The story of frogs that stay in the pot of water as the heat is gradually increased makes me wonder if we're like those frogs?

The Obama Administration is bringing significant change to so many areas of our lives in such a short time, and yet there are very few who seem to be sensing that this is happening.

It is as if the temperature is being increased on our pot of water but not so much that it causes people to want to get out of the pot.  We are so disinclined to believe that a president would do anything that might be detrimental to us that we tend to "poo poo" those who suggest that we ought to be paying closer attention.

Yet, there are those signs that something isn't quite what it seems.  Health care is being changed and that, alone, represents nearly 20% of our total economy.  Two-thirds of the U.S. auto industry is now owned by us taxpayers but we don't get votes on how those companies are being run.  Insurers and bankers are recipients of TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) money and they are now susceptible to the strings that are being pulled by the White House.

Stimulus funds are being doled out for the programs favored by the Administration to be used for specific projects contrary to the original "shovel-ready" claims.  High speed rail is now a "darling" as is the ethanol industry that exists only because of government subsidies.  "Green" is the new color of the day.  ACORN runs on despite the amassed indications that something may be wrong with that group.  Government programs are being beefed up with our money without much fanfare,

The press has been duped into willing adoration of President Obama, so that it is doing nothing of a critical nature in reviewing the new programs.  The "town hall meetings" of the campaign where people asked questions openly have given way to the "controlled question" town hall meetings that permit control of subject matter even without the semblance of that control.  We are duped into believing that we must be among the real minority since so many others seem to buy into the Administration's line.

We no longer have a war against terrorism.  We have a lessened defense program.  We seem to have forgotten about the tens of millions of illegals in our country.  Same-sex "marriage" is okay now in spite of the fact that the majority of us don't believe that.  We are bleeding jobs but there seems no real concern because the Administration tells us that it is saving many jobs and will soon have created new jobs to replace those being lost; we are becoming part of some new world economy, and we just need to trust the Administration.

Are we the frogs of this era humming along nicely without any outward signs that we have problems only to end up in a pot of boiling water from which we'll be unable to jump?

The Norm Coleman vs. Al Franken saga has ended with Franken poised to take the second Minnesota senate seat next week.  We could debate the manner in which that seat was awarded but that isn't today's subject.

Instead, the subject today is the filibuster-proof majority available to the Democrats if they're able to keep all their members "on the reservation".

This will potentially impact many, many issues that will include things like the infamous "card check" push that unions are anxious to get approved.  There are certainly going to be other issues such as the cap and tax bill that now comes to the Senate, the health care reform bill or bills if and when those are debated in the Senate, and so on.

The Obama Administration steam roller has already seemed invincible on many issues; it almost defies the imagination to consider that the Democrat stranglehold could become even harder to defeat.

This outcome, expected by almost everyone and dreaded by many of us, has taken us to a whole new level of politics in the country.

That Coleman apparently was willing to end his fight when he thought he might be able to become Governor of Minnesota speaks volumes about the character of that politician, in my opinion.  This also confirms that the Democrat tool perfected in the Washington state governor's race a couple of years ago is quite effective.  No matter the vote, fight it at the precinct level to get more and more votes tallied and then rely on the hesitancy of the courts to overturn the outcome.  It seems to make little difference if those votes were or weren't valid; simply getting friends to count them seems to win the day.

The two authors of the cap and tax bill were, proudly at that, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA).  It is interesting that this huge tax grab masqueraded as a climate change bill when there is no solid evidence indicating that it will do anything of the sort.  There is no solid evidence that man causes climate change.

This law, authored by a man from California and a man from Massachusetts, will have the greatest impact on states that rely upon coal for  50% or more of the electricity used by industry and for living.  Interestingly, the impact will be greatest in the mid-section of the country.

Equally as interesting is that the exchange of money for the rights to send more than the alloted amount of CO2 into the atmosphere therefore favors the two coasts, east and west.

Do you think there may've been some collusion between these two authors?  Do you think they knew exactly what they were doing for their constituents at the expense of us in the heartland?  Does this strike you as equitable treatment?  Do you think maybe there should have been time for everyone to read this bill before voting?  Do you think there maybe should've been more than five "hours" of debate before the vote was taken?

Then, ask yourself who were among the Democrats that voted for this bill.  That is almost more interesting since most all, if not all, those who represent coal producing states and who represent the heartland states in the House voted "Yes".

Then, ask yourself why they would do that to their constituents.  Would they do it because they were forced to do so by the House leadership?  Would they do it because they had drunk the climate change kool-aid? Would they do it because they were simply duped by the authors? 

Representational government is just that.  We send representatives to Washington to represent us, and that is the oath they take.  How, then, can we forgive those same people when we seem to nearly always end up on the short end of the governmental stick?

Could it be that they really don't think they represent us?  Could it be that they are among the smartest guys and gals in the room, and that they simply know what is better for us than we know?

Remember all these questions when you see you electric bills going through the roof.  Remember all these questions when you fill your gas tank with $10 per gallon gasoline.  Remember these questions when the jobs in the heartland dry up and you're trying to pay your mortgage.  Remember all these questions when you next find yourself in the voting booth.

We are hit with cyber attacks many times daily and we're working, in one way or another, to negate the potential impact of such attacks.

The Administration is, at this point, thinking that it wants the civilian and military efforts in this regard to be kept separate from each other.  That seems to be the politically correct approach but I believe that it leaves us exposed when that wouldn't be necessary.  The military has been working on both cyber offensive and defensive warfare measures for years.  The Russians and the Chinese have been doing so, as well.

We will severely hurt our efforts if we forbid the civilian and the military counterparts to work jointly.

Cyber attacks can be aimed at our economic well-being, and they can be aimed at our institutions and thus our psychological well-being, and they can be aimed at our infrastructure thus affecting our physical well-being.  We have had attacks aimed at penetrating the systems that drive the stock markets.  We have had attacks that aimed to cripple our electrical grid system.  We have had attacks that are aimed to penetrate our defense systems for nefarious purposes.

It seems that all these are intertwined and that the importance of any should not be placed above the importance of any other; if we suffer a catastrophic attack on any of these, we will, effectively, be crippled.

Given the absolute necessity of protecting our cyber security, we shouldn't be worrying about political appearances.  We shouldn't be detracted from an all out and coordinated effort to get on top of all the issues in this area.

Political correctness has no place in this arena, and to insert it is to do damage to our country.  This is every bit as important as was the protection of Pearl Harbor, and we should've taken a lesson from that failure sufficient to last us through several lifetimes.

Visualize the youngster of Norman Rockwell's era who has just been given an hour alone in the neighborhood candy store.  First, he can hardly believe his good fortune.  Then he can hardly decide what to do first, which piece of candy to down first, how much to eat, what to sample in this case and that case.  Before too long, the hour in the candy store has taken a toll on the youngster.  He has a tummy ache and can't eat any more candy; worse yet, he can't avoid purging the candy that he rushed to eat.  He has become the victim of his own good fortune.

Our president runs the decided risk of becoming that youngster.  He walked into his "candy store" upon being sworn in to office.  Everywhere he looked, he saw something he just had to have and do, something broken that he just had to change.  He became that boy in the candy store.

President Obama has tackled too much in these early days in office.  He is frittering away his political capital not by doing too little but by over-reaching in too many areas all at once.  He has initiated enough major initiatives to last any president a full four years of a first term, and maybe some years into a second term.  He has, it seems, known all along that he didn't have a detailed plan for any of the grandiose ideas.  He seems to have determined that his job is simply to set the stage through grandiloquent speeches so that the pent-up "needs" of his party can be fulfilled almost simultaneously.

There is one small problem, however.  The people who put him in office need substance and not simply cheer leading.  They want to understand what each initiative means to them as individuals.  They want to understand that more good than bad will flow from the various initiatives.  They want to believe that this "great movement" is more than just a "great movement".  They want to believe that this man isn't simply about politics, that he isn't affected by a messianic self-vision, and that he can really be trusted to do what he claims is his goal.

As with the kid in the candy store, there comes a time of reckoning.  President Obama's polling numbers have slipped more than many thought would happen to this president.

He seems to have over-reached in his zeal to accomplish too much too quickly.  He could've taken on climate change.  Or, he could've taken on the economy.  Or, he could've taken on health care.  Or, he could've mounted a world tour to restore confidence in America.  But he didn't do any of these things; instead he is trying to do all of these things.

The Democrat steamroller that is Congress is also becoming a problem for this president.  It is burning up some of his good will and political capital by the way it is acting.  Nancy Pelosi is aristocratic and aloof and seemingly not to be trusted.  Harry Reid is like the rat scurrying around in the dark up to no good.  And, they are driving the president's initiatives and trying to effect all this massive change in the first year of his presidency. 

It is as if they all know they are part of a house of cards and they're hell-bent on getting this all finished before the house collapses around them.

Maybe we are coming to our collective senses.

Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.  He had heard testimony from several people early this year that led him to say that his committee would hold hearings to get to the bottom of accusations made against ACORN.  ACORN, as you'll recall, was among the organizations quite instrumental in getting Obama elected as president.  He had been an employee of ACORN in Chicago prior to becoming a state senator.

The accusations that triggered Conyers' decision included voter fraud, a protection racket, tax violations and campaign finance law violations.

Conyers' decision to investigate ACORN, as you'd expect, caused quite some consternation amongst Democrats.

He suddenly, yesterday, advised that there would be no investigation since "powers that be" had advised him to not go there.  He refused further comment.  The "powers that be" could be Rep. Stony Hoyer, second in command of the House, or Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the House Speaker, or the White House...or all three.  There are no other "powers that be" who might have gotten Conyers' attention to the degree that was apparent.

Had Conyers made this decision himself, he would've stated that fact along with a reason or two to support this 180 degree shift in his position.  The fact that he made no such statement, and that he refused further comment, tells us everything we need to know except by whose command this decision was taken.

I suspect we know the flowchart arrangement; I suspect that the President suggested to Rahm Emanuel, and Rahm suggested to Pelosi and Hoyer, and the word came down to Conyers.  Conyers has been around long enough to understand what he had to do.

But, much worse than this brute force tactic is this:  there must be a lot of dirt under the ACORN tree to warrant such an abuse of power.  Will we ever know for sure?  ACORN is the subject of some 14 different lawsuits over such issues; maybe one or more of those decisions will provide the answer.

You have no doubt heard the "pay as you go" mantra from the Democrats who, in case you've haven't heard, control everything there is to control these days.  "Pay as you go" requires that any expenditure requires an equal reduction in some other expense or an increase in taxes, so that the total budget remains "balanced".

There was a rolling of eyes amongst Dems when Pelosi again brought this to the fore.  There were many who wished she hadn't said that since it might cramp their style so far as spending on old and new programs.

Among the problems is this little item.  House Democrats want to get doctors' support for a health care bill and they think they can do that by adding a new wrinkle to the bill requiring that Medicare reimbursements be increased annually and automatically.  The biggest problem they encountered was that darned old "pay as you go" thing.  (The president didn't really have "nothing but fun" when he spoke to the members of the American Medical Association the other day in Chicago.  They let him know that they were not happy with him when they were behind closed doors.)

After all, this simple permanent fix would carry a price tag in the hundreds of billions of dollars that would have to be added to the health care bill and that already runs to more than $1 trillion.  Remember, the CBO "score" on any bill must be at or under a trillion dollars over ten years if the bill is to have any chance of passage even though the Democrats have the votes to do anything they choose.

What to do?  What to do?

Well how about if the Democrats simply fake the numbers and keep this magic Medicare portion of the bill off the budget.  Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) who is chair of the Ways and Means Health subcommittee said that was exactly what they'd need to do.  This was during a C-Span interview last Sunday.

You see the problem is really this:  The Democrats can do anything they want anytime they want.  If they think they can get away with it, it'll be done.

Never mind that us citizens can't get away with changing the rules we live by.  We can't decide to sweep part of our household expense off the table and just ignore it.  We really understand what is meant by "pay as you go" since we live that way or we go bankrupt.

Somehow people seem to lose touch with reality during the flight to Washington, D.C.  They profess to still be human when they're in the home district or state, but they go through some mystical transformation on the trip back to the capitol.

This is simply a $285 billion bait and switch.

President Obama persists in making the claim that a "public health plan" competing with private plans should not be threatening to the private plans.  This is a disingenuous statement, and I have to believe that he knows that but makes the statement over and over again in spite of that knowledge.

The "public plan" will be set up similarly to Medicare.  There is no similarity to private plans.

Government makes the rules.  Private plans follow the rules. 

Government tells providers what it will pay for services.  Private plans negotiate with providers to determine what will be paid.

Government decides what it will cover.  Private plans still follow the rules.

Government underpayments result in costs being shifted to private insurers.  Negotiated reimbursements rise because of that.

Government plans need not make a profit; they have an endless supply of tax dollars.  Private plans must be profitable.

Government plans will have a cheaper "apparent" price than private plans.  Private plans will lose their business to public plans.  Once private plans are no longer in business, there is only one source for coverage, and that is the public plan.

Government plans need not worry about "customer" satisfaction.  Private plan customers vote with their feet.

These are but some of the differences that make the "public plans aren't threatening to private plans" statements disingenuous.

We can go even further into archives and find the statements made by Sen. Obama telling listeners that he favors a single payer plan run by the government.  I don't believe that he has changed his mind; I do believe that he is saying what he thinks needs be said to get what he wants passed.

We are not being told the truth, and we are expected to simply roll over and let it happen to us.  Once there is this "public plan", called a Trojan Horse by some, its prices will be less and employers will simply cancel their plans and let employees enroll in the cheaper public plans.  That is exactly what will happen.

If such comments were to be made by an insurance company president, in the face of facts to the contrary, he or she would be brought up on charges of fraud.  At the very least, he'd find himself being ridiculed by government.

If the public plan is so good, why is it that the members of Congress, the President and all federal workers are to be exempt from it?

Why do we persist in allowing politicians who lie to us to get away with those lies?

The Wall Street Journal online today published a very good article titled "What Your Body Is Telling You".

It includes an interactive display that should be seen by all.  It just might answer some questions.

Can more and more information equal less and less approval?

As the Obama Administration is forced to share more and more factual information with the public, there is a decided movement to less and less approval in the poll numbers.  The public has begun to become engaged in the detail, and not just at the surface level the Administration had hoped to use to carry the day.

People are beginning to understand that they will be impacted by the changes that Congress is trying to effectuate on behalf of the Administration.  Not only are they now aware that these programs will affect them, they are coming to understand that they likely will find themselves adversely affected by the programs.

People thought they wanted national health care so long as it didn't hurt their health care.  People thought it wise to bail out insurers and stock brokerage firms so long as it didn't cost them anything.  People were behind the bailout of auto manufacturers until they began to understand the implications in what they'd be able to buy and in what these new vehicles would cost.  People were astounded when the price tags began to be totaled.

People were willing to put their faith in the person who campaigned as the answer to every need and every problem, but that was before they knew any of the substance behind the flowery plans that were unfolded weekly on the campaign trail.

People can be very gullible when it comes to voting for a candidate.  People measure the candidate's statements against their own standards for self.  People tend to believe that every statement from a politician carries the same honesty that their own statements carry.

More and more information is finding its way to the people now as Congress is forced to get specific about what it is doing, and there is less and less approval of these actions as the result of the detail becoming better known.  This is becoming so much an issue, that the mainstream media has begun resorting to polling that is engineered to produce the desired result.

There was a reason that the changes were thrown at people so often.  That was to assure that people would become numbed and ultimately that people would stop paying attention and simply trust the Administration.

People are beginning to understand that they'd better pay attention, and close attention, at that.  Even the personal approval numbers for President Obama are beginning to erode month over month.   It was that personal approval, rather than approval of proposed policies, that got him elected.  He still carries a majority in that regard but those around him are falling rapidly.  It will only take a bit of time until we see both Congress and President Obama suffering declines in approval.

Fast track doesn't equate to good legislation.