would reap, saving tons of cash while healing the lepers at a lower cost. So Utopian were the promises that it seemed a given the media would investigate and report with vigor. That never happened.

Left to the role of sole messengers, talk radio and Fox News were easily cast as the propagandists, while "genuine" journalists such as Whoopie Goldberg and Jon Stewart were hailed as the defenders of truth. While they gleefully regurgitated the wonders of socialized medicine and its savior status for all things fiscal, none of them ever exercised cognitive skills in analyzing the numbers.

While we were told that the plan would insure 30 million "previously uninsured" people, we were also told that costs would come down and care would not be rationed, taxes would not go up, and the deficit would be reduced. Still, no one in the mainstream media thought to question the ludicrousness of such an equation.

We were led to believe that the majority of doctors were behind Obama's plan by the clever use of photo-ops of "doctors" - who needed to be supplied with white lab coats by White House staffers - applauding Obama's soaring rhetoric on the virtues of "health care reform".

Democrats still had trouble mustering support from their own majority party, so the administration and the other two members of the Triad - Reid and Pelosi - resorted to buying the votes of Democrat dissenters, with our money. Republicans, smelling blood in the water, quite naturally began tearing flesh and, this time, the media had to notice. Those arm-twisters had to alter course as a result, opting not to veer from the destination, but rather to take a different route.

Desperate, as they seemed to understand that things weren't going quite as planned, and reeling from the loss of the Massachusetts Senate seat to Scott Brown, Democrats looked for ways to skirt the common rules of governance. Equating their massive overhaul of Americans' lives with mundane procedural motions, they tried to cite precedent in the Reconciliation process. Vigilant reporters took note. Then they attempted the same with the Slaughter Solution, which would allow the House to pass a Senate bill with no recorded vote and, therefore, no accountability.

In the last few days, everyone eagerly awaited the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) assessment of the actual cost of the Obama plan, and they got a taste on Thursday, when the CBO released its latest estimate. The problem is, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat congressional cabal characterized the news as a banquet, claiming that the report vindicated their claims that their plan would save America money and cut the deficit.

That report was the CBO's best guess, however, working off of incomplete data and speculation. No matter, the Democrats proceeded before the cameras as though the numbers were gospel, but the CBO had a poison pill to disclose. Today, the CBO revealed that the preliminary budget projections Democrats touted as reason to proceed as planned was tainted by a secret plan to roll back planned cuts to doctors in the Medicare program, which aided in the illusion that the health care bill would reduce deficits over the next decade.

Did you ever wonder why the AMA backed the Obama plan? It was because that organization knew that the cuts in doctors fees was just a smoke screen designed to skew the CBO estimate. It turns out - as reported by the Associated Press - that one of the "fixes" being offered by Congress in exchange for the Slaughter Solution is the permanent repeal of the Medicare cuts.

Democrats, according to AP, planned to covertly roll back the cuts to doctors, which would "wipe out all the deficit reduction, leaving the legislation $59 billion in the red." Politico.com had broken a "leaked" memo from the Democrats, but has retracted after protests from that party. Hopefully they will verify its validity and be able to re post.

It remains to be seen how this plays out over the weekend, but I pray that the media finally sheds the web of deceit and adoration that has seemingly been spun over them and reports the truth at last. This health care bill has been sold as the best product that you'll ever hate, reminiscent of the lofty promises of Billy Mays and Ron Popiel. The big difference is that this product offers no money-back guarantee.

Sphere: Related Content

Eric Massa's Traficant Moment

It's a funny thing how Democrats circle the wagons when one of their "good soldiers" is exposed as a criminal, as was the case with William Jefferson of Louisiana. And in the case of Charlie Rangel, Democrat Congressman from Bronx, New York - who may not have been convicted but is clearly outside the laws he helped to write as former Chairman of the House Ways And Means Committee - failure to report income and pay taxes was "no big deal".

But if one of their own steps out of line on policy issues, they will attack like Jack London's huskies in White Fang. Eric Massa is the latest casualty, having resigned today over something so trivial in the grand scheme of things, but under heavy fire from his own party. The reason? He said something sexually inappropriate to a male staffer at a private wedding reception. As weak as that may be, it's not even the real reason. (Besides, they defended President Clinton - who actually sodomized an intern - and attempted to portray the act as "not really sex").

The real reason, according to Massa himself, is that he was in favor of the Republicans' idea to actually abide by the wishes of the American people regarding health care and the need to start over, take their time and get it right. Massa had announced his plans to retire by not running in the next election cycle, due to a recurrence of his cancer, but said, in light of the pending investigation, that he would step down as of Monday (today). He did not rescind his resignation, as speculated, and as of 5:00 PM today he is gone, another threat to Obamacare vaporized.

While the railroading of James Traficant is much more heinous than the relatively mild treatment of Massa - at least until all of the particulars are exposed - Traficant was actually imprisoned by a machine that should have been as obvious as the sonar betrayal of cavitating submarine engines. The particulars of that travesty can be found here. (* Note: I cannot vouch for the veracity of this site, but found the detail compelling).

The difference becomes frightening upon closer scrutiny, however, as Traficant was the victim of the Cleveland political machine. The Oval Office, to my knowledge, was never implicated in the proceedings. With Massa, the White House has left figurative forensics all over the place, and while Obama will personally be shielded from any form of culpability, his Chief Advisor Rahm Emanuel is knee-deep in it.

This has all the makings of a made-for-tv movie, and a feast for the likes of Woodward and Bernstein. Will the media seize an opportunity to return to form, or finally collapse in on itself in adoration of this administration? I fear that their sphere of influence was so great as to attract the undivided attention of the new regime. It makes me cherish my relative anonymity, but does little to assuage the sense of doom I feel regarding our freedoms.

In September 2009, Glenn Beck assured politicians on his television show that America would back them regardless of party affiliation if only they would come clean and stand against the assault on the nation. Today, he reiterated that vow. I pray that the loss of Massa is not a deterrent to that end. We must amplify the promise, and draw out the few politicians who have not yet sold their souls.

Massa could not be persuaded to reconsider, but there must be others who have clung to principles. For those, we must reach out. There is no time to elect new ones, and precious little time left to stop the assault currently under way.

Sphere: Related Content

Irreconcilable Differences

Convince the people that your opponents are lying about your lies by telling a bigger lie. If that isn't a bona fide part of the liberal/progressive playbook, it should be. Truth be told, I was too lazy to research the phrase's existence since I just made it up. If someone beat me to it, please advise in the comments section.

Nevertheless, it is becoming increasingly and abundantly clear that Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress have nothing to fear from a media that once relished the prospect of exposing the lies of our government. It must be noted, too, that the fortunes of that media relic have turned south in direct correlation to their obsequious behavior regarding the system of which they have obviously dreamt. Talk about a veritable Monkey's Paw.

But I digress. Gloating over the self-inflicted demise of a once venerable institution such as journalism accomplishes nothing more than a brief and empty sense of vindication, with no real reward other than being proved right. Further, if no one steps up to accept culpability, the vindication is only imaginary, no matter how true.

So, casting aside the flotsam, lets examine the events leading to Obama's overhaul of America, and the subterfuge utilized to accomplish such a heinous goal.

He has complained bitterly of the "blatant misstatements of the facts" by his opponents, citing Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data as some form of certification of his own numbers. Yet the CBO analysis of Obama's policies on Friday predict that they will add more than $9.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

He also accuses Republicans of misrepresenting the facts on his health care agenda, then blatantly attempts to trick the public into believing that reconciliation has been used in similar fashion many times in the past, which is an outright lie. (Where's Joe Wilson when we need him?)

There have been twenty-two instances since reconciliation was created that the practice has been used, true. But for Democrats to attempt its use in this instance is the equivalent of using a screwdriver to hammer nails. It was never intended to exclude the opposition party, first and foremost, and it was never intended to be used for anything other than budgetary measures, not sweeping overhauls to anything on the magnitude being proposed here.

Of the twenty-two times reconciliation has been used, only seventeen of the measures passed, and virtually all of them had true bi-partisan support, many of them in large numbers. It has never been used when one party is united in opposition. So for Obama - who, along with his fellow Democrats were vehemently opposed to the use of reconciliation just five years ago - to suggest that it would be a pretty good idea now is ludicrous, not that the media has noticed.

One must also wonder if Obama called Senator Robert Byrd - a co-author of the reconciliation process - after a letter he wrote to his colleagues just under a year ago was brought to light to demonstrate his then-opposition to the use of reconciliation. Of course, Byrd has recently come out in support of reconciliation, but his April 2009 letter clearly says otherwise.

The disingenuousness lies in that Byrd now claims he is still against reconciliation being used for health care reform, but it's perfectly legitimate to use it for the "fix" currently being promulgated. I'm reminded of a father telling his teen that he can't have the car, but he can have the keys, and then being shocked to see a fresh hundred miles on the odometer.

It shall be interesting in the coming weeks to see if these inglorious bastards inflict this travesty on the American people, and then watching the reaction in November.

Sphere: Related Content

Debating Moot Points

Our politicians have a way of inserting themselves into areas of Americans lives where they have no place, and our media seems oblivious to the infractions. The most glaring example of this is the current hand wringing over what the federal government should do to "solve" the health care problems in this country.

Democrats have always felt it their responsibility to meddle in our lives, somehow believing that the people simply cannot function without them. The surprising aspect of this all is that the Republicans allowed themselves to be dragged into an argument over an idea that should be summarily dismissed based on the Constitution.

Recently a reporter asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to show where the Constitution granted Congress the authority to mandate individual purchase of health insurance. Her response was, "Are you serious"? That bit of arrogance was quickly forgotten, when it should have elicited howls of outrage from everyone, especially the media.

Now, when Republicans are asked what Congress should do to "fix" health care, they offer their own solutions, but that is the wrong answer. The only correct answer to that question is simply, "Nothing. It's none of our business". Period.

Another item that leaves me nearly speechless is the current attempts by the Obama administration to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and his cohorts from Guantanamo Bay to New York to stand trial in civilian court. The raging debate in this matter continues to be over the judgement of the idea and whether such a spectacle would place Manhattan in jeopardy of more terrorist attacks.

In defending this decision, President Obama - an alumnus of Harvard Law School - assured the American people that KSM would get a fairer trial than he would have in Gitmo military tribunals. He also asserted that KSM would be found guilty and executed. This was also echoed by the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder. How could alleged experts in legal matters be so ignorant of the law? My Cousin Vinny would find it child's play to get these trials dismissed in the preliminary hearings.

And yet the powers that be, both at the federal level and the local level, continue to discuss the possibility of moving the "trials" elsewhere in New York, when anyone with a matchbook cover law degree knows that any possibility of conviction is futile, given the rhetoric of the administration.

One must wonder just what caliber of mental acumen is running our country. And the question must also be asked, what happened to the "watchdogs"?

Sphere: Related Content

Obama To Speak S-l-o-w-l-y And Use Smaller Words

Incredibly, Barack Hussein Obama's main regret in his first year as president is that he didn't speak "directly to the American people", and - it seems - not often enough. The underlying message, however, is that he really thinks we're too stupid to comprehend what he has said.

Speaking to ABC's George Stephanopoulos yesterday, Obama said that perhaps he was too focused on policy and not in spelling things out clearly enough for the unwashed masses:

"That I do think is a mistake of mine. I think the assumption was if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on this provision or that law or if we're making a good rational decision here, then people will get it."

Never mind that he also believes Martha Coakley lost her bid for the vacant Senate seat in Massachusetts because the electorate is still mad at George W. Bush. Our problem is that he also thinks he hasn't been visible enough. Saying he thinks he can do a better job connecting with the American people in his second year, he deludes himself further into thinking that he's in a better position now.

"I think that I can do a better job of that, and partly because I do believe that we're in a stronger position now than we were a year ago."

One thing is certain; if he does do a "better job", it's going to cost a whole lot more money. Consider these numbers from year one:

• 411 speeches, comments and remarks, including 52 on healthcare alone.
• 42 news conferences.
• 158 interviews
• 23 Town Hall meetings
• 28 political fundraisers

In between, there were 29 rounds of golf. Combined in all of Obama's travels, there were 160 flights on Air Force One and 193 flights on Marine One. According to CBS News, there were a total of 21 days - out of 365 - that the American people did see or hear Barack Hussein Obama.

And he now thinks that he should spend more time explaining things to us. Don't worry, though, he will be sure to speak very slowly and in language the "idiots" can understand. Plus, we will most likely see much more of him, if that is even possible. God help us.

Sphere: Related Content

See How They Run: The Cadillac Tax And Other Dubious Doings

So here we stand, at the precipice of the cliff, with Democrats and world socialists having both palms firmly planted squarely between our shoulder blades, ready to give that final shove. Before the deadly plunge, they lean in close, whispering in our ears that we are going to get what we wanted, at last. And lastly, that we should thank them, then the dizzying whoosh of air as the ground races up to meet us.

It was a long road to get to this point, and much negotiating and haranguing took place. A goodly portion of the proponents of our demise needed coercion, convincing and outright bribes. The last group to make it possible to cross the finish line gave their approval only after being excluded from the legions of pushees. Funny how that works.

With Universal Health Care about to be rammed down the throats of a defiant populace, the left still incredibly claims that they are about to make history in passing the "people's legislation". Even more disturbing is the fact that a once reliable institution in the press has abetted in the process, lying to the public and aggressively pushing this insane agenda. When someone takes a foul-tasting medicine while grimacing in the most hideous fashion, it is impossible for any thinking person to believe the words "delicious" emanating from such a twisted countenance.

Yet, we have seen the arm-twisting necessary to navigate the minefield of health care reform, and we have been witness to what would - in any other situation - be considered criminal influence. Lobbying bribery was once seen as a most serious offense where our Congress was concerned (see Jack Abramhoff), but now the lobbying is waged from the top down. To make matters worse, the bribes used are financed by our payroll deductions. Senator Ben Nelson's acquiescence is evidence enough of the shell game the White House and Congressional leadership play with the money they seize from us.

The majority party has also massaged the rules in the way they swore in Congressmen Bill Owens of New York 72 hours after he was declared the winner in his special election, despite the fact that the election results were not yet certified by the New York Secretary of State. They needed his vote the next day. Now, in Massachusetts, they are saying that Scott Brown - if the victor in Tuesday's special election - may not be certified by that state's secretary for two weeks, which thankfully has drawn a rare scrutiny from the media.

Not to worry, the Socialists have that covered; they are now discussing "reconciliation", otherwise known as the "nuclear option" in which they could shut out the minority party by declaring a simple majority (51) vote will suffice. Somehow, they believe that the outrage which will certainly explode if they use a double standard in the certification of Brown in Massachusetts will be neutralized by this method. They think us fools.

Someone asked today, "If this bill is so great, why is it that the only way to get people to support it is if they can be excluded?" The Unions are now on board after the White House caved to demands that the "Cadillac tax" not apply to their members. Why would they not exchange their vote to push if it were not them standing in front of the pusher at the ledge?

While the actual details of the proposal are murky, at best, the message that it is detrimental should be glaring. The fact that our elected representatives are representing the interests of a minority of the population is the start. The chicanery being employed in getting it passed is stunning, from the lack of promised transparency to the alleged urgency with which they move. Like a petulant child, Obama wants to have a health care bill in his hand for the State of the Union Address come hell or high water, as evidenced by the fact that a date has not yet been set for the speech.

One has to wonder why a man would work so hard to facilitate the end of his own career.

Sphere: Related Content

Congressional Cellophane

In 2006, when the Democrats once again regained a majority in Congress, they promised a new era of transparency in government. Then, with an abetting media that pummeled President Bush with virtually no quarter given, Barack Hussein Obama promised the same see-through form of government, leading to an easy electoral victory over Republican candidate John McCain in the General Election that landed him in the White House and the most powerful position on the planet.

The problem is, the people who voted for Obama never really had much time to realize the suffocating peril of the Democratic brand of "transparency" and so, were caught off guard once the product was delivered November 4th, 2009. Sadly, there is no return policy such as offered by the Home Shopping Channel. We bought the goods with a certain risk attached and now stare forlornly at the pile of steaming dung in our living rooms, and are stuck with the monthly payments.

Retailers years ago began packaging products in clear, cellophane wrapping so that consumers could see the product before buying. It was designed to boost sales by offering the consumer a better visual of a marvelous product. Now, the Democrat controlled Congress is moving with a stealth that defies their early promises of transparency, trying to ram through their vaunted health care reform bills, which will be presented to the public in a plain, brown wrapper. Perhaps when we open it they will yell "SURPRISE!" in unison.

Pelosi and Reid are moving swiftly to reconcile both chambers' versions of the bills they each passed last year. In the process, they have basically told their impotent Republican counterparts to take that plastic bag marked "this is not a toy" and place it over their heads. (And I still can't imagine just how terrible the final product will be, when the Democrats so cavalierly seem poised to jeopardize the super-majority they currently enjoy. Certainly they must realize the political suicide they undertake).

Not only are the Republicans being left out of the process, but pesky House Democrats who object to the "federal funds for abortion" aspects are also being avoided. Henry Waxman (D-CA) is going back to Washington on Tuesday to hold secret meetings with both leaders, a full week before the House officially reconvenes. And Waxman says that the process for moving the bill forward will not involve the standard House/Senate conference committee - where normal reconciliation takes place - so that the Democrats can avoid the motions to select and instruct conferees in the Senate. It seems that they can't be bothered with protocol which would require another 60-vote majority for final passage.

All of this chicanery and yet, the majority of Americans - 52% as of yesterday - are opposed to it. Our elected officials clearly believe that they no longer work for us, the people. And the once dedicated watchdogs in the press clearly no longer care.

Sphere: Related Content

Speed Versus Haste

With the Democrat-controlled Congress steamrolling its way to "history" through constitutional skulduggery and a collective ignorance of the wishes of its constituency, a potential legal battle looms on the horizon.

In light of the "Cornhusker Kickback" - in which the Senate secured its precious 60th vote in Ben Nelson of Nebraska for Health Care Reform (HCR) passage - 10 of the nations 19 Republican State Attorneys General have formed a coalition poised to issue a serious constitutional challenge to final passage of the bill. Predictably, Democrats have already begun to prepare their cookie-cutter defense, accusing the group of partisan obstructionism.

Nelson, who was the lone Democrat holdout on passage of the bill in the Senate, was bought out by the leadership in the form of a promise to force the other 49 states to subsidize Nebraska's state share of the Medicaid expansion. South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, a Republican, is heading the group of State Attorneys General in challenging the constitutional authority of the federal government to offer such preferential treatment to one state at the expense of others.

McMaster received a letter from his state Senators Lindsay Graham and Jim Demint asking his to investigate the matter. From the letter, Graham and Demint write:

“We have serious concerns about this Nebraska compromise as it results in special treatment for only one state in the nation at the expense of the other 49. While South Carolina has to struggle to come up with hundreds of millions of dollars to comply with the massive new Medicaid mandate, Nebraska does not have to come up with a single dollar.”

With McMaster and a handful of his Republican counterparts set to run for governor in 2010, the Democrats are claiming that this challenge is nothing more than a cheap "political stunt" designed to further advance the political careers of these AG's. In light of the about-face exhibited by Ben Nelson, this is disingenuous, to say the least.

Nelson was opposed to the health care bill on many levels, and vowed to vote against it. What changed? Did the language in the bill change? No, Ben Nelson got a sweetheart deal for his state - something that has enraged his constituency back home and the leadership of that state - and he sacrificed whatever shred of integrity he may have had. In an ABC interview, Nelson had this to say on his stance at the time:

"Well, first of all, it has more than a robust public option, it's got a totally government-run plan, the costs are extraordinary associated with it, it increases taxes in a way that will not pass in the Senate and I could go on and on and on. Faced with a decision about whether or not to move a bill that is bad, I won't vote to move it. For sure."

Can you say, "Read my lips"?

McMaster says that more State Attorneys General are expected to join the current coalition of ten, and it remains to be seen how successful they are in the endeavor. Meanwhile, regarding the "great job" Nelson did for his state, of the savings he secured for Nebraska, Governor David Heineman says "keep the money", telling Politico.com:

“The last few days have made Nebraskans so angry that now it’s a matter of principle. The federal government can keep that money.”

Also from Politico.com

With the Senate set to pass its version of the health care bill before breaking for Christmas, Alabama GOP Attorney General Troy King predicted that the probe would wrap up in the next few days.

“I think we’re moving rapidly,” he told POLITICO. “We’ve got to move quickly. We don’t have a choice.”

So with speed set to confront haste, let the games begin.

Sphere: Related Content

The Democrats' Plan

It is bitterly funny to recall how - only a year ago - the left shrieked hysterically about the preciousness of freedom and liberty and the alleged assault on those principles by George W. Bush. My, how perceptions radially shift with the reins of power. While we still retain the freedom to protest and demonstrate for the time being, our voices may as well be mute as it is clear that our public servants cannot or will not hear them.

In blatant and arrogant defiance of the will of the people, the House of Representatives not only is ignoring the citizens, but is also brow-beating its own members who are reluctant to vote for the health care fiasco touted by the Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Scheduled for a vote today, the measure may be pushed back a day or two because the leadership is having difficulty securing the requisite 218 votes for passage. This is somewhat good news in an atmosphere of doom since the longer it takes for a vote, the more scrutiny the bill receives.

Even as the opposition points out the obvious flaws in the bill, quoting from the very language of the document, the Democrats flatly deny its nefarious intent. Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) has posted a letter online from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) in response to his request for confirmation of the penalty for non-compliance with the provisions of H.R. 3962. The bill clearly states that individuals who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and do not pay the required penalty face fines of up to $250,000 and five years in prison.

Some frightening excerpts from the JCT letter:

“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]

“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]

“Criminal penalties

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]

The key players in this mess, Obama, Pelosi and Reid keep repeating the talking point "choice and competition". Well, here is your choice if this monstrosity gets passed; You can forfeit a minimum of $15,000 per year for government healthcare, you can pay 2.5% of your income for the new individual mandate tax if you don't buy coverage, or you can pay $250,000 in fines and rot in a cell for five years.

So where does the "competition" come in, you ask? My best guess is whether the government charges you for its compassion or they offer it for free to you, prisoner number 54961A.

Sphere: Related Content

Withering On The Vine

Any politically savvy reader will no doubt recall the instant notoriety bestowed upon Newt Gingrich for hoping that "Medicare would wither on the vine". Oh, how he hated old, sick people. The evil SOB. The problem is however, that it was all a cunning and effective lie propagated by Big Labor over a decade ago.

In 1995, then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich delivered a speech to Blue Cross regarding health care and the Clinton's designs on it. During the campaign for Bill Clinton's reelection, the AFL-CIO ran a television ad designed to help Clinton's campaign by demonizing the Republicans, and Gingrich was the poster boy for the union giant. In the fall of 1996, the AFL-CIO ran the ad which began with a voice-over compassionately droning, "When you're older, and you're sick, Medicare is more than health care, it's peace of mind."

The ad immediately cuts to the Blue Cross speech by Gingrich, with a partial excerpt. "Now we don't get rid of it in round one because we think that's politically smart and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine." But Gingrich wasn't doing his best impersonation of the fabled greedy, mustachioed landlord, twisting his facial hair while giddily tossing mothers and hungry children out of their homes. Here's the full context of Newt's comment on Medicare:

"What do you think the health care financing administration is? It's a centralized command bureaucracy. It's everything we're telling Boris Yeltsin to get rid of. Now we don't get rid of it in round one because we don't think that's politically smart and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine because we think people are going to voluntarily leave it. Voluntarily."

It was a very effective ploy, as I know people who still despise Gingrich to this day because of that misrepresentation. The DNC took the approach a step further during George W. Bush's administration with cartoon commercials showing the President pushing old people in wheelchairs down a flight of stairs. Charming.

Current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today peeled the wrapping off of 1,990 pages of the same poison pill that Gingrich warned us of, and House Minority Leader John Boehner promptly referred to it as "1,990 pages of bureaucracy". CNN interviewed Congressman Mike Pence for the Republican reaction, and he was equally dismayed. See the video below.



Perhaps the reason for the Democrats' unveiling of this monstrosity being closed to the public - on the West side of the Capitol which is traditionally open to the public - is the direct result of this past summer's town hall meetings, when it was mostly Democrats on the receiving end of constituents' blistering outrage.

The only good news is that there will a period of roughly a week for House members to peruse this massive tome before a vote moves to the floor. I hope the Republicans along with moderate Democrats use this time wisely and develope a serious insurgency to put a stop to its passage. If not, it won't be Medicare withering on the vine. It will be American liberty.

Sphere: Related Content

Smelling The Coffee

Rasmussen reports that 53% of Americans are opposed to health care overhauls, and the Democrats remain determined to march forward. Tea Party protests draw ever larger and more diverse crowds, and Democrats continue to rally around Obama's socialist vision for America. Joe Wilson reaches the breaking point at a joint session presidential address and Democrats launch into tirades of outrage and retribution, which also spawns a disgusting series of accusations of racism against patriots who refuse to be tread upon.

For weeks this vitriol and argumentativeness has gone on, and it now appears that the only people who actually had an inkling as to what was being planned have been those "racists" and "domestic terrorists". The elected officials we sent to represent us haven't had the time or acumen to discern that which they were advocating, but a handful of intrepid journalists and citizens managed to digest it and have been shouting from the rooftops that it was all a bad idea. Oh yeah...Joe Wilson also read the bill. Ain't life funny?

Now, with sudden cognizance, some Democrats have been acquainted with the Max Baucus (D-MT) version of the bill, and they are in a sort of slow-motion revolt. Many in the "party of the little guy" *cough* have been alarmed at the methods by which Baucus would fund this deadly endeavor. True to socialist form, Baucus wants anyone with a "cadillac policy" to be taxed on their benefits.

From the AP article:

To pay for the 10-year, $856 billion bill Baucus wants to tax high-value insurance plans, those worth $21,000 for a family and $8,000 for an individual. Baucus says those are "Cadillac plans" enjoyed by a small minority of Americans. Aides said about 10 percent of plans and 8 percent of taxpayers could be affected.

Consider that Baucus wants to penalize anyone who can afford a "cadillac plan" by forcefully making them fund the plans of the "poor". Then consider the Canadian model, which prohibits the private payment for treatment due to its inherent "unfairness" factor. Then add the two together and see what your equation yields.

So now Congressional Democrats - fully aware of the toxic future that awaits them next election cycle - are furiously backing away from this type of plan. There can be no denying, however, of their completely socialist ideology and disregard for the rights of the individual. They want to make this happen at any cost, and they don't care because the cost will be to anonymous individuals, never coming in close proximity to their own substantial bank accounts.

To be certain, there is a level of glee as I write this, attributed to the hope that no matter what the motivations of these politicians, I am encouraged at the dissent being exhibited. If they manage to fumble this particular football, original intent will naturally take a back seat.

Sphere: Related Content

Capitalizing On Death

Democrats have a grotesque way of turning the loss of one of their own into an opportunity. And those who depart seem to do so at just the right moment. With the American people furiously and vociferously resisting Obamacare, Democrats may begin calling it "Teddycare", something that the deceased senator unsuccessfully attempted to inflict on the people for over 40 years.

Even as the endless stream of Kennedy accolades rain down on us from all angles, surviving members of Congress and the president are positioning to play on the loss of Teddy in an unsavory display of opportunistic disgrace.

I am reminded of the death of Senator Paul Wellstone in October of 2002, and also of the dreadful "memorial service" the Democrats held in his honor. Struggling to hold onto control of the Senate at that time, and with the election only days away, speakers at Wellstone's memorial hijacked what should have been a somber moment and turned it into a pre-election pep rally.

On November 1st, 2002, Peggy Noonan wrote a story in the Wall Street Journal titled "No Class", in which she speculated on what Wellstone may have thought about that debacle. Written from the perspective of Wellstone's spirit, she had him admonishing those attendees about their judgement, pointing out that in his "new place", perspectives change. One must wonder what Kennedy has learned on his new journey, if anything yet. It's still early.

Aside from the obvious vulgarity in what the Democrats are poised to embark upon, however, is the inevitable tactical blunder in using an ailing and ultimately dead member of Congress in this way. People will understand all too well that Kennedy had the best health care our money could buy, and he still died. Holding him out as the poster child for universal health care will ultimately backfire.

Sphere: Related Content

MSM: Still Crazy After All These Months

Has anyone heard of the Patient's Choice Act of 2009?Anyone? Beuller? Beuller?

The Patient's Choice Act is a bill co-sponsored by two Republican senators (Tom Coburn, M.D. [R-OK] and Richard Burr [R-NC]), and two Republican congressman (Paul Ryan [R-WI] and Devin Nunes [R-CA]). For one thing, the very existence of the bill dispels the erroneous notion that Republicans have "no solutions", only opposition to Obama. Not many know this, however, because the mainstream media does not report on it.

No, it seems that they've still got too much Obama-dust in their eyes to actually do their jobs of informing the American people - their consumers - about matters that affect their lives. There is an agenda to get pushed and, by God, the media is going to push hard. Since they won't inform the public, it's left to people like me to do, so I will post this video and let Rep. Ryan explain the bill in his own words.



In light of all the angst and turmoil at town hall meetings across America this summer, why have the American people not been better informed about this bill? Bear in mind, that video is from May, three months ago. I challenge you; type in Patient's Choice Act in Google, click "news", sort by date and see what the search yields.

Tell people about this so that they can bring it up at town hall meetings.

Sphere: Related Content

Speed Kills

It may be a combination of things converging all at once, be it Obama's relatively youthful exuberance and his desire to succeed immediately, coupled with his lack of experience in actual accomplishment, or it could be interpreted as something far more sinister, such as a diabolical plan for the ultimate ruination of America. Which, I am incapable of discerning, which is why I write. Mine is a mission of thought provocation, designed to stimulate the thought processes of the reader and to trigger cognizance. To be honest, if you're already reading here, you are pre-engaged anyway.

We have all seen the billboards prominently displayed on the roads across America, the ones with the [whichever] State Trooper propped up against his patrol car, speaking into his radio mic, and the words "Speed Kills" just above or below the picture. Those are ad campaigns designed to get drivers to slow down and reduce road fatalities.

More often than not it is the driver who is killed, along with any passengers who may be on board. So it is with Obama driving a bus loaded with giddy congressional Democrats, feeling as invincible as the teen just embarking on life's journey. Their current domination of the political process is responsible for that feeling, and they can't envision the bus slamming into a tree at high velocity.

Somehow mesmerized by Obama, Democrats are so eager to pass dubious and disastrous health care reform this year that they are poised to commit political suicide. How they cannot see this is incomprehensible, for even if they do nothing else this year, they are still facing trouble in 2010, according to Charlie Cook, who is already predicting a possible net loss in the House of Representatives in excess of 20 seats.

Of course, Congress never does "do nothing", and Democrats have a peculiar penchant for self-inflicted wounds, so it is small wonder that they are preparing for triage. Since Obama has successfully ginned up Democrats with the promise of finally reaching their long-sought after goal of social utopia, i.e., Universal Health Care, they have become blinded by their pending euphoria.

Attempting to assuage the concerns of the people over the cost of reform - I prefer to call it lying - Obama is presenting himself as fiscally responsible by insisting that his plan for health care will be "deficit neutral". People, however, particularly those at Tea Parties and Town Halls, know that all that means is that someone is going to have to pay for it. If you are broke but still want that $5,000 home theater system, and you refuse to go into debt to get it, the only option is to receive it as a gift or...have someone else pay for it.

Perhaps he's been deliberately desensitizing the people to his numerous broken promises in the hope that by the time he breaks the promise of no new taxes, we'll be so used to it that his loss of political capital will be minute. Since government is certainly not going to receive health care reform as a gift, that means that they'll need someone else to pay for it; that would be us.

Completing the recipe for disaster, the Democrats are inching closer to employing the "nuclear option", whereby the majority party locks the opposition out of the process. In other words, Democrats are preparing to ram universal health care down our throats all by themselves without Republicans voting, thus owning the debacle. That is something the people will remember in an election year and something the Republicans will be sure to remind us of next year.

Such an act of betrayal by elected officials will most assuredly make Charlie Cook's current estimate look extremely conservative in scope.

Sphere: Related Content

Delete Spam From Obama

Anyone who has ever clicked on an ad on the Internet, out of simple curiosity at the prospect of "working from home" and making fabulous money, is no doubt all too familiar with the accompanying barrage of subsequent emails when they opt out and decide that the program is a scam.

Once "voluntarily" exposed to the program, the unsuspecting visitors to these sites are latched onto by the purveyors like lampreys in a seemingly serene lake, who cling like leeches hoping to make weary their prey until they succumb. Users then undergo weeks of spam-reporting to their providers until the tide subsides. The fate of those who dare to actually register is not so easily reversed.

So it is with the auto dealerships across America that, naively believing that the "Cash for Clunkers" program would be a boon, have since learned otherwise. Consider the dealerships as the Internet service providers, and their clientele the poor end-users. The only difference is that while the end-users are off and happily driving their new vehicles, the provider is left holding the note.

"Cash for Clunkers" was supposed to be the "get-rich-quick-scheme" of the Democrats and the new administration. Designed to save the environment while stimulating the economy, it at first seemed a huge success, causing consumers to flock to dealers in droves, hoping to seize on the New Deal. It worked for the consumer; not so much for the already-ailing small businesses. (Never mind the negative impact on the environment, as it requires an enormous amount of energy to merely comply with the conditions of the program, destroying those vehicles traded in on the program).

Since its inception, about one half of all dealerships in the New York Metro area have decided that they can no longer bear the cost of the program. One might ask how this could be so, since the program is the brainchild of the Federal Government, with all of the financial backing that that institution enjoys.

That answer is rather simple, since Uncle Sam has belatedly realized that tapping the allegedly bottomless well of the American taxpayer would be political suicide. The only option left to an ostensibly well-meaning bureaucracy is to risk the spectre of the Repo Man, stiffing the people whom they once relied upon to aid in the success of a doomed program.

In the New York area alone, only 2% of the "clunkers" money has been reimbursed to dealers, who bear the cost up front and then have to trust the government for pay back. As a result, about half of those dealerships have abandoned the program, opting out while praying that an increasingly destitute institution will remain solvent and repay the outlay they have expended.

Since the government is having trouble paying on the promise to car dealerships, and considering that Medicare and Social Security are plummeting towards bankruptcy, one has to wonder how anyone would entrust the same government with the fate of their health care. With all of his infomercials since becoming elected, Obama is less of a president and more of an annoying pop-up advertisement, and he should be clicked into the junk bin and reported as spam.

Sphere: Related Content

Learn From Government's Resumé

Our illustrious federal government had the brilliant idea of stimulating the economy and saving the planet, all in one neat package called "Cash for Clunkers". For those unfamiliar with the program, it was designed to create jobs for the auto industry by offering up to $4,500 dollars for anyone trading in a gas guzzler for a new, more efficient car.

With a $1 billion kitty, the program was supposed to run until the end of November or until the money was used up. It lasted four days and is now suspended. It created no jobs, since the cars sold were from existing inventory, and the environmental impact is offset by the fact that all of the trade-ins are required to have their engines destroyed and the cars disposed of, ostensibly in landfills, somewhere.

What this offers, however, is a truly "teachable moment". It demonstrates the federal government's inability to run and manage a $1 billion program. Considering this when they are trying to ram through a $1 trillion health care initiative - without reading it - in the shortest amount of time possible should cause alarm in even the most ardent supporter of Barack Obama.

In other words...do you really want the same federal government who couldn't accurately forecast the results of "Cash for Clunkers" making decisions about the future health of you and your loved ones?

Sphere: Related Content

Obamacare: Fountain Of Euthanasia

In my last post I complained about no one reading legislation before voting on it. That complaint - at least in the case of congressional members' culpability - stands. There is good news, however, and that is that someone is reading the bills. That someone is none other than the highly unlikely source of CNNs Money magazine, CNNMoney.com. Additionally, former senator Fred Thompson has also weighed in on the subject.

The CNN piece deals with the loss of medical freedoms that will be the result of this legislation's passage, while Thompson's discovery is a bit more, shall we say, ominous.

In a piece titled 5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform, with the subtitle warning:

If you read the fine print in the Congressional plans, you'll find that a lot of cherished aspects of the current system would disappear.

Shawn Tully lays out what this plan will do to us.

First on the list is the loss of freedom to choose what's in your plan. Since many states require expensive "standard benefits packages", people living in those states will have no alternative but to take what the state plan offers. Next, the government will not have a graduated premium structure, meaning that a 30-year-old healthy person will pay nearly the same premiums as a 50-year-old with emphysema.

Third, the plan eliminates the option of choosing high-deductible coverage, something that many lower income people choose as a way of reducing their premiums. So while a youger, healthier person will pay more than their actual cost, while an older person - who can usually afford to pay more - will get a big discount, and the younger person can't even offset his payments with the high deductible.

Number four is of particular interest because it directly contadicts Obama's insistence that "if you like your current health plan, you keep it, period". What he neglects to mention, however, is that if you work for a large company regulated by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974, you can only keep your coverage for a maximum of five years. The reason? After five years, those companies would have to offer only "approved" plans.

For number five - Freedom to choose your doctors - I am simply going to provide an excerpt from the linked article as it says it much better than I could:

The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges -- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get their care through something called "medical home." Medical home is similar to an HMO. You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists or orthopedists.

Under the proposals, the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer outrage over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and killed what was billed as the solution to America's health-care cost explosion.

Yesterday on his radio show, Fred Thompson interviewed former lieutenant governor of New York, Betsy McCaughey, who has also read the health care bill. What she discovered on page 425 of the bill makes one believe that Tom Daschle, a contributing author, must have gotten some tips from Dr. Jack Kevorkian.

Anyone enrolled in Medicare will be required to undergo "life-ending" counseling every five years, and immediately if diagnosed with a life-threatening illness. And if you're thinking that you'll take care of Mom with your savings, think again; just like other countries with socialized medicine, no unfairness like the ability to pay for extra care will be tolerated.

Unless you wish to see your grandma setting off on a sort of Logan's Run, I urge you to spread this information to everyone you know. The audio of the Thompson-McCaughey interview can be heard here.

Sphere: Related Content

No Mail For You!

Democrats continue to raise obfuscation to an art form, wantonly contradicting the fiscal predictions of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) by insisting on telling the American people that their proposals will actually reduce the deficit. One Democrat congressman even went so far as to tell a town hall meeting that Obama's Universal Health Care would create a $6 billion surplus, much to the chagrin of the audience who promptly heckled him nearly off the stage. Hannity discussed this meeting and the video clearly shows that the audience is obviously better informed than the congressman assessed.



Last night President Obama had yet another televised press conference in which he blathered on at length about a proposal which he has previously admitted that he is unfamiliar. When a caller to a show that Obama was on recently asked about the provision on page sixteen of the bill that would prohibit people from getting new private insurance, Obama confessed that he was "unfamiliar with that portion" of the bill. That doesn't stop him from bloviating on the subject with platitudinous rhetoric, however.

Now we have the controlling Democrats in the House of Representatives who are actually blocking House Republicans from sending out mailings to their constituents that are critical of the health care proposal. According to Roll Call:

Democrats are preventing Republican House Members from sending their constituents a mailing that is critical of the majority’s health care reform plan, blocking the mailing by alleging that it is inaccurate.

House Republicans are crying foul and claiming that the Democrats are using their majority to prevent GOP Members from communicating with their constituents.

The dispute centers on a chart created by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee to illustrate the organization of the Democratic health care plan.

When the Democrats retook Congress in 2006, they promised transparency and bi-partisanship. We have seen neither from them. All during the excruciatingly long campaign for the presidency, Barack Obama promised a new atmosphere of cooperation and transparency. So far he has managed to break his promises one by one, teaming with his fellow Democrats in ramming through pieces of legislation that no one - including those who actually vote on them - has had time to read.

Now, even in the face of growing opposition to this health care plan and accompanying evidence and analyses that portend economic disaster, Obama and Congressional Democrats simply say that all of it is untrue. Deny, deny, deny. This is how they claim that their motives for blocking Republicans' correspondence with their constituents are based on rules. That seems awfully convenient; simply censor your opposition by claiming that they are lying.

I hope the Democrats savor the flavor, and remember this tactic's usefulness in 2011.

Sphere: Related Content