Remember, it’s a twitter feed, so start from the bottom and read up. Click on image below for full size.

As I wrote at Redstate today, there is a big disconnect on the right that results in people like me needing help from people like you. The bottom line is, without it, we don’t have any serious opposition press. As an independent blogger and freelance writer I’m able to investigate and break stories that the MSM would ignore. Without independent online conservative activism our movement would drown.

I hope, if you like what bloggers like me are doing (in addition to the investigations listed there, I uncovered Anita Dunn’s hypocrisy recently, and have a HUGE czar investigation going live at Redstate tomorrow), you’ll take some time to contribute a few dollars to help us keep doing it.

RRRAAAACCCCIIIIISSSSSSTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That’s what the MSM had to say in comments about Rush Limbaugh’s recent bid to purchase the St. Louis Rams. According to some guy I overheard at the mall, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs suggested that Limbaugh owning the Rams “is exactly the same as slavery, but fatter.” And then there’s what Helen Thomas probably said, “Rush to what window? With a ram? Where’s my sweater?”

So in honor of the controversy, I’ve compiled a top ten list of some completely ridiculous but totally true and not fake quotes of famous people who are not (or so they claim) Rush Limbaugh. These are, like, so teh true. For really real. Really. No … really.

Don’t look at me that way. I told you they were really real. Did you think I was joking? Well I wasn’t.

Every single one of those quotes is a real, legitimate, well-sourced quote. Totally real; not fake.

Now ask yourself why the unsourced fake Limbaugh quotes get so much more play than these actual statements. Not so funny anymore, huh?

Over the course of the last year, the Obama administration has taken on an increasingly hostile tone towards critical press. During the campaign, of necessity, it was more muted (although not nonexistent, as conservative reporters discovered).

Since the inauguration, however, the practice has become more frequent and more sophisticated. Time reports that the White House has decided they are going to be a “player” in how the press is won.

So a new White House strategy has emerged: rather than just giving reporters ammunition to “fact-check” Obama’s many critics, the White House decided it would become a player, issuing biting attacks on those pundits, politicians and outlets that make what the White House believes to be misleading or simply false claims, like the assertion that health-care reform would establish new “sex clinics” in schools. Obama, fresh from his vacation on Martha’s Vineyard, cheered on the effort, telling his aides he wanted to “call ‘em out.”

Time calls it a “take no prisoners” stance; a war. And this war has a general: Anita Dunn. Dunn is the White House communications director and a longtime Obama advisor. She’s been a heavy-weight Democrat strategist since the 80s.

As with the citizen reporting system and many other such initiatives, censorship 2.0 is strongly internet focused. Mediaite characterizes Dunn’s new role as being the White House’s “own Glenn Beck.” She is aggressive, and is the brains behind using the White House blog as a vehicle for attacking Fox News. Dunn has crafted this adversarial pose, and stands by it. Something which would certainly disappoint a formerly vocal critic of such tactics: Anita Dunn.

The tone the administration has adopted is important. Time points out that the White House blog now “issues regular denunciations of the Administration’s critics, including a recent post that announced ‘Fox lies’ and suggested that the cable network was unpatriotic for criticizing Obama’s 2016 Olympics effort.” Dunn herself is a professed “fierce critic” of Fox News in particular, and leads the effort to withhold interviews from Fox. The tone is highly adversarial, even snarky.

In summary, Anita Dunn has crafted a policy of using a blog to attack a news organization. Some might call that intimidation; among them, Anita Dunn herself, circa February 2007. In an interview with Sara Fritz, posted on The Center for Public Integrity’s “The Buying of the President” site, Dunn had a very different view of such practices.

Near the end of the article, the interviewer points out to her that “[some journalists have] had entire blogs set up attacking [them].” Dunn’s reply:

Right. And it’s a very intimidating kind of thing. The Dean campaign pioneered this; they used to actually go tell their people, “OK, go after this reporter,” as far as I can tell. I think that the relationship continues to grow more cynical and, I think, less respectful. When I started being a press assistant way back then, everyone respected each other. We respected the press, the press respected the people, and they respected the candidates, and I think that there is a lack of respect on both sides that is so corrosive, it really is.

Got that? Intimidating. Corrosive.

Dunn goes on to lament that reporters are increasingly seen as the enemy. “I don’t think that’s fair, either,” she says. “Reporters work very, very hard.”

My how things change.

Oh and speaking of how things change, here’s another little gem to chew on, lest you think Dunn’s wrath is just for those of us on the right. Obama has enjoyed a pretty cozy relationship with the online left. DailyKos famously lost a pro-Hillary chunk of their members, and Obama has actually posted on the site before. They were a big part of his fundraising as well as the volunteer base. I wonder, then, how they’ll react to being characterized as hysterically hateful by Obama’s communication’s czar?

I don’t know if you’ve had this experience, but I’ve yet to talk to a reporter, including some very progressive reporters, who haven’t had the experience of saying something that the “netroots’ decided they don’t like, and just getting bombarded with the hate e-mails.

That one’s for you, nutroots. Enjoy.

The roll call is here. The guilty Republicans are: Walter B. Jones (NC), Peter King (NY), Tim Murphy (PA), Don Young (AK), Dana Rohrabacher (CA), and Ron Paul (TX), with King, Rohrabacher and Young having also voted yea to end debate and hold the referral vote. (If I understood the procedure correctly.)

UPDATE
Some clarification on why there were two votes, and why the totals were different, from Rep. Carter’s office:

“The first vote eliminated any chance for debating the resolution, and the second vote was to refer it to the ethics committee. So it could be said that three people wanted to hear the debate but then they voted to refer it to the ethics committee.”

Full Text of the resolution:

Whereas the gentleman from New York, Charles B. Rangel, the fourth most senior Member of the House of Representatives, serves as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, a position of considerable power and influence within the House of Representatives;

Whereas clause one of Rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides, “A Member, Delegate, Resident Commission, officer, or employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.”;

Whereas The New York Times reported on September 5, 2008, that, “Representative Charles B. Rangel has earned more than $75,000 in rental income from a villa he has owned in the Dominican Republic since 1988, but never reported it on his federal or state tax returns, according to a lawyer for the congressman and documents from the resort.”;

Whereas in an article in the September 5, 2008 edition of The New York Times, his attorney confirmed that Representative Rangel’s annual congressional Financial Disclosure statements failed to disclose the rental income from his resort villa;

Whereas The New York Times reported on September 6, 2008 that, “Representative Charles B. Rangel paid no interest for more than a decade on a mortgage extended to him to buy a villa at a beachfront resort in the Dominican Republic, according to Mr. Rangel’s lawyer and records from the resort. The loan, which was extended to Mr. Rangel in 1988, was originally to be paid back over seven years at a rate of 10.5 percent. But within two years, interest on the loan was waived for Mr. Rangel.”;

Whereas clause 5(a)(2)(A) of House Rule 25 defines a gift as, “…a gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary value” and prohibits the acceptance of such gifts except in limited circumstances;

Whereas Representative Rangel’s acceptance of thousands of dollars in interest forgiveness is a violation of the House gift ban;

Whereas Representative Rangel’s failure to disclose the aforementioned gifts and income on his Personal Financial Disclosure Statements violates House rules and federal law;

Whereas Representative Rangel’s failure to report the aforementioned gifts and income on federal, state and local tax returns is a violation of the tax laws of those jurisdictions;

Whereas the Committee on Ways and Means, which Representative Rangel chairs, has jurisdiction over the United States Tax Code;

Whereas the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct first announced on July 31, 2008 that it was reviewing allegations of misconduct by Representative Rangel;

Whereas Roll Call newspaper reported on September 15, 2008 that, “The inconsistent reports are among myriad errors, discrepancies and unexplained entries on Rangel’s personal disclosure forms over the past eight years that make it almost impossible to get a clear picture of the Ways and Means chairman’s financial dealings.”;

Whereas the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct announced on September 24, 2008 that it had established an investigative subcommittee in the matter of Representative Rangel;

Whereas after the Ethics Committee probe was underway, The New York Times reported on November 24, 2008 that, “Congressional records and interviews show that Mr. Rangel was instrumental in preserving a lucrative tax loophole that benefited Nabors Industries an oil drilling company last year, while at the same time its chief executive was pledging $1 million to the Charles B. Rangel School of Public Service at C.C.N.Y.”;

Whereas the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct announced on December 9, 2008 that it had expanded the jurisdiction of the aforementioned investigative subcommittee to examine the allegations related to Representative Rangel’s involvement with Nabors Industries;

Whereas since then, further serious allegations of improper and potentially illegal conduct by Representative Rangel have surfaced;

Whereas during the recently completed August district work period, Representative Rangel acknowledged his failure to publicly disclose at least half a million dollars in cash assets, tens of thousands of dollars in investment income, and his ownership of two pieces of property in New Jersey;

Whereas corrected financial disclosure statements filed by Representative Rangel on August 12, 2009 now reveal his net worth to be nearly twice as much as he had previously revealed;

Whereas The New York Times newspaper reported on August 26, 2009 that, “United States Representative Charles B. Rangel, whose personal finances and fund raising are the subject of two House ethics investigations, failed to report at least $500,000 in assets on his 2007 Congressional disclosure form, according to an amended report he filed this month. Among the dozen newly disclosed holdings revealed in the amended forms are a checking account at a federal credit union with a balance between $250,000 and $500,000; three vacant lots in Glassboro, N.J., valued at a total of $1,000 to $15,000; and stock in PepsiCo worth between $15,000 and $50,000.”;

Whereas Roll Call newspaper reported on August 25, 2009 that Representative Rangel’s corrected filings also revealed “at least $250,001 in a fund called ML Allianz Global Investors Consults Diversified Port III.”;

Whereas the aforementioned Roll Call story reported that “Rangel also originally misreported that his investments in 2007 netted him $6,511-$17,950 in dividends, capital gains and rental income. In his revised filing, that range jumped to between $29,220 and $81,200.”;

Whereas these most recent revelations by Representative Rangel have resulted in heightened national news media coverage of alleged impropriety and potentially criminal conduct by one of the most senior Members of the House;

Whereas an editorial in The Washington Times newspaper on September 1, 2009 noted, “Charlie Rangel is one lucky guy. The Democratic congressman from Harlem, N.Y., just discovered that his net wealth is twice what he thought. That’s a pretty good day at the office for a public servant. Mr. Rangel also realized that he made tens of thousands of dollars more than he reported in many different years over the past decade. This is the most recent string in a series of financial bonanzas for Mr. Rangel, who last year admitted he had forgotten about $75,000 in rental income on his Caribbean resort property.”;

Whereas the same editorial also noted, “The congressman has failed to pay property taxes on two lots in New Jersey, according to the New York Post. That’s not all. In order to avoid taxes and get lower mortgage rates, Mr. Rangel simultaneously claimed three ‘primary residences’.”;

Whereas an editorial in the September 17, 2009 edition of the New Haven Register stated, “The ethics and tax complaints keep piling up against U.S. Rep. Charles B. Rangel, who as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee controls writing of the nation’s tax laws. The New York Democrat may write those laws, but he apparently feels no obligation to obey them. The investigation appears to have a long way to go. The man who is in charge of writing the nation’s tax laws doesn’t pay his federal income or local property taxes. He has such a poor grasp of his own finances that he neglects to list half his assets on a disclosure form intended to keep members of Congress accountable and honest. We can already hear the defense of the next tax deadbeat called into court. If Charlie Rangel doesn’t have to pay his taxes, why should I?”;

Whereas, an article in The Washington Post on September 15, 2009 stated, “Rangel is now the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and a man of immense importance in Washington. Nonetheless, he has been busy of late revising and amending the record, backing and filling, using buckets of Wite-Out as he discovers or remembers properties he has owned in New York, New Jersey, Florida, the Dominican Republic and God only knows where else. Rangel recently even discovered bank accounts that no one in the world, apparently including him, knew he had. One was with the Congressional Federal Credit Union; another was with Merrill Lynch – each valued between $250,000 and $500,000. He somehow neglected to mention these accounts on his congressional disclosure forms, which means, if you can believe it, that when he signed the forms, he did not notice that maybe $1 million was missing. Someone ought to check the lighting in his office.”;

Whereas the same article in The Washington Post stated, “There is something wrong with Charlie Rangel. Either he did not notice that he was worth about twice as much as he said he was – which is downright worrisome in a congressional leader – or he thinks he’s above the law, which is downright worrisome in a congressional leader.”;

Whereas it has been more than one year since an editorial in The New York Times on September 15, 2008 stated, “Mounting embarrassment for taxpayers and Congress makes it imperative that Representative Charles Rangel step aside as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee while his ethical problems are investigated.”;

Whereas at various times during the past twelve months Representative Rangel and Speaker Pelosi have made public statements asserting that the ongoing investigation of Representative Rangel by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct would soon be concluded;

Whereas the Committee has to date issued no public statements concerning any expected timeline for conducting or concluding its investigation of Representative Rangel;

Whereas major daily newspapers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post , and The New York Post have called for Representative Rangel’s removal from his powerful position at least until the House Ethics Committee has completed its ongoing probes of allegations against him;

Whereas, Representative Rangel’s powerful position as chairman permits him to participate in high level decisions about critically important issues such as reform of the nation’s health care system;

Whereas an October 1, 2009 story in The New York Times stated, “Mr. Rangel is one of a small group of House leaders now meeting almost daily behind closed doors with Speaker Nancy Pelosi to distill from the three bills produced in separate committees the one package that will go to the House floor.;

Whereas an Associated Press story on September 20, 2009 stated, “The ethics committee’s investigation of Rangel is almost a year old. It’s as much a problem for House Democratic leaders as for Rangel himself. Later this year, when Rangel’s committee considers estate tax legislation that could expand into other matters, the headlines will be a version of this message: ‘Tax scofflaw presiding over tax changes.’”;

Whereas the New York Post newspaper reported on September 2, 2009 that, “A review of property records for the borough of Glassboro revealed at least six tax liens levied against Rangel’s property during the past 16 years. Just last year, two separate liens were levied against both properties owned by Rangel.”;

Whereas on May 24, 2006, then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi cited “high ethical standards” in a letter to former Representative William Jefferson asking that he resign his seat on the Committee on Ways and Means in light of ongoing investigations into alleged financial impropriety by Representative Jefferson;

Whereas Speaker Pelosi took the aforementioned action while Representative Jefferson was under investigation and the subject of considerable controversy in the news media, but prior to any indictment

Whereas on May 24, 2006, then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi cited “high ethical standards” in a letter to former Representative William Jefferson asking that he resign his seat on the Committee on Ways and Means in light of ongoing investigations into alleged financial impropriety by Representative Jefferson;

Whereas in April of 2007, Republican Leader John Boehner successfully urged several Republican Members to relinquish their committee assignments after learning that each had become the subject of investigations into possible criminal activity;

Whereas Leader Boehner took the aforementioned actions while the Members in question were under investigation and the subjects of widespread media controversy, but prior to any indictments;

Whereas in the wake of the most recent allegations against Representative Rangel various editorials and articles in major national newspapers criticizing Speaker Pelosi’s continued refusal to remove Representative Rangel as chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means after promising she would preside over “the most ethical Congress in history” have held the House up to public ridicule; Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution and pending completion of the investigation into his affairs by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Representative Rangel is hereby removed as chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

HuffPo Now:

Protesters have taken to the streets of Pittsburgh in opposition to the Group of 20 summit taking place Thursday and Friday. The protests have turned violent, the AP reports, with demonstrators rolling trash bins towards police, and officers firing tear gas back. Read more here.

Check out this slideshow of protesters and vote on your favorite protest tactic. Any creative ones that stand out to you, or have you seen these all before?

And are you going to any G-20 protests? Send us your photos! We will publish the best ones of the HuffPost.

Dude, the anti-capitalism party is turning violent. Teh awesome. Vote your fav!

I guess it’s like Spring Break, but with more marijuana and less coherence. Also they replaced the wet t-shirt contest with a waterboarding demonstration. Plus, I hear for a few beads the gals will show their … ignorance of global markets. Man, I can’t wait for the “Greenpeace Gone Wild” videos. Wait. On second thought … yes I can.

Anyway, that’s the now. Let’s look at the then, eh?

So whereas fire-setting cop-bashers are cause for a contest touting the “creativity” of one’s “favorite” protest tactics, carrying signs at a tea party gets … well this.

Oh, and this (angry mob!!1!1!1!!) … and this (RRRAAACCIIISSSTSSSS!!!!!!) … and this little gem (you really have to read that one to believe it) …

And that’s just HuffPo.

These G20 protests happen every time the group meets, and have for years. They are routinely violent, and they are comprised of mainstream left-wing groups. Can I therefore assume a DHS report in the offing? Hmm? Hand-wringing worry from evening talking heads about how dangerous these voices are? Can we expect Bill Maher to suggest these protests are basically inciting assassination?

Yeah, I’m not holding my breath. There may be some mild criticism of the very worst violence, couched, you can bet, in apologetic rhetoric about “the people” and their “voice.” But I expect most blog coverage will be like HuffPo’s: celebratory.

And in a way, they’ve got a point. The G20 protests do, in fact, remind me of Spring Break or Mardi Gras. After all, there are so many exposed boobs.

You know, Us. The slumbering majority in this country that doesn’t want to see salaciousness enshrined, moral relativity championed, marriage cheapened and redefined, and abortion paid for with our tax dollars. We went quietly about our business, went to church, shared a sense of pride in our community and country.

And they were afraid of Us. You know, the corporations who lived and died on our purchasing money. Whatever the people who ran these companies might have believed on a personal level, they did not dare to take our money and use it to collaborate with those who were fighting against everything we believed in.

But somewhere along the line, they stopped being scared. Somewhere along the line they got the idea that they could get away with selling us cheeseburgers with half-naked car wash scenes, putting underage models in inappropriate clothing, and using their corporate brands to promote pro-abortion causes. Hollywood actors and entertainers now feel free to use their influence to support the most ludicrous, culture-destroying causes imaginable.

And you know what? They are right not to be scared of Us anymore. No one is organizing outside of Carl’s Jr. or boycotting their (terrible) cheeseburgers. Abercrombie and Fitch is not going out of business because parents aren’t taking their teens to shop there anymore. We’re not giving up Starbucks coffee because darnit, they’re too good to quit. And perish the thought of boycotting even the most mildly entertaining TV show much less their advertisers. We have become fat. Complacent. Unwilling to forego the most trivial convenience even in the knowledge that the proceeds from that convenience will be used directly against the fabric of our society. Somewhere along the line we stopped caring whether we paid for the bullets the other side in the war wanted to shoot at us.

You know who they are scared of? They’re scared of the anti Prop-8 protesters. They’re scared of PETA and Greenpeace. They’re scared of crooked union thugs. They’re scared of EMILY’s List. Because if you’re a corporation, *these* are the people who are now committed to making your life (and your balance sheet) a living hell if you step off the reservation. And by “step off the reservation” they mean “take a stance in support of any truth that has been part of the accepted fabric of this country for the first 200 years of its existence.” In addition to despicable terror tactics and thuggery, *those* people are still concerned with hitting corporations in the pocketbook to make sure that corporations are subservient to them, not the other way around.

Corporations are no more powerful than they have ever been. They still have fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders, which means their bottom line. The problem is that we’ve allowed our perspective to be turned around; we’ve become infected with Democratic agitprop that has led us to subconsciously accept that the corporations are in charge, and that we are helpless consumers whose choices don’t ultimately matter in the grand scheme of things; just a drop in an endless ocean of their indifference.

Interestingly, the left is now the side that’s proving that’s a lie. Sadly, we seem to have ceded this particular battlefield without even much of a fight. We’d better make the decision to reverse this trend and force the corporations back at the very least to neutral ground, or we risk a scenario when all the means of mass dissemination of information and culture will be completely dominated by a segment of the population that hates everything America has stood for. And if you think America herself can survive that, you are very much mistaken.

Health care experts across the spectrum can agree that there are three main problems with the health insurance industry in America today:  community rating, which forbids insurance companies from charging premiums based on an individual consumer’s health status; the practice of defensive medicine, under which doctors order numerous costly and often unnecessary tests to cover themselves against the possibility of malpractice lawsuits; and employer-based coverage.  Each of these problems, which together contribute most to the “mess” in health care delivery, were all either brought into existence, or are perpetuated by Democrats.

Employer-based coverage came about during World War II as a consequence of the National War Labor Board’s decision to institute wage and price freezes in an attempt to prevent production shortages due to labor unrest or inflation.  The NWLB exempted fringe benefits like pension plans and health insurance from the freeze, meaning employers could compete for the dwindling pool of skilled workers by offering ever-increasing health insurance coverage.  Workers grew accustomed to receiving health benefits as a condition of their employment, and the system of employer-provided health benefits became an American institution.

Although the NWLB decision may have sprung from the best of intentions at a time of war, it grew from the progressive tendency toward control.  The consequence for today’s health care debate is that generations of Americans were separated from the cost of the medical care they received.  As costs grew, and businesses were forced to cut back on benefits while increasing the employee’s cost share, workers began to feel the increase in costs for the first time.  Two of the main drivers of those cost increases have been the practice of defensive medicine, and community rating.

Doctors know that every test they fail to order could be the one that leads to an expensive malpractice lawsuit.  So they order test after test after test, providing themselves cover from the trial lawyers, and ratcheting up the cost of routine care.  According to Congressional testimony provided by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, the cost of defensive medicine was between $70 and $126 billion in 2003.  That number is almost certainly higher today.

Now consider that former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, one of the strongest proponents of nationalized health care, appeared on This Week with George Stephanopoulos this past Sunday trumpeting Congressional Budget Office numbers putting the cost of the current House bill at $60 billion per year.  Simply getting a handle on defensive medicine by controlling the trial lawyers could save better than two times the cost of the Democrats’ “reform.”  If Democrats were serious about getting costs under control, they would jump on curbing malpractice lawsuits.  But Republican attempts to reign in the trial lawyers have been resisted for years by Democrats in Congress and the White House.  Trial lawyers are a huge source of campaign cash for Democratic politicians, and they are not about to bite the hand that feeds them.  Patients, the uninsured, and true health care reform will just have to wait while Democrats continue milking their cash cow.  When it comes to finding the mess-makers in health care, President Obama need look no further than Democrats and their trial lawyer friends.

Where Democrats have tried their hand at regulation, they have only managed to make the health care mess bigger.  Community rating is a system dreamed up by state regulators that was designed to fix perceived inequities in the health insurance industry.  Democrats at the state level didn’t like the fact that health insurance plans were priced according to risk.  Sicker people who were more likely to use insurance were charged more for comparable coverage than healthier ones.

In a misguided attempt to level the playing field, community rating regulations forbade insurance companies from charging rates based on risk.  Now, smokers pay the same rate as non-smokers.  Exercisers pay the same as non-exercisers.  This is despite the demonstrable fact that smokers and the overweight tend to have worse health outcomes, and so require more health care services.  Insurance companies must make up the relative loss they take on these policies, with the result that everyone’s rates go up.

With the exception of New Hampshire and perhaps Pennsylvania, the list of states that mandate some form of community rating on health insurers reads like a list of the bluest of the blue states:  Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington.  These states, long controlled by liberal Democrats, were present at the creation of skyrocketing health insurance rates.

And since Democrats at the federal level forbid a true nationwide market in health care coverage by limiting the pool of available plans by the state the consumer lives in, consumers must buy plans that meet their state’s minimum standards, no matter whether they need or intend to ever use the covered services.  This increases costs and limits choice.  That seems to be just the way Democrats want it, as they have beaten back every Republican effort to open up the health care market to allow consumers to purchase plans from other states based on need rather than minimums.  Maybe the president should have addressed these Democrats when he spoke of silencing those who have created the health care “mess.”

Congress now plans to bring community rating to the federal level, at President Obama’s urging.    At his recent town hall meeting in New Hampshire, President Obama alluded to this component of his plan when he told the audience, “Under the reform we’re proposing, insurance companies will be prohibited from denying coverage because of a person’s medical history.  Period.”   That means that insurance rates could not be based on a consumer’s health status.  The Wall Street Journal says this proposal, “blows up the individual insurance market, by making it far more expensive for young, healthy or low-risk consumers to join pools—if they join at all.”

President Obama wants to silence the critics of his health care nationalization because he is losing the debate, fair and square.  Americans have empowered themselves with information and questions for the president and their representatives.  So far, the proponents of change have been unable to provide satisfactory answers.  Rather than try to cast blame, and ignore the clear history of the health care problems he claims to want to solve, the president should pull back his health care plans and listen to Americans’ concerns.

If he did so, his poll numbers would instantly improve and he would be able to design a health care reform that addresses actual, not perceived problems.  But if the President is more interested in assigning responsibility for the current situation, he should convene a meeting of his fellow Democrats and tell them to stop using health care insurance and delivery as a laboratory to test out their misguided social experiments.  Or else, he should tell them to clean up their own mess.