What does it mean to be exceptional?

Bill Whittle uses facts and math to answer the question: Is America exceptional?

He looks at 4 measures:

1 Military
2 Economic
3 Scientific
4 Cultural

And he uses math and numbers. The horror. Watch it and see if you don't agree that there is something unique about America.

Then wonder what it takes for supposedly intelligent people to not see it.

And any piece that mentions Norman Borlaug is worth it.


Seriously. if all you get out of this is learning a bit about Norman Borlaug then that's enough.

So which side is using the paid goons?

Steven Crowder goes undercover to expose those sinister astroturfers using big money to push an undemocratic agenda.





Watch it all, as he explains what 33k a year gets you and where it comes from.

A question

Ed Morrissey:

what authority does the federal government have to set up commissars for private industry at all? This question becomes even more urgent when these “czars” have no accountability to or oversight from Congress, whether they choose to exercise it or not. Obama has more czars than Cabinet members now, and none of them required any confirmation from the Senate or answer to anyone but the President.

That's right, more czars that Cabinet members. It's almost like a shadow government.

Glen Reynolds shows a list of just who these people are and what they're czars of.

Change!

The Power & Danger of Iconography: The Resistance Steals Obama's Weapons

Bill Whittle shows the dangers and weaknesses of Obama's symbols.

Here's just a taste. Notice how Obama's still using his campaign symbol for all this official White House stuff? Just imagine if Bush had kept using his W for everything he did after his elections.

Again with the Turst

Glen Reynolds has some thoughts

My thought has been that — in order to avoid the perception of an Obama defeat — Congress would eventually pass some sort of watered-down bill, proclaim health care “reformed,” and declare victory. But the trust-level is so low now — with a majority of voters saying that it would be better if nothing passed at all — that I’m not sure that approach is viable. Once you don’t trust reports of what’s in the bill, you’re not likely to trust reports that “we’ve fixed all the problems.” Indeed, I think opposition to health care is largely about distrust of the entire political class, which is something you can’t fix with a few amendments.

...

Yes. And trust, once lost, is hard to regain. Just ask the Republicans . . . .

Part of Obama's appeal was that many people wanted to believe him, his promises of new politics, of transparency, of moving beyond petty partisanship was a salve to people that were sick of politics and wanted... Change.

Which was exactly why Obama said those things.

But, in the end, reality wins. Obama's promises are crumbling before his actual performance.

And once you start seeing the gap between rhetoric and reality, it's hard to unsee it.

More on the Healthcare Snake Oil.

Using logic? Well you're just a cynic.

Under the plan discussed at President Obama’s infomercial-esqe town halls, America would cut costs and expand coverage while avoiding rationing. Apparently, it’s paranoid to think that’s too good to be true.

Imagine you’re in charge of bringing pie to a company picnic. You’re planning to provide dessert for 100 people. Then, your boss says you need to hand out pie to 150. Fine, you say, I’ll make more pies. But — oh no! — you can’t, because you’ve also been told costs must go down. Okay, then you can cut slices of the existing pies smaller so everyone can have a piece. Wait! You can’t do that either, because you’re not allowed to ration (i.e., give less to more).

According to Obama, the health-care pie will be sliced into more pieces, of equal or greater size than available now, for less money — all because government is so much better than the private sector at managing large projects.

Emphasis added. Yes, a man that compars his health care plans to the Post Office in terms of competitiveness and service wonders why we don't trust him.

Such contradictions run through the talking points for Obamacare. Consider life expectancy. In his big speech before the American Medical Association in June, Obama insisted that “the quality of our care is often lower, and we aren’t any healthier. In fact, citizens in some countries that spend substantially less than we do are actually living longer than we do.”

...

Even greater disparities exist within America. Asian-American women, according to a 2006 study by Harvard’s School of Public Health, have a life expectancy of 87 years, while for African-American men it’s 69. The healthiest white people in America are the low-income folks of the Northern Plains states. Again, is our health-care system the biggest factor?

It's like people that don't understand parametric influence are trying to use whatever they can grab to justifty controling your life.

But here’s the kicker: The more life expectancy improves, the more we will spend on health care. Despite his professed outrage over charges of “death panels” and whatnot, Obama admits this. In an interview with the New York Times last spring, he acknowledged that oldsters are a “huge driver of cost.” The “chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health-care bill out here,” Obama explained. Which is why he advocated an advisory panel of experts to offer “guidance” on end-of-life care and costs. But don’t you dare call it a “death panel.”

...

When it comes to civil liberties, liberals are often distrustful of government power. But, for reasons that baffle me, they are quite comfortable with Uncle Sam getting into the business of deciding, or providing “guidance” on, which lives are more valuable than others. A government charged with extending life expectancy must meddle not just with our health care, but with what we eat, how we drive, how we live. A government determined to cut costs must meddle not just with how we live, but how we die.

"

Goldberg continues here

A point I didn't flesh out too much in my column seems to have struck a chord with a lot of readers nonetheless. Once the government decides it is in charge of health care, it has a say in everything you do (this, natch, was an argument of my book). Guns, diet, and cars are more relevant to our slightly lower life expectancy than insurance premiums and reimbursement rates, so of course Henry Waxman and Barbara Boxer and the rest of the gang are going to use their control over the health-care system as an excuse to go after those aspects of our lives. Why wouldn't they? They already want to influence those aspects of our lives now. Health care is really the only other policy area — after "the children" and global warming — that gives the State access to the most private spheres of our lives. Whenever someone says "it's a health-care issue" it's somehow supposed to trump traditional rights and liberties. That's what the push in the 1990s to make gun control a health-care issue was all about. That's why cameras once used to catch terrorists are now used to catch people eating in their cars in the U.K.

I've never heard anyone say something is a "health-care issue" as a preface to an argument for getting the government out of something.

It's like they're just looking for an excuse to control your life. For your own good, of course.

Turst, again....

There are smart and experienced people who say whatever the mess right now, the president will get a bill of some sort because he has the brute numeric majority. A rising number say no, this thing has roused such ire he won't get much if anything. I don't know, but this is true: If he wins it, will be a victory not worth having. It will have cost too much. It has lessened the thing an admired president must have from the people, and that is trust.

It is divisive save in one respect. The Obama White House has done the near impossible: It has united the Republican Party. Social conservatives, economic conservatives, libertarians—they're all against the health-care schemes as presented so far. They're shoulder-to-shoulder at the barricade again.

And more on that tricky, tricky math.

Prevantative care, a cost savings?

Think of it this way. Assume that a screening test for disease X costs $500 and finding it early averts $10,000 of costly treatment at a later stage. Are you saving money? Well, if one in 10 of those who are screened tests positive, society is saving $5,000. But if only one in 100 would get that disease, society is shelling out $40,000 more than it would without the preventive care.

Tricksy math!

That's a hypothetical case. What's the real-life actuality in the United States today? A study in the journal Circulation found that for cardiovascular diseases and diabetes, "if all the recommended prevention activities were applied with 100 percent success," the prevention would cost almost 10 times as much as the savings, increasing the country's total medical bill by 162 percent. Elmendorf additionally cites a definitive assessment in the New England Journal of Medicine that reviewed hundreds of studies on preventive care and found that more than 80 percent of preventive measures added to medical costs.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't be preventing illness. Of course we should. But in medicine, as in life, there is no free lunch. The idea that prevention is somehow intrinsically economically different from treatment -- that treatment increases costs and prevention lowers them -- is simply nonsense.

Read the rest.


Here's a bit of a history lesson for all those that complain about the "uncivility". Just a few examples of the protests that took place under the last president.
President as National Socialist, then and now


It's kind of hard to sell a product when you don't know what it acutally is.




Plans? What Plans?

Remember how Bush was supposed to be the idiot who went into Iraq without a plan, while Obama was supposed to be the cool methodical one? But Reich is admitting that despite all the Administration hoopla, there’s still no plan. Or, possibly, that the White House has a plan, but won’t tell us what it is. And yet the people who don’t want to see a bill — some bill, doing who-knows-what — rammed through in the dead of night are somehow the ones who are ignorant and being manipulated. Right.

Hope for Rights?

Maybe there is some hope

SCENES FROM A NEW AMERICA: So I dropped the girls off at a movie, and — since the Insta-wife was lunching with her mom — stopped at a Sonny’s Barbecue for lunch. A man — late 40s, big, with a wife and a daughter — came in with an empty holster on his belt. As he sat down at the booth next to mine, the manager came by and asked him if he’d left his gun in the car. Yes, said the man, who had a permit but thought he wasn’t allowed to carry in restaurants in Tennessee.. Well, they’ve changed the law, said the manager, and if you want to go get it that’s fine with us. It’s legal now, and I’m happy to have you carrying — if somebody tries to rob me, it’s two against one.

The man stepped outside and returned with a Springfield XD in the holster, chatted with the manager for a bit about guns, and then sat down and had lunch with his family.

Glen continues with more examples.

One of the goals of gun-controllers over the past several decades was to “denormalize” gun ownership, stigmatizing it instead as something deviant and suspect. It appears to have failed.

Says Uncle has some thoughts on the trend against demonization.

More states have concealed carry than don’t. AWB not renewed. And quite a few other pro-gun victories. People seem more friendly to gun owners. And people who have never shot before want to go shooting. Issuance of handgun carry permits is at a record high.

I’ve often attributed it to grassroots activists who, with Al Gore’s internets, seem to have gained a knack for working together. But I’ve also realized something else is having an influence. Cable/satellite TeeVee. In a recent episode of Mythbusters (posted earlier about some safety concerns), Jamie was pulling out a .50 caliber and made a comment about how if you were a gun enthusiast, the 50 caliber was awesome. Then, the show Timewarp did an episode on automatic weapons.

All kinds of educational programs on cable TeeVee deal with weapons and guns. Mail Call, Timewarp, Mythbusters, Tales of the Gun, and there are even hour long shows devoted to the history of a particular gun. People didn’t have this stuff piped into their homes 30 years ago. Now, they do. People became acclimated to guns instead of afraid of them. And people see them and realize what gun nuts knew all along: guns are fucking cool. And when handled appropriately, they’re safe.

The gun control movement depends on ignorance and lies. Look at their muddying of semi-auto versus auto, their creation of "assault weapons" based on cosmetic features. They depend on you staying ignorant and afraid. Knowledge and experience is the best way to fight it.

More on Trust.

I've mentioned sketpism about the accuracy of polls before, which is why minor shifts on day to day can easilly be discounted, but they are an interesting insight into trends.

Speaking of trends. Scroll down to his Approval Index and Job Approval.

Those trends are well outside any jitter or error.


From Ace: Rasmussen: For First Time in Over Two Years, GOP More Trusted on Health Care; Super-Popular President Who Men Want to Be and Women Want to Be With Now at All-Time Low of 47%


Fox News poll: 69% now expect Obama to break promise about not raising taxes

There’s so much dismal news for The One in these crosstabs, I honestly wasn’t sure to lead with. The GOP erasing a 13-point Democratic lead on the generic ballot in April to pull dead even now? 57 percent declaring the White House snitch line inappropriate? A 52/29 split on the question of whether town hall outrage is authentic or artificial? Or a 13-point surge in the number of people since March who say they’d like to see less of The One on TV? (Overall split is 25/49, among independents it’s 22/50.)

...

Note: Even a near-majority of Democrats no longer buys the White House nonsense about not raising taxes on the middle class.

It's like people are feeling betrayed by Obama and Congress and feeling that they can't trust him and them.

I wonder why?

There's gotta be some reason?

Right?

It's not like dissident has gone from the highest from of patriotism to "evil-mongers". Oh... wait.

Consider this further proof, though, that William McGurn was right in dubbing ObamaCare the left’s new religion, with protester-heretics now officially deemed “evil” for shouting about it. Exit question: Isn’t this actually the left’s line on the right in all policy disagreements? Pick any issue you like, foreign or domestic, and liberal conventional wisdom has some nefarious explanation available for the conservative position. Warmongering, racism, exploiting the poor, “controlling women’s bodies” — you name it, they’ve got an “evil” ulterior motive to account for it. I wonder why it took Reid this long to drop the E-bomb. He must really want to win this debate.

Why don't they believe him?

So at the Townhall where Obama assured us he wasn't being questioned by all plants we have...

A doctor that's not really a doctor and a cute kid that asks why people are mean to the President... who coincidentially happens to have parents with major campaign ties.

Lying about medical credentials (Was it too hard to find a real doctor that could toss Obama a softball question?) and using kids as plants, but it's those against the bill that are manufactured outrage.

And sure Obama's willing to use cheap theatrics and obvious lies to push his agenda, but that doesn't mean what he's selling is bad.

What you don't trust him?


No wonder the public is more sympathetic to Town Hall Protesters than not

In a survey of 1,000 adults taken Tuesday, 34% say the sometimes heated protests at sessions held by members of Congress have made them more sympathetic to the protesters' views; 21% say they are less sympathetic.

Independents by 2-1, 35%-16%, say they are more sympathetic to the protesters now.

The findings are bad news for President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders, who have scrambled to respond to town halls marked by aggressive questions and noisy demonstrations by those opposed to plans to overhaul the health care system.

Trust

John Stewart notes: “You know a sales pitch is in trouble when it starts with Look, you gotta trust me, we’re not going to kill your grandparents! These hot dogs, I'm selling you, they're not made of pig anus!"

Be kind of nice if Stewart went into why people are having a hard time buying what Obama's selling.

Via Glen Reynolds

Who also notes a mix of handpicked softball questioners and Claire McCaskill's own trust gap.

Meanwhile Althouse wonders about something that's... missing from the healthcare debate.

Another Digest

Here's another roundup of stuff.


Fame:

As Jim Treacher says: If Kenneth Gladney was an Obama supporter, right now he'd be more famous than Rodney King.

Gotta love this "post-racial America": Democrat union heavies can beat up a black guy using racial epithets and leave him in a wheelchair unable to speak - and happily (unlike, say, a black professor being asked for picture ID) it's not "symbolic" of anything at all. Not a Sharpton in sight to speak up for him: Mr Gladney's only shot at fame is an entry in The Guinness Book Of Records under "Least Famous Black Hate-Crime Victim In America".

Online Rumors Aren't What Is Sinking ObamaCare

Ramesh asks a simple, clear question: Are we really to put our faith in Obama's contradictory claims that "the system is an unsustainable disaster, but you can keep your piece of it if you want"?.

I've wondered how the bill is going to simultaneously cover the uninsured, expand care, and cut costs all at once; put more succinctly, they're promising the new system will spend less money and more money at the same time.

The common theme is that the Obama administration is making multiple promises that are impossible to keep; the response is basically... "shut up, you domestic terrorist"?

Activists against Obamacare are "mob", Un-American, and paid Insurance-company shills, but it's perfectly okay when the Whitehouse makes backroom deals to get this:

The drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million on television commercials supporting President Obama’s health care overhaul, beginning over the August Congressional recess, people briefed on the plans said Saturday.

The unusually large scale of the industry’s commitment to the cause helps explain some of a contentious back-and-forth playing out in recent days between the odd-couple allies over a deal that the White House struck with the industry in June to secure its support. The terms of the deal were not fully disclosed.

From the same link. Take a guess on which side is paying it's protesters about $11-16 and hour.
Just guess.

From the SEIU:

Opponents of reform are organizing counter-demonstrators to speak at this and several congressional town halls on the issue to defend the status quo. It is critical that our members with real, personal stories about the need for access to quality, affordable care come out in strong numbers to drown out their voices.

Someone better tell them that Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer find "Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American."

And one has to love how people against these government plans are "counter-demonstrators". What next calling people that dare to speak out against the state "counter revolutionary wreckers"?

By any other name...

Robert Wright notes that “we already ration health care; we just let the market do the rationing.” This is a true point made by the proponents of health care reform. But I’m not sure why it’s supposed to be so interesting. You could make this statement about any good:

“We already ration food; we just let the market do the rationing.”

“We already ration gasoline; we just let the market do the rationing.”

“We already ration cigarettes; we just let the market do the rationing.”

And indeed, this was an argument that was made in favor of socialism. (No, okay, I’m not calling you socialists!) And yet, most of us realize that there are huge differences between price rationing and government rationing, and that the latter is usually much worse for everyone. This is one of the things that most puzzles me about the health care debate: statements that would strike almost anyone as stupid in the context of any other good suddenly become dazzling insights when they’re applied to hip replacements and otitis media.

Yes for some reason HealthCare is special, unique from other services.

From the Prof

Also, the market doesn’t deny you a hip replacement or a pacemaker because someone in government thinks your political views are “un-American.” Given the cronyism and thuggery we’ve seen with the bailouts, etc., I’m not confident this would hold true under a government health program. And I’m absolutely certain there would be a special track for insiders and favorites.

Someone doesn't think he can trust congress or the President to be ethical.

Megan McArdlecontinues

But there is also a real difference between having something rationed by a process and having it rationed by a person. That is, in fact, why progressives are so fond of rules. They don't want to tell grandma to take morphine instead of getting a pacemaker. It's much nicer if you create a mathematical formula that makes some doctor tell grandma to take morphine instead of getting a pacemaker. Then the doctor can disclaim responsibility too, because after all, no one really has any agency here--we're all just in the grips of an impersonal force.

But this won't do. If you design a formula to deny granny a pacemaker, knowing that this is the intent of the formula, then you've killed granny just as surely as if you'd ordered the doctor to do it directly. That's the intuition behind the conservative resistance to switching from price rationing to fiat rationing. Using the government's coercive power to decide the price of something, or who ought to get it, is qualitatively different from the same outcome arising out of voluntary actions in the marketplace.

Anger... justified?

I am not, and would not, endorse criminal mob behavior. But exhibitions of anger and spirit when one is justifiably angry and spirited are entirely appropriate. Making clear to a pol who is trying to insult your intelligence that you don't appreciate it is entirely appropriate.

I just don't get the detachment from the real world here. We're not talking trivia here. We're talking about what kind of country we're going to be from here on out. That's something worth getting whipped up about. If we're not whipped up, we lose. If we are whipped up and the Democrats try to use that fact as an excuse to ram this through, then they were going to ram it through anyway.

We are a heavy underdog. To prevail, the needle we have to thread is to convince enough Dems and RINOs that there will be electoral hell to pay if this monstrosity is enacted. That requires an authentic demonstration of fervor. It's unfortunate that some people will go overboard — as happens in any human endeavor — but that's no reason to treat this as if it were an academic exercise. If that's the approach, the game — like the country as we know it — is lost.

At least there's some good news.

Rasmussen: Support For Health Care Reform Falling

I hate posting poll reports because given all the variables of sampling, the wording of questions and other elements, it's hard to tell what they mean but you can certainly see the trend of support for the whole enterprise eroding.
Obama didn't pick his August deadline out of thin air. He knew what this month would mean.

BTW-for those Democrats who say they want an 'honest and respectful debate'...bullshit. If Obama, Pelosi and Reid had their way, the bill would have been passed and signed by now with no chance of debate. If people are mad at what you are trying to do and how you tried to do it, too bad.

And the results:

opposition to the plan has increased to 53%, up nine points since late June.
More significantly, 44% of voters strongly oppose the health care reform effort versus 26% who strongly favor it. Intensity has been stronger among opponents of the plan since the debate began.

...As for the protesters at congressional town hall meetings, 49% believe they are genuinely expressing the views of their neighbors, while 37% think they’ve been put up to it by special interest groups and lobbyists.

"In related news, we have always been at war with Eastasia."

Obama Aug, 19 2008 “If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,”
Obama Aug, 11 2009 "I have not said that I am a supporter of a single-payer system,"

Compare the two videos.

So who you gonna believe? The President or your lying eyes?

And the Dems wonder why the public is being so hostile and untrusting of them

Rand Simberg nails it: "Just how stupid does he think we are? And how clueless is he if he thinks that we can’t find this kind of thing on the Internet?"

Sure he's insulting your intelligence, but that doesn't mean you can't trust him to run your medical care.

Roundup

Another reason not to trust the Whitehouse: When they crow about good news of this quality....

The unemployment rate declined from month to month, even though the total number of Americans employed with a job decreased. If you don't find that a signal that the happy headlines are misleading, I don't know what else to tell you.

Heh.

Get this: The party of “community organizers” is now whining that President Obama’s critics are organizing com munities — against his health-care scheme.

The nerve of ‘em, huh?

Faced with mushrooming opposition to ObamaCare, Democrats have launched a multi-media campaign that attacks foes as “extremists” who’ve “called out the mob” to “destroy President Obama” and “intimidate and silence regular people.” They cite “the playbook of high-level Republican political operatives.”

Actually, that sounds more like the tactics of the Chicago street, where Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel cut their political teeth. Indeed, you can almost hear Richard Nixon grousing about angry anti-war protestors and pleading for “the great silent majority of Americans” to rise up.

Bizzaro world: Union goons are called in by the DNC to "calm" "astroturf" "political terrorists".

You can guess what happens.

Pay attention, America. This is a glimpse into the next three years of the Obama administration, at least using the same logic by which the Left accuses health-care reform opponents of “astroturfing”. If its policies get organized opposition, especially at events designed to allow for public debate, purple-shirted thugs will appear to crack heads and scare off the opposition.

And if nothing else, it’s a great look at how the unions will act once the secret ballot gets eliminated from organizing elections.

It's just the Chicago Way.



Remember, suspicioun builds confidence.

If you’re a virtuous and patriotic American, you may find this column either offensive or misleading. If so, please forward it to White House authorities at the Department of Fishy Activity. (E-mail the good people at flag@whitehouse.gov.)
As many of you have heard, the White House now requests that the public tattle on those of us spreading “fishy disinformation” regarding Washington’s proposed takeover . . . oops, I mean “reform” . . . of your health care. This step, naturally, is for our own good.

Now, don’t get overly paranoid, you freaky right-wing zealots. Judging from the Obama administration’s track record, the program will do absolutely nothing other than add billions to the deficit.

The vital thing to bear in mind, though, is that the nation needs a concerted plan to corral this wacko “mob” of “thugs” who recklessly use the First Amendment to decelerate all this forward progress.

On Silent Majorities.

Like Richard Nixon, Barack Obama wants to govern on the strength of a silent majority, although with a twist. Obama wants the majority that opposes or questions his policies to stay silent.

Obama’s White House and its allies have unleashed a barrage of criticism and condescension at people daring to show up at town-hall meetings and ask their elected representatives pointed questions. “Fired up and ready to go!” apparently works only one way. If engaged citizens shower Obama with adoration at stage-managed rallies, they are the very stuff of American democracy. If they boo their congressman, they are a scandalous eruption of fake or hateful sentiment.

This reminds me a lot of Klavan's video. Shut Up.





Are you a part of "The Mob"?

Speaking of how good gov' healthcare is.
Man vs. Mutt

In the last few years, I have had the opportunity to compare the human and veterinary health services of Great Britain, and on the whole it is better to be a dog.

As a British dog, you get to choose (through an intermediary, I admit) your veterinarian. If you don’t like him, you can pick up your leash and go elsewhere, that very day if necessary. Any vet will see you straight away, there is no delay in such investigations as you may need, and treatment is immediate. There are no waiting lists for dogs, no operations postponed because something more important has come up, no appalling stories of dogs being made to wait for years because other dogs—or hamsters—come first.

Hnmmmm
Mark Steyn explains

That's because, in their respective health systems, Fido is a valued client, and poor Debra Beavers wasn't.

Roger Kimball has some thoughts.

So, the President of the United States wants critics of his plans to socialize American health care to “get out of the way.” His operatives urge you to turn in your friends and neighbors if they say “something fishy” about the administration. Confronted with spreading grassroots outrage, President Obama instructs his supporters “to punch back twice as hard.” Kenneth Gladney, the 38-year-old black conservative who was hospitalized by union goons, can testify that they are doing just that. (It’s what Obama once called “the Chicago way”: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” he said.)

Obama standing firm... on collecting a dissident database.

Change!

Orwellian

This time there's no exaggeration.

This news article in the UK Daily Express brings to our attention plans by the British government to wire 20,000 households with closed circuit television cameras. Familes will be closely monitored to make sure that they are raising their children in the proper manner. Private security guards will make regular on-the-spot checks.

What will happen if a parent does not provide a home environment that aligns with government policy is unknown to me.

The idea is to change unhealthy homes so that the kids won’t fall into a life of crime. I’m sure that the UK government will only target familes where the parents have been acting up enough so they have come to the attention of the police. Or, at least, only chaotic homes will be targeted right now. What the future holds, who knows?

There are two underlying issues that really worry me.

The first is that crime, particularly youth crime, is so out of control in the UK that the government thinks it is justified in placing electronic eyes inside of private homes. After all, if it wasn’t en emergency, why spend hundreds of millions of pounds for projects like this? It certainly discredits government claims that crime is actually falling.

The second issue is the private security guards that will willfully enter private homes. Private security is now acting under the authority of the state? And in such a broad and undefined manner? How come it isn’t obvious that this is a really, really bad idea?

Ah, the state bringing back moral hygiene and this time using modern surveillance to ensure compliance.

And you gotta love the outsourcing of critical, invasive, government functions to a private company. Says interesting things about the reach of the UK state and its grasp.

Don't think that the US is immune.

Remember when Obama decried the "politics of fear"?

Change!

Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to "uncover" the truth about the President’s health insurance reform positions.

...Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

(emphasis mine)

Now keep in mind, a lot of what people will term 'lies' are merely policy difference. Either way, Obama and his apparatchiks want to know about it. Personally, I'll be sending in that Linda Douglas video from below since she's lying about what Obama actually said.

Given this President's unseemly propencity for going after individual citizens (Limbaugh* and Crowley come to mind) not to mention the media's willingness to vet the hell out anyone who actual dares to question Obama (hello Joe the Plumber) this is more than a little creepy. It's also excellent fodder for the "imagine if Republicans had done this" file.

To mention another totalitarian movie. Suspicion breeds confidence!

Nice how dissident goes from being patriotic to snitch-worthy.

Democracy

Remember, there's one thing politicians fear and that's not getting reelected.

This can and should be used against them.

“On the eve of the August recess, members are reporting meetings that have gone terribly awry, marked by angry, sign-carrying mobs and disruptive behavior. In at least one case, a congressman has stopped holding town hall events because the situation has spiraled so far out of control.”

Hope and change! But if you cancel the town halls, the angry constituents will still find you somewhere, won’t they?

And Operation Embarrass Your Congressman has more on what you can do.

Told you So

Pledge. Meet experation date.



Geithner Won’t Rule Out New Taxes For Middle Class.

Though cigarette taxes have already increased too.

So when Obama says that if you make under 250k that you won't see "any form of tax increase", well you know how much his word is worth.

Let's give him control of our healthcare too! I'm sure we can trust him on that.

Via Instapundit.