Even the Administration’s Chief Actuary at HHS cannot provide cost analysis of latest Democrat health spending bill before the vote

Even the Administration’s Chief Actuary at HHS cannot provide cost analysis of latest Democrat health spending bill before the vote

Chief Actuary: ‘I regret that my staff and I will not be able to prepare our analysis within this very tight time frame, due to the complexity of the legislation.’

 WASHINGTON, DC – The Obama administration’s chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) notified Republican leaders Saturday that the “very tight time frame” and “complexity” of the Democrats’ health spending bill would prevent them from fully analyzing the costs and efficacy of the bill before the House voted on the legislation. The letter was in response to a request from House and Senate Republicans.

The Chief Actuary, Richard S. Foster, wrote: “In your letter, you requested that we provide the updated actuarial estimates in time for your review prior to the expected House debate and vote on this legislation on March 21,2010. I regret that my staff and I will not be able to prepare our analysis within this very tight time frame, due to the complexity of the legislation.”

Foster and his staff analyzed the Senate-passed bill and determined that it bent the cost curve up, estimating in a January 8 report that national health expenditures would increase by an estimated total of $222 billion, and that the additional demand for health services “could be difficult to meet” and “could lead to price increases, cost-shifting, and/or changes in providers’ willingness to treat patients with low-reimbursement health coverage.” Foster, in his letter today, expects the new health spending bill to be “generally similar.”

House Republican Leader John Boehner said: “The House of Representatives should not vote blindly on an issue that is so important to every American.  We deserve to have all the facts about how much this bill raise health care costs before we vote.  The decision to press ahead and jam this bill down the throats of the American people is just one more example of arrogance and irresponsibility from Washington Democrats.”

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said: “Americans deserve to have a full analysis of this bill, but won’t because of the mad dash forced by the Democrat leaders in the House. We now know that even the Obama administration’s chief actuary predicts more government spending, more price increases for consumers and less care for low-income patients. This debate was supposed about lowering costs for Americans not making things worse.”

The letter to CMS was signed by McConnell, House Republican Leader John Boehner, Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl, House Republican Whip Eric Cantor, Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Judd Gregg, Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Charles Grassley, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Ranking Member Mike Enzi,  House Budget Committee Ranking Member Paul Ryan, House Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Dave Camp, House Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Joe Barton, and House Education and Labor Committee Ranking Member John Kline.


Full text of the letter to Republican leaders follows:

The Honorable Mitch McConnell

Republican Leader

United States Senate

Dear Senator McConnell:

This letter is in preliminary response to your inquiry of March 19 requesting an updated analysis by the Office of the Actuary of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (as passed by the Senate) as it would be modified by the “Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 4872, the Reconciliation Act of 2010” (as released by the House Committee on Rules on March 18). The request was made jointly by yourself and 10 other members of the House and Senate Republican Leadership.

In your letter, you requested that we provide the updated actuarial estimates in time for your review prior to the expected House debate and vote on this legislation on March 21,2010. I regret that my staff and I will not be able to prepare our analysis within this very tight time frame, due to the complexity of the legislation. We will, however, continue working to estimate the financial, coverage, and other impacts of the health reform package and will provide these results to you as quickly as possible.

As you know, the Office of the Actuary has assisted Congressional Administration policy makers on health legislative and policy initiatives for many years, including the original Medicare legislation in 1965, all subsequent amendments to this program, Medicaid amendments since 1976, and the Clinton Administration’s proposed Health Security Act in 1993-94. Our goal has always been to provide independent, objective technical information for use by policy makers as they deliberate Medicare, Medicaid, and national health reform proposals.

We issued an analysis of the Senate Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in a memorandum dated January 8, 2010. While it is reasonable to expect that our updated analysis of this legislation, as modified by the reconciliation amendments, would be generally similar to the results in the January 8 memorandum, I cannot confirm this expectation without a full evaluation of the amendments and re-estimation of the provisions.

I am sending a similar letter to House Republican Leader Boehner, and, for expediency, will email copies to the other cosigners of your request. I am sorry that we cannot respond more quickly. Please let us know if you have any other questions we can assist with.


Richard. S. Foster

Chief Actuary


Dem Chair: ‘There Ain’t No Rules Here … We Make ‘Em Up As We Go Along’…

Barack Obama and the date-rape of America

Barack Obama and the date-rape of America

Posted: March 05, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Good Americans from sea to shining sea are grappling right now with how to mentally process what they’re witnessing in Washington, D.C.

The spectacle of a far leftist president literally forcing socialized medicine down the throat of an unwilling center-right America is reminiscent, perhaps more than any other contemporary metaphor, of date rape.

A man determined to have his way with a woman may start off seducing her with lies, flattery and the usual pretense of caring about her. But at a critical moment, when she says, “Stop, I’m not comfortable with this and don’t want to go any further,” he has a choice: Either do the right thing and back off, or abandon all prior pretensions and take her by force.

As president, Barack Obama courted us with sweet talk, but America grew increasingly uncomfortable with his advances and firmly said, “Stop” – in fact, screamed bloody murder for months. Yet Obama remains obsessed with forcing himself on America.

Put aside for the moment the fact that Obama is single-handedly destroying the Democratic Party for years, perhaps decades, by maniacally pursuing Obamacare as though it were Moby Dick and he Captain Ahab, leading all the Pequod’s hapless Democrat crewmen into political destruction.

Rather, let’s focus on how to truly understand what we’re seeing – something virtually unprecedented in the American experience, at least in our lifetimes.

America is not, after all, a place like Cuba or Zimbabwe where corrupt dictators get their way through sheer ruthlessness, intimidation and naked arrogance. We’re accustomed to the rule of law, to civility, to due process, even in the most difficult and contentious of times. When Hillarycare was soundly rejected by Americans during Bill Clinton’s first term, he wisely backed off and stopped trying to force socialized medicine on us. (And Bill was a guy with his own date-rape problems, but that’s another story.)

Find out why Sean Hannity says of David Kupelian’s latest blockbuster “How Evil Works”: “This is a powerful book … I couldn’t put it down.” Order your autographed copy today from WND’s Superstore!

Thus, here are a few useful prisms through which we can examine this disturbingly un-American drama riveting our attention day after day:

The Ideological Prism: Obama is America’s first truly “radical leftist” president – something worlds apart from merely “liberal.”

Quick review: Abandoned by his father, Obama as a teen was mentored by father figure Frank Marshall Davis, a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA; at college, he admits (in his book “Dreams From My Father”) to having been attracted to the “Marxist professors”; then he went into “community organizing,” the radical political agitation system created by Chicago Marxist Saul Alinsky; he later launched his political career in the living room of another Chicago Marxist (and Weather Underground terrorist) William Ayers; his pastor and spiritual mentor for 20 years Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a Marxist (“Black Liberation Theology” is Marxism disguised as Christianity). As president, Obama appointed as close advisers a self-proclaimed communist named Van Jones, and Anita Dunn who publicly claimed her hero was communist genocidal mass murderer Mao Zedong. All this and much more earn Obama the label “leftist radical” or “socialist” – many say “Marxist.”

And according to Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” (which as I point out in my new book “How Evil Works” was dedicated to Lucifer!), all the lies, deceit and corruption in Washington currently marshaled to help pass Obamacare are noble and moral.

The Psychological Prism: There’s a lot of talk about Obama’s “narcissism” these days, with everyone from radio giant Rush Limbaugh to Pulitzer-winning columnist (and former psychiatrist) Charles Krauthammer referring frequently to the president’s extremely narcissistic behavior.

A few weeks ago I interviewed a top forensic psychiatrist – a medical professional who makes his living evaluating and providing expert testimony regarding the mental condition of people in court cases. He asked me not to disclose his name, but he’s well known and has served as an expert witness in thousands of such cases. I asked him, “Does Barack Obama have Narcissistic Personality Disorder?” Mind you, this was not about whether the president is “narcissistic,” which everyone already knows. Rather, Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a serious mental illness or personality disorder with a broad and disturbing symptom picture.

The forensic psychiatrist’s response to my question: “Yes, that’s a fair assessment, maybe even Malignant Narcissistic Personality Disorder” (which crosses over into criminality). We went through a few of the major symptoms, including: 1) a grandiose view of one’s achievements (everything with Obama is “historic”), 2) utter inability to handle criticism (everyone criticizing him or his policies is attacked as a radical or extremist, even Fox News was attacked), and 3) lack of genuine empathy (in his televised speech immediately after the Fort Hood shooting – while the entire nation was reeling in shock – he engaged in small talk and “shout-outs” for two full minutes before mentioning the worst terror attack on our soil since 9/11.)

The Moral-Legal Prism: Obama is a product of Chicago politics, the most corrupt political cesspool in the nation, as a recent study from the University of Illinois at Chicago’s political science department once again attests. The blatant healthcare bribes (“Louisiana Purchase,” “Cornhusker Kickback,” special deals for unions and other powerful interests ad nauseam) are the tip of the iceberg. “Corruption” is synonymous with “business” for the crowd currently in power.

How do corrupt politicians think and feel? Imagine you just met someone who was unusually arrogant, greedy and selfish, who considered himself far superior to everyone else, above the need to be truthful, above the law (and willing to break any law he could get away with), who was contemptuous of others and utterly impervious to criticism or self-reflection – and who also harbored an overwhelming urge not only to take your money, but to control you, to exert power over your life! You might understandably conclude that person is mentally deranged or even a criminal. But there’s another group of people that think a lot like that: our current crop of leaders in Washington.

Now, regardless of whatever level of validity you ascribe to any or all of these views (they’re not mutually exclusive, far from it), we’re still left with a haunting question: How can an apparently decent man like Barack Obama – who undoubtedly loves his daughters and probably reads them bedtime stories, has a good sense of humor, and is highly intelligent and likeable – justify lying and deceiving all the time, pretending to care about Republican input, about transparency, about controlling costs, and so on? Further, how can he justify using such dishonest means to force his will on an unwilling American public? In other words, how can he countenance, in effect, date-raping America?

What we need to understand is that, between his hate-based ideology (Winston Churchill called socialism the “gospel of envy”), extreme narcissism and long-internalized political corruption, Obama and others like him, literally drunk on power, live essentially in a state of delusion: Down is up, truth is cruel and impractical, corruption is just “conducting business,” morality is repression, lying is a creative force.

Those on the far left regions where Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid dwell regard free-market capitalism as irredeemably evil, exploitive and unjust – and therefore in need of destruction to make way for the creation of something more noble and just. Likewise, they look at influential conservatives not simply as “old-fashioned,” “selfish” or “religious nuts,” but as evil. (Remember, Dick Cheney was “Darth Vader” and Karl Rove “the emperor.”) If you think I exaggerate the monumental, self-righteous rage with which the left abhors conservatives, watch MSLSD for 15 minutes. I rest my case.

Thus, the left thinks of their constant lying and deceiving the way you and I might regard lying and deceiving were we German undercover operatives in the Nazi army plotting to kill Hitler, as in the true-life Operation Valkyrie. Col. von Stauffenberg and the other courageous patriots in the German army were lying and deceiving all day long. After all, war is deception, and they were operating behind enemy lines, trying to slay a monster and end a terrible war. Their deceptions were indeed noble.

That’s how Obama and company think of their daily depredations that endanger the very existence of America as a land of liberty and light among the nations.

Any way you slice it – psychologically, ideologically, politically, morally – we are talking about people in the grip of dark forces and delusion, hell-bent on leading the rest of us downward, which they see as upward. The fact that they may not be fully conscious of the evil they do may make it easier for us not to hate them. But hate is not what we need, anyway. What we need is to vote every single one of Obama’s congressional collaborators out of office this November, and to do it so decisively that even “the anointed one’s” gigantic fortress-life shell of denial is shattered into a million pieces – as the bells of freedom ring once again throughout America.


David Kupelian is an award-winning journalist, managing editor of WorldNetDaily.com, editor of Whistleblower magazine and author of the best-selling book, “The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom.” His newest book is “How Evil Works: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America.”

Final health bill omits some of Obama’s promises

Final health bill omits some of Obama’s promises

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer

Friday, March 19, 2010

(03-19) 19:51 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) —

It was a bold response to skyrocketing health insurance premiums. President Barack Obama would give federal authorities the power to block unreasonable rate hikes.

Yet when Democrats unveiled the final, incarnation of their health care bill this week, the proposal was nowhere to be found.

Ditto with several Republican ideas that Obama had said he wanted to include after a televised bipartisan summit last month, including a plan by Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma to send investigators disguised as patients to hospitals in search of waste, fraud and abuse.

And those “special deals” that Obama railed against and said he wanted to eliminate? With the exception of two of the most notorious — extra Medicaid money for Nebraska and a carve-out for Florida seniors faced with losing certain extra Medicare benefits — they are all still there.

For the White House, these were the latest unfulfilled commitments related to Obama’s health care proposal, starting with his campaign promise to let C-SPAN cameras film negotiations over the bill. Obama also backed down with little apparent regret on his support for a new government-run insurance plan as part of the legislation, a liberal priority.

But was it all the president’s doing?

In the cases of the insurance rate authority, the Republican ideas and the special deals, it came down to Obama making promises that Congress didn’t keep. He can propose whatever he wants, but it’s up to Congress to enshrine it into law.

Arguably, the president could have foreseen that outcome, and was making a low-risk p.r. move by floating proposals — dismissed by critics as insubstantial anyway — whose demise he couldn’t be blamed for.

While the White House worked hard to trumpet Obama’s plans for the rate authority, his embrace of bipartisanship and his opposition to special deals, the administration hardly advertised the lack of follow-through. Understandable, certainly, but perhaps not the new way of doing business that Obama promised to bring to Washington.

Removing the special deals ran into opposition from powerful lawmakers including Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Max Baucus, D-Mont. The rate-limiting authority and the Republican ideas were left out of the legislation because the bill is going to be considered under special filibuster-proof Senate rules that prohibit provisions that don’t have a budgetary impact, and those ideas don’t fit in.

“There are a number of proposals that the president wanted to incorporate into the legislation including additional Republican proposals, but the parliamentarian ruled against allowing those proposals to be included,” said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin. “We would like to enact those proposals in separate legislation in the coming months. In the meantime, some important Republican measures remain.”

Of the four main Republican ideas Obama endorsed, only one made it into the final bill — a proposal embraced by Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa to bump up payments to primary care physicians under Medicaid. A proposal to expand the use of health savings accounts was rejected out of hand by congressional Democrats, while a plan to increase funding for medical malpractice reform projects was also determined to be undoable under fast-track Senate rules.

Coburn’s spokesman, John Hart, complained that Democrats “found time to buy votes with earmarks but couldn’t include bipartisan ideas endorsed by President Obama.” House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, had dismissed the GOP ideas Obama endorsed as “bread crumbs” sprinkled atop the health bill — and now even most of those bread crumbs are blown away.

At the same time, Baucus got to keep a provision to give Medicare benefits to asbestos-sickened residents of Libby, Mont., and Dodd still has one that could result in a new hospital being built at the University of Connecticut. Both senators argue their special deals aren’t really special deals, because the Medicare provision could apply to other places where public health emergencies are declared, and other sites outside of Connecticut could be eligible for the hospital.

Most of the provisions of the health care bill don’t kick in until 2014, so Obama still has time to make good on everything he promised — or try to get Congress to do so.

“To hold the president accountable for every single provision he advocates for is simply unreasonable,” said Alec Vachon, a health policy consultant and former Republican Capitol Hill aide. “Some things aren’t in there because the members of Congress who have the votes don’t want it. Some things aren’t in there because congressional rules which Republicans will be enforcing won’t allow it. But Democrats will have three years to tinker with health reform before universal coverage goes live.”


Turkey’s political alliances are changing quickly

Turkey’s political alliances are changing quickly
Posted: Saturday, Mar 20th, 2010

In my college sociology text (decades ago) was a surprising survey asking who would American fathers most object to their daughters marrying. At the top of the list came Turks — yet few of these fathers had ever met one. This reflected a fear so old that it was buried deeply in the Western memory bank.

In 1452, the Ottoman Turks conquered the old Byzantine Empire, that eastern part of the Roman Empire that had been a great power for a thousand years. They overran Constantinople and then conquered much of Eastern Europe (the Balkans and Greece), getting as far as Vienna, when turned back. They also took over the southern Mediterranean region that the Arabs had originally taken. They ruled with an iron hand, but permitted some self-governance of non-Muslims, some of whom flourished by knowing whom to buy off. Corruption was rampant.

Europe had much to fear from the Turks, but as Europe became stronger, they feared them less and in many ways were enchanted by Turkish culture.  In the 18th century, this interest was apparent in a flourishing of harem-fantasy art and even a comic opera by Mozart: “Abduction from the Seraglio.” Although in treating such an abduction as comedy, it was still a real possibility that travelers in the Mediterranean could be so abducted and wind up on the Muslim slave market or in a harem.

The Ottoman Empire was beginning to fall apart in the 19th century and finally collapsed after World War I. Out of this crumbled empire emerged a new country, modern Turkey.  In 1923, Turkey’s first president (with dictatorial powers), an admired general, was Kemal Ataturk.

Ataturk created a modern state — which he envisioned as part of Europe, rather than part of the Muslim world. He changed the alphabet from Arabic to Latin (much opposed by the Muslim clerics), abolished women’s veils, established public schooling and a civil service, and modernized the military, giving it the duty to preserve the new democracy for secular, not religious governance. His remarkable transformation of Turkey served them well over many decades. They had a strong alliance with the United States, which brought them into NATO as a defense against the Soviet Union (despite protests from Greece).

Turkey also had a fruitful relationship with Israel, contrary to the inflamed passions of the Arab world, as well as a solid relationship with Iran, whose own shah/dictator modernized that country on a model established by Ataturk. Both countries thrived during that period.

For the past decade, however, Turkey has changed. Demographics have played an unforeseen role here: secular Turkey has only a modest birthrate, but the less educated eastern part of the country, more conservative and more religious, has flooded into Istanbul and Ankara, and through voting they are transforming Turkish society. The military intervened in a prior election of an Islamist party, but because of Turkey’s desire to enter the European Community, the military has refrained from interfering this time with what appears to be a creeping Islamization of the government.

Under what some Europeans call “mild Islamism” (like being a little pregnant?), an Islamist government not only came to power, but has changed the country’s direction. They have cooled toward the United States and are freezing out Israel. Their new best friends are Iran and the rest of the Muslim world. So far, some of the more draconian social legislation they have proposed has failed, but they fully intend to add control of the military to that of the courts and other institutions. Even worse, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was recently awarded the Saudi King Faisal “International Prize for Service to Islam.” How will that sit with secular Turks?

In February, the government supposedly quashed a military plot to stage a coup and have rounded up Turkey’s most distinguished top military. A show trial is guaranteed — and Turkey’s secular population will be gradually suppressed. Ataturk is turning over in his grave, and Turkey’s former friends had better rethink their alliances.


Laina  Farhat-Holzman is a writer, lecturer and historian. You may contact her at Lfarhat102@aol.com or http://www.globalthink.net. The opinions of columnists are not necessarily those of the Register-Pajaronian.

Sarah Palin: America – Be Heard or Brace for “Transformation”

Sarah Palin: America – Be Heard or Brace for “Transformation”

America – Be Heard or Brace for “Transformation”
 Yesterday at 2:40pm
Please stay involved throughout the weekend on the Obamacare debate. There will be another very important rally in D.C. at noon on Saturday. If you are anywhere near the Beltway or can travel there this weekend, I urge you to participate. Jon Voight and Rep. Michele Bachmann and many others will be there.

Click here for details. (Michelle Malkin has a link here to grassroots organizers setting up transportation to D.C.).

If you can’t attend the rally, you can still make your voices heard by calling and writing your Representative. Sign the petition here to remind Congress that “November Is Coming.” As Rep. Boehner said today, “Republicans can’t beat this bill, but the American people can.” Stand strong together!

The implications of Obamacare will reach into every aspect of our lives, from the value of our paycheck, to the quality of our health care, to the opportunities that will be stripped from Americans as we’re shoved under the enormous burden of more government growth and control. We must stop this now. “United We Stand, Divided We Fall.”

– Sarah Palin

Obama backs plan to legalize illegals

Obama backs plan to legalize illegals

March 20th, 2010

By Stephen Dinan, Washington Times


President Obama gave a thumbs up Thursday to the outline of a plan to legalize illegal immigrants and create a flow of low-skilled foreign workers for the future, saying the immigration bill being worked on by a Republican and a Democrat is “promising.”

In their broad blueprint, Sens. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, and Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, call for illegal immigrants to be put on a path to citizenship, offer green cards to keep high-skilled foreign university graduates and would create a temporary program for low-skilled workers, with some also getting the chance to become citizens.

The senators also proposed to turn all Social Security cards into tamper-proof IDs to be checked by employers when they are about to hire a worker. The cards would include biometric information designed to prevent counterfeiting — but the senators said the information would not be stored in a government database.

“I congratulate Senators Schumer and Graham for their leadership, and pledge to do everything in my power to forge a bipartisan consensus this year on this important issue so we can continue to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform,” Mr. Obama said in a statement soon after the two senators published their blueprint in a column submitted to The Washington Post.

Read More:

Obama’s Sob Story Built on a Faulty Premise

Obama’s Sob Story Built on a Faulty Premise

March 20th, 2010


Obama tells a sob story built on a lie 

A woman championed as the Obama administration’s emblem for health care reform does not have to choose between her home and her health, according to officials at the Ohio hospital where she is being treated.

With a self-reported annual income of about $6,000, Natoma Canfield is a prime candidate for financial aid in the form of Medicaid – the federal health care program for low-income and disabled people – or charitable assistance.

And the Cleveland Clinic said it has no intention of putting out a lien on Canfield’s house – or letting the billing process interfere with her treatment.

“It appears that I think she’ll be fine,” said Lyman Sornberger, the hospital’s executive director of patient financial services. “By nature of the fact that she was not early on rejected by either program, that’s a key indicator that she will most likely be eligible.”

Canfield was stunned last month when she unsealed a handwritten letter from none other than the president himself. She had written to Obama before the holidays to request that he count her as a “statistic,” as she put it, among the scores of Americans unable to afford health insurance – but she never expected to get a response.

Read More:

Why Obamacare Would Fail

Why Obamacare Would Fail

March 20th, 2010

By Philip Klein, American Spectator

 Obamacare is destined to fail

With Democrats hurtling toward a scheduled Sunday vote on national health care legislation, Washington is already starting to speculate on the political ramifications of its passage.

The latest Gallup poll suggests that President Obama’s drive to jam the unpopular bill through Congress is taking its toll. For the first time of his presidency, more people disapprove of Obama’s performance (48 percent) than approve (46 percent).

Despite the polling numbers, the White House publicly insists that once Americans understand what’s in the bill, they’ll come to like it and over time will embrace it just like Social Security and Medicare. Yet the reverse is more likely to be true. Once Americans confront the consequences of this government takeover of the health care system, it will only become more unpopular.

When he set out to overhaul the nation’s health care system, Obama faced a basic problem in selling his proposals: roughly 85 percent of Americans have health insurance and are generally satisfied with their personal care. So as a result, he was forced to make a series of bold claims. He has argued that without his brand of health care legislation, premiums would spiral out of control; health care spending would eat up more than a fifth of our economy; and our entitlement crisis would cripple the federal government. Meanwhile, he’s claimed that his plan would expand coverage while reducing deficits and improving quality of care. And of course, none of these revolutionary changes would interfere in any way with people who like the coverage they have.

Read More:

Mr. President, sir: You are no gentleman

Mr. President, sir: You are no gentleman

John Peeples

As a college student, I committed to memory a “position statement”; its 123 words summarized and encapsulated all that my father had tried to teach me through his own life.

The True Gentleman is the man whose conduct proceeds from good will and an acute sense of propriety, and whose self-control is equal to all emergencies; who does not make the poor man conscious of his poverty, the obscure man of his obscurity, or any man of his inferiority or deformity; who is himself humbled if necessity compels him to humble another; who does not flatter wealth, cringe before power, or boast of his own possessions or achievements; who speaks with frankness but always with sincerity and sympathy; whose deed follows his word; who thinks of the rights and feelings of others, rather than his own; and who appears well in any company, a man with whom honor is sacred and virtue safe.

John Walter Wayland (circa 1899).

A quick comparison of Mr. Obama with a true gentleman:

“The True Gentleman is the man whose conduct proceeds from good will and an acute sense of propriety, and whose self-control is equal to all emergencies”

Leaving aside the ideas of good will and acute propriety, how can we feel confident in a man whose self-control evaporates in the absence of a tele-prompter?

“[W]ho does not make the poor man conscious of his poverty, the obscure man of his obscurity, or any man of his inferiority or deformity”: 

Everything that Obama does and says is designed to make the poor resentful of their poverty, make contented people bitter in their new-found obscurity, and apprise capable citizens of their inherited disadvantages.

“[W]ho is himself humbled if necessity compels him to humble another”:

Is any comment necessary here?

 “[W]ho does not [a.] flatter wealth, [b.] cringe before power, or [c.] boast of his own possessions or achievements”: 

(a) Tony Rezko.  Andy Stern.  Michael Moore?  (b) Grovel before foreign despots?  (c) “I won the election [so shut up]!”

“[W]ho speaks with frankness but always with sincerity and sympathy”: 

Enter your own joke here.

 “[W]hose deed follows his word”: 

Maybe the president deserves some slack on this one; his true character and goals were discernable despite his campaign speeches.

“[W]ho thinks of the rights and feelings of others, rather than his own”: 

Absolutely consistent–unless you’re talking about the rights and “consent of the governed.”

“[A]nd who appears well in any company, a man with whom honor is sacred and virtue safe”: 

Even with the assistance of the MSM, President Obama would be wise to avoid comparison with POTUS #1 on this subject. 

Or, for that matter, Tony Soprano.

John Peeples