A Liberal Politician's Dream! ....... But a Nightmare for Everyone Else!

Insomnia has a lot to answer for!

The night before last I was late to bed. Well, perhaps it would be more accurate if I said it was late for me but, whichever it was, the end result was the same. The next day I was tired and so I decided on an early night yesterday to catch up. So this morning I woke up very early and because I didn’t want to disturb my daughter’s household I lay in bed and started to think.

Because of the events of the last few days in England and the ongoing political struggle in the United States, my thoughts turned again to Obamacare and its progenitor, the British National Health Service.

It should be no surprise to anyone that I am a firm believer in the free market and the competition that philosophy engenders and I tried very hard to imagine a world without all that implies.

Does anybody imagine that the United States Postal Service would do a better job of delivering their letters and packages if Federal Express and/or United Postal Service did not exist?

What if there were no Nordstrom’s or Saks or Bloomingdales? Would the sole survivor, Macy’s perhaps, provide the level of quality and price that we have come to enjoy? To answer that question we only have to look at the old Soviet Union where, in Moscow, the only game in town was the state store known as GUM. This sorry emporium was famous for only three things; shoddy and frumpy merchandise, sudden and unannounced shortages and discourteous staff.

Or, how about an extension of the new GM in the form of “Government Motors” along with the disappearance of Ford, Chrysler and all the imports? Do you really think your “wheels” would be a better, more innovative buy at a lower price? Again look to the old Warsaw Pact and contemplate the Yugo. Is it the leading-edge technology employed or the innovative engineering used that you remember or is it the window seals that didn't quite match the windows or the body rot that appeared after six months?

Imagine that Richard Branson was denied access to the skies and airports of Britain and the only game in town was a state-run variant of British Airways. How affordable would a trip to Disneyland or Dubai be then?

So, why does anybody in their right mind think that the Government, any Government, can provide a better service than the free market in healthcare? Well, as far as I can determine, it can’t and won’t.

Most people, here in the UK, live with a service which is mediocre at best while comforting themselves with the oft-repeated mantra that it’s free. Well it isn’t and ask to look at a Brit’s last pay stub and you’ll see just how much it isn’t free.

The relative few who demand better than that which is offered by the National Health Service can, and do, go out and buy insurance in order to jump the line or to gain access to those practitioners who have a private practice instead of, or in addition, to their NHS participation. But this cost is as well as their payroll deduction not instead of it.

Just think how pleased the US Post Office would be if, every time you sent a package via FedEx, you had to send the equivalent amount to them as well. What a deal? They get the money but don’t have to provide the service.

Only a politician could dream that one up! They did in the UK more than 60 years ago and Obama is waiting in the wings.

Liberal's Labor Lost ..........

Last Tuesday was my school reunion. It was interesting for several reasons including the fact that some people seem to remember a few of my exploits better than I do and one or two of them seem to be infamous to the point of notoriety.

I managed to evade further confrontation with the liberal academic who decided, a few weeks ago, to take me to task, not via this medium which would have been fine, but rather by emailing my distribution list. Well he won’t have that opportunity again as now the list does not contain visible addresses.

Prominent in the lapel of my blazer was a pin of “Old Glory” and I do hope it irritated some as much as it gave me a sense of pride for surely both were my motivations for putting it on in the first place.

Many of the attendees were liberal while we were at school but, whilst a few seem to have grown out of that phase of adolescence, many others are still stuck in a kind of ideological time warp.

The ideology reached it’s most obvious manifestation in a speech given by the organizer of the event. After making the obligatory puns and thanking the attendees he launched into some reminiscences not just about our schooldays but about that period of our lives in general and the politics of the time in particular.

As I posted yesterday, the Labor Party appears destined for ignominious defeat in the next general election which must be held sometime in the next 8 or 9 months. Despite the valiant huffing and puffing of one of the minority parties, the Liberal Democrats, it seems almost certain that a new government will be formed with the Conservative Party at the helm.

Now the very contemplation of that is tantamount to Armageddon according to the liberals and to the academics. Now combine liberalism and academia into one person and you end up with some kind of intellectual attack dog. And that became apparent when the speaker decided to launch into a glowing dissertation of the British National Health Service. He waxed most poetical about our good fortune in living most of our lives under the sheltering wings of this monstrous bureaucracy and the part that it had played in our lives.

Perhaps it's all about me and perhaps it isn't but I couldn’t help thinking that somehow the battle over Obamacare and my presence, complete with flag pin, had something to do with this performance because it was so completely out of context at a class reunion. Anyway, his rhetoric reached a rousing crescendo when he exhorted his audience to be ready to man the political barricades when, “Those Tory Bastards get in!” It wasn’t clear to me then, nor is it now, just what “those Tory Bastards” were going to do that could provoke such vitriol but perhaps it’s enough for a liberal that someone voices dissent.

It becomes more and more clear on both sides of the Atlantic that liberals cannot tolerate dissent or variation from their left-wing dogma. They claim to be the “progressive” movement; the one that celebrates diversity while actual empirical experience suggests precisely the opposite.

I got ample proof of this when I asked some friends at my table whether I should enter a dissenting vote. “You’d better not”, they said and, considering the ovation the orator had received for his clarion call to action, they were probably right. So, discretion being the better part of valor, I left instead and I don’t think I’ll be back!

It is, therefore, with some glee, albeit tinged with a healthy doses of sadness, sympathy and anger that I relay to you an event that happened that very evening.

The daughter of a friend here in England is pregnant and due to deliver in about 6 weeks. Anyway, on that evening she showed signs of going into labor early whereupon the British National Health Service sprang into long-established lethargy. She lives in a fairly large town called Chesterfield and major cities such as Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham are all within 40 miles of her home. But in all this geography there were no facilities able to accept her and her potential family. She wound up in Leeds and a cursory scan of any atlas will immediately make the point that only bizarre bureaucratic logic or desperate necessity could have driven that decision.

As I’ve said before, the problem with socialized medicine in this country is not the existence of clinical excellence, it’s the availability of, and access to, it.

That’s how medical rationing is done here and how it will be done if the “Great Leader” gets his way in the U.S.

Finally, another sad note. When I've relayed this story to other Brits since, they've raised not one eyebrow; no surprise whatsoever.

It’s par for the course!

"He's Just Like Blair!"

Obama would be ambivalent about “this place“.

On the one hand he’d feel right at home because it employs the social engineering concepts which he holds so dear and which he hopes to implement in the United States. These include a single-payer healthcare program, a “cradle to grave” welfare system and a labor-dominated social infrastructure.

“This place” is, of course, the United Kingdom but these very same programs have resulted in an overwhelming sense of apathy and indifference towards politics among many and an almost pathological reliance on government at the European level as well as via Westminster and locally. Not that such a reliance would worry Obama and his cohorts and, in fact, it could be argued that this is his goal because with reliance comes control and that is the true goal of every Socialist.

So it sounds like an Obama nirvana doesn’t it? But there is another side to this glowing endorsement of his beliefs and policies and it's one that would not please him at all.

Yesterday, I scoured two national newspapers and found not one mention of the Messiah. How can this be in a land that is supposed to hang on his every word? And he doesn’t fare any better in the electronic media either and so, all-in-all, it’s not good news for a political diva.

But, not be to thwarted, I decided to do some digging on my own and began asking questions of the locals about the “Great Leader”. Even before I got here I had started thinking about this issue and I had formulated some ideas of my own which I was determined to validate or dismiss. Because the U.S. media, principally the sycophants of most cable news outlets, had been assuring me of Obama’s popularity in Europe, I came up with these questions.

“Is Obama popular here?”

Depending on the answer, the next one was -------

“And why do you think that is?”

Sometimes I got answers of substance to that question but more often than not I didn’t and in those cases I added some clues.

“Do you think”, I asked, “that it’s because he seems to jet around the world aboard Air Force One making apologetic speeches on behalf of the United States”? “Or is it because”, I added, “that it’s because his policies are so much in line with those implemented in Europe”? “Or is it because he’s not George W. Bush and that’s reason enough for many people?”

One set of responses to these queries surprised me at first until I started to think it through.

"He's just like Blair", I was told.

For some ten years and until fairly recently, Tony Blair was the British Prime Minister. He swept into office in 1997 with promises of good things for just about everybody. The “ancien regime” was dead and gone and a new era of change was dawning. Now, as his successor, Gordon Brown, wallows up to his neck in “the slough of despond” and appears destined for a catastrophic defeat in the next general election, many voters are looking back at Blair as well and are asking some very tough questions. Principal among these is succinct to the point of semi-brutality namely, “Apart from becoming very rich personally, what did he actually do?”

And, it seems there are not many good answers to this very good question.

There is little doubt that Blair was young, charismatic, intelligent, articulate and, Oh by the way, a lawyer. This latter fact alone should tell you something!

Sound like anybody you know?

Less obvious at the time though was his unbridled ambition, a devious nature worthy of Machiavelli, and an inability or an unwillingness to actually do anything. One respondent reminded me of the old joke about the IBM salesman who, on his wedding night, didn’t actually perform but sat on the edge of the bed boasting about how great it was going to be.

Again, does it remind you of anyone you know?

I did get at least one endorsement from a British respondent for Obama but, as the guy is a lawyer, I am tempted to regard this instance as a case of professional solidarity.

Finally, Obama would love this place for another reason as well. It just cost me more than 120 US dollars to fill my rental car with diesel and most of that was tax!!

A Voice Crying in the Wilderness ......

Little did we know when Obama drove to the Capitol to speak yesterday evening that we were about to hear about a human horror that would dwarf almost any previous global disaster.

According to Obama, just a few short weeks ago in July 2009, there were 47 million people in these United States without health insurance. Then, last night we learned the awful truth that this country had lost more people in just a few days than in any event since World II. Because last evening we learned that there were now just 30 million uninsured.

Now those who know me can sense what may be coming and some of you will be right.

So what happened to the 17 million people who disappeared off the radar?

Did the “missing persons” die; All 17 million of ‘em? Or did Truth die?

Apostle or not, never forget that Obama is first an Activist, a Socialist, a Lawyer and a Politician. Now you can arrange those nouns in any order you want but the result is the same. And you can define, “Same” however you want.

The stock in trade of lawyers and politicians is similar. It's words and the ability to parse them. And here are two examples. For a start, there was the oldie but goodie, “The Government is not going to force you to leave your private plan”. That’s what he said and that’s what today’s House transcript said and so did the version from the White House. I add that only because I have been challenged to prove what was said and what was heard had, at least, a passing resemblance of similarity

Now I don’t doubt his statement for a moment but I know, and Obama knows, that, when my employer drops me from that plan because they now have an out, where will I have to go?

Then Obama talked about providing you and me the healthcare we need but not the healthcare we want. I lived half of my life under the British system and half of my life with my American coverage and I know the difference.

Nolo contendere!

If Obama wants, as he claimed, to eliminate “waste and fraud”, why wait until 2013 to do it. Why not now?

I know it and you know it. By 2013 he’ll be a blip. And without some kind of healthcare bill, he’ll be a “non-blip”. A mere bump in the road which won't even cause my CD to skip.

It can be, therefore, not a shock to anyone except the most devout, that Rasmussen reports today only 44% approve and 53% don’t. And that’s just on
Healthcare.

Tomorrow is the 8th anniversary of September 11, 2001, and that’s why I won’t be around. I have another commitment.

And, I’m off to Europe next week for a week or two. Of course, I could claim that it is just a fact-finding trip; but it’s not. I want to hug my kids and spoil 3 grandsons

Now, it may be a vain hope. But I would love it if someone would step up and fill in for me. It doesn’t matter if it is a dissenting voice.

And I promised to publish my new, I think, email address and it is:-

jack-morris@q.com


Just one voice can make a difference.

It did last night and it wasn’t “parliamentary” nor was it “correct” but it was honest and it was true. I speak, of course, of the gentleman from South Carolina; His reelection is safe which is more than Obama can hope for.

"News that's Fit to Print" -- New York Times

Today, I’m back on one of my few hobby horses. I don’t have that many really I don’t. But right at the top of the list is the double standard employed by the drive-by media’s coverage of this president and that of his predecessor.

Can you imagine what howls of protest would have followed a speech by President Bush to the nation’s schoolchildren in which he mentioned “G-d”? Well Obama did just that yesterday and he did it more than once. So, I ask again, where are the screams of outrage about the separation of church and state?

And the resignation of Van Jones highlights yet another prime example. Since the storm clouds began to gather, how much coverage did the issue receive in the “mainstream” electronic and print media? For example there was not a word in the New York Times or the Washington Post until the resignation was accepted.

But the actual resignation early Sunday of the “green jobs” adviser says as much about the Obama White House as it does about Jones – marking the latest sacrifice to the political gods after a long summer of compromises and surrenders highlighted the limits of White House power.

The departure, nominally the choice of a still-defiant Jones, who said he feared distracting from important business – confirmed Obama’s choice of pragmatism over confrontation and a belief that controversies sometimes are better solved by capitulation, a view that infuriates Obama’s allies on the left. It confirmed that the real opposition party to Obama right now is the conservative grassroots that draws its energy from Fox News, talk radio and the Drudge Report, and often leaves Republican elected officials scrambling to catch up.

And it was a fresh reminder that the White House’s vetting process didn’t fall down just on high-profile nominees like Tom Daschle. It barely touched the lower reaches of the administration. A White House official conceded Sunday that Jones’ past statements weren’t as thoroughly investigated due to his relatively low rank. Jones’ selection also was propelled by powerful patrons, who included the first lady and the vice president. In his statement, Jones was defiant. "On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me,” he said. “They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide.”

Excuse me, what lies and distortions?

Most of the “indiscretions” were caught on video and/or audio tape including the “Republicans are assholes” and President Bush being described as a “crackhead” and "the pollution of black neighborhoods by rich white guys".

The logic of the departure was clear: It was a hope of keeping the national conversation where Obama wanted it this week ahead of his health reform speech to a joint session of Congress later today. “Between Cambridge cops; whether administration officials are or are not for the public option; right wing mobbing at town halls; and the back to school welcome contretemps, the White House has been forced to play defense and loose-ball control over the summer,” said the former Clinton White House aide Chris Lehane, who noted that a “very important week” could have been consumed by “a discussion related to an obscure staffer who no one has ever really heard of.”

Jones’s departure resonated sharply, however, with the other topic on Sunday’s television rotation: The public insurance option in the health care debate. There, too, the White House has responded to conservative opposition by pointing first to the outright distortions – and then running the other way. To the outrage of the House Progressive Caucus, MoveOn, and other liberal voices, Gibbs and senior advisor David Axelrod said Obama this week will continue to advocate for a government-run plan to compete with private plans, but won’t insist on it, as some foes have cast the option as equivalent to a government takeover of all health care delivery.

The Jones departure recalls another Democratic surrender: The indicated willingness to abandon a plan to fund voluntary end-of-life consultations after they were miscast by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as “death panels.”

"If Jones left under pressure from the Obama administration then we are in for a very long and painful four years,” said Melissa Harris Lacewell, a political science professor at Princeton University. “I would hate to think that Glenn Beck can simply shout down any member of the administration he chooses to target.”

She was referring to the Fox News host who has rocketed to a status as one of the de facto leaders of the opposition since joining the network from the relative obscurity of talk radio and CNN Headline News. Beck's attacks on Jones intensified after an advocacy group which Jones helped found, Color of Change, led a campaign to drive advertisers away from Beck’s show. The resignation, in turn, confirmed the alternative media’s stature as the administration’s most potent foe. Along with other talk radio hosts and the Drudge Report, Beck helped drive a summer of protest against health care reform that turned the legislation into a referendum on change and government.

“But Van Jones is just the tip of the iceberg,” Beck said earlier this month. “If we understand Obama by who he surrounds himself with as HE told us, what does Van Jones’s 9/11 'truther stuff' tell us about Obama’s Middle East policy?”

Some progressives said they saw racial overtones in Jones’ departure – which came as critics began to step up their scrutiny of Jones’ past words of support for Abu-Jamal, a former Black Panther on death row whose murder conviction in the death of a police officer is a cause célèbre for some on the left. What nonsense!

At a commencement address in the spring, first lady Michelle Obama held Jones up as an example to students of people who are doing interesting and innovative work. "And then there's Van Jones, who recently joined the Obama administration, a special adviser to the president on green jobs. Van started out as a grassroots organizer and became an advocate and a creator of ‘green collar’ jobs –- jobs that are not only good for the environment, but also provide good wages and career advancement for both skilled and unskilled workers,” she said.

Really? Name one?

Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett echoed that praise to a cheering crowd at the Netroots Nation convention this summer. “Van Jones, we were so delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House, we have been watching him really...for as long as he's been active out in Oakland... and all of the creative ideas that he has... and now we have all of that energy and enthusiasm in the White House," Jarrett said. A White House official conceded that Jones “was not as thoroughly vetted as other administration officials,” though the official suggested it had more to do with the relatively low level of Jones’s job than with the power of his patrons.

Really? It seems to me that, for all intents and purposes, Jones is Obama and vice versa!

Liars and Tigers!

Back in January of this year I founded this Blog. Looking back now I realize that I did it for selfish reasons. I was so frustrated by the election results even though the Republican hierarchy should take responsibility not just for the loss by McCain but also for the coat-tail effect. Anyway, it was a way for me to vent and it helped.

Venting is important. I used to work for a company that sold a variety of office equipment and right outside the back door there was a pile of already-scrapped machinery and beside the pile was a sledge hammer. The theory was that an engineer working on some intractable problem could go out and pound the pile for a few minutes and come back refreshed and ready to go. For my sins I suppose, I wound up as a manager there, a role which I hated, and I really gave that metallic “whipping boy” a lot of work.

But, outside my backdoor later, the only objects of frustration were the pigeons. For the most part they're now gone since I shot a couple and deprived the rest of vital water. But Obama was still there and so I needed an outlet for that as well.

Hence the Blog!

Just a few months later, I know now that the readers extend from “Sea to Shining Sea”. They extend from upstate New York to San Diego, from Louisiana to Idaho. They even extend from England to Hawaii. I am so grateful and so overwhelmed because I know that there are many demands on your time and your attention. I also know that it makes me feel very humble which is a rare emotion for me but it does make me strive even harder to write “good” stuff and to get it right.

Today, I heard of even more readers as the message, seemingly, gets around. Then, as well, there are the radio stations that feature a link from their homepages to this forum. I don’t, honestly, know how many people in total read it. Most like it but not all and that’s they way it should be.

Have I received dissenting opinions? Yes, and some of them you know about.

Have I received threats? Yes, but they won’t stop me I promise but I’m grateful for Arizona’s “Concealed Carry” program.

I am also so grateful to readers for ideas and/or little trails of breadcrumbs to follow. One such came from a new reader and the subject was Valerie Jarrett who, supposedly, vetted the now deposed Czar, Van Jones. Well she obviously blew that assignment and that should raise a question about her other approvals. Of course, she is another product of the Chicago political machine and perhaps, that says it all.

Another question that needs to be looked at is this. Three doctors examined the Libyan terrorist before his release from a Scottish jail. I heard one interviewed today on radio and he admitted that he was hired and paid by the Libyan embassy in London.

There are times I think I’ve heard it all but there is always something that drags me back to reality and so it was today. Did you see Tiger Woods make a bad shot and throw his club into the bushes? Then he stalked off leaving his caddy to find and retrieve the blameless implement.

There was a startling resemblance to Obama. There was petulance. There was narcissism. There was a spoiled brat attitude. There was a “Not fair and it shouldn’t happen to me mood”.

There was life.

Live with it!

"The Mouth that Roared"

Hard on the heels of Harry Reid’s gaffe last weekend when the Majority Senate Leader pronounced that, “He was in favor of the ‘Public Option’ just so long as it was run privately”, comes more and more evidence of the Democrats’ “Foot in Mouth” Syndrome.

Some time last year during the election campaign an Obama apostle strove to convince the electorate that should he, Obama, be returned as the victor we would see an Administration staffed by the most brilliant, the most learned, the most articulate individuals that this Republic has ever produced. Really?

Just yesterday, the unemployment numbers were announced and it was revealed that the jobless rate had jumped from 9.4% to 9.7. Odd, therefore, that good old Uncle Joe Biden only 24 hours earlier had trumpeted the fact that, “The stimulus package is working better than anyone had ever expected”. Really?

While all this was going on another Obama appointee was becoming famous as well but not in the way that the appointee or Obama will cherish. Van Jones is Obama’s choice as the “Green Jobs Czar” and appears to be well, frankly, not so brilliant, not so learned and not so articulate. A much more accurate description of Czar Jones is that the man is an idiot.

Earlier this year he gave a speech at the University of California, Berkeley or, as it’s known in the San Francisco Bay Area, “The People’s Democratic Republic of Berkeley”, which should indicate even to those from Lake Havasu that Left-wing insanity prevails there. Anyway some woman asked the Czar, how come that in the previous Administration, Republicans could get stuff done in spite of Democratic majorities in the House and Senate but now with Democrats controlling every branch virtually nothing was getting passed?

Mr. Jones’ response was wonderfully descriptive of his own view of the world when he said, “The answer is that Republicans are ‘assholes’”. Now isn’t that illuminating? This brilliant insight prompted me and others to take a closer look at the erudite Mr. Jones and some fascinating details emerged.

He is a self-confessed Communist and Radical; two facts that must surely endear him to Obama. He’s also a “Truther”. This bunch of losers is the one that professes to “know the truth about 911” which was that those events were all the doing of President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. They even went as far as to collect signatures for a petition to force the FBI to investigate their foolish claims.

A corollary of that same assertion was recently voiced by the African-American Poet Laureate of the state of New Jersey who declared that “the Jews caused it” and offered as proof the preposterous and palpably false contention that no Jews were at work in the World Trade Center on that infamous day. Really?

But let’s get back to Mr. Jones who signed the aforementioned petition but who now says he never read it and/or he didn’t know what was in it. The “Truthers” dispute this, because in a vain attempt to add validity to their cause, they sought out only those people who they felt had clout and ensured that only those who shared all their fatuous beliefs were thus courted.

If we accept the old adage about, “judging a person by the company he keeps” and then look at the litany of people who have influenced Obama, we see a very disturbing picture. From Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright in his past to the Van Jones’ of his present, if Obama is not a racist and a Socialist, he’s giving a very convincing impersonation.

As we seem to be into corollaries today, I would venture this as well; Perhaps a man may also be judged by the wife he chooses and the people he hires and, with that thought in mind, consider that ,on the occasion of his acceptance to Harvard Law, his own wife is on record quoting the Great One himself, as agreeing that, “Yeah, now I’ll have to be judged by ‘Whitey” again!”

And you soon will again "Mr. President". You soon will and you and your political ilk will be found wanting.

Did you ever thnk it would come as far as this as fast as this?

I have reported often in the last month or so about the precipitous drop in Obama’s approval rating among Independent and Likely voters. Well precipitous as far as Obama is concerned but so gratifying to me.

But there was worse to come because now the cheerleaders on the Left are donning their life vests and sleeping with their shoes on, just in case.

Going back a few years, David Brooks of the New York Times wrote of his interview with the newly-seated senator from Illinois. He commented on the “beautifully creased trousers atop the immaculately polished shoes”. “At that moment” he continued, “I knew he would become President”. Now though, in a second article, he comments on the slide in approval and wonders if. “Obama is up to the job”.

Then, in the Washington Post on August 31, Howard Kurtz joined the growing band of liberal media allies who have gone “wobbly on him”. As Kurtz put it, “If Obama is losing Paul Krugman, can the rest of the Left be far behind?”

And similar sentiments have been voiced by such luminaries as Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune, Frank Rich of the New York Times, Arianna Huffington, and Richard Cohen of the Washington Post.

So even Obama’s ego can see the writing on the wall and it is obvious that a new strategy has to come. One tactic is to address a joint session of Congress next week but for a warm-up the Great Leader proposes to make a speech to the school children of the nation.

This has parents and some school boards up in arms.

“No President gets to speak to my children unchallenged”, is one of the milder rebukes that have been recorded as parents across the country are rebelling against plans by President Barack Obama to speak directly to their children through the classrooms of the nation's public schools without their presence, participation and approval.

The plans announced by Obama also have been cited as raising the specter of the Civilian National Security Force, to which he's referred several times since his election campaign began, but never fully explained. "He's recruiting his civilian army. His 'Hitler' youth brigade," wrote one participant in a forum at Free Republic.

"I am not going to compare Obama to Hitler. We'll leave that to others and you can form your own opinions about them and their analogies. ... However, we can learn a lot from the spread of propaganda in Europe that led to Hitler's power. A key ingredient in that spread of propaganda was through the youth," wrote a blogger at the AmericanElephant.com blog, where the subject of the day was a national "Keep-Your-Child-at-Home-Day." At issue was an announcement that Obama plans to deliver a message directly to students via the Internet into public school classrooms across the nation on Sept. 8.

The announcement said the federal Department of Education "is encouraging educators, students and parents to use this opportunity to help students get focused and begin the school year strong."

The government also is publicizing a list of suggestions for students and teachers to do in preparation for the speech, including studying Barack Obama's writings and presidency.

But opposition is assembling quickly, similar to the concerns expressed on the AmericanElephant blog: "Now the former community organizer and current president of the United States is making an unprecedented speech to the school children of our nation. I'd like to believe his motives were pure and politics didn't play into this. But viewing this administration's track record doesn’t afford such benefit of the doubt.

"When the president browbeats property owners who want to protect their legal rights .... when the president admits he doesn't know the facts but impugns the integrity of a police force… when the president calls me a liar for reporting what is actually in the health care bills and encourages my neighbors to report me to some enemies list… when the president apologizes to nations around the world and bows to a Saudi king… he loses the benefit of the doubt," the blogger wrote.

"Without benefit of the doubt, the president doesn't get to speak to my children unchallenged," the writer said.

The education department's suggestions include building background knowledge for students about Obama, and then asking, "What do you think he'll say to you?"
During the speech, students should be instructed to "think about the following: What is the president trying to tell me? What is the president asking me to do?"
Another exercise would be to have students write letters to themselves about "what they can do to help the president." "These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals," the recommendations suggest.

At the Docstoc website where the announcement about the speech was drawing negative reaction, one forum participant confirmed that his grandchildren would not be in school that day. "What's he going to do, tell the kids to report their parents to the Thought Police if they don't support Obamacare?" added another.
"I don't care what the heck he's going to talk about, unless he holds a teaching degree for every state, and he plans on actually TEACHING a lesson, this SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED!!!" added another.

"Let the brain-washing begin. Yes, it is a bit of a stretch. But I remember from history class that some other very prominent figures in history started out like this, all about education and change for the better. Capture the hearts and minds and all that. You can call it what you will but Obama Youth or Hitler Youth … This is much too slippery a slope, this day and age with the role of government becoming more invasive the last thing I want is for 'them' to get a tooth into my kids," wrote a contributor.

On columnist Michelle Malkin's forum page, one person wrote simply, "The Obama Youth Corps has to start somewhere."

On the DailyPaul website publicizing U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, another parent wrote, "Perhaps it’s harmless, but Obama's past behavior and his push for 'service' and community over individuals make me very uncomfortable… "My kids will be forced to listen to the views of a president that is perhaps the most anti-American in history, not to mention one who believes we need a 'civilian national security force just as strong, powerful and well-funded as our military.'"

WorldNet Daily has reported on Obama's civilian force plans several times, including when he signed into law the "Give Act," H.R. 1388, which massively expanded the National Service Corporation and allocated to it billions of dollars.

Obama had told a campaign stop in Colorado Springs last year he wants a "Civilian National Security Force" as big and as well-funded as the U.S. military.
As the presidential campaign advanced last year, another video appeared that for many crystallized their concerns over such a "corps." It shows a squad of young men marching and shouting praises to Obama.

Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue of a "national civilian force" and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions. "If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together? "Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.

Duane Lester, writing at All American Blogger, has verbalized opponents' worst fears. "Hitler knew that if you control the youth, you control the future. I wrote about him in 'The Threats to Home Schooling: From Hitler to the NEA.' As I noted in that article, Hitler said: 'The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled,'" he wrote.

Here in Arizona, the State Superintendent of Schools has already voiced his concern about the proposal to the various school districts but has decided that the final decision on showing the broadcast should be left to those districts.

Well, he was almost right. The decision should be left to the parents for they are the ones who are ultimately responsible for their children. Or has the Government taken over that duty as well?

Live Long and Prosper,----- as long as Obama will let you

Did Spock of Star Trek fame have a first name? If he did, I don’t know what it is or was but I could make one up if only I spoke Vulcan. It would have to be the equivalent of “Big Ears” but that would get the Obama cultists outside my house tonight complete with pikes and flaming torches. And I only have 3 cloves of garlic and 80 rounds of 40 caliber ammo to fight ‘em off.

Anyway Spock once said that “Diplomacy is all about prolonging a crisis”. See, I like Spock because he’s a logic-based person. If you ever followed the series and/or the movies you would know that he is the product of a Vulcan father and an Earthling mother.

With the scene set, let’s look at the Commander’s hypothesis and accept it for a moment or two at least. A couple of months ago the whole healthcare “thing” looked like a done deal. The Democrats had a big majority in the House. After the selection of Al Franken they had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and they had Obama in the Oval Office. And he would sign anything that had his name on it and the words “health” and “care” appeared anywhere in its text.

Well Obama and his fellow-travelers must be extraordinary diplomats because they’ve managed to extend the crisis for weeks and there’s really no end in sight.

I suppose that cause isn’t helped by the idiocy of their people like Harry Reid, the majority leader in the Senate, who over the weekend pronounced that, “He was in favor of the ‘Public Option’ but only if it’s privately run”.

Way to go Harry!!

And it becomes clearer every day why Obama, Reid and Pelosi were, and are, pushing for quick passage because, the longer it takes; the more dirty little secrets are found. Ignore for now the “End-of-Life Counseling and the Rationing and the Access to financial records and consider Dirty Little Secret Number 4.

Here’s the primary problem. Medicare is bankrupt and so is Medicaid and Social Security. Though boomers have paid into these programs via their taxes for decades, there are not enough benefits to offer them now -- and even less in the future.

The problem is compounded further when one learns that the number of people in the United States who are 65 or older is expected to double by 2030, and so is the amount expected to fund their retirement and health care in their twilight years, which relatively few are prepared to handle themselves.

So what is the U.S. government to do, especially when it already is projected to have $20 trillion worth of debt in 2019? (Let alone what it will be in 2030!) That reform is needed in healthcare is not a question, but Obamacare in its present form is not the answer. Yes, it would cut the care for baby boomers in the future, if not through the reductions and costs of private options then through the mandatory benefit cuts the government would have to make in Social Security and Obamacare (formerly Medicare).

Think about it. If government can't handle the costs of the elderly now in retirement via its Medicare and Social Security programs, do we really expect they will offer the baby boomers better (and more costly) benefits in the future?

According to a CBO report called "Baby Boomers' Retirement Prospects": "Present trends are unlikely to persist indefinitely, however, because total payments to retirees are expected to grow much faster under current law than either the total incomes of workers who pay Social Security and Medicare taxes or the revenues earmarked for those programs. That widening gap will place increasing stress on both programs. Narrowing the gap could involve slowing the future growth of benefits."

Notice the words "under current law" and "slowing the future growth of benefits"?

That is key. The only way around this future financial dilemma (according to this administration, at least) is to change "current law" and to "slow" or lower the benefits for baby boomers. That new law (or basic legislation upon which such changes can be amended) is Obamacare.

Now, look closely at the political prescription from the CBO's same boomer report:

"The extent to which baby boomers are providing for their own retirement -- and have time to react to policy changes is thus an important consideration in evaluating proposals to reform the Social Security and Medicare programs."

The only way the boomers will "have time to react to policy changes" is if they are enacted before they go into retirement! Obamacare is designed to force retiring baby boomers into a much cheaper version of socialized medicine than Medicare, which is already being positioned to be cut by of $500 billion.

Obamacare is not merely about reforming healthcare to aid 47 million Americans who are uninsured. It is about reforming "current law" to axe 72 million retiring Americans, whom the government can't afford to support over the next two decades.

Actually, it turns out that Commander Spock did have a first name after all but it turns out to be unpronounceable by humans. Kinda’ like ObamaCare is unfathomable to thinking people.


Or putting it another way, “Its not logical Captain”.