It’s the “Blame Your Opponents Game”. So liberals, with their complete control of the legislative and executive branches of government, with their economic policies in complete disarray, desperate to escape the consequences of their own incompetence, will spend the next 90 days blaming the conservatives for all the problems.

It’s like Santa Anna blaming those few soldiers at the Alamo for wrecking his grand plans to conquer Texas. But maybe Santa Anna had a point, although the Texans at the Alamo couldn’t prevail, they slowed the Mexican army’s advance long enough to allow Sam Houston to raise up an army to defeat the interlopers.

So, the small contingent of conservatives on Capitol Hill may have slowed the socialist agenda just enough to allow the November reinforcements to arrive and save the day.

Next time you hear the liberals blame their opponents for the mess we’re in just ask them, “Are we better off today than we were two years ago?”

From the beginning of the debate on universal healthcare, one of the administration’s key selling points has been that there would be no tax increases on anyone making less than $250,000 annually.

So to pay for this horrendous monstrosity, they mandated that everyone must buy insurance.

One of the key issues in the lawsuit against Obamacare being brought to the Supreme Court by at least 20 states is that the government does not have the authority to mandate individuals buy insurance.

Recognizing that this argument has merit and threatens the bill, now Obama’s team of lawyers is arguing that it really isn’t a mandate to buy insurance—now get this—it is a tax.

It ought to cause even the bill’s staunchest supporter pause when politicians must use one argument to pass a bill in the legislature and quite the opposite argument to defend it in court.

This duplicity could make one doubt the integrity of this administration.

Recently available evidence shows that our founders were keenly aware of the difference. When Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence justifying our break from English rule, he often blacked out words in favor of a different word.

In one such edit, he replaced a blacked out word with the word “citizens”. Only recently have we been able to decipher what word he had so thoroughly blacked out. He blacked out the word “subjects” in favor of the word “citizens”.

Our founders were so committed to a new form of representative government that was responsible to its citizens that the very idea of people as subjects to a noble class was repugnant to them.

Here, at the dawn of the 21st century, our ruling class in DC seems to have lost any commitment at all to the voice of “We the people”. We are merely their humble subjects—it is time we rise up and throw these pretenders out.

I admit I have and even made an effort to buy BP gas whenever possible…but now I have doubts. Does BP does deserve our business? Does BP deserve any apologies? Should we be concerned that this disaster could bankrupt the company? Or, does BP deserve only our scorn?

What has changed? The recent reports about BP involvement in the release of the Lockerbie terrorist from his life sentence in a Scottish jail for his conviction in the airline bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland which killed 270 people in exchange for drilling rights of the Libyan coast.

While BP protests that they had no hand in the release of Abdel al-Megrahi, the timing of his release under bogus humanitarian claims that he was near death, raises very serious concerns of a quid-pro-quo between the British government, BP and Libya.

I’d like to know the facts before I shed another tear for BP.

It is an amazing indictment of both the socialist ideology and the incompetence of this administration.

The Tarp IG, has released a 45 page report condemning the actions taken by government bureaucrats as ideologically driven without any economic justification.

The auto companies submitted a phased plan to shut down dealerships and reduce overhead. Their plan was summarily rejected in favor of much more aggressive action that forced many dealers out of business in 90 days.

The government plans, developed and implemented by Obama’s Car czar Steve Rattner (a UAW thug who had never run a business) needlessly cost 1000s of jobs in small businesses all across the country, and some say was more motivated by a desire to hurt Republican owned dealerships than by any business model. When challenged about this, Rattner said the move was made to promote social justice and to ensure there was “shared pain”.

During the confirmation hearing for Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, a conservative Senator from Oklahoma asked the nominee her position on natural rights. Unable to get an answer, he asked the question differently, he asked if she believed in God given inalienable rights that supercede or bound the government’s authority.

Kagan could not bring herself to acknowledge a higher law than the laws of the land.

Herein lays the central issue in the battle between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives believe governments are established to protect the natural rights given to all men by their Creator. The government’s authority is therefore limited.

Liberals believe that government confers rights upon its citizens and there is no higher power than the federal government. Therefore the government is unrestricted in its reach and authority over the governed.

Apparently Kagan (and most liberal politicians) would strike any reference to “We the people” from our founding documents, which explains a lot about our current Congress.

Remember during the Obamacare debate, the final few votes needed for passage in the House belonged to pro-life Democrats who feared the bill would use federal dollars to fund abortions. Led by Congressman Stupak, their votes were won by a promise that an Executive Order, signed by the President would make it crystal clear that no taxpayer funds would ever be used to pay for abortions.

Now, the Administration has authorized $160 million to Pennsylvania to set up a high risk government insurance pool which, you guessed it, will pay for any abortions legal in the state.

The compromise lasted less than four months, but the betrayal was not unexpected given the record of this White House.

Congressman Stupak is not running for re-election, his compromise kept him from seeking another term…but I wonder, will the cries of the executed young ones keep him awake at night?

In case you missed it, Clinton was amazingly candid and honest in his remarks, particularly as they relate not simply to Senator Byrd, but to politicians in general.

In speaking of Senator Byrd’s past affiliation with the KKK and his rabid anti-civil rights stands which extended through at least the first 20 years of his public life, President Clinton said, “ Senator Byrd was only doing what he needed to do to get elected.”

What a telling comment about politicians. They can be excused for all kinds of misdeeds and corruption because they are only doing what they need to do to get elected.

The ex-president went on to say that there are no perfect men and certainly no perfect politicians but that we should judge a man by the totality of his life.

Don’t you long for the day when character mattered more than charisma, when substance won over public posturing? Oh, America, pray for such leaders today!

The government claims that every dollar of spending generates 2 1/2 dollars of economic growth. If that were true, then our trillion dollar stimulus plan should be generating 2.5 trillion dollars in economic growth, producing an annual growth rate of nearly 12% which would quickly end our unemployment problems.

Robert Barro economist from Harvard (by no measure a conservative school) says that $1 of government spending can at best only generate $.70 of economic growth. He goes on to state that if the money comes from taxes or borrowing, the impact is a loss of $.10 in economic growth for every government dollar spent. So the stimulus bill has actually hurt our recovery efforts.

The irony? The rosy projections the White House uses to defend their spending actually reflects the estimate of what would have happened had they provided the money to the private sector through tax cuts.

It seems there are varying answers to the question, depending whether you are in the administration, or anyone else in the country.

Contrary to all the evidence, the administration continues to insist the stimulus has worked, saving or creating 3 million jobs (more on those bogus numbers tomorrow). The government’s own website only claims 680,000 jobs and 500,000 were in the public sector. Folks, that is nearly $1.5 million per job.

In the meantime, a recent poll reveals only 13% of Americans believe they have benefited from the trillion dollar boondoggle.

But reality may be sinking in. The President, in defending the stimulus plan and the huge deficit it has created, said recently, it could have been worse.

It could have been worse? The CBO said, when the stimulus bill was being considered, that the liberal’s plan was worse than doing nothing.

So, who was right?