National Head Start Spending

In 2009, the Department of Health and Human Services (federal welfare) spent $9,213,000,000 on the National Head Start program.  This spending was independent from state-funded programs and full-day kindergarten programs. 

In 2008 there were 796,740 children enrolled in nationally funded head start programs in America. 

That works out to $11,563 per child per year. 

If Head Start runs 180 days per year, like public school, then we are spending $64 per child per day.  If a family has 2 children in the program, that is $128 per day, or $540 per week, or $23,127 per year. 

Why not just send the family a check that would cover the rent on a very nice 3 bedroom apartment in the amount of $1,927 per month? 

Heck, if the family moved into a more modest home that amount would cover rent and groceries!  A single parent would be able to work a part time job and provide plenty for their family.  A two-parent household could easily afford to have Mom home and Dad could work a job that allowed him to be home more hours, too.  Or the parent(s) could devote some time and energy to education or vocational training that would allow them to become more independent and to enjoy the sense of self-worth and well-being that comes with providing for a family.

Let's dismantle the Head Start program and send each child currently enrolled in the program a check for $11,563 per year for the next 4 years.  Make it a one-time grant to the child in the interest of getting their parents trained, educated and productive. 

Ah, but then the State would not have so much access to young minds and so much control over families as it now has.  The the State would lose its hold on the future of its citizens.  Then the State would see its power slip from its hands, back into the hands of those who rightfully hold it:  The People.

And I see the flaw in my premise.  My premise assumes that government can legitimately take money from those who have and redistribute it to those who have less.  That right does not exist in Nature.  Government can only do that which the people delegate to it.  And the people can delegate to government only rights which they hold.  No person has the right to take from one the fruits of his labor and give those fruits to another simply on the basis that the latter has less than the former.  Therefore it is not in the legitimate scope of government to do the same. 

Nevertheless, it is interesting to imagine all of the government spending in "our interest" really being spent in our interest, isn't it?

http://www.hhs.gov/asrt/ob/docbudget/2011budgetinbrief.pdf
http://www.naccrra.org/randd/head-start/participation

Fatherhood...(dot gov???)

Yesterday I was driving and I heard a public service announcement on the radio.  I can't remember what it was saying, but the tone was sappy, sentimental and sincere. 

At the end of the spot, a voice said  I should visit http://www.fatherhood.gov/ for more information. 

That almost made my head spin around. 

I'm not opposed to learning truth from all sources, but it seems that intimate family relationships and anything ending in ".gov" are incompatible; and in today's reality they are diametrically opposed.

The proper function of government is to protect the individual liberties of citizens.

Some say that the Tea Party movement in America is misguided or misinformed.  They assert that the original Boston Tea Party was a protest against taxes.  They are the ones who misunderstand history and who seek to perpetuate misinformation.

The original movement toward American independence from British rule was inspired by the natural desire of mankind to be free from tyranny of any kind.  Britain had steadily ratcheted up its influence in North America and its control over its subjects living in the New World for more than 100 years.  The Crown had imposed laws and ignored them when it was in the Crown's interest to do so.  The influence of government (distinct from "law") could be seen and felt in virtually every aspect of American life.  Consider the Bill of Rights.  Why would the founders have written the clause about housing soldiers in private homes without compensation or cause if there hadn't been some kind of problem with that?

Government's place is to uphold the Law of the land, not to seek to influence or control the citizenry.  The Law, civil society, religion, and individual morality will control the citizenry.

Gadsden's flag bore the imgage of a coiled rattlesnake and the words, "Don't Tread On Me!"  The implied message was that if would-be tyrants stepped on the American people they would receive a wound that could be fatal. 

So, back to Boston.  The original tea party was simply a venting of frustration with the overreaching and oppressive hand of the British government.  Taxes were at best a secondary issue. 

So it is today.  The modern Tea Party movement is an expression of frustration with the US government.  So-called "Tea Partiers" do not want a revolution.  Rather they seek a reformation of the country.  A return to the limited government that allowed Americans to exercise their natural rights to life, liberty and property. 

Some, like Bill Maher, would twist this desire for true freedom and accuse "Tea Partiers" of longing for a time in American history when racism was institutionalized.  They would have others believe that the movement for restored freedom is simply a frustrated and angry white person's reaction to a black president.  This thought is simplistic at best and malicious at worst. 

This simply is not true.

The Tea Party movement began before President Obama was elected.  It began before any of the participants were even born.  It began before 1776 and before 1621.  It began before Jesus was born.  It began before cavemen and dinosaurs. 

This is a truth that those who would oppress their fellow man seek deep to hide from the world. 

Nature and Nature's God designed and destined man to be free to enjoy life, liberty and the fruits of his labor.  It is a violation of Natural Law to oppress man or to take the fruits of his labor without his consent and without just compensation. 

Whether a man is hanged with a silken rope or one of coarse hemp, the end is the same.  Whether government interference in the life of man is well-intentioned or nefarious, the result is the same. 

Which brings me back to fatherhood.gov.  On its face it is preposterous.  And it disturbs me.

Is Health Care Reform Constitutional? It Doesn't Matter...!

In memoriam of the US Constitution I am linking to this interesting exchange between an Illinois representative to the US House of Representatives and some of his constituents.

http://qconline.com/archives/qco/display_mobile.php?id=486688

This is a perfect example of two things.  First, a liberal will always put feeling before reason.  And second, some members of Congress do not engage in independent thought, and when pressed they cannot speak intelligently or honestly.

My Thoughts on Health Care Reform and the Future...

So, what's my take on the health care reform act?

It alone has fundamentally changed the US Government's approach to individual liberties.  Combined with the enormous expansions of government power and involvement in the business sector such as TARP, financial and industrial bailouts, the voiding of contracts by interfering in private citizens' compensation on bonuses, and the regulation of a harmless naturally occurring gas, this could signal the end of Americanism.

"Are you crazy?!" you say.  "That's just a little extreme, I think!"

No.  That's not extreme.  That's clear. 

The beginning of the end of Americanism began almost before the ink was dry on the Constitution.  But the American people and the system of government they had established were resilient, aware, and active enough to resist the pressure to change.  For nearly a century the country remained as the founders intended it.  Then the Civil War or War Between the States changed forever the way Americans viewed themselves.  For the first time there was a strong federal government and the people were okay with that.  They were, after all, Unionists - Americans - and not Vermonters, Michiganders, or citizens of other states. 

Since then the federal government has expanded its power and influence over states and individuals.  Don't misunderstand this to be some pro-slavery, anti-government rant.  I'm just talking you through the progression of things.

Sometimes the federal government has used courts to interpret the laws to give it more power than it previously had.  Sometimes the government has used constitutional amendments to do the same.  Sometimes it has used financial coercion - either the threat of withholding funding or the promise of providing funds - to subdue the states.

Now we see the threat of federal retribution delivered at a personal and individual level.  Should I choose not to take the advice of the federal government as it relates to my family's health care I am subject to a personal fine of up to 2% of my income. 

Why is the fine related to my income and not held at some rationally calculated number? 

Anyway, let me get back to the progressive loss of individual liberties. 

While there is not a solid government or public option for health care coverage in the current act, that will not be far away.  After all, how can the government order all citizens to purchase something.  And how can they continue to require that purchase with the cost of coverage spiraling out of control?  Isn't it only right that the government provide an affordable option for people to buy into so that they can have at least some level of coverage?  Think of the children who will suffer most from their parents' inability to pay the premiums demanded by these greedy insurance companies.  It's only right....

And so, we sign onto the government option.  Which really is no option at all in just a few years.  It soon becomes the only game in town. 

And the government administrators and actuaries do the math.  People who engage in risky lifestyles will have to pay more because they have more health problems.  Interestingly, "risky" will not include the consumption of alcohol or promiscuous behavior.  But those who eat fatty foods, those who choose not to exercise, and those who drive their own cars, rather than take public transit, will be charged more for their health coverage.  After all, they're the ones who consume most of the resources.  It's only right....

And "risky" won't stop there.  It will extend to other areas. 

And you may say, "Yeah, but those things are just good sense."  You may be right, but remember that Natural Law gives the individual liberties that are not restricted by what you may think is "good sense". 

And America and Americanism were founded on Natural Law; the primacy of the individual being the foundation of the country.  We live now in an age where most Americans accept the premise of primacy of the state, or the idea that the interests of the state are superior to the interests of the individual. 

We must return to the basis of our country's founding before it is too late.  And, given the track record of repealing entitlement programs, I am worried that it IS too late.  But we must not go quietly into that dark night.  We must go down swinging.  In November of this year we have an opportunity to change the composition of the US Congress.  We must send representatives and senators who are committed to repealing this one act and to setting our country's house in order.

Liberal Bloggers Expose the Truth About Health Care Reform...

It seems to me that the President would have Americans believe that the right wing extremists in the country are distorting the truth about his health care reform act.

Here are some figures and "fact checking" from the left.  Fire Dog Lake is a fairly "progressive" blog and they've done some interesting research. 

Strangely, they came to the same conclusions the far right did regarding the negative impact of the act. 

In a court of law, if two witnesses recount the same series of events, and only one contradicts them, the stories that agree are lent more credibility than the one "outlier".  It seems that the President's story is the outlier in this case. 

But read the article and let me know your take....

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/fact-sheet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/

A Discussion on The Second Amendment...

This is a good, rational discussion regarding the Constitution and its applicability to the individual.

A common refrain in conservative circles is the "primacy of the individual". The counter argument is the "primacy of the state".

There is an effective and convincing argument that the Second Amendment protects and individual right, and not one that is restricted to the "militias" of the various state.

Another Big Supreme Court Gun Ban Case…

President Obama Speaks Against Democrat Plan to End Filibuster...

President Obama speaks out against the "nuclear option" that would bar extended debate in the Senate.



Of course, what you hear from "back in the day" was the ranting of a party that did not control the Executive branch of our government.  Now that the Democrat party controls the Executive and Legislative branches (and still can't get anything accomplished) they are singing a different tune. 

According to Alan Fram of the Associated Press, "President Barack Obama urged Congress Wednesday to vote "up or down" on sweeping health care legislation in the next few weeks, endorsing a plan that denies Senate Republicans the right to kill the bill by stalling with a filibuster."

He's like, as he said in the video, Karl Rove....  What an interesting turn.  Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, right?

The End of Cronyism in Detroit...

The Obama Administration, Democrats in general, and some Republicans have repeatedly and vociferously expressed their disgust at huge executive compensation packages.

Remember when President Obama dismissed Rick Waggoner from his position as CEO at General Motors?  That was shortly after the federal government and UAW takeover of the company.  They installed in his place Fritz Henderson.  Fritz had tons of experience, but was forced out only 8 months into his term of service.

Well, he's back. 

Is there no end to the gall of these people?  I have NOTHING AGAINST a person making $3,000 per hour!  It's the hypocrisy I can't stand.  How can the President, his Pay Czar, and his appointed patsy at GM let this happen?  Don't they remember that they're for the "little guy"?

Fritz Henderson is back at GM, for $3,000 an hour

Democrats Explain Senate Rules...

Democrats have recently threatened to pass Health Care Reform v. 2.0 with a 51-vote majority in the Senate.  This has been called the "nuclear option" because it prevents the "extended debate" that the senate is famous for. 

The Founders had in mind a sort of House of Commons (Representatives) that would give voice to the people.  The House of Lords (Senate) would balance the often impulsive vox populi with deliberate consideration of the issues.  The two Houses would then serve to check the power of the Executive. 

Anyway, watch this video where several Democrat leaders articulate the matter much better than I could.  Then remember that it is this same group of people advocating for and threatening to use the "nuclear option" against the current Republican minority and their less liberal Democrat party mates. 

The Fruits of The Obama "Open Hand" Doctrine...

Remember when Candidate Obama chided Candidate Clinton because she was too tough on our enemies?  He lectured everyone in his patent condescending way that if we extended an open hand and engaged in dialogue without conditions our enemies would see we meant them no harm and would abandon their intentions to destroy us and our allies. 

Here's a short story from Reuters that ought to illustrate exactly how naive Mr. Obama's statement and world view are.

Ahmadinejad not taking Clinton comments "seriously"


Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:29am EST

TEHRAN, Feb 16 (Reuters) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed on Tuesday U.S. accusations that Iran was moving toward a military dictatorship, saying the U.S. military budget was 80 times larger than that of the Islamic Republic.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday that the United States believed Iran's Revolutionary Guards were driving the country towards military dictatorship and should be targeted in any new U.N. sanctions.

"We don't take her comments seriously," Ahmadinejad told a televised news conference, adding that the entire Iranian population of more than 70 million were protecting Iran's independence and its Islamic revolution.

He said the United States had some 300,000 troops stationed in the Middle East and was involved in wars in the region.

"These comments she (Clinton) is making are not wise," Ahmadinejad added.

(Reporting by Reza Derakhshi; writing by Fredrik Dahl; editing by David Stamp)

Dr. Jones Should Go To See The Principal...

Imagine being confronted by your professor and asked for the sources you used to write a research paper on the health benefits of drinking small doses of the industrial herbicide know as Agent Orange. 

Now imagine that you couldn't find the base data or your sources any more. 

Imagine further that you admit some of your data was fabricated by you in order to strengthen your case.

Imagine also that you admit that you ignored other data that did not support your case.

Now imagine what happens to your grade on that paper, your grade in the class, and your standing at the university you're attending.  Academic probation would be the best case scenario.  In all likelihood you'd be expelled from school.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

Now Dr. Jones Admits He Was Wrong...

Follow the link below to read about Dr. Phil Jones' admission that he and others misled the world about global warming.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1250813/MAIL-ON-SUNDAY-COMMENT-The-professors-amazing-climate-change-retreat.html

Backdoor Taxes To Hit Middle Class ...

Mon Feb 1, 4:09 PM
By Terri Cullen

NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --The Obama administration's plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year -- effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.

The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 -- though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year's levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy -- the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;

* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

* Individuals who don't itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;

* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.

An Open Letter to John McCain...

I sent this letter to John McCain via his website earlier today.

Senator McCain:

I want to let you know that I was disappointed to hear your negative radio ad attacking JD Hayworth.

I'm not disappointed because it was a negative ad. I expect a certain balance in any campaign of ads exposing one's opponent's weaknesses and ads extoling one's own virtues and strengths.

The disappointment - even the anger - I feel is because, when the Country's future was literally on the line, you refused to say anything negative about your then-opponent, Barack H. Obama!

I am seriously troubled by the inconsistency. You were unwilling to even point out Candidate Obama's legitimate red flags and you censured those associated with you who did. Yet you are willing to make misleading assertions about JD Hayworth, a conservative who is intent on putting the country back on the right and constitutional course.

I have previously been an active voter who did not affiliate himself with any party. I want you to know that I have registered "Republican" so that I can participate in the primary election and work to get you off the ballot in November.

I appreciate the service you've given the country for years. And I offer you all the gratitude and honor that is appropriate.

I think it is time for you to step aside, now.

Respectfully,

John N. Ellis

Huh???

Remember when President Obama tried to distance himself earlier this week from the unsavory and wildly unpopular back-room politicking that went on to sweeten the Health Care Reform Bill enough to make it palatable to the US Senate?

He told us that he was not involved in the negotiations. 

Rahm Emmanuel, the President's Chief of Staff, says otherwise.

It makes one wonder who is really running the country.  Who IS the puppet master?

(Another interesting comment he made in that interview was that he has not changed the legislative process into what he would like it to be.  Is that absolutely TERRIFYING to anyone but me?  Listen close when you watch the video.)

Rahm Emmanuel Contradicts President Obama's Claim

Another Example of Leftist Racism....

How about this little bit of elitist, racist, bigotted, condecending, socially-backward gushing from an icon of the Left?

This is disgusting. 

When will black Americans (and other minorities) wake up to how the Left really feels about them?  They are viewed as less than human.  Simple tools to use in winning elections.  The policies of the Left are DESIGNED to keep human beings in subjection and they have been ESPECIALLY damaging to the black community. 

Chris Matthews' "Unfortunate Racially Insensitive Comments"

Remember: This Is About YOU, And NOT The President

This 2-minute video summary of President Obama's recent campaign speech (delivered 22 Jan 2010) in Ohio really lets you know where his focus is. 

In the President's defense, 3 of the 132 self-references are to remind us that this is not about him.

Breitbart.tv » 132: The Number of Times Obama Refers to Himself in One Speech

Global Climate Update From My Neighborhood...

I understand that in the world of climate science doublespeak "global warming" can mean many things.  I know that "global" can also mean "local" or "regional".  I know that "warming" can also mean cooling.  I know it can result in more rainfall or less rainfall.  I know that it can lead to desertification or expansion of jungles.  I know that it can contribute to mass extinction and the discovery of new species.  I know it can have an adverse or a positive effect on physical and mental health of human beings.  I know that it can even contribute to more severe or milder reactions to certain stimuli.

Having acknowledged that, let me tell you what global warming is doing to us today.  In the high desert we had 6" of snowfall followed up by at least 3" of rain.  Temperatures are below normal - about 12 degrees low, as a matter of fact.  And by morning we will have at least 6 more inches of snow with temperatures a full 20 degrees below normal. 

I feel like Sid the Sloth, from the movie "Ice Age" when he said, "You know what I could really go for?  Global warming!"

This Just In From Great Britain...

As we continue to uncover the world of fabricated climate science, I am reminded of how lies become truth.

A lie is told. A second person cites the lie as substantiation of their own research. A third person cites the second person's "research". From there anyone can pick up the tertiary research and see that it is substantiated by at least two other sources and one of them is the primary source.

The lie becomes "common knowledge".

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown - Times Online

Healthcare Reform Townhall Video...

I found this a little late, but I enjoyed the "shock reporting" on the townhall meetings associated with healthcare reform.

A good insight into the mindsets of both sides of the argument.

Here's The Deal...

Okay, I can't stand hearing people tell government workers, whether they be police officers, city council members, or Motor Vehicle clerks, that they "pay their salary". 

That's just crazy talk. 

Of course, we all pay taxes of some sort.  Of course, some sort of taxes pay these workers' wages.

But let's get past the idea that in some way we are the boss of them.

On the other hand, as they say, there is the idea that at one time government employees were actually called "public servants".  That's an interesting idea.  "Public" would indicate that their work is funded by the people of a community.  It would indicate that the purpose of their work is to benefit the people of a community.  It would indicate that there is SOME truth to the idea that "we pay their salary".  And "servant" would indicate that their orientation or focus should be on providing some level of courteous or submissive work for the members of a community.  It would indicate that the goal of the worker would be to please or to satisfy the community members individually and at large.

So, what's with the snippy, grouchy, disrespectful, annoyed, put-out, slow, inattentive, discourteous, angry, intimidating, secretive, power-tripping, snack-eating-in-your-face, union member, self-serving government worker of today?

If we want to examine the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of government today, we need to look at the worker, as well as at the system.

I once had a customer of mine virtually grab me by the ear and show me an area in which my workers were not doing their jobs.  After explaining why this was unacceptable to him, he looked me in the eye and said, "John, you have a management problem," and walked away.

He was right.  Sure, maybe I had lazy or unskilled workers, but the bottom line was that I was not managing them as I should have.

For the White House (I love that ambiguous name for the President) to blame problems on equipment, rather than accept responsibility for "its" management problem is just chicken.

It illustrates the fact that President Obama has never been in charge of anything in his life, and he is uncomfortable with responsibility.  Although he is more than willing to accept the perks that come with the title of POTUS.

Do These People Even GET IT???

I PROMISE that the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of government has NOTHING to do with their computers - or any other tool they are using or not using.  It has EVERYTHING to do with the sense of entitlement and superiority that the culture of bureaucracy perpetuates. 

The problem is the worker - not the tool.

White House budget director blames old computers for ineffective government
By Ian Swanson - 01/14/10 02:56 PM ET

A big reason why the government is inefficient and ineffective is because Washington has outdated technology, with federal workers having better computers at home than in the office.


This startling admission came Thursday from Peter Orszag, who manages the federal bureaucracy for President Barack Obama.


The public is getting a bad return on its tax dollars because government workers are operating with outdated technologies, Orszag said in a statement that kicked off a summit between Obama and dozens of corporate CEOs.


“Twenty years ago, people who came to work in the federal government had better technology at work than at home,” said Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget. “Now that’s no longer the case.


“The American people deserve better service from their government, and better return for their tax dollars.”


The White House release that included Orszag’s comments said one “specific source” of ineffective and inefficient government is the huge technology gap between the public and private sectors that results in billions of dollars in waste, slow and inadequate customer service and a lack of transparency about how dollars are spent.


Obama is meeting with CEOs to solicit their views on how to improve the federal government with new information technology.


“Improving the technology our government uses isn’t about having the fanciest bells and whistles on our websites — it’s about how we use the American people’s hard-earned tax dollars to make government work better for them,” Obama said in a statement.


Obama had proposed the meeting in April. CEOs from Craigslist, Facebook, Microsoft, Adobe Technology and Monster.com are among those taking part.


“It’s time to bring government into the 21st century,” Orszag said. “Information technology has the power to transform how government works and revolutionize the ease, convenience and effectiveness by which it serves the American people."


Those attending the summit are to break into smaller groups to discuss streamlining government operations, improving customer service and maximizing return on IT investments.

Do You See The Problem?

Read the previous post , watch the 2-minute video embedded, and then watch the video from an interview with C-SPAN embedded in this post.

Do you see the problem?  The President is not willing to keep the promises that Candidate Obama made in 2008. 

He was LYING to the American voters then, and he CONTINUES to do so now.

Have You Seen The Transparency?

Have you seen the transparency that Candidate Obama promised in this video?  When I think of the health care reform debate, I can't remember anything close to what he talks about here.

Some Thoughts From Ben Stein...

WE FIGURED HIM OUT!
By Ben Stein

Why is President Barack Obama in such a hurry to get his socialized medicine bill passed?

Because he and his cunning circle realize some basic truths:

The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust voted for a pig in a poke in 2008.

They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith.

They ignored his anti-white writings in his books.

They ignored his quiet acceptance of hysterical anti-American diatribes by his minister, Jeremiah Wright.

They ignored his refusal to explain years at a time of his life as a student.

They ignored his ultra-left record as a "community organizer," Illinois state legislator, and Senator.

The American people ignored his total zero of an academic record as a student and teacher, his complete lack of scholarship when he was being touted as a scholar.

Now, the American people are starting to wake up to the truth. Barack Obama is a super likeable super leftist, not a fan of this country, way, way too cozy with the terrorist leaders in the Middle East , way beyond naïveté, all the way into active destruction of our interests and our allies and our future. The American people have already awakened to the truth that the stimulus bill -- a great idea in theory -- was really an immense bribe to Democrat interest groups, and in no way an effort to help all Americans.

Now, Americans are waking up to the truth that ObamaCare basically means that every time you are sick or injured, you will have a clerk from the Department of Motor Vehicles telling your doctor what he can and cannot do.

The American people already know that Mr. Obama's plan to lower health costs while expanding coverage and bureaucracy is a myth, a promise of something that never was and never will be -- a bureaucracy lowering costs in a free society. Either the costs go up or the free society goes away.

These are perilous times.. Mrs. Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State, has given Iran the go-ahead to have nuclear weapons, an unqualified betrayal of the nation. Now, we face a devastating loss of freedom at home in health care. It will be joined by controls on our lives to "protect us" from global warming, itself largely a fraud if believed to be caused by man.

Mr. Obama knows Americans are getting wise and will stop him if he delays at all in taking away our freedoms. There is his urgency and our opportunity. Once freedom is lost, America is lost. Wake up, beloved America .

Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu . He writes "Ben Stein's Diary" for every issue of The American Spectator.