Recent Commentary

Mainstream extremism: dismantling our Constitution

Drew Mckissick — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:39:15 -0400

As the final vote in the Senate on Elena Kagan’s nomination to the US Supreme Court draws near, there’s little doubt that she will be confirmed, given the Democrats large majority. But it will be a missed opportunity if Senate Republicans don’t use the debate to make some larger points about the judiciary and the size and scope of our government.

The problem is that when it comes to the American judiciary, what once was extreme has become mainstream, and the views of government held by those who wrote and ratified our Constitution are today considered extreme and out of date.

So how did this happen? It certainly wasn’t suddenly. Instead, it has been a long and insidious process, routed in the old “progressive” political movement whose adherents changed their names to “liberals” when progressive became a dirty word, and have now changed it back. But this weed by any other name would smell as bad.

It was the progressives who determined that our Constitution was a “living” document, (or that it needed to be), when it became obvious that much of the way in which they wished to change government’s relationship with the people would be opposed by those same people. In other words trying to change things via the amendment process wasn’t going to work. But with a “living” Constitution, its words could eventually be twisted to mean anything. And so they have.

But in order to make this happen, they needed judges as co-conspirators. And as more judges adopted the theory of the living constitution, what was once an extreme idea has taken over and become acceptable “mainstream” thought. Of course “mainstream” means our elite political leadership, the liberal media and academia.

This is the same mainstream that Elana Kagan adheres to.

In recent times, Presidents have gone out of their way to stress that they don’t have “litmus tests” for their judicial nominees, but in reality it’s high time that we indeed had some litmus tests. It’s time to toss the notion that nominees can’t answer serious questions about their views of the Constitution into the dustbin of history.

Do they believe that the Constitution has a fixed meaning that can’t be altered without direct amendment? What do they think of the Tenth Amendment. What would they consider the limits of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause? No plea that they would be pre-judging cases if they answered such questions should be tolerated.

If we’re going to invest the Supreme Court with supreme power over what the Constitution means, a job description not given by our Founding Fathers, then it’s certainly in our best interest to know just what nominees to the court think about such issues.

Oddly enough, Elena Kagan herself endorsed such an idea just a dozen years ago. She commented that the Senate’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings were a farce that did little to offer the public a sense of what judges believed. She wrote that such hearings are “a vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis.”

Kagan advocated that senators insist “on seeing how theory works in practice by evoking a nominee’s comments on particular issues – involving privacy rights, free speech, race and gender discrimination, and so forth – that the Court regularly faces.”

Of course now that’s she’s a nominee, she’s fine with being opaque on such issues. And too many Senators (even some Republicans) are fine with it too. All part of one big, happy “mainstream”.

The fact is that the mainstream has brought us to where we are today. It has continuously pushed our living Constitution in a leftward direction, towards a bigger, more powerful central government with more control over the states and individual Americans.

Jefferson saw it coming. He wrote that, “the judiciary branch, is the instrument which, working like gravity, without intermission, is to press us at last into one consolidated mass.”

The whole point of having a written Constitution was precisely so everyone would know exactly what the supreme law of the land was, and that it couldn’t be changed without positive action of the people. This, as opposed to wondering from day to day what sort of “living” version of the law might evolve outside of our control.

Can anyone of serious mind actually argue that ObamaCare would not have been deemed unconstitutional (much less passed) 200 years ago? So what changed? Put simply, the personnel; and as Ronald Reagan used to say “personnel is policy”. Until conservatives get serious about enforcing some standards on judicial personnel we will continue to be cursed with a living Constitution that constantly changes to suit liberal political ends.

All across America today there is a growing political movement that is dedicated to reducing the size, cost and scope of government by adhering to our Constitution’s original ideals. In other words, it’s an extremist movement by the standards of today’s mainstream.

If Republican leaders are serious about the GOP being the channel for this movement, then Republican Senators should use Kagan’s nomination as an opportunity to take a firm stand in favor of this “extreme” old view of government.

Reform you can believe in? (Obama's new strategy)

Drew Mckissick — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:44:38 -0400

As the current election season begins to take shape, Obama and his political team are laying the groundwork for the next campaign. Not the midterms, but his 2012 re-election.

Given that increasing numbers of Americans don’t seem as fond of “hope and change” as they did two years ago, they’re crafting a new strategy. Change is out. Reform is in.

When Obama was running for President he was a blank slate. Potential supporters were able to see in him what they wished. But over the past year and half the public has received a pretty stark education in what “hope and change” really meant; hence Obama’s need for a new strategy.

The problem is that people aren’t buying what he’s selling anymore. Even liberal icon Dan Rather pointed that out, telling Chris Matthews that Obama couldn’t sell watermelons by the side of the road if a state trooper was flagging down traffic, (no word on how many years Dan will do in liberal purgatory for that one).

So if you can’t get re-elected selling people what they don’t want, what do you do?

Obama’s not stupid. He knows people are angry. So how to prevent them from taking that anger out on him? Simple, try to confuse them about why they’re angry and make them think you’re going to fix the problem.

In other words, sell yourself as a reformer.

The new strategy is said to rely more on using Obama’s rhetoric and the backdrop of the White House, and less on a legislative agenda. In other words, more speeches with little specifics, hoping people will (once again) see what they want to see.

Indications are that he will focus on three general themes to support his new reformer image: campaign finance reform, American competitiveness and government transparency.

Regarding campaign finance, this year’s “Citizen’s United” decision by the Supreme Court found that Americans don’t lose their free speech rights when they speak collectively via a union or corporate entity. Obama and the Democrats have decided to try to overturn the decision via NY Senator Chuck Schumer’s “DISCLOSE” Act, but only re-imposing campaign restrictions on corporations, not unions.

In a nation with an economy in the tank, near double digit unemployment, record deficits and a ballooning national debt, THIS is what he sees as crying out for reform? But from the Democrat’s standpoint it has the benefit of being a political distraction, (look over here at these evil corporations, not over there at the economy!).

On the theme of American competitiveness, the idea seems to be to use it as a general banner under which to discuss his economic reforms. But the problem is that the course his economic policies have set us on so far is not a path to competitiveness, but decline.

How can we afford to be competitive (in the public or private sector) when our government spends almost two dollars for every one it takes in? As the President’s own economic advisor once asked, “How long can the world’s biggest borrower remain the world’s biggest power”?

Then there’s the “transparency” theme. (Yes, really.) It is completely laughable coming from the leader of the party that developed its health care agenda in secret and took a full year to keep his pledge to discuss the bill in an open forum on CSPAN.

Hardly a week passes that we don’t learn of something new that ObamaCare does that he promised it wouldn’t do. The greatest example of which is that you won’t be able to keep your insurance plan, even if you like it, because most insurance companies won’t be able to sell it to you anymore once the new regulations kick in.

All of which spells trouble for Obama.

In order to make a reform strategy successful, you have to make voters who are opposed to the status quo think that you are too, and that you will help change it. But in order to do that you have to get them to agree with your definition of the problem as well as your solution. They also have to believe that you’re competent enough to pull it off.

Obama’s not doing so well in either department.

Given that polls show majorities of Americans as being opposed to restrictions on freedom of speech, opposed to his economic policies and opposed to ObamaCare, it’s safe to say that they don’t agree with his solutions. And the daily reminders courtesy of the live “spill cam” in the gulf has the public’s opinion of his competence approaching Jimmy Carter territory.

If things don’t change before 2012, getting re-elected as a reformer would be an illusion so great that it would make David Copperfield green with envy.

Reformers attempting to regulate free speech and bailout old media

Drew Mckissick — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:40:03 -0400

The reformers are at it again with yet another attempt to criminalize political speech and campaign activity.

From the government’s Department of Perverse Acronyms comes the “DISCLOSE Act”, which stands for “Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections”. How clever. And how disingenuous.

It’s being championed by New York Democrat Chuck Schumer in an attempt to get around this year’s Supreme Court decision which threw out restrictions on freedom of speech for unions and corporations in political campaigns.

The claim is that large amounts of money spent by corporations on political speech somehow corrupts the system, but it should be noted that Schumer’s bill would reinstate no restrictions on unions, just corporations and average citizens. In other words, he only seems to want to cast light on “some” spending.

Of course, as Democrats attempt to limit political activity by corporations they want to bring to mind visions of BP or mega-sized drug companies, but it would also apply to the corporation that you set up to run your family business.

In a world increasingly run by Washington, corporations need the ability to protect their interests and speak out effectively when necessary – and, as experience has taught us, size doesn’t matter when it comes to being at risk from government.

Then there are the non-profit corporations on all sides of the political spectrum that exist specifically so that Americans of like mind can join together and have an impact on the things they care about. This latest version of reform would force the public disclosure of their membership lists, which means that Democrats now support a right of privacy for abortion, but not for membership in political organizations.

Increased regulations and disclosures put a greater burden on small organizations and average citizens, not on multi-million dollar corporations with an army of lawyers. The net effect is to hamstring political speech by the little guy. Hardly what our Founding Fathers had in mind.

But what the Democrats have in mind is squelching the effective speech of those tthat hey disagree with, which is why their bill doesn’t touch the unions.

So what’s the real agenda here? Why restrict some groups’ activities and require regular Americans to jump through more hoops to impact their own government? Because when you force some players to play with one hand tied behind their backs, or make the rules so complicated that you scare people from even playing the game, it’s easier to win.

Does that sound like what the First Amendment means when it says, “Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech”?

The fact is that the larger and more expensive that our government becomes, the more critical it is that average citizens have the means to impact what it does with our money and our liberties. Unfortunately, the “reformers” are working to make that harder to do. They want to protect Leviathan from average Americans.

So often today lawmakers and judges are ready to defend anything as free speech – no matter how vulgar or perverse – unless it is political speech, which is the very type of speech the Founders where concerned about protecting from government.

But the reformers are trying to manufacture a crisis and use the fear of corporations and big money to generate support (or at least indifference) for their reforms. However, the claim on which the crisis is based is completely bogus. The simple fact is that the power and influence of money in politics is diminishing with each passing day thanks to the internet.

Speech is becoming more democratized in a world where anyone can create a website or social network and push their own agenda. The voices of individuals are collectively becoming louder and more effective.

That might explain why the government is also fighting to protect the mainstream media from the rise of the internet. The Federal Trade Commission is looking to promote regulations that will impose a new tax in order to fund a perpetual bailout of old (read: liberal) media outlets like the New York Times. The proposed tax targets? Cell phone bills, electronic gadgets and even websites themselves.

It’s a corrupt attempt by government to protect itself in the long run by protecting its friends in the liberal media from the free market.

In short, the reformers oppose a free market for journalism, as well as for political speech – which tells you all you need to know about their reforms.

What our country needs is more political speech, with fewer regulations. Not the other way around.

This is, after all, supposedly a free country; and free political speech is what keeps it that way.

Someone should tell Chuck Schumer.

Spending our way to oblivion

Drew Mckissick — Thu, 20 May 2010 15:59:21 -0400

Margaret Thatcher once said that, “the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money”. One could easily add that another problem is that the other people eventually want to get paid back.

It’s a problem that is becoming more real with each passing day. As the interest on that borrowed money consumes more of our nation’s economy, our options and our future will be increasingly limited. The result is a threat to our individual freedoms and economic liberty, and eventually even our national security.

In the last fiscal year federal spending was almost twenty-five percent of GDP, and we now have the biggest annual budget deficit since World War II, (over one a half trillion). Annual federal government spending in on pace to exceed forty percent of GDP within our children’s lifetimes, and our national debt, (the total of all annual deficits), will triple by 2020.

What will our economy look like after the government raises taxes or inflates the dollar to cover interest payments on our the debt? What will our personal liberty or prosperity look like?

The problem, as Reagan used to say, is government. It’s too big and it spends too much, usually in the name of helping people. But does it help anyone if their government goes broke in the process?

More spending on government means more money taken from taxpayers that would otherwise be put to more productive economic ends and grow our economy, thus helping the same people those expensive programs are supposed to help.

The dirty little secret is that when it comes to helping people, the political argument is not over whether or not to help those who truly need it. The debate is over how. And liberals want to do so in such a way that controls options, rather than enables and empowers individuals. They take money, then dole it back out as they see fit. It’s called redistribution, or “spreading the wealth around” as Obama referred to it, and it leads to greed, corruption and gargantuan waste.

But Democrats don’t care, as their aim is to force an eventual increase in taxes in order to fund bigger government permanently. Many liberals are already talking openly about proposing a European style Value Added Tax (VAT), which is a tax on goods and services imposed at every stage of production, and that is invisible to consumers. This would be on top of our current income tax.

But how responsible have the Europeans been with all that revenue from those more comprehensive tax schemes? They’re going over a fiscal cliff, and the Greeks are leading the way.

In Greece, two-thirds of the population receives some form of income from the government, which is why their country is broke and currently being bailed out by fellow European governments. The irony is that those governments are going broke as well.

But when it happens here, who will bail us out? The answer is no one.

According to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, the problem is at our doorstep. In recent testimony to the House Financial Services Committee, he stated, “It’s not something that is ten years away. It affects the markets currently. It is possible that bond markets will become worried about the sustainability [of yearly deficits over $1 trillion], and we may find ourselves facing higher interest rates even today.”

Within a few years the AAA rating of our bonds (and our ability to borrow money more cheaply) will be gone. Absent an abundance of drunken bond investors, we could become like Greece a lot quicker than people think.

In order to escape the coming carnage many economists are urging the Federal Reserve to monetize the debt, which is the economists’ term for running the printing presses on overtime to print up enough extra cash to pay off the people we owe.

The problem is that simply printing more money leads to inflation, which is a back door tax increase of the worst kind. It takes from everyone without the benefit of representation, an issue we went to war over a few hundred years ago. Further, it operates against the very purpose of government, which is to protect your life and your property, (for which money certainly qualifies).

While it is routinely suggested that politics has grown more acrimonious over the years, it hasn’t truly reflected the intensity one would normally expect over such incredible government growth. That’s because, in order to put off the eventual conflict between the makers and the takers, we have borrowed the money to maintain the status quo.

But now, (one is tempted to say thankfully), we’re near the end of our credit line, and a political donnybrook awaits.

Enter the Tea Parties.

Razing Arizona: Illegal aliens and disingenuous liberals

Drew Mckissick — Thu, 06 May 2010 12:55:42 -0400

In the wake of Arizona’s passage of its new immigration enforcement law, the inflamed, uninformed and irresponsible rhetoric coming from the open-borders crowd and supposedly respectable politicians who should know better seems to have grown by the day.

From the NY Times to the Washington Post to Barack Obama himself, there has been an avalanche of gross mischaracterizations of the law, inferring that it would allow police to simply stop anyone who “looks different” on the street and demand to “see their papers”.

The use of this phrase is no accident, but an intentional reference to authoritarian (and usually socialist) countries where the police have the right to stop anyone and demand, “Let me see your papers”. It is at least somewhat comical, given that most of the people who are complaining the loudest about Arizona’s new law have recognizable tendencies towards socialism, the most high profile example being Obama himself.

Recently, while on yet another tour promoting the wonderful effects of the “stimulus” and ObamaCare, he suggested that “if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona…suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.” Keep in mind that this is the same guy who just pushed through a law that will have 15,000 new IRS agents demanding to see “your insurance papers” every year, or else slap you with a fine and/or jail time for not having them. And that applies to American citizens, not illegals.

In the case of Arizona’s new law, it only empowers police to use reasonable suspicion to request valid ID if the person in question has already been stopped or detained for some other offense. In other words, it would only be a problem for someone who was breaking the law and was here illegally, as opposed to ObamaCare’s “no insurance papers” being a problem for several hundred million US citizens.

It should also be pointed out that since 1952, US federal law has required that legal aliens maintain their identification (such as a green card) on their person at all times. But recognizing such facts makes it more difficult for hypocritical liberals to demagogue the issue.

Obama doesn’t mind being hypocritical however, because he has a clear agenda in mind. The goal is to use the issue in hopes that Hispanics will replace the support Democrats have lost in the debates over bailouts, stimulus and ObamaCare. Racial politics from our supposed “post-racial President”.

The liberal disingenuousness goes even further. This past week, David Broder, dean of the Washington press corps, suggested that the fault for the current situation lies with those who fought against (and stopped) the 2007 bi-partisan efforts to pass “comprehensive immigration reform”. Hogwash. The “fault” lies with those who pushed the perverse bill to begin with.

Only in the upside down world of Washington, DC would the people who want the border enforced be seen as responsible for the continued flood of illegals.

First, as I always say, anytime you see the word “comprehensive” attached to any legislative effort, watch out, because that simply means that it will be so large and complex that it will contain numerous provisions that couldn’t possibly stand on their own. The authors of such bills attach them like parasites to the other items that they know the public wants. In terms of the 2007 legislation, it meant that they would agree to some of the border security the public desperately wants, but only if the public would support letting all illegals currently in the country to become legal. Some deal.

In fact, that deal was overwhelmingly rejected by some 70-80% of the public on the grounds that it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, not to mention the obvious moral implications of letting some fifteen to twenty million people break the law and jump ahead of millions of others who stand in line each year and play by the rules to come to our country legally.

In the case of Arizona, the plain and simple truth is that they have some very serious problems. The state has an estimated half-million illegal aliens, has seen its citizens killed along the border and Phoenix has become the kidnapping capital of America. The people of that state looked to their elected officials to do something and they responded – and over 70% of the people in that state approve.

That’s the way government is supposed to work.

If Washington politicians are going to sit on the sidelines and not do anything to address the problems people are concerned about – in a way that the public supports – then they should stay on the sidelines when state governments step up to do the job.

Supreme Speculations and Implications

Drew Mckissick — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:50:33 -0400

Now that Justice Stevens has made it official that he will be resigning at the end of the current term, Barack Obama gets his second opportunity to make a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court. As usual, the speculation is as rampant as the implications are huge.

The bulk of the speculation centers on what direction Obama will take. Does he try to capture some of the political middle ground he’s lost in the eyes of the public over the past year, or does he go with his heart and pick someone as liberal as he is?

Of course the timing couldn't be worse for Senate Democrats. They are already weary of political combat due to the battle over ObamaCare, which came in the aftermath of the fight over the stimulus, etc. As a result, the Democrats in red/purple states that are up for re-election this year aren't too keen on having Obama pick anyone who might be deemed too radical. They’ve seen the polls and would rather not add one more log to the growing fire of conservative activism in an election year.

But Obama can read polls to, and he's surely considering that the Republicans are likely to make some pretty big gains in the Senate this November. He knows that if he really wants another radical liberal (which he does), now's the time to nominate them, rather than go with a moderate to satisfy some Democrat nerves.

If he was willing to throw down the gauntlet on something as radical as ObamaCare no matter what impact it would have on Democrats in Congress, you have to figure that he's willing to go full speed ahead with a radical liberal pick to the high court. The damage to the Democrat majority is probably already a done deal.

So what do the American people think about all of this? A recent Rasmussen poll finds that 39% think that the Supreme Court is "too liberal", 25% think it's "too conservative", and 27% think the balance is "about right". But when it comes to their opinion of Obama's likely pick, 45% believe the eventual nominee will be "too liberal" and 41% say it will be "about right". (Of course this is before that 41% finds out anything about the eventual nominee...).

As for the implications, they're huge, just as they are with any other Supreme Court appointment. In this case, the pick is to replace long time liberal Justice Stevens, which means Obama's pick isn’t likely change the roughly 5-4 moderate conservative bent of the Court. However, it is likely to put another radical liberal in that seat for the next 30 years.

Obama knows full well that much of what he’s done and would like to do (ObamaCare for instance), is sure to end up before the Supreme Court, which means that much of what he sees as his legacy will be on the line. The last thing he wants is a Justice that he can’t count on to sustain all of the elements of his government expansionist policies.

The mere fact that Obama gets to make his second selection to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court should be serve as another vivid reminder of the fact that elections have consequences. The consequences of losing the White House in 2008 have meant a lost opportunity to replace two high court liberals with two conservatives, potentially ensuring a conservative direction to the court for decades to come. Even if just one of the two would have turned out to be another Roberts or Alito the implications would have been tremendous, but alas…

When it comes to issues that will be impacted, of course there are the usual things to be concerned about, such as abortion, gay marriage, gun rights and free speech related issues, but the newer consideration is the impact on pending court cases by state governments against ObamaCare.

Unlike past confirmation hearings, the coming debate is likely to center on principles that have been largely absent (or at least under-represented) in the past, such discussions about state's rights, federalism, or the extent of Congress’ power under the Constitution's "commerce clause". Is it constitutional for the feds to order you to buy health insurance? If so, what else can the feds order you to buy? Or do? Where does that authority end?

All of which dovetails perfectly with the burgeoning Tea Party movement and represents issues that are likely to help Republicans set the narrative for the November campaigns.

Senate Republicans should act accordingly.

Counting for dollars: the perversion of the Census

Drew Mckissick — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:43:49 -0400

In case you didn’t notice the barrage of taxpayer funded radio, TV, newspaper and internet ads, it’s census time again.

Yes, census time, that time that comes once every ten years when the government spends hundreds of millions of dollars telling us how important it is that we return that all important, overly nosey questionnaire.

In fact, it’s so important that the government sent me a letter telling me it was going to send me the census form a full week before it actually sent the form. Then it sent a post card a few days after the form arrived reminding me that it had sent the form – which makes one wonder whether this was actually some sort of stimulus plan for the Postal Service.

Like almost everything our Founding Fathers created, the census was unique. Up until their time in world history, national head counts had been used almost exclusively for purposes of taxation or conscription for military service. They turned it into a tool to reallocate congressional districts and ensure that all Americans had equal representation in the House of Representatives.

But as anyone who has seen or heard any of the advertising for the census knows, the original purpose of the count is no where to be found. Instead, the ads tell us that the census is “how we get our funding for the things we need”, which is partially true. And that’s the problem.

The sad fact is that the federal government uses population numbers as part of various funding formulas to determine how much of each state’s tax money to send back in order to fund the various state and local services we enjoy (or deplore). It’s sad because the money we receive is money we sent to Washington in the first place. If we weren’t sending it there due to excessive federal taxation to begin with we wouldn’t have to worry about a census count in order to get it back.

As with most things in our government, it wasn’t intended to be this way.

Can you imagine George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, et al, discussing the importance of adding the census requirement to the Constitution so the new federal government would know how much of the money it confiscated from the states to give back? Hardly.

They would have been horrified at the notion of state governments and the people being so complacent as to allow the federal government to take so much of their wealth to begin with.

These were men who understood all too well that money is power. They knew that the power to take money from anyone and to spend it on anything needs to be controlled by the people. They understood it so well that they started a revolution against the largest economic and military power of their day over being taxed without representation.

As the states have stood by, the federal government has not only grown larger and more wasteful, but more politically powerful at the expense of the state and local governments – which just happens to be the levels of government that individual citizens have the greatest potential influence over. This is not a coincidence. Since money is power, politicians have worked to remove its control as far from the people as possible.

And hasn’t it occurred to anyone that the federal government creates a tremendous incentive for fraud when it makes population counts the determining factor in how many tax dollars it will send back to state and local governments? Of course it has, which is why many state and local governments work so hard to boost their count.

Further, it’s interesting that the census takes such an interest in the racial background of those who fill out the forms. There are no less than two dozen racial classifications on the form, eight that could be applied to anyone of Hispanic origin, and three that could apply to anyone of African extraction. Those having other ancestries must be content with having only one category.

And why would the government want to know my race anyway? In fact, what does my race, age, sex or type of home have to do with “counting” how many people live in my state? Don’t we aspire to be a color blind society? The answer is because there are federal government programs that allocate (or “give back”) our tax dollars on the basis of those numbers.

In other words we’re back to money again – and power for the bureaucrats charged with passing it out.

In the end, the census has become less about its original purpose and more about money, power and racial politics. All of which makes the current census another in a long list of perversions of our Constitution.

Mr. Madison would not be proud.

Americans not buying Obama's health care snake oil

Drew Mckissick — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:54:57 -0500

The current debate over health care reminds me of that scene in the movie Outlaw Josey Wales where the snake oil peddling carpetbagger tries to sell a bottle of his tonic to an Indian, only to be asked about what was in it. After saying he didn’t know, the Indian said, “You drink it”.

Obama and the Democrats are selling snake oil. And the American people aren’t buying.

But after a full year of debate, speeches, emails and town halls promoting his health care agenda it has come down to this: an all out, last ditch effort to ram a bill through Congress that a majority of Americans don’t want. Public opinion be damned. “Change” is coming.

The biggest (political) problem with ObamaCare, and thus Obama’s problem, is that the public doesn’t want it. Worse, the latest polls seem to indicate that the more Congress and the public focus on the issue, the more opposed they become.

The latest Rasmussen survey shows fifty-three percent of Americans opposed to Obama’s notion of reform, and only forty-two percent supporting it. Further, fifty-five percent think Congress should scrap the whole thing and start from scratch. Rasmussen also points out that the strength of opinion is overwhelmingly with the opposition, finding that only twenty percent "strongly favor" the bill, while forty-one percent are "strongly opposed".

Keep in mind that these numbers come after Obama and Congress spent over a year promoting it, which puts the lie to the suggestion that if Americans knew more about it they would see that it's in their best interests and support it. As George Will recently put it, "There you have the premise of this legislation and the core of today’s liberalism: the American people are such dopes they can’t be counted upon to buy their own insurance". Exactly.

Of course, public opinion isn't the only "problem" with the bill. In fact, it's the other problems that have public opinion where it is today.

Given that it took the Democrats almost three-thousand pages to lay the groundwork for what they propose to do to health care, (and they still can’t fully explain it), it goes without saying that the problems created by such a bill would consume far more pages than the reader could bear. With than in mind, here are some highlights to make informing your neighbor (or your congressman) a little easier.

The bill would fund abortion. The current Senate version allows taxpayer funding of abortion by way of coverage in insurance plans.

It busts the budget. Despite the fact that Obama has stated that he wouldn't approve a health care bill unless it didn't add a dime to the deficit, this bill does. Big time. So how does he keep a straight face? Well this is Washington, where you can find an accountant or statistician to make any square peg look like it fits in a round hole...as long as you don't look too close.

It raises taxes. Obama's campaign promise not to "raise taxes on the middle class" not withstanding, the Senate bill does just that by way of, among other things, an increase in the Medicare part of the payroll tax as well as taxes on high value insurance plans.

It also blows a huge hole in state budgets, as it puts more unfunded Medicaid mandates on the states. This means cuts in other state programs, or – you guessed it – tax increases, (making ObamaCare the big spending gift that keeps on giving… Merry Christmas).

It makes you a criminal if you don't have insurance. The Senate bill contains an "individual mandate", meaning that you have to have insurance coverage by law – or else pay a fine or go to jail. It's the first time in history where the federal government will have pretended to find the power in the Constitution to force individual Americans to purchase a consumer product.

It will raise insurance premiums. In accordance with the fundamental laws of economics, if everyone has to buy something the price goes up, meaning insurance premiums will rise. In addition, it creates a risk of insurance companies becoming little more than “public utilities”, which will later be deemed “too big to fail” and kept alive by massive public subsidies just like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It's a "big government" bill. As Ronald Reagan once said, a government agency is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth – and this bill creates a host of new immortals. Over one hundred new boards, commissions and other bureaucratic fiefdoms will be created, staffed and defended by those who think they know what’s best for everyone – each of which is sure to continually grow and enlarge its scope in order to justify its existence.

Additionally, the bill requires the White House Office of Personnel Management to establish the parameters of health plans in proposed "state exchanges", meaning the White House will be defining what health care plans should and shouldn’t cover. In other words "one size fits all" federally defined insurance plans.

Finally, this massive government takeover of one-sixth of our economy will be managed by the same people who run the Post Office.

All of which explains why most Americans continue to refuse to drink the snake oil. No matter how much Democrats try to sell it.

Obama's hunt for a bipartisan fig leaf on health care

Drew Mckissick — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:49:27 -0500

Over the course of 2009 conservatives and Republicans have done a far better job than anyone would have thought possible when it came to blocking ObamaCare from becoming law. Everyone thought it was a fait accompli, but it ran into the brick wall of public opinion.

In light of the recent elections in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, as well as his own falling poll numbers, Obama wants Republicans to come together with Democrats for a grand health care “summit” to search for a bipartisan compromise. In other words, he wants some cover.

But even as Obama and Democrat leaders have publicly pressured Republicans about attending their summit, they’ve spent hours in private backrooms planning to get around a Republican filibuster and pass their bill by resorting to the legislative trick of the budget reconciliation process.

So much for bipartisanship.

The fact is that liberals are desperate. They’ve seen the polls and they know that it’s time for them to grow as much government as they can before voters have a chance to head to the polls and turn Washington on its ear this November.

They understand that the current versions of the bill may not be their idea of liberal perfection, but it surely represents one of the best opportunities they’ve ever had to lock in the biggest expansion of government in living memory. It means more bureaucrats, more government jobs, more regulations and more control over how people can live their lives. In short, it means power.

Liberal Democrats in politically “safe” districts and states are fixated on pressing ahead, pushed ever forward by their radical base. But, as Massachusetts Democrats recently found out, the notion of “safe” districts or states doesn’t mean what it used to. A thought not lost on more moderate Democrats in more marginal seats.

Each day seems to bring another retirement announcement by another Democrat, another poll showing Republicans with big leads over incumbent Democrats, and the American people growing increasingly opposed to Obama’s programs. All of which makes it harder for Obama to convince enough Democrats to go along with his agenda, as they are all too aware that his name isn’t on any ballots this fall.

When incumbent Democrats like Senator Evan Bayh (with over thirteen million dollars in the bank) decide that it’s too risky to run for re-election, the writing is on the wall.

But for liberal Democrats, the goal is so tantalizingly close. Just think of it – regulatory control over another 1/6th of the US economy in an area that they can extrapolate out to virtually every aspect of American life. (Put that soft drink down! No more McDonalds for you!) They’ve come too far to turn back now.

As for Obama, he knows the Democrats are in for a beating at the polls this November, and he’s already thinking about his own re-election. He will use health care “summit” and its aftermath as an opportunity to disingenuously portray Republicans as being against any reform and on the side of groups Americans dislike, (like insurance and pharmaceutical companies).

For Republicans, this is no time for bi-partisanship. Especially given that bi-partisanship usually means that Republicans go along with how liberal Democrats want to do things. They need to resist the urge to do anything other than demand that Obama, Pelosi and Reid go back to square one with health care. Current versions of the legislation should be absolutely off the table. Further, any more “comprehensive” bills should be declared off-limits. “Comprehensive” is a Washington, DC euphemism for legislation that’s easier to fill with things that the public would never approve of.

Instead, the GOP should demand a series of stand alone bills that promote issues such as medical malpractice reform, allowing consumers to purchase insurance across state lines, and allowing small businesses to band together to buy insurance. Each of these are issues that are commonly understood to have a tremendous impact on the cost of health care in America. And they’re all supported by large majorities of the American public. Unlike ObamaCare.

Short of that, congressional Republicans shouldn’t fear being labeled as the “party of no”. There are worse things that they could be in the coming election.

Just ask the Democrats.

How serious is Obama about terrorism?

Drew Mckissick — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:35:41 -0500

Just how serious is our new President about dealing with terrorism? Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks to Barack Obama, we now live in a country where you can do almost as much time in prison for brandishing a knife in a failed robbery as for attempting to murder three-hundred innocent men, women and children.

Don’t believe me? This past Christmas, a man in Sandy Creek, NY used a knife in an attempted robbery of a Chinese restaurant and, if convicted, he could face up to twenty-five years in the grey bar motel. On that same day, the now infamous underwear bomber, after failing to go boom, was mirandized and will likely face anywhere from twenty years to life in prison, (if convicted on all counts as opposed to getting off on an insane fashion defense).

What does it take for this administration to understand we can’t fight a war with Miranda rights? Does the next would-be assassin have to succeed? Obviously not, as we’re only a few months removed from the last one actually succeeding on an Army base in Texas. Twelve dead bodies later and the first thing they tell the next terrorist is “you have the right to remain silent”? Insanity. Worse yet, he took their advice, especially after he got his court appointed attorney, courtesy of the US taxpayer.

Terrorists all over the world are getting night sweats worrying that they’ll one day end up in a cozy American jail cell with cable TV and daily exercise rights. (“Please don’t make me watch Oprah again! I’ll do anything…”) Yeah, right.

In a sane world this guy would have immediately been shipped to an “undisclosed location”, water-boarded until he spilled his guts and then caged until we’re sure that he’s of absolutely no use but turning oxygen into carbon dioxide. Then he would be tried by a military tribunal and summarily executed, preferably with the same underwear he wore on the plane – only with a better fuse this time.

But this is the “new” war on terror. The hope-n-change progressive version.

Obama pretended that all we needed was a President who would “extend a hand, rather than a clenched fist”. But all the terrorists see is a weakling with a large ego. It turns out that we actually are in a war with people who are serious about killing as many of us as possible – no matter how nice we are to them.

You can’t fight these people with smiley faces.

Don’t forget that this is the same President who, within a month of being sworn in, sided with his new Attorney General and decided to re-open investigations of intelligence and interrogation methods used during the Bush administration, leaving everyone in the intelligence community as concerned about keeping their jobs as they are about doing them. Brilliant.

Then he decided to give the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks the same legal rights that we enjoy as American citizens, in addition to the public platform of the trial of the century in a courthouse less than a mile from where three thousand Americans were murdered.

The terrorist are quivering at our newfound sincerity. And we’re stuck with hoping Congress will bail Obama (and us) out of his ignorance.

Despite all the education he and the liberal elites seem to be so enamored of, he must have been out to lunch the day they taught that you don’t show weakness to your enemies, unless it’s an intentional illusion. We can only hope.

Whether we like it or not, Obama is the Commander in Chief, meaning that he is responsible for how the national government conducts itself in this war with people who have killed thousands of our fellow citizens would gladly kill millions more.

The only rational response is to hunt down and destroy the enemy by any means necessary. Miranda rights won’t do.

Americans might sleep a little better (and the terrorist a little worse) if Obama displayed the same determination in this war as he has in his war on health care.