“…Obamacare 2.0 — promulgating draconian health-insurance regulation that prohibits (a) denying coverage for preexisting conditions, (b) dropping coverage if the client gets sick and (c) capping insurance company reimbursement. What’s not to like? If you have insurance, you’ll never lose it. Nor will your children ever be denied coverage for preexisting conditions. The regulated insurance companies will get two things in return.

“Government will impose an individual mandate that will force the purchase of health insurance on the millions of healthy young people who today forgo it. And government will subsidize all the others who are too poor to buy health insurance. The result? Two enormous new revenue streams created by government for the insurance companies.

“And here’s what makes it so politically seductive: The end result is the liberal dream of universal and guaranteed coverage — but without overt nationalization. It is all done through private insurance companies. Ostensibly private. They will, in reality, have been turned into government utilities. No longer able to control whom they can enroll, whom they can drop and how much they can limit their own liability, they will live off government largess — subsidized premiums from the poor; forced premiums from the young and healthy.

“It’s the perfect finesse — government health care by proxy. And because it’s proxy, and because it will guarantee access to (supposedly) private health insurance — something that enjoys considerable Republican support — it will pass with wide bipartisan backing and give Obama a resounding political victory.

“Isn’t there a catch? Of course there is. This scheme is the ultimate bait-and-switch. The pleasure comes now, the pain later. Government-subsidized universal and virtually unlimited coverage will vastly compound already out-of-control government spending on health care. The financial and budgetary consequences will be catastrophic.

“However, they will not appear immediately. And when they do, the only solution will be rationing. That’s when the liberals will give the FCCCER regulatory power and give you end-of-life counseling.

“But by then, resistance will be feeble. Why? Because at that point the only remaining option will be to give up the benefits we will have become accustomed to. Once granted, guaranteed universal health care is not relinquished. Look at Canada. Look at Britain. They got hooked; now they ration. So will we….”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/27/AR2009082703262.html

No.

My experience with people like President Zero has been that they never seem to grasp that some of us just don’t want what they’re selling, no matter how many times they explain it. We understand it perfectly, which is why we don’t want it in the first place.

My implication, perhaps better made more explicit, was that while Nixon lied outright about Watergate, and one might disagree with him about his policies, he did not generally resort to sophistry as often and as nakedly as Obama.

What I am trying to say is “enough is enough”. Don’t these yahoos ever figure out that the more they say the less believable they become.

and yet we did NOTHING…

and now we are asking what can we do?

Bella V. Dodd (1904—1969) was a member of the Communist Party of America (CPUSA) in the 1930s and 1940s.

On March 11, 1953, The New York Times ran a front page article entitled Bella Dodd Asserts Reds Got Presidential Advisory Posts reporting that she “swore before the Senate Internal Security subcommittee today that Communists had got into many legislative offices of Congress and into a number of groups advising the President of the United States.”[1] The New York Times reported on March 8, 1954 that Bella Dodd “…warned yesterday that the “materialistic philosophy,” which she said was now guiding public education, would eventually demoralize the nation.”[2]

In her book, School of Darkness (1954) she states that that Communist Party’s structure “was in reality a device to control the ‘common man'”.[3

I think they understand it in a morally inverse way. To them, the system of everyone being responsible for their own self interest is immoral.

We’re witnessing a liberal ideology so immersed in its self righteous dogma that the horrific harm it causes to human lives doesn’t even get considered.