I say “gone” because “come a long way” depicts a positive, and where the Democrats have gone is anything but positive from any viewpoint invoking love of country, honesty or, for that matter, honor.

The corruption within the ranks of the Democrats can probably be laid at the feet of the liberals who bought out their party in the last two decades or so, but still, the deeds that can be attributable to these people are anything but acceptable in America, where we’re supposed to be a nation of laws.

“Sure,” some will argue, there are crooked Republicans, but for every one of those there seem to be fifty bent Democrats.

New York, a Democrat run state, is teeming with corrupt politicians, but other states wherein Democrats are prominent have their own share of criminal Democrats as well.

From JP Attitude:

On Monday, Trenton Mayor Tony Mack was arrested by the FBI for corruption. Tony Mack represents the blight that has destroyed the great cities of America, the blight of crooked Democrat mayors who have systematically raped and pillaged the cities they were elected to lead.

If you don’t live in a major urban area, you don’t know how bad it is. Travel across America and you will find city after city with the same feature: a rotten core of disintegrating infrastructure, dysfunctional schools, and violent crime. Detroit looks worse than Kabul or Baghdad, recent war zones. East St. Louis sends kids to school in buildings where sewage is backed up in the hallways. Vast areas of Los Angeles are run by gangs playacting like feudal lords from the Middle Ages. Chicago had 52 shootings over Memorial Day weekend, ten of them fatal – you’re safer walking around Baghdad with a big silver cross than walking around in Chicago.

What do all of those cities have in common? Decades of Democrat mayors.

If you think Tony Mack is an exception, maybe I should list other examples. What do you think? Can I list ten examples of corrupt Democrat mayors since the year 2000?

Read on…

What about honesty in elections, wherein eligible American citizens get to choose our leaders?

From Godfather Politics:

As we draw closer to the elections in November, we are learning there are numerous ways to win an election other than by the ballots cast by legal registered voters.

In several state primaries, it was discovered that dead people and non-U.S. citizens had voted. In some states, there are still thousands of dead people and non-citizens on the voter registration rolls. Why, we’ve even read where a guy’s dog that had been dead for two years received a voter registration card in the mail.

And through it all, the Democrats have fought tooth and nail to prevent states from cleaning up their voter registration records and removing dead people and non-citizens. They have also fought long and hard to prevent states from enacting voter ID laws and in some instances the DOJ has declared such laws discriminatory and illegal.

I always have to laugh at the hypocrisy of the Democrats on claiming the voter ID is discriminatory and will prevent poor black people from voting. Those same poor black people have to have some form of ID in order to receive all of the government aid and handouts they get, so what makes a voter ID any different? Besides, thousands of Americans have sacrificed their lives and limbs to secure and maintain the right to vote, but not to secure and maintain government entitlements.

Snip!

Chicago, where Obama started his political career has a long history of corrupt elections. The cities motto for years was if you can win an election legally, steal it any way you can.

In 2008, Obama won Virginia by seven points. At the moment, the polls show the race between Obama and Romney to be much closer. That means that Obama is going to need the vote of every dead person, non-citizen, pet and convicted felon, along with the voter intimidation of New Black Panther members if he wants to secure his victory in November.

Yes, the Democrats of today could sure give the likes of their like-minded soulmates, this one for example, a run for their money….

Ha ha! And ha!

Actually, it’s more pitiful criminal than amusing. Criminal with just a hint of treason, but then whoever (except the Democrats, that is) said the party on the left side of the aisle cared about “the means” when it comes to achieving “the end”?

An investigative report from a media watchdog group reveals that the left is involved in a systematic strategy to undermine the ability of election officials to effectively manage elections and prevent voter fraud.

As previously reported on OneNewsNow, Accuracy in Media (AIM) has published a report that exposes the history, current tactics, and implications of left-wing voter fraud and intimidation. “The Left’s National Vote Fraud Strategy Exposed” reveals a “deliberate, premeditated, comprehensive plan to win the 2012 presidential election at all costs.”

James Simpson was commissioned by AIM to author the special report. He says vote fraud is widespread and typically occurs in areas where the enticers can get away with it — places like inner-cities where few people care to venture.

“They do whatever they want, and what they want to do is stuff the ballots,” he explains.

Simpson alleges another tactic involves flooding polling places with fraudulent voter registrations, as the controversial group ACORN has done in past elections.

“They created chaos in the local electoral offices by swamping them with huge numbers of registrations,” he reports. “And, of course, when they’re so overwhelmed with all that, it’s kind of hard to keep track of who of these registrants is a legitimate real voter and who isn’t.”

According to Simpson, two Democrats recently caught in a vote fraud scandal told police that “voter fraud is an accepted way of winning elections.”

Like it or not, this kind of thing constitutes attempting to tamper with our electoral system and that, in turn, is an attempt to illegally shape the leadership of this nation and that, in turn, has got to be some kind of treason.

On the other hand I did say, “but then whoever (except the Democrats, that is) said the party on the left side of the aisle cared about “the means” when it comes to achieving “the end”?

Ahem….

Of course, as we know, honesty is the best policy

Obama Denounces Republicans For “Bamboozling Folks” Into Thinking He’s a Big-Spender

Bamboozling folks? Even the left-leaning Politifact labelled him the “undisputed debt king” of the last five presidents.

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — At a fundraiser for his re-election campaign in Denver tonight, President Obama set out to upend conventional Republican wisdom that his administration has been defined by excessive government spending.

“I’m running to pay down our debt in a way that’s balanced and responsible. After inheriting a $1 trillion deficit, I signed $2 trillion of spending cuts into law,” he told a crowd of donors at the Hyatt Regency. “My opponent won’t admit it, but it’s starting to appear in places, like real liberal outlets, like the Wall Street Journal: Since I’ve been president, federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years. Think about that.”

Continue Reading on weaselzippers.us …

“Aw, leave Obama alone,” you say, shaking your head, “Anyone who doesn’t believe every lie that comes out of his head and support his reelection is obviously a racist!”

Tuesday night, Barack Obama was handed two more embarrassing near-defeats in the Democratic primaries held in Arkansas and Kentucky. In the Arkansas primary, challenger John Wolfe won nearly 42% of the vote, and in Kentucky 42% of Democrats selected “uncommitted” over President Obama. So far, four states — AR, KY, WV, and OK — have given over 40% of their primary vote to someone other than Barack Obama. All of these races were closed primaries, meaning that only Democrats were eligible to vote in them.

If this kind of inter-party rebellion had struck a Republican presidential incumbent (and I’m specifically thinking of George W. Bush) it would be the lead story on every cable news network, and an above-the-fold front page story on every major newspaper for the remainder of the week. Yet it barely gets mentioned these days, with the exception of this curious headline from the Washington Post: “Kentucky, Arkansas primaries: Is it racism?”

Ha-ha. And by the way, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Naturally the article brings up the infamous “Bigot Belt” graphic that showed Redneckland to be the only area of the nation that rejected Barack Obama outright in 2008. Certainly it wasn’t Obama’s elitism, or his anti-Americanism, or his sleazy Chicago cronies, or his youthful infatuation with cocaine and Marxist professors, or his long-time association with a radical domestic terrorist, or his membership in a church led by one of the most inflammatory Black separatist pastors in the country. Nah, it couldn’t possibly be any of those things that disinterested voters in the South. It must be because he is half African. Because that’s all we ever think about down here.

You know what? I’m actually kinda proud of that map. Seems we Okies ain’t as dumb as they think we is.

Thanks for that one from Wiz Bang.

Hmph! All this talk about dishonesty coming forth in the same breath as liberals and their useful Democrat idiots…

On the subject of the liberal conception of honesty, there’s some very timely commentary here from Ann Coulter.

Figures don’t lie: Democrats do

It’s been breaking news all over MSNBC, liberal blogs, newspapers and even The Wall Street Journal: “Federal spending under Obama at historic lows … It’s clear that Obama has been the most fiscally moderate president we’ve had in 60 years.” There’s even a chart!

I’ll pause here to give you a moment to mop up the coffee on your keyboard. Good? OK, moving on …

This shocker led to around-the-clock smirk fests on MSNBC. As with all bogus social science from the left, liberals hide the numbers and proclaim: It’s “science”! This is black and white, inarguable, and why do Republicans refuse to believe facts?

Ed Schultz claimed the chart exposed “the big myth” about Obama’s spending: “This chart — the truth — very clearly shows the truth undoubtedly.” And the truth was, the “growth in spending under President Obama is the slowest out of the last five presidents.”

Don’t stop there, keep reading…

Later.

The Left: If it moves, regulate it. If it doesn’t move, regulate it anyway. Control, micromanage, apply every dollar of taxpayer funds available (or not, just keep the spending going!)

There’s an informative Op-Ed in today’s Washington Times on-line by Representative Jeb Hensarling (R, Texas) about the Dodd Frank Act and what it means in the Real World as opposed to the one occupied by today’s Democrats and their liberal mentors.

The news of J.P. Morgan Chase’s recent trading loss has raised the cry of “I told you so” from proponents of the almost 2-year-old Dodd-Frank Act. They say the law’s Volcker rule would have prevented such a loss and that without more regulation, financial institutions will continue to make poor investment decisions.

As an opponent of Dodd-Frank and one of many who have warned against the politicization of our economy, the threat of future bailouts and attempts by the government to eliminaterisks, I also wish to say, “I told you so.”

Within Dodd-Frank’s 2,300 pages are provisions allowing the government to designate certain financial firms “systemically important financial institutions” - otherwise known as “too big to fail” (TBTF). The law then empowers the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) to seize a troubled TBTF firm for the purpose of winding it down. In doing so, the FDIC can borrow up to the book value of the institution from taxpayers, an amount that could be astounding, as Bank of America, Citigroup and J.P. Morgan are all $2 trillion institutions.

Because private financial firms such as J.P. Morgan inevitably will blunder regardless of their size or sophistication, designating any firm TBTF is bad policy and worse economics. It causes erosion of market discipline and risks further bailouts paid in full by hardworking Americans. It also becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, helping make firms bigger and riskier than they otherwise would be. Look no further than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their taxpayer-funded bailout to the tune of nearly $200 billion.

Unfortunately, Dodd-Frank codifies TBTF into federal law. Since its passage, the big banks have become larger and the small banks have become fewer. As a nation, we would do well to rethink TBTF’s fundamental premise before it’s too late.

Even if some conclude that certain financial firms are indeed TBTF, it begs the question whether Washington is even competent to manage their risk. A review of the federal government’s track record in this area does not inspire confidence. The Federal Housing Administration’s poor risk management has left it severely undercapitalized. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. has an unfunded obligation of $26 billion. Even the National Flood Insurance Program is $18 billion underwater (pun intended). Then we have Fannie and Freddie.

Yes, then we do.

We have said here before that one of the greatest shortcomings of “progressives” is that they never learn from mistakes: “It failed the first ninety nine times, so it’s got to work the hundredth!”

Of course, as most of us already realize, regulating, along with its partner, taxing, are hand in glove activities for the left, and any mishap of any kind, even one caused by them, provides them with an excuse to pass legislation applying more rules, thereby creating more bureaucracy as people must be brought in as permanent staff to monitor compliance and churn out additional idiocy in order to justify their stuffed salaries, pensions and overblown benefits.

Anyway, the entire Op-Ed is here.

I spent the first third of my life in Cuba, and unlike the liberals and the Democrats they control, I know exactly what it’s like to live under the thumb of a communist dictatorship. Yes, people, communism, despite all the “power to the people” bullshit these misguided American (progressive?) “useful idiots” equate with socialist/communist/”people’s” governments, that’s exactly what the government of Fidel Castro is: a dictatorship, and an oppressive one it is.

I was thrilled to come to a country where Democracy is the order of the day, where the government really belongs to the people. Where the will of the people is reflected in the candidates they choose to represent them, and each citizen’s vote counts to that end.

I have never missed voting since I became a U.S. citizen, an American.

Having said that, I have experienced quite a bit of disappointment over the last few years, what with those we have elected to lead us ignoring the will of we, the people as they pursue agendas geared more toward the playing of pure politics than the governing of our country according to the will of those of us who put them where they are.

Like my husband and our dear friend Seth, a few years ago I stopped considering myself a Republican, as the GOP had pretty much become like the Democrats in too many ways, thinking they knew more about what’s good for we, the people than we do and acting accordingly.

We merely consider ourselves Conservatives, and yearn for the government to return to their previous adherence to the Constitution, the great document that served this nation so well before they began treating it like it was yesterday’s news.

With the Tea Party movement came a restoration, in large part, to the Constitutional observance that was responsible for America’s success to begin with, and since those true Americans went to work awakening the public and supporting politicians with conservative values, the Democrats, who had only just hit the country with a blitzkrieg of far left legislation have been voted out of their congressional majority and the majorities in a number of states. I was looking at a poll based map the other day that showed that numerous blue states had become more evenly mixed between Democrats and Republicans.

So, to the topic of this post:

After the Democrats won their fleeting majority in the House, then speaker Nancy Pelosi famously told the Republicans that “we don’t have to listen to you anymore!”

Now they do, not only on the federal level but state level as well.

Cut to Wisconsin, and Governor Scott Walker and the state Republicans’ push to take away the economically stifling collective bargaining power of public employees’ unions. The state simply can’t afford to mollycoddle the unions anymore, and the Republicans in the majority now want to pass a bill to remedy the union problem.

However, the unions are the biggest contributors to Democratic campaigns.

The result? The Democrats left the state, ran out on their responsibilities to the people, the voters, their constituents, in order to deny their state senate the quorum they need to pass the necessary bill.

They ran out on the people!

Yes, that’s democracy demeaned, that elected officials should do such a thing.

And now, the Democrats in Indiana have done the same thing, because of a bill that, among other things, would prohibit employees from being required to pay union dues or representation fees as a condition of employment ran out on the people they took an oath to represent because, being bought and paid for by the unions, well, we can definitely see where their priorities are; Certainly not with the people.

Democracy demeaned by Democrats in two states so far, Democrats deserting the people as they flee their states with their tails between their legs.

Democrats who apparently don’t respect the American political system unless it maintains a majority of their own party members, which is the same as saying that they don’t respect the voters whose collective decision placed the Republicans in charge.

When confronted with Democratic majority extremes the Republicans, as I recall, didn’t run away.

They didn’t demean democracy.

…rather well, good for politicians (except RINOs, as we learned recently from developments in Utah) on the right side of the aisle, not so good for those on the left.

A better title might have been Europhiles Beware.

From The Wall Street Journal and a link from Best of the Web Today:

One of the constant criticisms of Barack Obama’s first year is that he’s making us “more like Europe.” But that’s hard to define and lacks broad political appeal.

Until now.

Any U.S. politician purporting to run the presidency of the United States should be asked why the economic policies he or she is proposing won’t take us where Europe arrived this week.

In an astounding moment, to avoid the failure of little, indulgent, profligate Greece, the European Union this week pledged nearly $1 trillion to inject green blood into Europe’s economic vampires.

For Americans, this has been a two-week cram course in what not to be if you hope to have a vibrant future. What was once an unfocused criticism of Mr. Obama and the Democrats, that they are nudging America toward a European-style social-market economy, came to awful life in the panicked, stricken faces of Europe’s leadership: Merkel, Sarkozy, Brown, Papandreou. They look like that because Europe has just seen the bond-market devil.

Hmmmm, looks sorta’ like this “let’s be just like Europe” trip the lefties among us have been on for the last several years is coming back to bite them where the moon don’t shine, what with them trying to push us into the same barrel of socialism, in full view of the voting public, that’s dragging Old Europe’s collective economy down a deep, deep drain.

Good, let it bite ‘em hard and deep this November.

Barack Obama would never say it is his intention to make the U.S. go stagnant by suppressing wealth creation in return for a Faustian deal on social equity. But his health system required an astonishing array of new taxes on growth industries. He is raising taxes on incomes, dividends, capital gains and interest. His energy reform requires massive taxes. His government revels in “keeping a boot on the neck” of a struggling private firm. Wall Street’s business is being criminalized.

Economic stagnation arrives like a slow poison. Look at the floundering United Kingdom, whose failed prime minister, Gordon Brown, said on leaving, “I tried to make the country fairer.” Maybe there’s a more important goal.

A We’re-Not-Europe Party would promise the American people to avoid and oppose any policy that makes us more like them and less like us.

I’m all for it! Between a little of this and a little of that, the Democratic Party and B. Hussein Obama are already well into sowing the proverbial seeds of their own political destruction, but it couldn’t hurt to add that extra little push…

The entire OpEd is here.

…and I’m remembering the joke NASCAR pulled a year ago, when they announced that the Obamunists had forbidden any of the automakers whom the government had bailed out to spend the money entering racing vehicles for NASCAR events.

It was quite the joke, they definitely got over on a few right thinking columnists and other commentators, bloggers and pundits, to judge by the feedback that issued forth from even a few of the better informed and more celebrated among us (not me, simply because I was rather indisposed that day -whew!)

Later in the day, of course, they did the corporate version of grinning and told the truth, that the announcement had been an April Fool’s Day joke.

I’ve been thinking, and realize that the Obama Administration and the far left dominated Congress just might be able to redeem themselves with the American people if they announced that every single thing they’ve done since a) the Democrat majority was sworn in in January, 2009 and b) Obama was ordained sworn in a year later was an elaborate April Fool’s joke and that they really aren’t communists or jihad sympathizers, but Americans who love their country, respect the Constitution and are about to vote unanimously to retract and reverse their every official act.

This is, of course, highly unlikely as it would be too much, for the American people, like waking up from a terrible nightmare to find that all is well in the world.

Unfortunately, all is not, and that is particularly true with the lying lefty loony linx who, through profoundly pounded propaganda from the kommie media and many a shovelfull of malarkey from the politicians both in the White House and on the Hill, finally won in their battle to staff the upper echelons of the U.S. Government with enemies of the state.

The only silver lining to that particular cloud is that we’ll be well rid of Barack Hussein in November 2012, at which time we’ll also have picked up the spares among the Democrat majority — the ones we won’t get to give the bums’ rush in November of this year.

However…

I actually came here to share another great Ann Coulter column, this week’s, which I received yesterday.

On the “Today” show this Tuesday, President Obama claimed the massive government takeover of health care the Democrats passed without a single Republican vote was a “middle of the road” bill that incorporated many Republican ideas.

One Republican idea allegedly incorporated into the Democrats’ health care monstrosity is “medical malpractice reform.” Needless to say, the Democrats’ idea of malpractice reform is less than nothing. Until trial lawyers are screaming bloody murder, there has been no medical malpractice reform.

The Democrats’ “malpractice” section merely encourages the states to set up commissions to “study” tort reform, in the sense that frustrated mothers “encourage” their kids not to slouch. By “study,” the Democrats mean “ignore.”

So we get more taxpayer-funded government workers under the Democrats’ “medical malpractice reform,” but not one tittle of actual reform.

Democrats manifestly do not care about helping Americans get quality health care. If they did, they could not continue to support trial lawyers like John Edwards making $50 million by bringing junk lawsuits against doctors who are saving people’s lives. (At least Edwards has not done anything else to publicly disgrace himself since then.)

At a minimum, any health care bill that purports to improve Americans’ health, rather than trial lawyers’ bank accounts, must include a loser-pays rule and a restriction on damages to actual losses — as opposed to punitive damages, which mostly serve to enrich the John Edwardses of the world, and their mistresses.

LOL!!!!

The Democrats also lyingly claim their health care reform includes the Republican ideas of competition across state lines.

I know they’re lying because — well, first because I read the bill — but also because Democrats are genetically incapable of understanding the free market. You might say it’s a pre-existing condition with them.

The Democrats will lie to anybody about anything if they believe it will help one of their destructive agendas reach fruition.

Democrats want to turn the entire citizenry into welfare recipients.

Amen to that!

Truncating a ways…

A few weeks ago, The New York Times ran an editorial noting the amazing fact that, by the middle of this year, there will be an estimated 6.8 billion people on Earth — and 5 billion will have cell phones! (Even more astounding, at least one of them is seated directly behind me every time I go to the movies.)

How did that happen without a Democrat president and Congress using bribes, parliamentary tricks and arcane non-voting maneuvers to pass a massive, hugely expensive National Cell Phone Reform Act?

How did that happen without Barney Frank and Henry Waxman personally designing the 3-foot-long, 26-pound, ugly green $4,000 cell phone we all have to use?

How did that happen without Obama signing the National Cell Phone Reform bill, as a poor 10-year-old black kid who couldn’t afford to text-message his friends looked on?

The reason nearly everyone in the universe has a cell phone is that President Reagan did to telephones the exact opposite of what the Democrats have just done with health care.

Before Reagan came into office, we had one phone company, ridiculously expensive rates and one phone model. Reagan split up AT&T, deregulated phone service and gave America a competitive market in phones. The rest is history.

The column can be found here, in its entirety.

Depends upon what you mean by “care”, here.

Wolf here.

I ran across an interesting article by retired constitutional attorney Michael Connelly, who writes:

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

I hope all the mulletheads who voted in both the lefty congressional majority and Obama, the traitor and enemy of the state in POTUS’ clothing, read and enjoy reading herein what they are responsible for.

The entire article is here.

We haven’t posted for a month, but between Wolf’s current activities, Chuck’s maritime indulgences and my own incumbent issues, well… My apologies, and hopes that these intervals between posts are able to return to pre 2008 levels really soon…

…The course on the front burner today is obviously the ObamaCare debacle, which is summed up pretty well by Wesley Pruden.

Being me, I’ve gotten into debates of sorts with a number of people who have been either undecided (not unusual, considering that the very template upon which the entire government-run healthcare equation is based is a virtual labyrinth of contradictions and blank checks interwoven with the seeds of stealth legislation, promoted as “good for us” by a media which is as ignorant about the technical details of the whole thing as most of us) or sort of decided.

My way of talking about the issue is, I think, pretty simple.

The vast majority of Americans would rather have small government and keep more of their hard earned money. They want quality medical care and the choice of where to obtain it.

Passing ObamaCare, or any federally managed health care legislation, would be the equivalent of uploading software into your computer that contains a few dangerous and irradicable viruses.

It would install a permanent, ever-growing chain of bureaucracies inside our government, scoring an instant and lasting victory for the tax-and-spend socialists on the far left, essentially transforming the United States of America into a socialist country.

Obama, Pelosi and their ilk are willing to sacrifice the careers of a score or more Democrats on the Hill, decimate their own party for the next decade or so, just to force this single bill on us because it will, if enacted, provide that “change” Barack Hussein promised during his campaigning days — a 180 degree change, as a matter of fact, one that would make America as we know it disappear for all time.

I’m serious, folks. Even a “far right” majority would be stuck with the system — unable to reverse the legislation, they’d be tasked with maintaining it, feeding it, expanding it to keep it alive while it sucked the blood from the U.S. taxpayer and destroyed a successful private sector run healthcare industry that only a marxist with a political agenda could call “a failure” with a straight face.

The only response by Republicans in Congress to government run healthcare should be NO! NO NEGOTIATION, NO CONSIDERATION, NO GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTHCARE, PERIOD! MOVE ON!

But no, the GOP still address the issue as a valid topic of discussion, which it is not — remember, we are governed by The Constitution, and therefore government run healthcare is not, legally, even supposed to be on the board.

Now, we even find, the lefties are seeking ways to get around the rules in order to get their agenda passed.

If the GOP allows this legislation to pass in any way, shape or form, they will have failed not only every conservative in the nation, but every American.

Knowing how much I detest liberal interference in what was once among the best systems of education in the world, Seth forwarded the following material to me awhile ago, from Red State.

While we are all focusing on H.R. 3200, the House Democrats’ health care plan, we should at least glance at H.R. 3221, the House Democrats’ plan to kill off higher education access. (PDF)

The legislation is opposed by many major universities including Notre Dame, among others. Basically, the bill would shut down all private providers of student loans, drive up costs for universities, and become a bureaucratic nightmare for institutions of higher learning. The professors may be leftists, but the administrators have to pay attention to the bottom line.

Incredible! It’s bad enough that today’s students are subjected to a course of liberal indoctrination during the span of their educations, now the lefties in Congress have decided that the government should decide, by controlling student loans, who gets, and doesn’t get, a college education?

In the process, putting the government in charge of something like this will create another big bureaucracy, one fraught with the same quagmire of ineptitude and the normal attached smothering taxation we always get from government usurpation of private sector functions. Prime example: The mess to which we’ll be treated if we are victimized by government run healthcare.

The Director of Student Financial Strategies at University of Notre Dame warns in a letter to Congressman Miller, “Any legislation that eliminates choice and competition and mandates that all institutions adopt an all-government run program for the 2010/11 academic year is filled with immense risk and would create massive confusion.”

Get that? The Democrats want an “all-government run program” to provide people access to money to pay for college. And if they do that, then they can force universities to comply with lots of new rules or deny students the right to use federal student loans to go to particular colleges.

But it gets better. Boy does it ever get better.

How!!!?

§ 343 of the plan creates a Green Schools Czar. No kidding. A Green Schools Czar (and committee naturally) would examine the impact of more environmentally friendly universities and find ways to create even more environmentally friendly universities. Oh . . . I have an idea . . . if students need financial assistance and they are forced to go through the feds, the feds can simply tell universities to become compliant or they won’t let students use their student loans to go there.

What is so funny is that §312 of Obama’s stimulus plan also sent money to schools to become more environmentally friendly. That was the carrot. Well, this new law will become the stick.

A green schools czar. Czars and more czars, all the better for the Obama Administration and the Kommie Left to maintain Kontrol.

Recapped today,

If you want an indication of just how radical the Democrats in Congress have become, consider the vote on H.R. 3221. The legislation, which I wrote about yesterday, shuts down all private lenders for higher education student loans, requires that colleges and universities adhere to a new federal bureaucracy, creates a new Green Schools Czar, and hints that any school not complying will see its students denied federal student loans.

The liberals now in firm control of our government will stop at nothing to change America into something entirely different than the great country in which we were born and raised.

We right thinkers had best enjoy it while there’s something left to enjoy.

…at the taxpayer’s expense, wherein the Democrats are misleading the American people (not a bad deal, bullshit people and make them pay for it!) about how the “Stimulus” is working.

They’re spending hundreds of billions of dollars to stimulate the economy, so Senate Democrats said Wednesday they might as well spend millions putting up signs to highlight where the money is being spent.

The road signs, which let motorists know the paving and construction projects they see are being paid for by the $787 billion economic stimulus program, have popped up across the country. In a 52-45 vote, the Senate decided the signs should stay.

Sure, why not? It’s just the taxpayer’s money, right? “Spend, spend, spend!” as the liberal credo goes.

“Why on earth would you want to hide from the American people the fact that the recovery package we passed is putting people to work?” asked Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, who took the lead in defending the expenditure. She said stimulus spending is beginning to improve the economy and charged that Republicans and Democrats who voted to strip out the funds are angry about that success.

“It’s my sense that there’s a frustration by the people who voted ‘no’ on the economic recovery act, the stimulus bill, there’s a frustration that it’s working. They predicted gloom and doom,” Mrs. Boxer said.

Campaigning at the expense of working Americans seems to be an institution that has really gained traction among Democrats of late, but then, it seems that the Obama Administration has set the stage for a new kind of government — kind of like one that can bill us for their spam and junk mail, a “we will like it!”

But Sen. Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican who tried to excise the funds, called his amendment a no-brainer. He said it’s common sense to get rid of tens of millions of dollars in spending.

“These are self-congratulatory signs; they’re political signs. They’re so that lawmakers can pat themselves on the back,” he said. “But these signs cost money. Actually, when you add them all up, they cost a lot of money.”

Some localities have objected to the signs, arguing that they would rather spend the money on more projects. But Mr. Gregg said one community in New Hampshire was told no sign, no money for their original project.

Emphasis mine.

In the states’ rights department,

Also Wednesday, senators voted against allowing states to determine their own transportation funding priorities, such as repairing deficient bridges. A day earlier, the Senate voted against an effort by Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, to drop all of the pork-barrel earmark projects from the $67.7 billion transportation and housing spending bill and use the $1.7 billion slated for earmarks to modernize the nation’s air traffic control system instead.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, thanks largely to the liberals on the Hill, this country has come full circle, back to the same state of affairs good men died kicking out of here back in the 1770s.

Bummer.

Mr. Gregg acknowledged that this effort was as much a message as a cost-saving move. His amendment to the annual transportation spending bill would have banned putting up physical signs to tout stimulus transportation projects.

Five Democrats — Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Charles E. Schumer of New York — voted with all 40 Republicans to try to strip the money, but their support was not enough.

With typical dumbass, idiotic, mares-eat-oats, shallowbrained, downright stupid, aimed-at-the-gullible liberal reasoning,

Mrs. Boxer called the effort “anti-jobs” and said the signs are an example of government transparency.

Methinks this is time, once again, to recall a quote by a commenter at a blog I used to visit about 6 years ago: “Arguing with a liberal is like standing in a bucket and trying to pick yourself up by the handle.”