He LIES: Obama’s Extortion of America!

I’m BEYOND tired of the political blackmail that goes on. This is seen throughout the body politic, whether it's local government and schools are clamoring for more tax dollars, or now, as the President out and out lies about the sequestration and what the deadline means.

1)   Sequestration was proposed and supported by Obama. Congress did not dream this up and, in fact, was told that the president would veto any attempt to get rid of the automatic cuts.

2)    Sequestration does NOT cut the budget, it merely slows the rate of growth and spending! All the Chicken Little doom and gloom is a big fat LIE.

So why are the president and his minions screaming about all the services that will be cut? It is the EXTORTION of America! It’s the Chicago Way—you hurt my business, I hurt you back. Never mind that, even if there were actual cuts, there’s plenty of pork and redundancy that can be reduced. But no, they are threatening longer times in airport security, cuts in education and cutbacks in border patrol agents. Their threats are to whatever they can find to cause the most outcry from the public. As an opening salvo against the American people, the administration is releasing hundreds of illegal alien detainees. Never mind that these are FUTURE reductions in spending that haven't occurred yet.

“The last thing you would do to meet a budget cut of this size would be to voluntarily undertake actions that undermine the rule of law and endanger the public safety,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

But when you’re facing budget reductions, just open the prisons and then complain you don’t have enough money for police protection—it’s the Chicago Way!

A Country Divided?

We are no longer a country who can "agree to disagree"—we are now at each other’s throats. We snipe at each other on Facebook and Twitter. We try to hold our tongue at the office or seek out allies we can voice our opinions to safely. If you go back over to the Real Clear Politics map and look back through past elections you can see how we've become more and more fundamentally divided just in the past 30 years. Instead of being rational, some people make excuses for their politicians like it's their hometown football team who got caught in a foul. They ignore and excuse them like a mother screaming at the police for arresting her “innocent” child for the 50th time.

The press has largely gone from the investigation arm, to the propaganda arm. You can find more objective reporting in blogs and by independents these days—which not surprisingly, are hated by both the politicians and the so-called “real journalists.” Politicians on both sides want to keep us divided so we go after each other, instead of calling them out for the sneaky business they're up to. Journalists no longer just report the news, they openly seek to influence it. They both look down on the majority of the populace as too stupid and uneducated and who must be spoon-fed and taken care of by an overprotective Big Brother. Bills are no longer written by the elected, but by the special interests. It's no wonder politicians can't tell us what's in them until after they made into law—they're spending more time raising campaign funds and running for office instead of actually writing the thousands of pages of laws they pass every year.

The more people who get what they didn’t earn, the angrier they are when someone tries to take it away. Give a child a bunch of toys and then tell them they aren’t going to get any more and watch them throw a fit.

I blame them and I blame the press. But I also blame the lazy public who refuse to lift a finger to educate themselves about what's going on. As long as your politician throws some money you're way, you remain coddled and asleep while the country goes down. And who's fault will that be if the country implodes financially? People will point the finger to Washington. But don't blame the politicians or the press—look in the mirror. Because it's you. You who couldn’t be bothered to look at what a politician does, not just what s/he says at election time. You who’d rather sit down than stand up. You who can’t be bothered to make an informed vote. Yes, you who watch The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with John Stewart instead of searching out the truth. It’s not always easy to find, but it’s out there. You who refuse to look at the overall well-being of your country and the massive spending going on and only care that your state gets a piece of the pie.

Because we are closer to Greece than you think, my friends. We are at the tipping point. But in our case I fear we could easily turn into a second civil war. The more people who get what they didn’t earn, the angrier they are when someone tries to take it away. Give a child a bunch of toys and then tell them they aren’t going to get any more and watch them throw a fit. But allow a child to work and earn what they can and buy their own toys and you have a more responsible child who is more secure because they are dependent on themselves, not others.

The generation that came out of the Great Depression and WWII were called the Greatest Generation. Unfortunately, they did not all pass these lessons on to their children and grandchildren. Within a few short years we went from a generation of self-sufficient and independent to the Me Generation fighting over our toys and expecting them to be provided to us. We went from the people who pursued happiness to those who demand it. Nearly fifty percent of the population now pays NO federal income taxes. Eventually someone is going to have to tell a number of them that there will be no more free toys.

AMNESTY!

FOX News: A memo by John Morton, director of ICE, shows administration orders to release illegals already in the pipeline to be deported. The administration is clearly making an end-run around Congress and lawmakers because they know they couldn't get amnesty legislation passed. Time and time again, this administration shows there attitude is: When the law gets in your way, just ignore it!

UPDATE: Just two weeks ago, John Morton appeared on FOX's On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, stating that there was absolutely no truth to the allegation that this administration was pro-amnesty.

VAN SUSTEREN: I mean, it's true that they passed a resolution, false that you're doing that.

MORTON: The charges are, one, that we're pro-amnesty and that we're anti-enforcement. Both of those are completely false. The president's against amnesty. The secretary's against amnesty. I'm against amnesty.

In fact he came on the show to tell about their new program to catch and deport illegal aliens who have committed crimes (well other than entering the country illegally.)

MORTON: Secure Communities is a new federal initiative that is literally going to transform immigration enforcement. And what we do is we take the fingerprints from every person who's booked into a jail, whether it's federal, state or local, and we run it against both the FBI's database and against the Department of Homeland Security's database to identify criminal offenders in our criminal justice system who aren't here lawfully and need to go home.

But now it's surfaced in an August 20th memo that ICE has been quietly telling courts to drop cases against illegal aliens who are pending removal. The policy change, it's said could "affect thousands of the estimated 17,000 pending removal cases."

Earlier this month, Morton planned a visit to Arizona. At the same time, the justice department peruses an aggressive case against the new Arizona immigration law and tries to bury Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona with demands for documentation. Arpaio, the sheriff who draws a hard line on illegal immigration and is nationally known for his tent city prison and pink prison uniforms, is being investigated for alleged civil rights violations. Other Arizona sheriffs called Morton's visit a "stunt." Morton traveled to the Arizona border, along with Arizona Democratic gubernatorial hopeful and state's Attorney General, Terry Goddard.

Is Senator Scott Brown Turning his Back on Tea Party Voters?

There was a tea party in Boston on Wednesday. Conspicuously absent was the freshman senator from Massachusetts. Is Scott Brown not wanting to 'dance with the one what brung him'? That's what some asked as the newly elected senator stayed in Washington, forgoing any tax day tea parties.

It can hardly be argued that it was energized tea party members who ushered Brown into the seat previously held by Ted Kennedy. Some have said he is distancing himself from controversy, although it could be argued that he didn't mind that controversy when gave him the edge. Others think he doesn't want to be associated with the likes of Sarah Palin, who had a rock star welcome in Boston at Wednesday's rally. The NYT must have had to break into the liquor cabinet to be able to write a about a poll that revealed most tea partiers are wealthier and more educated than the general public.

Any republican politician snubs the tea parties at his/her peril. And Brown will need their support in 2012 when he's up for re-election. Elephants, after all, are known for their long memories.

'Searchlight' Shines on Tea Party, Bloggers; Breitbart Ups Ante

Those wild guys at The Other McCain had the enviable task of covering the Tea Party Express stop in (appropriately named) Searchlight, Nevada.

I'm glad to see that they are also posting good shots of the crowds as, once again, the MSM is downplaying the crowd size.

According to Gateway Pundit, CNN reported estimates of Saturday's crowd were "hundreds, at least dozens" at the Saturday rally. Either CNN reporters slept through estimation in math class or they were covering the wrong movement.

American Border Patrol (not affiliated with US Border Control) took overhead crowd photos. Estimates are that 8,000-10,000 made up the crowd, with hundreds more waiting on the roadway, trying to get in even after the rally started.

Meanwhile, the libs are STILL lying about last Sunday's unsubstantiated claims that democrat congressmen were spit on or called racial names before the healthcare vote. And while Frank Rich of the New York Times is branding Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner for using the word "Armageddon" to describe the healthcare bill, he turns around and compares bricks thrown though democratic party offices with Kristallnacht. Way to ratchet down the hate speech, Rich. And, in fact, no one knows that this wasn't some uber-liberals who are pissed democrats didn't give them the public option.

Rich also doesn't bother to mention the shot fired into Republican Representative Eric Cantor's office last week. Cantor, who decided to speak out publicly on the matter, said, "I've received threats since I assumed elected office, not only because of my position but also because I'm Jewish." Cantor has received threats via email, but declined to discuss their contents so as not to encourage further hostility.

No one in the media, except Andrew Breitbart and some in the blogosphere like Soldier for Liberty, are covering Breitbart's own encounter with the left. After being deliberately misled down a wrong road in Searchlight, he and his party were menaced by Harry Reid supporters who also threw eggs at the Tea Party Express bus as it passed. Then police were called and claims were made that that Breitbart and his party had thrown the eggs, even though the camera crew with Breitbart caught it on tape. A blog at SFGate has a video interview with Breitbart shortly after the incident (see video below). More to follow later at Breitbart's Big Government site.



Breitbart previously announced a $20,000 reward (including 10K for the United Negro College Fund) for anyone who can provide video proof that racist slurs where hurled at Rep. John Lewis or other Congressional Black Caucus members the day of the protests on Washington. Update: It's confirmed that yesterday, Breitbart has upped the donation to the UNCF to 100K if Rep. Lewis can show evidence the N-word was yelled at CBC at last week's healthcare vote protest.

Stumped About Stupak

Say the magic word and the
Heathcare Doc drops down!

I'm stumped about Stupak...but not for the reason most are, apparently. What puzzles me is why so many thought Rep. Bart Stupak was, if not conservative, then at least someone with some semblance of principles or morals. Many republicans thought he was going to stand up against his party.

Come on folks! He's a democrat politician and his mouth is moving...ergo, he's lying.

Never mind the phony baloney executive order which does nothing. Stupak previously said he'd vote for the healthcare bill with abortion left intact.

As would have all the OTHER democrat representatives that voted no. They were allowed to vote no by the democrat congressional machine, most likely because they are in vulnerable districts. It's a game of Mother (Pelosi) May I. All those in more conservative leaning districts, especially those coming up for re-election, ask for a pass so they can claim to their constituents that they're really so-called blue-dog (conservative) democrats. Personally, I think they're all yellow. Maybe they should just be called the yellow-chicken democrats. They're only trying to pretend they don't march in lock step with their party. But they know full well if they really stood up to Pelosi, they'd be cut off at the knees (or other body part) and stripped from any plum committees they chaired.

Not that republicans don't play their share of games. Senator Jim Bunning, who's retiring this year decided to make his stand against the increase of unemployment benefits public. While it's laudable to actually expect Congress to show how they're going to pay for the bills they pass (i.e., PAYGO), why make your stand on the backs of the unemployed? You sure didn't show such determination when it came to voting for the GOP Medicare prescription benefit. And even fellow republicans were asking Bunning why the hell did he pick this for his battle. Of course, it's easy to find your 'huevos' when you don't have to worry about running for reelection in the fall.

Americans are tired of games and the runaround. There's going to be a political bloodbath for the democrats, come November. But republicans shouldn't be surprised if they also lose a few of their own party's seats to more conservative candidates in their own party.

Will Congress and the Health Care Bill Turn into Thelma and Louise?

Thelma and Louise want to know if
you'd like to ride with them!

We're standing on the edge of a precipice in this country. The ques- tion is: Are we going to jump and hope some net is going to catch us or do we stop, go back and design a bridge?

This week we've been bombarded with cancer victims, children and every sort of attempt to make anyone who opposes this legislation look like a complete Scrooge. Even with the polls showing the majority are against this bill, I'm amazed at how many still believe this bill is a great idea. I suspect that many of them think it wont affect them because they have insurance or medicare and that won't change. If that's you, keep reading.

We will be forced to buy, not just insurance, but government approved insurance. If you don't buy insurance there will be some 16,000 NEW IRS agents hired with full powers to enforce the law. Not buying insurance will mean fines, and possible jail time enforced by an agency who has powers to garnish wages, take your tax refund and come after your property.

Are you under some delusion that you're going to get free insurance? Or that you'll just "get to keep" your insurance. That's not how this works....

First of all this bill give over 400+ Billion to the "evil" insurance companies the democrats are so fond or railing against. You will be required to buy only that insurance that is government approved. Your employer will have to buy insurance that is government approved. Insurance will not be able to turn down anyone due to a pre-existing condition. What they don't tell you is how much this required insurance is going to cost!

Remember how the government "helped" consumers by changing laws on credit cards? How much did your interest rate go up, even with good credit? Did the credit card cancel your account or reduce your limit? God help us all when the government tries to "help" consumers.

Massachusetts has a similar plan to the current bill that can now boast the highest healthcare premiums in the US. And they continue to rise The Boston Globe reported last September:

"The state’s major health insurers plan to raise premiums by about 10 percent next year, prompting many employers to reduce benefits and shift additional costs to workers.

Increases will range from 7 to 12 percent, capping a decade of consecutive double-digit premium increases, according to a Globe survey of the state’s top health insurers. Actual rates for 2010 will depend on the size of the employer and the type of coverage, with small businesses and individuals expected to be hit hardest. Overall, premiums are more than twice as high as they were 10 years ago."

Massachusetts State Treasurer Timothy Cahill said in a recent press conference, "If President Obama and the Democrats repeat the mistake of the health insurance reform here in Massachusetts on a national level, they will threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years."

Democrats claim those here illegally will not be covered; however they are planning an amnesty bill so they WILL be covered. In any case they won't be subject to legal actions or fines. And they'll still be able clog up emergency rooms and cost taxpayer dollars for their "free" care.

So those of you who think you're going to be able to keep your current healthcare: How long do you think a) you'll be able to afford that insurance or b) that the company you work for will continue to supply the insurance or c) that companies will want to hire under these conditions? According to reports, companies with 50+ employees who don't provide coverage will pay fines of $2,000 per year, per full time worker.

The fine is much less than the cost of insurance. Average cost of insurance [pdf] runs around $3,800 (single) $9,646 (family) per year¹ How many employers will decide to dump insurance and just pay the fine? How many will start favoring part-time or contract workers who have to buy their own insurance at increasing rates?

Law of unintended consequences? No...that is the plan.

Whatever the start is, the goal is government single payer, socialized medicine, public option--by any name given, it doesn't smell sweet. As more and more people complain about rising insurance costs, Washington plans the final solution: Get rid of insurance for most of the public. Institute the public option that will eventually become the public non-optional (except for those in Congress).

Obama, Pelosi and other progressives have been dying to force the American public into a socialized healthcare system for years. In addition to getting even more tax revenues, they can now start to institute controls over every aspect of a citizen's life.

In the same speech where Pelosi said that lawmakers, "...have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it," she also said this:

"You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting."

What she's very excited about is not keeping people healthy...it's about control. She and others can't wait to control what food you can buy, remove the salt shakers from restaurants, institute a soda tax, etc. There are so many things they can declare affect health costs and, with the government involved, plan to control every aspect they can.

For one, there's the specter of gun control. The National Institute for Health has quietly started to fund research into health consequences of gun ownership. A decade prior, the CDC was forbidden by Congress to study this, but here we are again. Why is such a study done, by such an agency, except that they plan to tie gun ownership into healthcare.

While the media made fun of Sarah Palin for "death panels" she was, in fact, right. Critics have characterized this as some literal Hitler panel choosing who lives and who goes to the gas chamber. Clearly what was said, however, is simply a description of panels that will decide what degree of care you get. If you're young and generally healthy, that's not a problem. But if you're old or infirm and considered a drain on the system rather than an asset, then inevitably it comes down to the state deciding if it's worth it to continue your life and how much money they should spend preserving it.

Remember the town hall meeting where Jane Strum told about her 100 year-old mother (now 105) was able to convince a doctor to give her a pacemaker because of her zest for life. When asked if she would get the same care under his heath plan. Obama said that, "...costs a lot and maybe we will have to say, just take a pill." In other words, you're mother's just going to be given pain management and allowed to die. If that's not a death panel, I don't know what is!

Also it's funny how, in 2009, reports started coming out changing the recommendations on about how often pap smears should be done or at what age mammograms should be done and how often. The report came out almost within days of each other. Think this was just a coincidence?

And we haven't even touched on doctors who plan to retire if this passes and drug stores that are already refusing new Medicaid patients. Or the rob Peter to pay Paul move of over 500 billion being taken from Medicare and put into this bill. All that while trying to claim they've got 500 billion dollars in savings in Medicare when they're in fact spending it elsewhere.

We'll know in a few hours if Congress has the courage to step back and build a better bridge to the future or drive us off the edge like Thelma and Louise, which will result in their going down as well, come November and in 2012.

"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

¹High Deductible Health Plans with Health Savings Account that have deductibles of $1,000 or more (single) or $2,000 or more (family), 2006 numbers.

Massa, Lohen and Rather: The 'Moonbats' are Out!

Is there a full moon? The moonbats took flight recently.

Tickle Me Moonbat

Stimulus Package?

King of the moonbats was undoubtedly former representative Eric Massa. Massa appeared on the Glenn Beck TV show ostensibly to dish dirt on being forced out (his claim) from office because he wouldn't vote for the health care bill. Which on the face of it didn't make sense--Massa was in the Congress, not the more narrowly divided Senate. In fact, his leaving would mean Pelosi has a better chance of passing a health care bill if they went for the 51% reconciliation.

Massa changed stories faster than Rahm Emanuel can wrap a fish. Suddenly it was HIS idea to leave--he wasn't forced out. But despite the house probe (no pun intended), he said he didn't do anything illegal; it was all harmless fun. His idea of lighthearted fun--getting into tickle fights with young, male staffers on his fiftieth birthday. Obviously Massa has his own ideas about what constitutes a stimulus package: He also lived with several young, male staffers until he was advised this wasn't a good idea. One thing is pretty certain, Massa has been living in a pretty small closet for some time....

Luna Lindsey

Lindsey Lohen gets the moonbat nod for taking on the eTrade baby. The lawsuit involves a Super Bowl commercial where the eTrade baby is video conferencing with his girlfriend over his trading conquests. The girlfriend asks, "That milkaholic Lindsey, wasn't there, was she?" Baby Lindsey's head pops into the frame and says, "Milka-what?"



Lohen claims the video is based on her because she is known as "Lindsey" just like Prince or Madonna are known on a single name basis. eTrade denies the claim. It could be speculated that "Lindsey" is just is trying something outrageous to jump start her dying career. Or that she's actually got such a big ego that now everything must be about her! In fact, a search of IMDB database, for "Lindsey," Lohen doesn't appear at all, but a girl named Lindsey who was in a TV documentary called "Rehab." Now there's an idea, Ms. Lohen.

Lohen once said, "It is clear to me that my life has become completely unmanageable because I am addicted to alcohol and drugs." Does she now plan to track down this anonymous participant in the documentary and demand that she stop using her name?

Sheer Politics thinks that picking on a baby just makes Lohen a Mean Girl.

Moonstruck

Dan Rather (with BFF)

Dan Rather is always good for a moonbat report. It's no wonder most fellow liberals have stopped having him on TV. This time, even Chris Mathews couldn't talk over Dan fast enough to cover up Rather's latest foot-in-mouth. Dan Rather stated that Obama was so ineffective as a president he, "...couldn’t sell watermelons if you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic."

 Rather wrote an apology (of sorts) in the Huffington Post:

"It's an expression that stretches to my boyhood roots in Southeast Texas, when country highways were lined with stands manned by sellers of all races. Now of course watermelons have become a stereotype for African Americans and so my analogy entered a charged environment. I'm sorry people took offense."

Frankly, we're tired of his explanations that every gaffe he utters is some expression from his boyhood in Texas. Somehow, no one else has heard these "folksy" expressions before and Texans certainly are not living in the same time period that Rather apparently is.

Notice that he never really apologies: He says he's sorry, "people took offense" not that he said something offensive. That's a cop-out, non-apology.

Stuart Varney Tries to Teach Business to a Clueless Congresswoman

Representative Carolyn Kilpatrick of Michigan tried to filibusterer Stuart Varney, who was subbing for Cavuto, on Friday. She came on after the previous guest, a small business man, who stated he would like to hire an additional 75 workers for his business, but couldn't if his taxes increased.

The interview was regarding the drop in unemployment from 10% to 9.7%. Democrats point to this as a sign the stimulus is working.

Kilpatrick said, "We [Michigan] got $220,000,000 dollars of stimulus grants...along with other grants...there was also a tax cut for 95% of middle Americans." But she agreed more help was needed.

Kilpatrick then touted the re-use of TARP dollars being repaid by banks for a federal slush fund where, instead of using that money to pay down the debt or giving it back to tax payers, it would go to...more government programs. She mentioned $30 billion scheduled to be given to community development financial institutions, which would then allegedly loan out the money to small businesses. It should be noted that loaning big banks tax dollars did nothing to increase loans to small businesses. They used the money to purchase risky MBSs (mortgage backed securities) and other asset-backed securities. Essentially, it was like loaning a gambler money for groceries or electric bill and then finding he went to play slot machines.

Varney pointed to the previous guest and said, [The previous guest said he would hire] "75 people for his small business if he could be assured his taxes would come down and he could afford to hire. Would you approve of such a plan to lower taxes for individuals?"



"95% of middle Americans got tax cuts for last year...," Kilpatrick interrupted.

"But he doesn't," Varney repeated several times, trying to get a word in. "He gets a tax increase."

Then the finger wagging started from Rep. Kilpatrick, "I can tell you how he can grow his business. How he can grow his business is America's put back to work."

Wait a minute--isn't that what this business owner was trying to do...put people to work? This from a woman who has been in the public sector all her life and has never tried to grow a business. But it gets worse....

Varney tried again, "Having listened to our last guest, who says he runs a small business, 'If you cut my taxes, I will hire people.' Are you still in favor of raising those taxes?"

Kilpatrick responded, "I'm in favor of helping that small business. If he says he can hire more people that's what this administration is going to do."

"Then he wants his taxes cut...," Varney countered.

"Taxes are being cut...," she insisted.

"Not for the upper-income people...."

Kilpatrick, looking visibly irritated, said, "Bush took care of upper-income people, which is some of the problem we have now. We're trying to give tax cuts to middle-income people today and provide jobs so that people work and have revenue and buy from this company and others."

Varney was shook his head in defeat, "Those are not small business owners...." He then asked Rep Kilpatrick for an explanation on how a tax on the top 1 or 2% top income earners was going to create jobs.

"I can't explain that, that's not my job to explain that," she said.

"But we're talking jobs and Americans...," Varney started

"And the way you get jobs is you put people back to work."

At this point, I wouldn't have been surprised if Mr. Varney's head had exploded--mine almost did. Honestly, he had an amazing amount of patience. 

Can you see the circular argument going on? This is not some slick politician trying to parse political language. This is a clearly clueless representative who thinks jobs are created by government, not the private sector. She doesn't even know that a small business person who has employees is not a middle class taxpayer and would have to be one the "rich" making over $250,000 in or to employ others. But those in the public sector think all that money is going into their pockets when it's actually going back into their business and enabling them to hire more workers. 

Perhaps if Rep. Kilpatrick would use her ears and listen instead of running her mouth to parrot the latest talking points, she could learn something. To her, the government needs to take money from the "rich," give it to the lower and middle classes (and other entitled groups) who can then use it to buy things. That is their "plan" to stimulate the economy.

This wins my first "Clueless Representative" award. This is an award for the Representative or Senator who is devoid of rational thought. If I can come up of an appropriate placard I'll post it.

Pelosi: There were a NUMBER of Things (Obama) was for on the Campaign Trail!

Had Rep. Joe Wilson been at Nancy Pelosi's press conference, yesterday, he might have been tempted to again yell, “You LIE!” Pelosi first joyfully proclaims that the health care bill will crush the [evil] insurance companies. “We will have what we need to hold the insurance companies accountable. I contend that whatever we have coming out of this bill will hold them accountable and they’ll be crying out for a public option one of these days!” Laughs,

Then a reporter asks her about the letter from C-Span's CEO, requesting to film the remainder of the health care hearings, which are being withheld from the public behind closed doors. The he mentions Obama’s (repeated) promise to hold health care negotiations in the open on C-Span. Watch Pelosi’s reaction to that, as well as the reaction of her fellow democrats in back:

The audacity Pelosi displays is staggering even to those of us jaded to political babble. She looks around almost as if she expected to find Candid Camera playing a prank. “Well, (laughs) there were a NUMBER of things he (Obama) was for on the campaign trail.” And everyone laughs. Silly reporter, that was during the CAMPAIGN—surely you didn’t expect him to keep a campaign promise! Then she has the gall to claim they have been the MOST transparent congress there has ever been. The only thing the democrats have been transparent about is their contempt for the American people.

Watching the health care debate at this point is a bit too little, too late—the deal is all but done. But kudos to the C-Span marketing department for getting some beneficial press. It is something that the politically active members of the public would watch. Unlike the congress, the US public has been reading the bill—so the senate made sure to lock their version up until after their vote.

Pelosi’s contempt is a shot across the bow of the White House and a sign of a rift in the democratic party. She seems to be saying, ‘Yeah he said a number of things to us during the campaign, too!’ It’s hard to believe, but there are several in Congress who think Obama isn’t liberal enough! A number are ANGRY with Obama because he can’t socialize the U.S. fast enough! There were compromises made to the health care plan, Gitmo hasn’t been closed yet, more soldiers are being sent to fight in Afghanistan instead of withdrawn. And now, darn it, another terrorist has popped up, which puts a crimp in the plan to send Yemen’s Gitmo detainees home to fight another day while trying 911 criminals in US domestic courts.

The idea that politicians of either party are going to hold open hearings on anything seems a distant pipe dream. It’s as big a dream as democrats in Congress are going to sock it to health insurance companies by...forcing everyone to buy health insurance!