Welcome back! Glad to have you here. Please let me know how I might serve you today.

As I usually do, I’m reading with great interest the observations of many of my fellow travellers and not just a few patriots over at Lucianne.com. In particular is a thread devoted this this article. I’ve quoted it here so you can, hopefully, get the fully meaning of the content.

Let some of these thought sink in – this is not some amateur hour we’re watching. Oh, yea, the guy out front is most certainly an unaccomplished amateur, but those running him are not. And I say that with not a small amount of trepidation. We’re in for some trouble here.

One of the conclusions is telling: if enacted, this “entitlement” will be virtually impossible to “undo.”

Thank about it.

John Cassidy on ObamaCare – WSJ.com

Confessions of an ObamaCare Backer
A liberal explains the political calculus.

The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let’s give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that “it’s important to be clear about what the reform amounts to.”

Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. “The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment,” he writes. “Let’s not pretend that it isn’t a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won’t. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind.”

Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of “making the United States a more equitable country” and furthering the Democrats’ “political calculus.” In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, “Putting on my amateur historian’s cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted.”

No wonder many Americans are upset. They know they are being lied to about ObamaCare, and they know they are going to be stuck with the bill.

takeover, obamacare, evil, socialism

I, for one, never, ever believed that he was a brilliant scholar.

brilliant scholar?? Based on what? Or, maybe it’s just me; but I don’t remember reading or, for that matter, seeing his scholarly works – ANYWHERE!!

Give me a break.

American Thinker- Read Here

Unmasking Obama
By Thomas Lifson
It is now abundantly clear that the image of Barack Obama sold to the American electorate was tightly edited, air-brushed, and exaggerated. He has worn a series of masks — eloquent orator, brilliant scholar, centrist, and literary sensation. All of these masks are coming off as he copes with a job for which image will not suffice. For instance, hiding behind the eloquent orator mask is a guy who says “uhh” a lot when he is winging it, and who makes lots of factual and grammatical mistakes.

Now, thanks to Jack Cashill, the literary mask has been removed. Obama is a literary pretender. Case closed. The evidence is overwhelming that Bill Ayers ghost-wrote Dreams from my Father, the book which established Obama’s pose as a brilliant writer (and therefore a fine mind, in the estimation of many). The stylistic resemblance between the Dreams and Ayers’ work is stunning. Now we know, thanks to Chris Andersen’s new book,that Obama hit a brick wall trying to fulfill his contract to produce a book, and shipped off his notes and tapes to Ayers. That is the classic description of a ghost writer’s assignment. And it completely fits the theories Cashill had inferentially reasoned from the data of his literary studies.