Mr. Obama, quit acting as though American’s are so stupid and you’re so smart. Yesterday you had a “summit” acting like the Professor you’re not and treating other qualified adults as though you’re always the smartest guy in the room.

How was that humble pie Republicans fed you?

That “summit” for health care was an insult to every engaged American and you should be ashamed but your arrogance wouldn’t allow for that.

During the morning before your “teachable moment” the bastion for Liberal punditry, The Washington Post, declared:

Although Obama is billing the White House gathering as an opportunity for Republicans to air their ideas for reform, Democrats do not expect it to reveal much common ground and are showing little willingness to abandon the basic outline of legislation that the House and Senate have approved.

38 Democrats were at the summit, all voted for Obamacare in the House of Representatives. Obama says his plan will:

“Make insurance more affordable,” “set up a new competitive health insurance market,” and “put our budget and economy on a more stable path by reducing the deficit.”

Facts are fact and Heritage Foundation fellow Bob Moffit details, each of Obama’s claims are demonstrably false. The Senate bill actually increases health insurance premiums and raises taxes on the middle class by $629 billion over ten years. It destroys what little there is left of a real competitive health insurance marketplace by instituting new price controls and standard benefit packages that will turn health insurance companies into public utilities. And the plan is so riddled with deceptive budget gimmicks that the White House’s non-CBO scored $950 billion price tag actually comes to $2.5 trillion once an honest accounting has been applied.

So much for honesty and what about those campaign promises on taxing those under $250,000 income, then $200,000 income, then $150,000 income…..well you’re getting the Obama drift. Where’s Joe the Plumber and his thoughts?

Attempting to ignore the Liberal threat of “reconciliation” to skip the formalities of honest debate and Democracy the “accuse Republican’s” act was in full force. Republicans only used the filibuster or reconciliation for budgets, which is common, not to take over 1/6th of the economy.

And Mr. Obama used to tell us the American citizen consensus was important. In fact, back in 2005, then- Sen. Barack Obama said:

“You know, the Founders designed this system, as frustrating it is, to make sure that there’s a broad consensus before the country moves forward.”

You know Mr. Obama, the sham is up, American’s don’t believe you and that number is growing by a huge consensus.

Democrats, with Barack Obama’s blessing, don’t care about consensus, they don’t care what average American’s think. The day before the summit, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) told reporters:

“The only way this works is for the House to pass the Senate bill and then, depending on what the package is, the reconciliation provision that moves first through the House and then comes here.”

Unless the Democrat’s sign on to their suicide pact, passing major legislation via reconciliation, then health care, Obamacare is dead on arrival. The summit and Obama’s failure at the dog and pony show turned out to be a disaster for the “anointed one.”

Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA), who is one of the 39 House Democrats that the White House needs to switch from a “no” the first time around to a “yes” this time, told The New York Times:

“I don’t see very many at all who voted no who are going to switch their votes unless there are substantial changes in the bill.”

Young Republican Gun, Rep. Paul Ryan (WI) said it best that Americans do not want Washington dictating their health care decisions to them, and that is exactly what Obamacare would do:

The difference is this: We don’t think all the answers lie in Washington regulating all of this. … if the National Restaurant Association or the National Federation of Independent Business, on behalf of their members, wants to set up an association health plan, we think they’ll probably do a good job on behalf of their members.

Let them decide to do that instead of restricting insurance competition by federalizing the regulation of insurance, and by mandating exactly how it will work, you make it more expensive and you reduce the competition among insurers for people’s business. We want to decentralize the system, give more power to small businesses, more power to individuals, and make insurers compete more. But if you federalize it and standardize it and mandate it, you do not achieve that. And that’s the big difference we have.

Obama was not to have any of this brilliant and articulate oratory unfold without a response, even without a teleprompter:

“Can I just say that, at this point, any time that a question is phrased as, “Does Washington know better,” I think we’re kind of tipping the scales a little bit there since we all know that everybody is angry at Washington right now.”

It depends on how you would define “everybody” and “Washington” Mr. Obama. We’re placing our money on the American citizen who is now paying very close attention. Obama claims he believes the anger but he remains in denial of the fact but more likely he is desperate to have his ideology play out so he can destroy the fabric of American Democracy. Indeed!

We could lay out number after number and make your eyes glaze over but many times when done accurately a picture tells a 1,000 words. So below is a nice graph depicting the Bush deficit vs. Barack Hussein Obama’s deficit.

By the way – the numbers above do include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. It should be noted that Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010.

Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years. Twice for now, as the infomercial oftens say, “But wait, there’s more.” Indeed!

Last week Taliban leader Abdul Ghani Baradar was jointly captured by the US CIA, US forces and Pakistanis, a decision made by Barack Obama. However, Obama left the interrogation of Baradar to the Pakistanis. We’re not sure if any Miranda Rights were read.

The Obama administration has also failed to devise a comprehensive legal strategy for the detention and interrogation of detainees.

“The Administration seems to have no policy or plan in place to deal with the very real possibility that the U.S. will capture high-value terrorists outside of Afghanistan and that these terrorists will need to be interrogated for intelligence purposes,” writes Charles Stimson.

A high-value terrorist is captured and the US is not involved in the interrogation of the detainee. Here is an Obama administration scenario for handling terrorists and avoid the messy business of fighting terrorism:

1. Do not transfer any detainees to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
2. Do not send detainees captured outside of Afghanistan to the US detention facility in Bagram, Afghanistan.

It’s may seem more plausible to kill suspected terrorists with drone attacks but the possibility of gleaning valuable information from a detainee captured on the battlefield that could yield nuggets of intelligence gold.

Andy McCarthy points out that:

“Dead terrorists don’t recidivate, don’t rejoin the jihad, and don’t kill more innocent people.”

If you don’t let the terrorists out of jail they won’t do all of the above but the Bush administration made the mistake of allowing some detainee’s out of Guantanamo Bay and the Obama clan treats these people more like US citizens then enemy combatants.

What would the US do if this same scenario took place but with Osama bin Laden captured? Would he be given a parade out of Pakistan and sent to New York for trial?

Simply put, the Obama administration is skipping the Bush detainee policy is was against, use the Army Field Manual to interrogate captured enemy combatants or pass the responsibility to a third party and avoid getting your hands dirty and having the world escoriate your policy.

In the real world it’s quite possibly the Pakistanis are not as restrained but the information they glean may not get back to US intelligence. Obama campaigned against the policy of handing this ilk over to third party countries but now it is convenient to allow this and not “tarnish” the US image abroad.

Remember how AG Eric Holder answered Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) when asked what the plan was if or when the US captures Osama bin Laden, Holder responded:

 ”It depends.”

Fighting terrorism as a work-in-progress without a set of rules is not how to fight any war. Rules of engagement must be tough and must protect our Armed Forces on the ground in direct combat.

When a terrorist of any value is captured trying to blow up an airplane over the United States or on the battlefield in a foreign land very tough and uncompromising rules must apply and you can’t pass the buck in hopes that this problem will go away. Indeed!