Excellent description of Obama’s “new” health care plan:

House Minority Leader John Boehner swiftly dismissed a revised White House plan on reforming health care, assailing it as “the same massive government takeover of health care’’ approved late last year by the Senate and House.

The West Chester Republican said the plan outlined Monday, Feb. 22, by President Barack Obama “crippled the credibility’’ of a scheduled televised bipartisan meeting Thursday between Obama and congressional leaders at Blair House, just across the street from the White House…

…Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Urbana, criticized the Obama plan as “repackaged,’’ and complained that “rather than integrating common-sense solutions into a plan that all Americans can support, the White House is doubling down on their effort to create a government takeover of healthcare.”

My guess is that they are really believing their talking points about how Americans really do support it, or would if it wasn’t for that dastardly “Party of No” which has prevented the Democrats from benefiting from their overwhelming majority…hey, I didn’t say it had to make sense. Most liberal ideas don’t, ya know?

Anyways, we’ll see how this plays out – maybe I’m wrong and the majority really thinks that Obama and Co can figure out what’s best for everyone else. And maybe I’m wrong and you can borrow and print your way to prosperity. I may be wrong about a lot of things – if I am, then I and my party will be utterly crushed in November and beyond.

I’m not, however, making any plans on being crushed…

UPDATE: Are Democrats heading for the exits on ObamaCare?

Normally, IMAO is just for laughs (although very, very good laughs…and instructions on what to do with hippies) – but this is a bit serious:

Let’s propose an amendment to the Constitution:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

How many Democrats, RINOs, newscasters, liberal bloggers, Constitutional scholars, U.S. presidents, etc, would recognize it for what it is.

And how many would criticize it as dangerous? Or racist? Or something.

It would be a lot of fun and exceptionally instructive, if we did this.

And draws fire from the Civil Rights Commission:

We write to you in our individual capacities as members of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.[1] We understand that the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (the “Akaka proposal”) is about to be brought to a vote on the House floor. We also understand that the bill will be a substitute for the one considered by the Natural Resources Committee. The bill slated for a hasty House vote was apparently negotiated behind closed doors among Hawaii’s Congressional delegation, possibly the White House, and certain state officials, although those actually involved are unclear. Indeed, more changes were reportedly made over the weekend and released less than 48 hours prior to the expected House vote. The citizens of Hawaii, Members of the Committees on Natural Resources and the Judiciary, and any other experts will not have the normal opportunity to discuss or debate the revised provisions of the bill. Nor will members of the general public.

We wish to register our profound disappointment that a bill of this great importance would be dealt with in this manner. The creation of the largest tribal entity in the history of the nation – potentially 400,000 strong – is too important a step to take this lightly.

This bill is the result of political correctness and mult-cultural nonsense run wild. The alleged gripe is that Americans dared to participate in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy as prelude to Hawaii becoming free as part of the United States. This is considered a sin because, you know, if people of white skin color are involved in conflict with people of non-white skin color, then the motivation of the white people is purely racist – a least, so liberals believe. Mostly because they are terribly ignorant of just about everything to do with humanity. No thought is given by liberals to the fact that had the tiny white community in Hawaii not acted in accordance with the wishes of the non-white community, then the overthrow would not have worked.

Anyways – now in an act of pure racism, a separate government entity is to be set up in Hawaii just for people who can claim ancestry from people who were in Hawaii presumptively prior to 1893 – given the mixed-race nature of so many Hawaiians, this will mean that an untold number of people will sign up for whatever racial goodies they can, no matter how tenuous their connection to anyone who was living in Hawaii prior to the first Europeans showing up in the 18th century (which is the last time we can be sure there were nothing but full blooded Hawaiians living there).

Just another stupid idea which will cause trouble rather than solve problems.

Interesting:

In the first part of this little series we stated that every human being is a self owner and that all natural rights therefore are property rights. This part focuses on the question on how human beings survive in a sea of scarcity.

What do we mean by “sea of scarcity”?

Scarcity of things humans need to survive is the natural state on this earth. Food, clothing, shelter are all needed by every human being to survive and none of it is abundant. Food, which includes water as well, has to be acquired from nature in some way. We can get food either by gathering it, by hunting animals or by farming it. There is no other way…

Which is, of course, true and, equally, completely unrealized by liberals who think there is a Stuff Tree and some rich, old, white guy has it and thus has to be forced to “spread the wealth around”.

Best of luck to our European cousins on this.

Remembering the man without whom there wouldn’t be a United State of America:

Today is the anniversary of the birth of George Washington. Of all the great men of the revolutionary era to whom we owe our freedom, Washington’s greatness was the rarest and the most needed. At this remove in time, it is also the hardest to comprehend.

Take, for example, Washington’s contribution to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Washington’s mere presence lent the undertaking and its handiwork the legitimacy that resulted in success. The convention’s first order of business was the election of a presiding officer. Washington was the delegates’ unanimous choice.

Read the whole thing.

Geesh:

In the course of unveiling Obama’s new health reform proposal on a conference call with reporters this morning, White House advisers made it clearer than ever before: If the GOP filibusters health reform, Dems will move forward on their own and pass it via reconciliation.

The assertion, which is likely to spark an angry response from GOP leaders, ups the stakes in advance of the summit by essentially daring Republicans to try to block reform.

“The President expects and believes the American people deserve an up or down vote on health reform,” White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said on the call.

Pfeiffer said no decision had been made how to proceed, pending the outcome of the summit. But he added that Obama’s proposal is designed to have “maximum flexibility to ensure that we can get an up or down vote if the opposition decides to take the extraordinary step of filibustering health reform.”

Translation: If the GOP doesn’t cooperate with us in any meaningful sense, we’re moving forward on our own.

Me: if I were GOP Senate leader, I’d say “once you Democrats get to 59 votes, I’ll provide the 60th to bring it to the floor. This is because I care about our republic and don’t want Democrats to destroy our protections just to get this dog of a bill through.” Trust me on this one – the amount of garbage Democrats will have to insert in to the bill to get the 59th vote will ensure it is toxic to the American people. They’ve put lipstick on a pig, tacked on a bit of populist nonsense about limiting insurance rate hikes (as if ObamaCare won’t increase costs and deny coverage even more) and hope to spin things that the GOP isn’t offering any alternatives (except for all the alternatives we’ve provided…) and thus Democrats are fighting for the little guy and other sorts of pure BS they’re always on about.

Once again – go ahead, Democrats: make my day.

Traveling back to Las Vegas today – so, have fun and I’ll have something later.

In a nutshell, as it relates to Cap and Trade:

…Unlike traditional commodities markets, which will eventually involve delivery to someone in physical form, the carbon market is based on lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no-one…

Fake products traded for what amounts, in the end, to taxpayer money – this is perfect for liberalism is it doesn’t require results and allows the richest of the rich to benefit the most, thus ensuring a continuing supply of fat grants to liberal groups.

What is wrong with America is terms of the economy has been our relentless destruction of the means of wealth creation – liberalism does this, on purpose, because people who create wealth tend to rock the boat, thus putting the liberal elite in danger. Cap and Trade is tailor made to kill off the remainder of the American economy while keeping rich liberals, rich. Its why they want it.

With the Great Sorba Issue, it is now time, I guess, for all of us conservatives to lay out our views not so much on homosexuality as a thing, but on the place homosexuality can have within the conservative movement.

At bottom, the Reagan Condition is correct: if you’re 80% with me, then I’m going keep with the 80%. Of course, homosexuality is a bit different than, say, someone disagreeing with you on the worth of federal funding for the art.

The left embraces homosexual activist groups simply because they view such as yet more acid to pour upon traditional morality. The utter contempt we routinely see of homosexuals, themselves, tells the true story of leftist attitudes. This isn’t about being anti-gay but, rather, about being anti-human. Anyone who can advocate for “abortion rights” is not someone who can then turn around and show genuine respect for people. All is political on the left – as is best demonstrated by the vile hatred which will directed against any homosexual (or black, or woman, or other selected group) who strays from the leftist path.

The right has tended to reject homosexual activists because most conservatives are strongly Christian in outlook. It has been difficult to separate out the person from the act – and doing this separation was not helped by some overt acts by homosexuals (it was a terrible thing – and entirely unjustified under any circumstances whatsoever – when Christians were pelted by condoms as they left Church. It didn’t help matters at all when some gay activists would enter a Catholic Church and desecrate the Blessed Sacrament). But as time has gone on the old poisons have faded – and the growth of conservative homosexual groups and individuals has broken down a lot of barriers.

I don’t think that anyone can say how conservatism and homosexuality should approach each other. It remains difficult to bring the right and homosexual groups together. Accepting individual homosexual conservatives is a lot easier. Treating all people, regardless of status, with love and respect is a requirement. At bottom, it is only a people with strong morals and a clear, Judeo-Christian outlook which can afford homosexuals essential tolerance.

For me, it is a matter of refusing absolutely to hate anyone; an understanding that I have no cause to act high and mighty as regards morality. And a determination, at this moment, that the defense of liberty trumps all.

From David Bellavia:

The war in Iraq was no different. While many scurried to blame Donald Rumsfeld, General Franks or President Bush for losing the war in Iraq, they bet against the American fighting men and women to turn the tide of the war. “The mission” in Iraq was evil. The troops would never be maligned as they were in Vietnam.

I don’t begrudge these people. They simply will never get it. They are the type of people you need to protect in a society. They are innocent and naive.

It is the job of the warrior to hide them under the bed and tell them it will be okay, before we run off to combat the threat.

The ones that hold my contempt are those who, even today, know of the sacrifice made, the incredible progress gained and still will not acknowledge what was won on the ground in Iraq. They cheapen the sacrifice of how it was earned. Operation Iraqi Freedom is no more.

Operation New Dawn (the exact same name of the Battle of Fallujah in November 2004) is the new name of the deployment to Iraq.

What we achieved in the face of an implacable enemy, overcoming many in our own government willfully ignorant of our struggle, is what I believe to be the defining moment of my generation. The veteran today is the embodiment of what it means to be an American. Even when our valor was used for political sport, we continued to serve quietly.

The best America has to offer went to Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the War on Terrorism. Some on the right grew tired of th war and turned against it. The left hated it from the start, and eventually got no less a personage than the Senate Majority Leader to assert that it was lost. We still hear the complaints and lies about why we went there, and what we did.

The soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who served know better – and those who never broke faith with them also know better. And it is comforting to know that even after decades of lies, moral degradation and spreading cowardice that our nation can still raise such a military force.

Now, we who didn’t fight must prove worthy of those who did – to ensure that the America they fought for is a land of freedom, of decency and of respect for honor and sacrifice. To this cause I pledge the rest of my life and all of my efforts. It still won’t equal the sacrifice of even one of those who died. It is, literally, the least I can do – but it will be done, and as they never quit in worse circumstances than I’ll ever face, so I will never quit.