Obama Five Fathoms Deep

We expect another gauzy, “looking through thick bandages” speech from publicity stunt Obama tomorrow. “Lines in the sand” are promised by Obama cronies. At Big Pink we know sand is as shifty as Obama. For once “Simple Simon” at Politico agrees with us on the need for specificity:

This is no time for a lofty speech. We do not need inspiration. The time for inspiration has passed; the time for perspiration is at hand.

Even though the speech will be before Congress, this should not be a State of the Union address with soaring flights of rhetoric.

We need to know what the president wants. Specifically.

We need to know how he is going to pay for it. Specifically.

We need to know what he will accept and what he will reject. Specifically.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for those specifics, Simon.

* * * * *

Yesterday, the New York Times described the current state of play. It’s a “struggling presidency”:

President Obama returned to the White House from his summer break on Sunday determined to jump-start his struggling presidency by reasserting command of the health care debate and recalibrating expectations that some advisers believe got away from him.

With his honeymoon seemingly over and his White House on the defensive, Mr. Obama faces what friends and foes alike call a make-or-break moment in his young administration. Because he has elevated health care to such a singular priority, advisers said he must force through a credible plan or risk crippling his presidency.

If you elect a boob, expect boobery. An inexperienced, unqualified hand at the helm will soon find the ship in rough waters and then hit the rocky shoals.

It’s not just health care, now health insurance reform, on which Obama boobingly bumbles:

In the coming weeks, he will decide whether to order thousands more troops to Afghanistan and pursue new sanctions against Iran. He will host a meeting of the Group of 20 nations to spur the world economy and push forward with arms control negotiations with Russia. [snip]

An administration that swept into office just seven months ago on a wave of hope and optimism has burned through good will and public patience in swift fashion and now finds itself under fire from both the left and the right. [snip]

Can he form a health care compromise that satisfies both his liberal base and fiscal conservatives in his own party, much less the other one? Can he stanch the slide in support for the war in Afghanistan even as he considers sending more troops? Can he soothe discontent with an economy that appears to have bottomed out but remains moribund? Can he change the tenor of debate in a capital that seems as polarized as ever?

Where is the “uniter”? Like George W. Bush, Obama promised “unity” but brings division. Now all those PINOs who denounced Hillary Clinton as too “polarizing” make excuses for divisive Obama.

Hillary Clinton had “scars” from fights with political opponents who smeared her at every turn, but her scars came from fighting for what she believes in. Obama’s wounds are all from running through the brambles running away from the fight.

Bill Clinton too has scars from fighting. Bill Clinton too had difficulties in his early months. But Bill Clinton fought wisely and did not authorize massive slush funds in “stimulus” that the congress was hungry for in order to grease reelection. Obama spent like a drunken sailor on shore leave, gambling with other peoples’ money.

Obama made elected officials happy with spend, spend, spend policies. The money came from taxpayers.

The taxpayers are not happy and that is why Obama has scheduled another publicity stunt speech:

Obama faces September deadlines on three issues, on each of which he could get himself in political trouble, not only with those on the right and center but also those on the political left.

Only one of those issues is domestic: health care. Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress, scheduled rather hastily for Wednesday night, gives him a chance to turn around public opinion, which has been going against his policies, and to generate something like the enthusiasm his candidacy created last year.

But he faces a binary choice: The president must either insist on a “government option” insurance plan or must let it be known that he will sign a bill without one. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the House won’t pass a bill without the government option, and leftist Progressive Caucus members threaten to withhold their votes from any such bill. But Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad says a government option bill can’t pass the Senate.

Sooner or later the old politician’s dodge — “some of my friends are for the bill and some of my friends are against the bill, and I’m always with my friends” – won’t wash. As a practical matter, Obama will surely sign a bill without the government option, and the Progressive Caucus most likely can be whipped into line by Pelosi. But the always angry left will become even more angry at their leader when these realities are acknowledged.

The boobery is not only on domestic concerns.

Obama may also face a binary choice on Afghanistan. Reading between the lines of stories on Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s recommendations, it seems likely that the White House has been pressuring him not to ask for more troops and that he will do so anyway, and with the approval of Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

“No preconditions” Obama has a problem with Iran too.

Earlier this year he set a deadline of September for the beginning of talks with Iran. Presumably he thought the mullahs would become convinced of his good will by now and that the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York would be a venue for talks.

But the popular opposition to the rigged Iranian elections in June and the internal turmoil within the mullah regime make it unlikely that Obama will have any reliable negotiating partner. And as George Perkovich of the dovish Carnegie Endowment says, “The Iranians show no sign that they’re going to be genuinely prepared to negotiate.” They’re more interested in getting nukes than in getting to yes, even with a president with an Arabic middle name.

Obama is running the ship of state aground. We’re in shallow water under direction of a shallow man.

Full fathom five thy father lies
Of his bones are coral made;
Those are pearls that were his eyes

Share

114 thoughts on “Obama Five Fathoms Deep

  1. Today is the Obama “s’kool” speech:

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html

    The controversy over President Obama’s speech to the nation’s schoolchildren will likely be over shortly after Obama speaks today at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. But when President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginning. Democrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush’s speech — they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue.

    Unlike the Obama speech, in 1991 most of the controversy came after, not before, the president’s school appearance. The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president’s political benefit. “The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props,” the Post reported.

    With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. “The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students,” said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. “And the president should be doing more about education than saying, ‘Lights, camera, action.'”

    Democrats did not stop with words. Rep. William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate the cost and legality of Bush’s appearance. On October 17, 1991, Ford summoned then-Education Secretary Lamar Alexander and other top Bush administration officials to testify at a hearing devoted to the speech. “The hearing this morning is to really examine the expenditure of $26,750 of the Department of Education funds to produce and televise an appearance by President Bush at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, DC,” Ford began. “As the chairman of the committee charged with the authorization and implementation of education programs, I am very much interested in the justification, rationale for giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event.

  2. Brilliant as usual, Admin!

    As far as his “line in the sand” analogy, it will be more like a line in the quicksand.

  3. from BP
    ***********************

    The Van Jones (non) feeding frenzy
    By: Byron York
    Chief Political Correspondent
    09/04/09 11:30 AM EDT
    From a Nexis search a few moments ago:

    Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.
    Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.
    Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.
    Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.
    Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.

    If you were to receive all your news from any one of these outlets, or even all of them together, and you heard about some sort of controversy involving President Obama’s Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, your response would be, “Huh?” If you heard that that adviser, Van Jones, had apologized for a number of remarks and positions in the recent past, your response would be, “What?” And if you were in the Obama White House monitoring the Jones situation, you would be hoping that the news organizations listed above continue to hold the line — otherwise, Jones, who is quite well thought of in Obama circles, would be history.

    9/5/09 UPDATE: The New York Times, ABC and NBC hold the line

    After the Jones controversy reached a boiling point on Friday, the Washington Post published a story, “White House Says Little on Embattled Jones,” on page A-3 of its Saturday edition. But the New York Times remained silent on the story.

    Likewise, on Friday night the “CBS Evening News” reported the Jones matter, but ABC’s “World News” and “NBC Nightly News” again failed to report the story.

    washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/The-Van-Jones-non-feeding-non-frenzy-57271402

  4. When OO purchased a home beyond his means, by making a deal with a crook, I knew he would be a spender, and not a live within your budget person. That personnel fact about him tells you that. Putting a person in office, in the economic situation that we have, and you get bigger debt. He has no understanding of the balancing of his personnel budget, let alone the federal budget. He also like to be far to optimistic in his predictions, which over spenders always are.

  5. and don’t forget this little tidbit coming right around the corner in October…

    Senate must raise debt ceiling above $12T
    By Walter Alarkon – 09/07/09 12:11 PM ET

    The Senate must move legislation to raise the federal debt limit beyond $12.1 trillion by mid-October, a move viewed as necessary despite protests about the record levels of red ink.

    The move will highlight the nation’s record debt, which has been central to Republican attacks against Democratic congressional leaders and President Barack Obama. The year’s deficit is expected to hit a record $1.6 trillion.

    Democrats in control of Congress, including then-Sen. Obama (Ill.), blasted President George W. Bush for failing to contain spending when he oversaw increased deficits and raised the debt ceiling.

    “Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren,” Obama said in a 2006 floor speech that preceded a Senate vote to extend the debt limit. “America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.”

    Obama later joined his Democratic colleagues in voting en bloc against raising the debt increase.

    Now Obama is asking Congress to raise the debt ceiling, something lawmakers are almost certain to do despite misgivings about the federal debt. The ceiling already has been hiked three times in the past two years, and the House took action earlier this year to raise the ceiling to $13 trillion.

    Congress has little choice. Failing to raise the cap could lead the nation to default in mid-October, when the debt is expected to exceed its limit, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said. In August, Geithner asked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to increase the debt limit as soon as possible.

    Changing the debt cap “does provide an opportunity to look at fiscal policy and what its failings are, and ideally it could give both sides an opportunity to think about what we need to do so we don’t keep raising the debt limit,” said Robert Bixby, the executive director of the Concord Coalition, a fiscal watchdog group.

    “But probably as a practical matter, it will get more attention as a partisan back-and-forth,” Bixby said.

    When the House raised the debt limit to $13 trillion as part of a budget resolution approved in April, Democratic leaders used a maneuver known as the “Gephardt rule,” named after former House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt (Mo.), to avoid taking a roll call vote on the debt limit increase.

    The Senate isn’t so lucky. It lacks a similar mechanism, meaning each senator must cast a politically perilous vote on raising the debt ceiling.

    The Senate Finance Committee will “carefully review Treasury’s request on behalf of the American taxpayers,” according to an aide to the committee’s chairman, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.).

    “Sen. Baucus understands the critical importance of signaling to the world that the U.S. maintains the confidence and security to continue to lead the global economy out of recession,” the Baucus aide said. “The request to raise the debt limit is serious and must be addressed thoroughly and in a nonpartisan manner.”

    The aide noted that Baucus is pressing the Treasury Department to be more transparent about its efforts to pull the economy out of recession.

    “He will continue to demand the necessary communication and cooperation going forward,” the aide said.

    Both the White House and the independent Congressional Budget Office last month said that they expect the debt to increase by another $9 trillion over the next decade. Should the Senate follow the House’s lead and set the new debt limit at $13 trillion, lawmakers would probably have to raise the limit again next year, when the Obama administration expects to run a $1.5 trillion deficit.

    The business community has supported Geithner’s push for a higher debt ceiling. Bruce Josten, the top lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said it’s essential to the U.S. economy.

    “If we fail to address this in a timely fashion, then you run the risk of having to curtail government operations,” Josten said. “The last thing our economy and the world economy needs is greater uncertainty throughout global credit markets.”

    Josten said that the high level of debt is a reality during the recession, but it’s unsustainable and needs to be reduced by reforming Medicare and Social Security.

    “While we can freely and openly acknowledge completely and lobby to raise the debt ceiling and incur some more debt, the longer trends ultimately need to be reversed,” he said.

    Congress raised the debt limit just a few months ago when it passed the $787 billion stimulus package.

  6. gonzo,

    If these networks honestly think their ratings are going to suddenly flourish again because of their love affair with the idiot, they really are in koolaid land.

  7. “The last thing our economy and the world economy needs is greater uncertainty throughout global credit markets.”

    —————————–

    If that were the case, they shouldn’t have elected this bumbling idiot with no governing experience to lead them into oblivion.

  8. Heres something new going on I was not aware of:

    Admin: If you feel this video is OK to post please embed.

    youtube.com/watch?v=j2bPVRjM-fA&feature=player_embedded
    It seems like while we are all atwitter about inconsequential issues, the ground is being shifted beneath our feet and not in a good way.

    There is a parallel game going on in this country where Islam is resettling training camps for terrorists right under our very noses and not a word about it mainstream.

    I accidentally found this site and mayhap for good reason-

    h…. islaminaction08.blogspot.com/

  9. Prospects dimming for gov’t insurance plan

    By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR (AP) – 41 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON — Prospects for a government insurance plan appeared to be sinking fast Tuesday as lawmakers returned to Capitol Hill a day ahead of a major health care speech by President Barack Obama.

    House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters a Medicare-like plan for middle-class Americans and their families isn’t essential for him to back legislation. Hoyer’s comments came shortly after a key Democratic moderate said he could no longer back a bill that includes a new government plan.

    The fast-moving developments left liberals in a quandary. Progressives have drawn a line, saying they won’t vote for legislation if it doesn’t include a public plan to compete with private insurance companies and force them to lower costs.

    In the Senate, where there’s even less support for the idea, hopes for bipartisan agreement hung in the balance. A small group of negotiators on the pivotal Finance Committee prepared to meet in a last-ditch effort to reach consensus on a compromise bill. A draft of the latest proposal calls for nonprofit co-ops as an alternative to private insurance, but not a government plan.

    Hoyer prefaced his comments by saying he supports a public option and considers it “of vital importance.” But is it a must-have? “I think there is a lot in the bill that is very good in addition to the public option,” Hoyer responded. “If the public option were not in there I could still support a bill, because I think there is a lot in there that is good.” He added: “In the final analysis, we’ll have to come down to see what we can pass.”

    Hoyer’s comments followed a 180-degree turn by Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., who took the lead in July in negotiating changes to House Democrats’ health overhaul bill to make it more palatable to moderates. He voted for the legislation in committee with a public plan. But Ross said Tuesday that after hearing from constituents during the August recess he could not support a bill with a public plan. “If House leadership presents a final bill that contains a government-run public option, I will oppose it,” Ross said.

    Obama, who will address Congress and the nation on health care Wednesday night, told a Labor Day audience of union members that it’s time for insurance companies to share accountability for problems in the system. The president said a public plan would be an important tool to help check the excesses of private industry. But over the weekend, key White House aides signaled that Obama could sign legislation even if it does not include a public option.

    google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD9AJ9GT82

  10. Games and more games…

    Tuesday, September 08, 2009

    White House Going Through the Motions on Public Option?

    On CNN a moment ago, Politico’s Jim Vandehei said that White House officials are telling him off-the-record that there will be no public option in the final bill. “President Obama knows it. Rahm Emanuel knows it.”

    Then again, Politico reported something similar a few days ago, and Obama is expected to call for the public option in his speech tomorrow night.

    campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWU2ZTM5M2E1OTBhNjM4OTA0MTJlZTRmODlkMjJhZWQ=

  11. gonzotx Says:

    September 8th, 2009 at 1:44 pm

    Thank you for that post. I sent it on to my Dad and a friend who still insist that they get all the news from the NYT.

  12. Republican surgeon to rebut Obama on health
    (AFP) – 15 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON — Republicans have picked a retired heart surgeon to given their rebuttal to President Barack Obama’s high-stakes address to Congress on health care reform on Wednesday, a top lawmaker said.

    Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner announced Tuesday that Republican Representative Charles Boustany of Louisiana, who has 20 years experience in cardiothoracic medicine, would give the Republican response to Obama’s speech.

    “As a doctor, I know we must lower costs and improve care, which we can accomplish by focusing on strengthening the doctor-patient relationship and working in a bipartisan way,” Boustany said in a statement.

    The president, seeking to revive prospects for his top domestic priority, is scheduled to make a rare address to a joint session of the Congress at 8 pm Wednesday (0000 GMT Thursday).

    Boustany sits on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee that has jurisdiction over tax, trade, and health care policy.

    Last week, Boehner urged television network bosses to give Republicans a chance to respond to Obama’s speech.

    google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hs6t7zDhMjigh9fnXXSVWvfkOqLg

  13. I find this information daunting especially the part about 35 terrorist training camps throughout the USA.

    Genocide: How Islamic Colonisation Destroys Your Heritage (UK)

    The bloodless genocide and ethnic cleansing of the British people and culture continues apace with the latest example being the ripping up of a century old Christian cemetery to make way for a mosque in Manchester.

    The grave desecrations, being carried out with a large Komatsu earthmover in the graveyard of the St John the Apostle and Evangelist church at the corner of Holmfirth Street and St John’s Road, is part of the re-opening of this nineteenth century church as the Dar-ul-Ulum Qadria Jilania “Islamic Centre.”

    A sign on the door says clearly that the “Islamic Centre” is already “open for prayer” — showing that by Islamic centre the colonisers actually mean mosque.

    The conversion of this church (founded in 1845 on a site donated by Sir J. W. H. Anson) into a mosque has been made possible by the displacement of the local indigenous British population by waves of Third World immigration into Manchester.

    As this policy gathered pace under successive Tory and Labour governments, the numbers of Third World colonisers grew to the point where they have now totally displaced the indigenous population.

    As there were no more white British people in the local area, the Grade II listed status church closed down — only now to be re-opened as a mosque.

    This church — formerly the largest Church of England parish in Longsight, was the only one in the area with a graveyard.

    These Christian British graves — the only remnant of the now ethnically cleansed British people in the area — are obviously offensive to the Muslim colonisers, who have brought in the earthmoving machine to smash up the gravestones which are being literally crushed to rubble.

    For photos and more, link to article:

    h… bnp.org.uk/2009/09/genocide-how-islamic-colonisation-destroys-your-heritage/

  14. mediaite.com/tv/carlos-watson-loses-anchor-slot-at-msnbc/

    Carlos Watson bites the dust…was it because he was talking in code or just plain boring…

    of course, non existent ratings could have played a part…

  15. Per the previous thread about Khadafi, isn’t it just scary that this country even talks to obviously crazy countries headed by a person like this. I mean, this person who says and does such outrageous things like what he did to Switzerland. His son was beating the servants! What color are they, were they the peasants of his own country or were they from Africa??
    Why would our esteemed POTUS want to speak to anyone who beats their servants, let alone let them be members of the UN. This is getting SO ridiculous. There was time the United States was above all this. Now were are down at the bottom of the barrel playing with these A-holes.

  16. confloyd,

    I honestly believe that obama has unleashed a brand new holocaust that will affect many nations for years to come. Hillary would have saved the day. obama will simply go along with the flow.

  17. “Likewise, on Friday night the “CBS Evening News” reported the Jones matter, but ABC’s “World News” and “NBC Nightly News” again failed to report the story.”

    Thanks, Gonzotx. Our lousy local paper, The Monterey Herald had a small column on page 7. It’s absolutely disgusting.

  18. Mrs. Smith: That is a chilling post. Thanks, I’m passing it on. Of course, when the Arabs partitioned Jerusalem, many graves in the Jewish burial grounds were desecrated.

  19. JanH, She is still swollen. She is the ultrasound tech at this same hospital, so today when her doctor saw her, heads rolled today to say the least. These small hospitals use agency doctors to run their er’s, so the pts usually get doctors that aren’t too good. Administration says she should have been admitted. The doctors that practice there are good, but the er’s doc’s are questionable sometimes.

    The dems are aware of the doc shortage, so answer is to bring in doc’s educated in foreign countries more. If this happens expect the poor people will get the doc’s that are not too good and educated in places like Mexico, as so will the nurses, lab and xray people. Health care can expect to go downhill.

  20. JanH, His flying the Chinese flag, sucking up to likes of Khadafi, Chavez and Castro, its no telling what all this is going to lead to, but I bet it will not be good for Israel. I often wonder what my mom would be saying right now. She was a mighty defender of as she called it “tiny little Israel” in the middle of a bunch of killers.

    I am worried about is disarmament thing and his agenda at the UN.

  21. The manned space missions are being tossed…under the bus!

    Obama space panel says moon return plan is a no-go

    By SETH BORENSTEIN (AP) – 1 hour ago

    WASHINGTON — A White House panel of independent space experts says NASA’s return-to-the-moon plan just won’t fly.

    The problem is money. The expert panel estimates it would cost about $3 billion a year beyond NASA’s current budget.

    The plan to revisit the moon by 2020 was proposed five years ago by then-President George W. Bush. It was supposed to be financed by savings from retiring the space shuttles. However, President Barack Obama’s expert panel said any plan to go beyond low-Earth orbit was “not viable” with current spending. The panel posted a summary report online Tuesday.

    NASA already has spent $7.7 billion on the moon plan, including the design and construction of new rockets.

  22. Does Steny talk to Nancy? From “Prescriptions” in the Gray Lady…

    September 8, 2009, 2:08 pm
    Hoyer Says Public Plan Could Be Dropped
    By David M. Herszenhorn

    “The No. 2 Democrat in the House reaffirmed Tuesday that the proposal for a government-run insurance plan could be DROPPED from the major health care legislation under consideration in Congress.
    In comments to reporters, the House majority leader, Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, seemed again to contradict Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has said that health care legislation can not pass the House without the so-called public option, a government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers. With House Democrats divided over whether the public plan should be a deal-breaker, lawmakers will be looking to President Obama for some clearer direction on the issue in his speech to Congress on Wednesday night.”

  23. # JanH Says:
    September 8th, 2009 at 3:14 pm

    I am not surprised, but it is very frightening.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Jan- the Muslims are spreading out in unison from country to country all at once in an effort to gain the majority and wipe out/forbid tolerance of any other religion save for Islam.

  24. Admin: If you feel this video is OK to post please embed.

    youtube.com/watch?v=j2bPVRjM-fA&feature=player_embedded

    If not please let me know- I’m sort of dense sometimes where I can’t read the signs.

  25. Mrs. Smith,

    I agree. A potus like Hillary would have been able to contain and push back on this violent plague that is gripping all nations. Instead we have a puppet potus who would rather have tea and crumpets with all his friendly terrorist buddies and throw Israel and the common man/woman to the wolves.

  26. As well, bambi is too busy sabatoging the CIA and other “subversive” groups trying to fight his terrorist network that he could care less how many fires he is starting.

  27. Yes, Jan- Obama seems to be part of the inner Arab/Muslim circle there and here.

    Van Jones is a Muslim as well, isn’t he?

  28. The house won’t pass a bill WITHOUT a public option, and the Senate won’t pass a bill WITH a public option….Pelosi and Hoyer at loggerheads in the house…From the odious Glenn Thrush at Politico

    Pelosi: Public option “essential”

    Nancy Pelosi couldn’t have been clearer about her intention to push the public option in the House — flatly contradicting her number two, Steny Hoyer, who earlier today suggested it was expendable.

    “I believe the public option is essential to our passing this legislation out of the House,” Pelosi told reporters after meeting with Senate majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama, a day ahead of Obama’s big speech.

    She also warned the insurance companies to accept a public option without a trigger, arguing that a public plan triggered by high premiums, etc. would be much harsher than one negotiated now.

    “They’d be better getting a public option now… They’ll have a tougher public option to deal with later.”

  29. I just heard of this, it was on my cell phone but I see it happened a while back…Muslims win, just like Hitler
    *******************************

    Fearing Violence, Yale Nixes Muhammad Cartoons in New Book
    Thursday, August 13, 2009

    Mike Lovett/Brandeis University

    Author Jytte Klausen said she is disappointed that her publisher, Yale University Press, is refusing to print cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, the subject of her book.
    Author Jytte Klausen said she is disappointed that her publisher, Yale University Press, is refusing to print cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, the subject of her book.
    Yale University is refusing to publish cartoons and images of the Prophet Muhammad in a new book about those very pictures, which inflamed anger in parts of the Muslim world in 2006 — even as a growing tide of writers and artists say they are ready to take such risks for free speech.

    The university’s press is set to publish a book in November, “The Cartoons That Shook the World,” about the dozen devious illustrations of Muhammad printed in Danish newspapers, leading to global riots in which at least 200 people were killed.

    The New York Times more or less rationalized the decision Thursday in reporting Yale’s choice to reject the images, saying it was “not at all surprising” the school would opt out of printing the notorious pictures of Muhammad. Many Muslims consider any depiction of Muhammad to be blasphemous.

    But other writers and artists have been willing to risk even violent reprisals for the sake of free speech.

    Author Sherry Jones has weathered threats for writing “The Jewel of Medina,” a novel that depicts sex scenes involving Muhammad and his bride Aisha. Her original publisher, Random House, put the book on an indefinite hold following concerns that its content would be offensive to Muslims.

    “I decided to take a stand for free speech and publish my books in spite of threats and violence because I wanted to make a positive difference in the world,” said Jones, who will publish a sequel, “The Sword of Medina,” in the fall.

    “Yale University Press’s decision, like that of the executives at Random House, does the opposite,” she said. “Self-censorship changes our world for the worse.”

    Jones’ novel, which was eventually published by the New York-based Beaufort Books, was shelved in Britain after her publishing house there was hit with a makeshift firebomb.

    Jones said that since the controversy surrounding her first novel, other authors have seen their works turned down by publishers “because they somehow referenced Islam,” stoking fears that they would incite ire or even become targets themselves.

    The Danish cartoons set off a storm of rallies and riots worldwide and drew an assassination plot against leading cartoonist Kurt Westergaard. In response, all of the major Danish newspapers and about a dozen others reprinted the cartoons in protest.

    Artists in the U.S. and beyond have faced difficulties in finding homes for work criticizing Islam. Notably, the filmmaker Theo van Gogh who was murdered in 2004 for his film Submission, which borrowed text from the Koran in its indictment of the treatment of women in Islamic society.

    An Iranian photographer going by the pseudonym Sooreh Hera saw her pictures yanked from four galleries in the Netherlands in a period of months, and was living in hiding last year when she spoke to FOXNews.com.

    Hera — whose photographs depict gay men making offensive poses as Muhammad and his son-in-law Ali, and show Iran’s religious leader in leather trousers — said she wants her work to get people talking.

    “I’m hoping my work will arouse discussion,” she said. “The thing that endangers the Netherlands is succumbing to fear and keeping silent about threats and not being alert in regard to freedom of expression,” she said.

    A spokesman for the Yale University Press said in an e-mail to FOXNews.com that such worries weighed heavily on them.

    “As an institution deeply committed to free expression, we were inclined to publish the cartoons and other images as proposed,” Thomas Conroy said.

    But the Ivy League university in New Haven, Conn., was wary of arousing anger, so Yale consulted security experts and religious scholars who “confirmed that the republication of the cartoons by the Yale University Press ran a serious risk of instigating violence,” a press spokesman told FOXNews.com.

    The book’s author, Professor Jytte Klausen of Brandeis University, says she is disappointed that to see the institution “roll back our own principles” and faulted the school for relying on “various anonymous experts” in making their decision.

    “I regard the experts’ advice to the university as alarmist and misplaced,” said Klausen, who noted that the scholars consulted by Yale “never read my book (and) had no idea what my intentions were.”

    Klausen said the images were published widely before any protests took place, and she argued that the deadly rioting was fueled mostly by anti-Western sentiments.

    Klausen told FOXNews.com she would not have sought to publish the images were there a risk of violent response, but she thought including an Ottoman print of Muhammad in her academic publication — an image also rejected by Yale — wouldn’t incite violence half a world away.

    “People are offended by (the illustrations), of course, but there’s a difference between being offended and wanting to repress something,” she told FOXNews.com.

    Jones, the author, borrowed a line from British author Salman Rushdie, whose novel “The Satanic Verses” enraged Iran’s supreme leader and earned the author a religious edict approving his killing and putting bounty on his head.

    Without the freedom to offend, she told FOXNews.com, the freedom of expression would simply die — and more along with it.

    “The First Amendment is what makes living in this country great,” she said.

  30. Yale nixes Muslim cartoons, the U.N. nixes any mention of the holocaust in Palestinian school books because Hamas complains that it never really happened…

    What next? This is just crazy and it is completely disgusting.

  31. obama is responsible for all these double standards that favor terrorists and punish democracies. He is a miserable son of a *#^# and needs to be deported to a Muslim country where he can get high again on drugs and mingle with his monster friends.

  32. wbboei, We were talking about him sitting on a bill that would allow the Chinese to come in and buy all the property that has been repo-ed, I was wondering if the Muslim’s from some of the countries that Bambi seems to love could buy them as well???

  33. Well Obama will be the first American POTUS to chair the UN. The UN also wants to get rid of the dollar.
    If they get a global currency and Obama get peace in the middle east (which I doubt) he will be the antichrist, according to the Bible.

  34. I just had an awful feeling come over me. With Barfy @ the UN, do you think they will pass some kind of resolution to force Israel to comply with their demands or face world sanctions?

    Will this wake up the American Jew?

  35. # JanH Says:
    September 8th, 2009 at 6:27 pm

    obama is responsible for all these double standards that favor terrorists and punish democracies. He is a miserable son of a *#^# and needs to be deported to a Muslim country where he can get high again on drugs and mingle with his monster friends.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    This revelation casts a new light at what we’ve been thinking as is Obama as an inept leader for the longest time. Obama is putting the US in a corner and when he is ready the Black Liberationists will align themselves with the Muslim terrorists who are in these 35 training camps and the hostile takeover will begin.

  36. I listened to Donna Brazile defending Van Jones yesterday. I thought the tone of her voice was a bit out of order considering Obama’s polling numbers are in free-fall. She was just as cocky and confident as ever. Not a shadow of doubt in her mind or a bit of trembling in her voice.

    I found her response in that tone was unnatural and very disturbing to me given Obama’s circumstances.

    If in fact, the link I provided uptread is the real thing… too many people are asleep at the wheel. All I can see is imminent danger if what we’ve read is TRUE.

    Nothing new with Obama. He always goes for the divide and conquer strategy.

  37. Fines proposed for going without health insurance

    By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

    WASHINGTON — Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as divisions among Democrats undercut President Barack Obama’s effort to regain traction on his health care overhaul.

    As Obama talked strategy with Democratic leaders at the White House, the one idea that most appeals to his party’s liberal base lost ground in Congress. Prospects for a government-run plan to compete with private insurers sank as a leading moderate Democrat said he could no longer support the idea.

    The fast-moving developments put Obama in a box. As a candidate, he opposed fines to force individuals to buy health insurance, and he supported setting up a public insurance plan. On Tuesday, fellow Democrats publicly begged to differ on both ideas.

    Democratic congressional leaders put on a bold front as they left the White House after their meeting with the president. “We’re re-energized; we’re ready to do health care reform,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., insisted the public plan is still politically viable. “I believe that a public option will be essential to our passing a bill in the House of Representatives,” she said.

    After a month of contentious forums, Americans were seeking specifics from the president in his speech to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night. So were his fellow Democrats, divided on how best to solve the problem of the nation’s nearly 50 million uninsured.

    The latest proposal: a ten-year, $900-billion bipartisan compromise that Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a moderate who heads the influential Finance Committee, was trying to broker. It would guarantee coverage for nearly all Americans, regardless of medical problems. But the Baucus plan also includes the fines that Obama has rejected. In what appeared to be a sign of tension, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs pointedly noted that the administration had not received a copy of the plan before it leaked to lobbyists and news media Tuesday.

    The Baucus plan would require insurers to take all applicants, regardless of age or health. But smokers could be charged higher premiums. And 60-year-olds could be charged five times as much for a policy as 20-year-olds. Baucus said Tuesday he’s trying to get agreement from a small group of bipartisan negotiators in advance of Obama’s speech. “Time is running out very quickly,” he said. “I made that very clear to the group.”

    Some experts consider the $900-billion price tag a relative bargain because the country now spends about $2.5 trillion a year on health care. But it would require hefty fees on insurers, drug companies and others in the health care industry to help pay for it.

    Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in nearly all states, Baucus would require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled. Penalties for failing to do so would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level — about $66,000 for a family of four — would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950.

    Baucus would offer tax credits to help pay premiums for households making up to three times the poverty level, and for small employers paying about average middle-class wages. People working for companies that offer coverage could avoid the fines by signing up.

    The fines pose a dilemma for Obama. As a candidate, the president campaigned hard against making health insurance a requirement, and fining people for not getting it. “Punishing families who can’t afford health care to begin with just doesn’t make sense,” he said during his party’s primaries. At the time, he proposed mandatory insurance only for children.

    White House officials have since backed away somewhat from Obama’s opposition to mandated coverage for all, but there’s no indication that Obama would support fines.

    One idea that Obama championed during and since the campaign — a government insurance option — appeared to be sinking fast. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters a Medicare-like plan for middle-class Americans and their families isn’t an essential part of legislation for him. Hoyer’s comments came shortly after a key Democratic moderate said he could no longer back a bill that includes a new government plan.

    The fast-moving developments left liberals in a quandary. They’ve drawn a line, saying they won’t vote for legislation if it doesn’t include a public plan to compete with private insurance companies and force them to lower costs. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., who once supported a public option, said Tuesday that after hearing from constituents during the August recess, he’s changed his mind. “If House leadership presents a final bill that contains a government-run public option, I will oppose it,” Ross said.

    House Democrats are considering a fallback: using the public plan as a last resort if after a few years the insurance industry has failed to curb costs.

    Obama’s commitment to a public plan has been in question and lawmakers hoped his speech to Congress would make his position on that clear.

    Baucus is calling for nonprofit co-ops to compete in the marketplace instead of a public plan. An 18-page summary of the Baucus proposal was obtained by The Associated Press. The complex plan would make dozens of changes in the health care system, many of them contentious. For example, it includes new fees on insurers, drug companies, medical device manufacturers and clinical labs.

    People working for major employers would probably not see big changes. The plan is geared to helping those who now have the hardest time getting and keeping coverage: the self-employed and small business owners.

    google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD9AJDJ2O0

  38. Does anyone know if any White House has gone this extra step before?

    ————————–

    White House help for Chicago’s Olympic bid

    By Ben Bradley
    Tuesday, September 08, 2009

    The White House will send high-level help with Mayor Daley and his team as they travel to Copenhagen for the decision on whether Chicago will host the 2016 Olympics.

    Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor to President Barack Obama, will join the Chicago delegation for its final presentation to International Olympic Committee members, a White House spokesperson confirms. There’s still no word on whether Obama himself will travel to Copenhagen to personally lobby the IOC.
    Jarrett was an original member of the Chicago 2016 board and currently serves as the head of the White House’s recently formed Office for Olympic, Paralympic and Youth Sport.

    abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7004972

  39. ‘Jarrett was an original member of the Chicago 2016 board and currently serves as the head of the White House’s recently formed Office for Olympic, Paralympic and Youth Sport.”

    All this means now that the WH has created an “office” for the Olympics is that we are paying the expenses for Daley, his team and the Chicago delegation going to Copenhagen to lobby for Chicago as the next Olympic venue.

    Heh-Obama spares no expense using our money!

  40. Charles Boustany of Louisiana, who has 20 years experience in cardiothoracic medicine, would give the Republican response to Obama’s speech.
    ———————-
    Good. I said several days ago if they had a doctor in Congress he should be the one to rebut Obama’s lies. I am glad to see they figured this one out. I do not know him. I have an old copy of the Alamanac of American Politics– somewhere.

  41. wbboei, We were talking about him sitting on a bill that would allow the Chinese to come in and buy all the property that has been repo-ed,
    ———————————–
    Confloyd, he would do it by executive order.

  42. I assume there will be a bill. I also assume the progressives will not like it. I also assume they will not like the decision he makes on Afghanistan. If Barone thinks that idiot Pelosi can pascify progressives he is wrong. The larger concern remains the media. I am sorry to see that ABC has been corrupted as well. However, the access they have received from the White House made that inevitable. In the end, however, they and NBC will go down hard for lying to the American People. In the proganda definition I posted yesterday it is called lying by ommission.

  43. I found this interesting…

    Tuesday, September 08, 2009

    Bill Clinton Defends HillaryCare

    [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

    From Esquire:

    “Almost everything anyone today writes about this stuff is wrong. It’s a classic example of how in a war, the victors get to write history.

    “Basically, everybody who writes about this stuff today repeats the health-insurance lobby’s line from 1994. Like: “The bill was long and complicated.” The bill took out four hundred more pages of federal law than it put in. They say we forced a bill on Congress — untrue. I asked Congress to write the bill, and Chairman [Dan] Rostenkowski [of the House Ways and Means Committee] demanded that Hillary send him a bill — a complete bill. He said, “I won’t take it up if you don’t. We don’t know enough about it, the interest groups will eat us alive, we’ll modify your bill, but you’ve gotta send us a whole bill.” It was the demand of the most important committee in the House of Representatives. And yet I’ve read over a hundred stories saying what a terrible mistake we made, it was all our doing. We did what Congress asked us to do. We also got two bills out of two committees for the first time ever. Harry Truman tried to do this, Richard Nixon tried to do it, Lyndon Johnson didn’t even try, with the biggest congressional majority in history. He didn’t even try — he quit at Medicare and Medicaid, because he knew how hard it was…”

    “And we now know, and I’m surer of this than anything: We just couldn’t do [health-care reform] as long as Bob Dole was running for president. He’s a good guy, and he’s a friend of mine, and the whole time I dealt with him, the only time he was not as good as his word was on this. After Rostenkowski had asked for a bill, I personally asked Bob in the Cabinet Room if we could sit down and write a bill together and send a joint bill to the Congress. Because he was really good on health care for a Republican, cared about it, and he said, ‘You know, you need to send a bill in and we need to produce a bill, so that people know there are differences between the two parties and our approaches. Then we’ll get together and compromise it out.’ When he said that, I think he believed it. Then he gets Bill Kristol’s famous memo that says, you know, If you let Bill Clinton pass any kind of health-care bill, the Democrats will be the majority party for a generation, and you can forget about your presidential hopes. Your only option is to beat anything. Kill it off.”

    healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDVhN2RiNWNkNzlhMWQwMGQxNzBkNTBjM2U4M2JhYjM=

    The rest of the Bill Clinton interview covers a large number of issues and can be found at:

    esquire.com/features/bill-clinton-interview-1009?click=pp

  44. Bill Moyers is either a fool or he is disingenuous or both. He blames right wing republicans for Obama’s failure as president. He has the typical guilt complex of an elite southerner, which blinds him to the truth. The right wing republicans are irrelevant. The blame belongs to Obama himself who his caught between who he pretends to be, i.e. a progressive and who he actually is, i.e. a big business shill from the Chicago Machine. Moyers is not credible. He is stuck in old patterns of thinking typical of his heritage and age.

  45. That is the frustrating thing about Moyers. He had the potential to be a great truth teller and investigative journalist, but he always falls short. Here, he misses the causal factor entirely.

  46. Clinton, Bill needs to stop helping this fool out. Regardless of any ulterior motive
    ***********************

    Clinton to Obama: Forget About the GOPCNN

    – As President Obama gets set to address a joint session of Congress on the issue of health care reform Wednesday night, former President Clinton says it’s time to forget about the Republican Party’s role in the process entirely.

    “The president’s doing the right thing. It is both morally and politically right,” Clinton told Esquire magazine in an interview published online Tuesday. “I wouldn’t even worry about the Republicans. I’d worry about executing.”

    Martin H. Simon,

    Former President Bill Clinton thinks Barack Obama may be on the verge of doing what his administration never could: passing comprehensive health care reform.

    Though it increasingly appears the White House will win few if any Republican votes on a final health care bill, some members of the GOP say they remain open to supporting a potential version of the legislation, including Arizona Sen. John McCain.
    “I look forward to what the specific proposals are,” the former Obama rival said last week. “I think the disappointment a lot of Americans display is that we are not working together more.”
    Still, Clinton said Obama’s chief worry should be ensuring the entire Senate Democratic caucus (59 members with the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy) is in support of the reform legislation, including Democrats from more conservative states, like Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

    This electorate has suffered…and what they don’t know is whether our guys are going to stand and deliver. And sooner or later you’ve got to stand and deliver,” said Clinton.
    The former president also compared Obama’s initial months in office to his own perilous beginning, but predicted the current commander in chief would succeed where he had failed.
    “Do I think he’s doing the right thing, even though he’s jamming a lot of change down the system? I do,” he also said. “So there’s a lot that’s like my first year, but it’s going to have a different ending — he’s going to get health care reform.”

  47. wbboei Says:

    September 8th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
    That is the frustrating thing about Moyers
    ******************************8
    Yes, I concur!

  48. Too Late for Obama to Turn it Around

    By Camille Paglia

    (another Obot can’t take it any more…and why doesn’t O take the whole party down with him while he is at it!

    Sept. 9, 2009 |

    What a difference a month makes! When my last controversial column posted on Salon in the second week of August, most Democrats seemed frozen in suspended animation, not daring to criticize the Obama administration’s bungling of healthcare reform lest it give aid and comfort to the GOP. Well, that ice dam sure broke with a roar. Dissident Democrats found their voices, and by late August even the liberal lemmings of the mainstream media, from CBS to CNN, had drastically altered their tone of reportage, from priggish disdain of the town hall insurgency to frank admission of serious problems in the healthcare bills as well as of Obama’s declining national support.

    But this tonic dose of truth-telling may be too little too late. As an Obama supporter and contributor, I am outraged at the slowness with which the standing army of Democratic consultants and commentators publicly expressed discontent with the administration’s strategic missteps this year. I suspect there had been private grumbling all along, but the media warhorses failed to speak out when they should have — from week one after the inauguration, when Obama went flat as a rug in letting Congress pass that obscenely bloated stimulus package. Had more Democrats protested, the administration would have felt less arrogantly emboldened to jam through a cap-and-trade bill whose costs have made it virtually impossible for an alarmed public to accept the gargantuan expenses of national healthcare reform. (Who is naive enough to believe that Obama’s plan would be deficit-neutral? Or that major cuts could be achieved without drastic rationing?)

    By foolishly trying to reduce all objections to healthcare reform to the malevolence of obstructionist Republicans, Democrats have managed to destroy the national coalition that elected Obama and that is unlikely to be repaired. If Obama fails to win reelection, let the blame be first laid at the door of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who at a pivotal point threw gasoline on the flames by comparing angry American citizens to Nazis. It is theoretically possible that Obama could turn the situation around with a strong speech on healthcare to Congress this week, but after a summer of grisly hemorrhaging, too much damage has been done. At this point, Democrats’ main hope for the 2012 presidential election is that Republicans nominate another hopelessly feeble candidate. Given the GOP’s facility for shooting itself in the foot, that may well happen.

    This column has been calling for heads to roll at the White House from the get-go. Thankfully, they do seem to be falling faster — as witness the middle-of-the-night bum’s rush given to “green jobs” czar Van Jones last week — but there’s a long way to go. An example of the provincial amateurism of current White House operations was the way the president’s innocuous back-to-school pep talk got sandbagged by imbecilic support materials soliciting students to write fantasy letters to “help” the president (a coercive directive quickly withdrawn under pressure). Even worse, the entire project was stupidly scheduled to conflict with the busy opening days of class this week, when harried teachers already have their hands full. Comically, some major school districts, including New York City, were not even open yet. And this is the gang who wants to revamp national healthcare?

    Why did it take so long for Democrats to realize that this year’s tea party and town hall uprisings were a genuine barometer of widespread public discontent and not simply a staged scenario by kooks and conspirators? First of all, too many political analysts still think that network and cable TV chat shows are the central forums of national debate. But the truly transformative political energy is coming from talk radio and the Web — both of which Democrat-sponsored proposals have threatened to stifle, in defiance of freedom of speech guarantees in the Bill of Rights. I rarely watch TV anymore except for cooking shows, history and science documentaries, old movies and football. Hence I was blissfully free from the retching overkill that followed the deaths of Michael Jackson and Ted Kennedy — I never saw a single minute of any of it. It was on talk radio, which I have resumed monitoring around the clock because of the healthcare fiasco, that I heard the passionate voices of callers coming directly from the town hall meetings. Hence I was alerted to the depth and intensity of national sentiment long before others who were simply watching staged, manipulated TV shows.

    Why has the Democratic Party become so arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans? Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers (one reason for the hypocritical absence of tort reform in the healthcare bills). Weirdly, given their worship of highly individualistic, secularized self-actualization, such professionals are as a whole amazingly credulous these days about big-government solutions to every social problem. They see no danger in expanding government authority and intrusive, wasteful bureaucracy. This is, I submit, a stunning turn away from the anti-authority and anti-establishment principles of authentic 1960s leftism.

    How has “liberty” become the inspirational code word of conservatives rather than liberals? (A prominent example is radio host Mark Levin’s book “Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto,” which was No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list for nearly three months without receiving major reviews, including in the Times.) I always thought that the Democratic Party is the freedom party — but I must be living in the nostalgic past. Remember Bob Dylan’s 1964 song “Chimes of Freedom,” made famous by the Byrds? And here’s Richie Havens electrifying the audience at Woodstock with “Freedom! Freedom!” Even Linda Ronstadt, in the 1967 song “A Different Drum,” with the Stone Ponys, provided a soaring motto for that decade: “All I’m saying is I’m not ready/ For any person, place or thing/ To try and pull the reins in on me.”

    But affluent middle-class Democrats now seem to be complacently servile toward authority and automatically believe everything party leaders tell them. Why? Is it because the new professional class is a glossy product of generically institutionalized learning? Independent thought and logical analysis of argument are no longer taught. Elite education in the U.S. has become a frenetic assembly line of competitive college application to schools where ideological brainwashing is so pandemic that it’s invisible. The top schools, from the Ivy League on down, promote “critical thinking,” which sounds good but is in fact just a style of rote regurgitation of hackneyed approved terms (“racism, sexism, homophobia”) when confronted with any social issue. The Democratic brain has been marinating so long in those clichés that it’s positively pickled.

    Next page: Let’s get the hell out of Afghanistan!

  49. Here’s the latest on the OrlyTaitz case of the birth certificate: from the Obama file

    . After a short time they are archived or edited into the “subject area” pages, accessible from The Obama File Main Page (“TOF” buttons). Archive in:
    9/8/09 I have also just added an Obama Associates page. It’s rough right now, but I will flesh it out in the coming weeks. This page is accessible via the main “TOF” page, cursor down to “Governing.”
    9/8/09 Shocker! Judge Orders Trial

    Jerome Corsi reports that a California judge today tentatively scheduled a trial for Jan. 26, 2010, for a case that challenges Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president based on questions over his qualifications under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

    If the case actually goes to arguments before U.S. District Judge David Carter, it will be the first time the merits of the dispute have been argued in open court, according to one of the attorneys working on the issue.

    In a highly anticipated hearing today before Carter, several motions were heard, including a resolution to long-standing questions about whether attorney Orly Taitz properly served notice on the defendants, which she had.

    In a second ruling, Carter ordered that attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation can be added to the case to represent plaintiffs Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson, who had been removed by an earlier court order. Drake, the vice presidential candidate for the American Independent Party, and Robinson, the party’s chairman, also were restored to the case.

    But the judge did not immediately rule on Taitz’ motion to be granted discovery — that is the right to see the president’s still-concealed records. Nor did Carter rule immediately on a motion to dismiss the case, submitted by the U.S. government, following discussion over Taitz’ challenge to the work of a magistrate in the case.

    The judge did comment that if there are legitimate constitutional questions regarding Obama’s eligibility, they need to be addressed and resolved.

    Carter ordered a hearing Oct. 5 on the motion to dismiss and ordered arguments submitted on the issue of discovery.

    If the case survives that challenge, a pretrial hearing has been scheduled for Jan. 11 and the trial for two weeks later.

    The case would be the first time, according to Kreep, that the actual merits of the dispute will have been heard in open court. A multitude of such disputes have been rejected out of hand by various state and federal courts. Even the U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly has rejected urgent appeals to hear the evidence.

    There have been dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

    Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

    Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

    Complicating the situation is Obama’s decision to spend sums estimated to be approaching $2 million to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions.

    Among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

    In the U.S. Justice Department’s motion to dismiss, attorneys didn’t address the concerns directly, but instead focused their efforts on technical procedures, suggesting the matter can’t be decided in court and that the dozens of plaintiffs cannot demonstrate they have been injured by having Obama in the Oval Office.

    “It is clear, from the text of the Constitution, and the relevant statutory law implementing the Constitution’s textual commitments, that challenges to the qualifications of a candidate for president can, in the first instance, be presented to the voting public before the election, and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in the Congress,” wrote Assistant U.S. Attorneys Roger West and David DeJute. “Therefore, challenges such as those purportedly raised in this case are committed, under the Constitution, to the electors, and to the Legislative branch.”

    Obama’s defenders also said they would file a motion seeking to block any discovery of evidence at this point.

    Kreep said said his addition to the case probably will mean additional arguments over the president’s eligibility.

    Among the long list of plaintiffs are former ambassador and presidential candidate Alan Keyes and longshot vice-presidential candidate Gail Lightfoot, both of whom ran in 2008.

    Justice officials say because neither had a mathematical chance at winning, they were not directly harmed by the election of Obama.

    But among the issues that appear to be looming is a claim that Obama’s actual birth certificate from Kenya has emerged.

    Those Justice Department lawyers sure look like they’re grasping at very thin straws. What’s that the lawyers say? When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law.

    Looks like Obama’s lawyers are afraid of the facts.

    Whatever is in — or not in — Obama’s documentation must be something! He could end it all in the AM with a phone call.

    I wonder how he’s sleeping? Lawsuits
    9/8/09 From The Courtroom

    The Give Us Liberty blog is blogging from the courtroom. At 9:26 AM there was no visible media turnout for this hearing as in no SatCam uplink trucks.

    At 10:02 Justice Carter noting the packed courtroom and overflow crowd waiting in the hallways has ordered a change to a larger courtroom and has taken a 2 hour recess to accommodate the transfer of officers of the court and spectators.

    The estimated age range of those present is 18 to 80 — 70% Men — 30% Women — age 60+ seems to be the majority.

    Attorney Orly Taitz appeared relaxed — calm cool and collected.

    Justice Carter recessed the court at 12.30 pst 9/8/09 — his rulings:

    10/5/09 Defense Motion to Dismiss (MTD) to be heard — Judge Carter indicated only a very strong compelling reason would move him to dismiss at this point. He will review the defense’s 9/4/09 MTD. He wants to hear the case on it’s merits. Discovery to be ordered 10/5/09 if Motion to Dismiss is thrown out.

    1/11/10 Pre Trial Set — procedural for other motions, depositions, scheduling, etc

    1/26/10 Trial Date Set — earliest available date for Justice Carter.

  50. I hope this judge is strong. This very well might be his career, if OO people start pressuring him. I hope we have found a real patriotis person who feels that the voters have a right to know. I also wonder if he dismisses it, can everyone else refuse to provide citizenship proof, if the President of the US does not have to.

    Sounds like justification to me. Good Night.

  51. Is HIllary hiding fromm this mess of an administration…she has been extremely quiet. My guess is they are keeping her muzzled b/c they fear she will hurt their health care plan.

  52. A year after financial crisis, a new world order emerge————-

    A yahoo article…..just what those rich folks wanted with their fraud in charge of the US!

  53. s HIllary hiding fromm this mess of an administration…she has been extremely quiet. My guess is they are keeping her muzzled b/c they fear she will hurt their health care plan.
    —————————————-
    I think it is a no win issue for her. She advocated universal health insurance, with a government option, and that is not what this is. If she promotes it she compromises her integrity, whereas if she objects to it she compromises the party. I think the bad guys would love to see her support it, but she cannot do so. The only alternative is to stay invisible for now. I think it is smart, and she has the perfect cover being secretary of state.

  54. wbboei, How’s your car?? I guess you finally able to get out of traffic?

    I think you are right, she needs to stay out of this fiasco of a healthcare bill, let Pooplosi, the ONE, Reid and the rest of them take full credit for this crap they are passing.

    What is that old saying, “Give enough rope and they’ll hang themselves”. I think that what game the Rethugs have been playing for a while.

  55. I am sick of this healthcare fiasco. Now I hear that the fine for not having insurance will be 3800. Are these people just plain STUPID, THERE ARE NO JOBS!! How will that work, if your not working you get your healthinsurance free?? The people that are working and underemployed will pay thru the nose and those that have insurance already keeps it. How is this going to help??
    If this goes thru, I hope everyone that can’t afford insurance, enjoys having Doctors they can’t understand, nor can the doctor understand you.

  56. White House help for Chicago’s Olympic bid

    ………………………………………………………

    Who the hell would want to go to that corrupt hole for the Olympics.

    i think South America should get 2016, thats one great big missing piece on the olympic map.

  57. if I had $3800 I’d buy my own insurance. That’s the problem now some households like mine are stretched to the max. We are a few dollars above “poverty level” and the 133% ain’t gonna help me not one bit. I won’t be eligible for anything like a subsidy help. Screw them. Honest people get hurt most of all, I think I’ll just be dishonest from now on. Seems to work for all those on welfare around me.

  58. A peek into the mind and machinations of Van Jones. Obama and Van Jones are brothers in respect to their like mindedness for a Marxist Black Revolution.

    Invoking Executive Privilege

    h… townhall.com/columnists/JosephCPhillips/2009/09/08/revolution_anyone

    September 8, 2009

    Barack Obama hired Anthony “Van” Jones as a special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Jones is an admitted “rowdy Black nationalist” and “communist” who was also a co-founder of the communist revolutionary organization STORM: Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement.

    Quick question: how many Marxists, Communists, Domestic Terrorists and raving racialists does the President get to associate with before reasonable people can assume that the president on some level shares their particular vision of America?

    While perusing the manifesto of this now defunct STORM, several things struck me as particularly interesting. There was of course the passionate commitment to Marxist ideals, radical feminism, gay lesbian and transgender liberation and the ardent support of the unrepentant murderer Mumia Abu Jamal. And there was this rather innocuous looking paragraph, which I found especially fascinating.

    “Storm had a closed membership. People could not just decide to join whenever they wanted to. Instead the group invited small classes of activists to become new members. This insured more consistency and accountability within the membership. It also allowed the group to maintain its strict demographic quota requirements; each class was required to be 75% people of color and 60% women.”

    Given their expressed passionate commitment to revolution I was surprised to discover that they would sacrifice principle on the alter of race and gender. If revolution is what one truly desires – a revolution that will deliver “true freedom for our people” shouldn’t that include liberty from being categorized by race and/or gender? Isn’t a shared ideology – shared principles – more important than quotas? These of course are people living in the United States bemoaning the collapse of the Soviet Bloc so rationality may be too much to ask. It may also be one reason this group or Marxist revolutionaries never saw their membership increase beyond perhaps a dozen or so members.

    My Friend John Rosenberg asks, “How will we know when racial equality arrives?” Certainly one sign will be when race is not a part of every organizational decision we make, which means for the new left that moment will never arrive. Cynical? Perhaps, but how optimistic can one be when even Marxist revolutionaries are focused on race?

    Or our own Justice Department under our “post racial” president?

    The Obama Administration has directed the civil rights division of the Justice department to begin aggressively pursuing cases of disparate impact.

    Disparate impact theory argues that, in the words of Rosenberg, “statistical racial disparities alone are strong evidence or even proof of racial discrimination” even if there is no evidence of an intent to discriminate or discrimination in the application of the policy, practice or program. Any test or employment practice — no matter that it has been vetted by experts – is deemed discriminatory and illegal if the results do not reflect perfect statistical proportionality. The question of who studied hard and who perhaps could have studied harder is unimportant. The goal is not equal opportunity – that is the removal of barriers to opportunity put there based on race, but the equality of results as determined by “strict demographic quota requirements.” It has the ring of new liberal nirvana, but Black folk are all too aware that quotas are ceilings not floors.

    The philosophical foundation of disparate impact theory is structural inequality: The barriers to opportunity are built into the system; any statistical disparity is a result of a system teeming with racism. The system can’t be fixed; it must be torn down and rebuilt along more equitable lines. Race thus becomes the reason to disavow the founding principles of natural rights and the source of redistributionist policies. Odd as it may sound race is the hammer with which they will rebuild the post racial world.

    The reason the president surrounds himself with radical leftists like Van Jones is because on this point he is in fundamental agreement.

    Revolution anyone?

  59. Dot48, I agree. THe prices they are talking about are ridiculous, I know no on that could afford that doesn’t have insurance right now.

  60. Has anyone heard what this radical, racist and muslim POTUS is celebrating 9/11? I just wonder what kind of foolishness they come up for this?

    I guess I will watch idiot tonight, but I thought it was suppose to be address to Congress, shouldn’t that be during the day?? I should able to watch it on c-span, right?

  61. I find little comfort in posting information describing the underbelly of Obama’s covert mission after attaining the presidency, a revolution. But it’s there. To ignore it, not dealing with it mentaly would be the greater tragedy. Also, I am not posting this information to hi-jack the discussion generated by Admin always well chosen. “Topic of the Day.”

    Bill Clinton survived all the persecution and pressures brought on him from the VRW by compartmentalizing each and every issue dealing with them as their urgency arose. We can take a lesson from him and do the same. To be forwarned is to be forarmed.

    I don’t believe people already aware of this revolutionary undercurrent brewing beneath our feet will allow us to be ambushed and blindsided by a two-bit president who never was worthy of the office in the first place. And the reason, I believe, the issue of Obama’s citizenship is going forward at this time.

    The citizenship issue always was their Ace in the Hole for dumping/removing Obama. It seems they are getting ready to play it if the Trial in Judge Carter’s court goes forward in January 2010.

  62. The U.S. refused to ask for “rigorous vetting of it’s own potus elections but…

    ———————————-

    U.S. Calls For ‘Rigorous Vetting’ of Afghan Election Fraud Allegations

    September 08, 2009

    Amid mounting allegations of fraud in last month’s Afghan presidential election, the State Department today called for a “rigorous vetting” of the claims. The move comes as UN-backed election fraud investigators demanded that the Afghan election body recount a number of suspect ballot boxes.

    “The results of these elections need to be credible and need to reflect the will of the Afghan people,” State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said.

    “A legitimate electoral process is vital to us and vital to any kind of partnership that we would have with the government going forward,” he added.

    Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the US Ambassador in Kabul, Karl Eikenberry, who later met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai to voice US concerns about the fraud allegations.

    The Afghan Independent Election Commission yesterday decided to include many ballots it knew to be fraudulent in a tally released today that pushed Karzai over the 50 percent threshold he needed to avoid a runoff vote. The Election Complaints Commission, the UN-backed group, ordered the IEC to recount ballot boxes whose turnout numbers exceeded 95 percent, or even 100 percent. According to some allegations, President Karzai’s supporters cast thousands of fraudulent votes for the incumbent at both legitimate and phantom polling sites around the country.

    Karzai’s main challenger in last month’s election, Dr Abdullah Abdullah claims Karzai has tried to steal the election.

    The country’s political uncertainty comes as the Obama administration grapples with the decision of whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, following a report by the General Stanley McChrystal, the new top US commander there, that outlines the steep challenges facing US and NATO forces there.

    The State Department acknowledged that the process of verifying the election results could take a long time. “We’re seeing the first phase of it drawing to a conclusion, the counting process. The next phase is just as, if not more, important, and that’s dealing with these complaints of fraud. So we are calling on all the candidates, we’re calling on all the different actors out there, political institutions, to show patience,” Kelly said.

    “It’s not going to be a matter of days or weeks; it could be a matter of months to sort out all of these allegations,” he added.

    blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/us-calls-for-rigorous-vetting-of-afghan-election-fraud-allegations.html

  63. U.S. Secretary of State to visit Moscow

    09/09/2009
    Secretary of State to visit Moscow

    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will make a mid-October visit to Moscow to participate in the session of bilateral intergovernmental commission for the development of U.S.-Russia cooperation, Ian Kelly, U.S. Department of State Spokesman stated at the daily briefing.

    “We plan the visit of the Secretary of State for mid-October. The preparation is underway and will take some more time,” Kelly said.

    Both countries’ Foreign Ministers will co-chair at the opening commission session. The decision on forming the commission was made by the Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama at the Moscow meeting in early July, 2009.

    news.am/en/news/4029.html

  64. Mrs. Smith, I really hope this pan’s out with this judge. I am convinced he is not who he says he is. I think he is hiding his parentage. I am not sure however if its just his birthplace.
    I read an article this morning where they are trying to couple the birthers with truther’s, I don’t think thats going to float.

  65. If Obama had nothing to hide, he would have provided his birth certificate and his school transcripts long ago. Instead, his legal team has provided nothing but an obstructionist strategy dealing with the issue rather than addressing the merits and resolving the case once and for all.

  66. JanH-

    It would be interesting if the Afghani government balks at the vetting issue sending a message to the SOS something to the effect, “we will vet our candidates, if the US president subjects himself to a similar vetting process.”

    That message would be the shot heard round the world!

  67. From the comments section of today’s screed from the odious MoDo…

    “Toronto, Ontario
    September 9th, 2009
    6:19 am
    Hmmmm…if ONLY someone had warned us that this might happen! If only there was, say, another Democratic candidate who had told us that you can’t wave a magic wand and expect Republicans to work with you.

    Bonus points: can anyone name a Democratic candidate who said that, but was viciously attacked for saying so? Anyone? Anyone? Maureen?”

    “Orange County, CA
    September 9th, 2009
    6:19 am
    The President should have rounded up Democratic senators on Day One and said, “We have a mandate to reform health care. We’re going to put a spending cap on the whole health sector. It’s going to be ugly. It will go to reconciliation. I need each one of you to take a public oath to vote with me. If you won’t do that, I’m going to ask your voters to send me someone who will.” Unfortunately I think that President was Hillary Clinton.”

    “California
    September 9th, 2009
    6:19 am
    A zebra can’t change his stripes. Rocky he ain’t and never will be. This article assumes what we now know is not true — that he is a reformer and a leader. He is not either. Harvard Law Review? This is no radical or even liberal reformer. This is a talker, a law professor who excels in obfuscation and hair-splitting. Those of us who voted for him now have a big headache and no hope for real change. Yes we can — can what? Can look forward to four years of Bush’s third term.”

    “Deborah
    Houston
    September 9th, 2009
    6:19 am
    Now wait a minute! I thought the whole reason that Hillary was bad and Obama was good was that his unruffled demeanor would make him invulnerable to Republican attacks. Turns out it wasn’t Hillary Clinton being a lightning rod after all, it was the issues. Well, we rejected the fighter.”

    Too late…too late…:(

  68. wbboei, How’s your car?? I guess you finally able to get out of traffic?
    —————————————
    It is better than Daschales old car–the infamous 1970 Pontiac, and worse than his new car–the luxurious lobbyists let them eat cake stretch limosine with the vanity license that reads Everyman Has His Price which he is using to hawk universal health insurance, correction heath insurance reform, correction health reform, correction corportate welfare leave not ceo behind. In other words the brake disks are warped, the hose is broken, the water pump is causing problems, in other words situation normal all fucked up. But Triple A is here.

  69. TheRealist Says:

    September 9th, 2009 at 9:35 am

    ——————————-

    It sure didn’t take long for so many of his cult followers to start second-guessing their choices. Personally I think they knew all along that Hillary was the better candidate. And that suggests some very disgusting reasoning and unforgivable ignorant decision-making on their parts to have chosen obama in the first place.

  70. 28 speeches on the subject of health care, or 121 if you include speeches and remarks where Obama mentioned health-care goals, according to political Web site Politico.

    Glad he’s “finally” decided to say something on the issue…lol

  71. Just so you know: The posted excerpt is mid-way through the article.

    Theres more, much more.

    h… w… esquire.com/print-this/bill-clinton-interview-1009

    Bill Clinton, Then and Now: The Esquire Interview

    “In early August, forty-eight hours after returning from a sensitive mission to North Korea that freed the American journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling, Bill Clinton ambles into the sitting room of his house in Chappaqua, New York, in jeans and sneakers. About to turn sixty-three, looking fit and a little bleary from the week’s exertions, he sits down to talk about the legacy of his presidency. The occasion is a new book by Pulitzer-winning writer Taylor Branch, who met in secret with Clinton at the White House starting in October 1993, and almost every month of his presidency thereafter. The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President will be published in October. Clinton has now been out of office longer than he was in, and his perspective on that time is what we’ve come to talk about. But his views on the present quickly asserted themselves as well.

    ESQUIRE: Nine years ago, just as your presidency was coming to an end, you told Esquire that you described one of your achievements as a return to presidential activism. Can you give us your assessment of that activism now, with the perspective of time?

  72. Rahm is raw, not well-done, but still finished

    September 9, 2009

    We’ve all heard the story. At a dinner to celebrate President Clinton’s 1992 electoral victory, Rahm Emanuel named each person who had crossed the Clinton campaign and plunged a knife into the table while shouting, “Dead! Dead! Dead!”

    Where has that Mr. Emanuel been since becoming President Obama’s chief of staff? Better yet, why are the media so scared of the angry, cursing, screaming Mr. Rahm, the one who resembles Jeremy Piven’s impersonation of his brother in the HBO series “Entourage”? Why is anyone scared of that Mr. Rahm?

    We were led to believe that Mr. Obama and his team would act swiftly to pass comprehensive reform in a number of areas and that no one could stand in their way. Instead, grass roots Americans stood up, made their voices heard and, in so doing, may have dismantled the “real” public option before the White House had a chance to draft any health care language of its own and certainly well before members of Congress could cast any votes on the matter.

    If Mr. Emanuel is such a Machiavellian master of congressional inside ball, why did he fail to warn, or at least to prepare, Mr. Obama for the possibility that there might not be sufficient support for the public option inside his own party? As White House chief of staff, Mr. Emanuel is supposed to manage the president’s agenda. Part of his job is to oversee important policy initiatives — not to intimidate and divide.

    It’s clear that no one should be scared of Mr. Emanuel. Like his boss, he is tasting massive political failure for the first time. A congressional pro should not be squandering the majorities that Mr. Obama has at his disposal in the Senate and House of Representatives.

    The president should stick a fork (or knife) in Mr. Emanuel. It looks as if he’s done (or at least should be).

    Jordan Sekulow,
    Director of International Operations
    American Center for Law & Justice
    Washington

    examiner.com/x-22911-DC-Foreign-Policy-Examiner~y2009m9d9-Rahm-is-raw-not-welldone-but-still-finished

  73. Commentary
    Why Are These Health Care Fixes Ignored?

    Scott W. Atlas,
    09.08.09

    Our president and his allies in Congress have been advancing their plan to offer government as the answer to insurance reform. They claim a government plan for all is essential to promoting competition among private health insurers, but others point to evidence and experience that shows such subsidized “public options” mainly shift large numbers of individuals previously covered by private insurance to government coverage.

    Ultimately, this shift rates a new and massive burden on American taxpayers, forces out private insurance choices, and finally creates government as the dominant insurance provider. Once government is the insurer, it will inevitably mean that government can determine access and availability of medical care itself–as is already the case in other countries where such centralized health care systems already exist.

    President Barack Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi must not be hearing the American people, who seem to be speaking with clarity and passion at town halls and in the polls. Despite concerns about cost, a great number are specifically opposed to government gaining more control over their health care, including via a public insurance plan. Americans realize that government is not the way other goods and services have become subject to competition. In the U.S., competition has always stemmed from the private sector competing for the dollar of value-seeking consumers. And that private-sector competition has promoted innovation–innovation that has benefited Americans with better and cheaper products and services.

    A number of health care proposals–ones that don’t require the government takeover that the administration desires–have been put forward, yet our president keeps insisting there are no alternatives. On Monday, in his Labor Day speech to union workers, President Obama repeated his straw man argument and asked those who oppose his reforms, “what are your plans? What are you going to do? And the answer is they don’t have one. Their answer is to do nothing!” And on Sept. 3, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi repeated her insistence on the public health insurance plan and adamantly declared, “If someone has a better idea for promoting competition and reducing health care costs, they should put it on the table.”

    Perhaps those interested in insurance reform should first understand why millions of Americans are uninsured in the first place, and to identify who of those cannot afford current health insurance plans. Of the 47 million uninsured, the U.S. Census Bureau notes that almost 10 million are not U.S. citizens, many of whom are illegally in the country. Another 15 million adults do not need significant insurance reform, because they are already fully eligible for Medicaid or Medicare but simply have not signed up, and will be enrolled as soon as they interface with the medical system. And nearly three quarters (74%) of the 8 million uninsured children are already eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP, according to the Urban Institute.

    This leaves us with 13.9 million non-elderly adults (only 5% of the population, by the way) without health insurance who do not already qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. Of these, Blue Cross Blue Shield estimated that 8.2 million are without insurance for prolonged periods of time, mainly due to lack of affordability, while 5.7 million adults lack health insurance for short periods because they are either between jobs, are recent college graduates, are part-time seasonal workers or have no perceived need for insurance.

    So let’s focus on these roughly 14 million Americans who are uninsured, for prolonged periods or otherwise, because they either cannot afford it, or they opt to not purchase it, presumably because they do not view it as good value for their money. Even though 9 million of these live in families with incomes greater than three times poverty level, or over roughly $60,000 per year, it always has been up to American consumers to decide for themselves if something is “affordable” or not. The goal is to reform health insurance markets so that health insurance is made more affordable, so that it may be purchased because individuals themselves determine it is worth spending their money on.

    Here are five concrete steps that can increase competition among health insurers without positioning government as the dominant insurer itself:

    First, government can strip back the out-of-control mandates on health insurance coverage. State-based mandates alone now number more than 2,100, and are blamed for increasing insurance costs by between 20% and 50%. On what basis does the government force Americans to buy insurance covering services many or most would never want? Do all Americans want health insurance to cover massage therapy, in vitro fertilization, chiropractors, acupuncture and wigs, just to name a few items covered under state mandates? Why not encourage insurers to offer lower cost health plans and simply let patients themselves decide what sort of coverage and benefits they want for their families?

    Second, our federal government can eliminate the counterproductive laws that restrict interstate purchasing of private health insurance by individuals and small businesses. A national market for health insurance would immediately create the competition for buyers that President Obama and Speaker Pelosi claim to desire. Existing anti-competitive barriers have resulted in dramatic price variations among states for equivalent health coverage. Since small-business employees make up the biggest proportion of uninsured workers, this one change would have a significant impact on freeing up the market for competition.

    Third, government can create competition by lifting the veil of secrecy on the pricing of medical procedures and on the qualifications of doctors and hospitals. No other product or service is already purchased before anyone knows its price. In our current system, patients have no reason to ask–the existing third-party-payer structure makes patients believe that “someone else is paying.” Requiring doctors and hospitals to post prices would generate the chance to compete for patients. Furthermore, backroom secret deals with specific insurers would be in full view. Let’s leave the experts themselves, medical scientists in their peer-reviewed literature, to determine efficacy and clinical utility. But how about requiring hospitals and clinics to post qualifications of doctors and outcomes of procedures? Information is essential to competition, and consumers should be empowered to allow value-conscious decisions about health care.

    Fourth, Health Savings Accounts increase choice for consumers, expand individual ownership and control over health spending, promote price visibility to allow value-based purchasing, and provide incentives for savings to prepare for future health care needs. By expanding the availability and simplifying the rules of lower-cost health plans with HSAs, insurance would become an attractive purchase for the millions of Americans who could afford it, but consider it a poor value in its present form.

    Fifth, government can generate competition among insurers by revamping the tax treatment of health care expenses, so that millions of newly empowered Americans become consumers who will shop for their health insurance. Ideas like refundable health care tax credits–actual cash even for those who have no income tax liability–would shift purchasing power and control to a huge number of newly engaged consumers. And as a result, insurers would compete for their dollars, and Americans would ultimately own and control their health plans.

    Reforming health insurance should focus on three main goals: 1) reducing the number of uninsured Americans; 2) reducing health insurance cost; and 3) creating portability of insurance during times of unemployment or job change. And government can play a helpful role in correcting current problems with our health system, restrictions that may have evolved out of good intention but have failed. One thing is very clear: Advocates for increasing competition in health care have plenty of other, concrete options besides expanding government control over the system. Americans are beginning to understand these options–even if our elected officials refuse those alternatives and even pretend they don’t exist, in the name of big-government ideology.

    Scott W. Atlas is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor at Stanford University’s Medical Center.

    forbes.com/2009/09/08/health-care-competition-reform-opinions-contributors-obama-speech.html

  74. dot48 and confloyd…your comments re: the fines for lack of health insurance are what I was getting at a few threads ago…i do not understand how mandating and fining people that cannot afford insurance is supposed to make insurance more affordable…someone who is not buying health insurance because they cannot afford the premiums and then fining them for not being covered, once again, sounds like the people are getting screwed at their expense and with insurance companies the benefactors by those that are forced to take insurance…

    I have posed the following question and no one seems to ever respond anywhere, even in the middle of a health reform thread…supposedly because no one, even O knows what the hell is going on…

    my question is:

    …last week it was confirmed that we actually have about 16% unemployment and about 15 MILLION people out of work…many of them have been out of work for 1-2 years now, and the job losses continue at a bare minimum of 250,000-500,000 a month…people that are barely hanging on to their homes…

    …so my question is, since these 15 MILLION or so people are out of work and have NO INCOME and god only knows how many of them are just hanging in there and managing to pay for rent and survival basics, if that…obviously they cannot buy health insurance with no income, so will they be fined and then certainly rendered bankrupt by health insurance costs anyway? or will the government pay to insure the 15 MILLION unemployed and their families?

    and further…what about?

    over at FDL, re: Baucus health plan, a commenter says:

    You are a couple in your 40’s making $45,000 a year. Baucus makes you pay the worst junk plan for about $6,000. If you get sick (and hopefully your condition is covered) your out of pocket fees will be 11,900.

    Way to go Democrats you make a couple pay 18,000 on health care, 40% of their income.

    ************************************************

    Chris Hedges in his article entitled; ‘This isn’t reform, this is robbery’

    states that if you are a single person making $40,000, your premiums will be $5000 with a $2000 deductible, so you are out of pocket $7000 before your insurance kicks in

    *******************************************************

    am I missing something???

    how in the world is any of the above making health insurance affordable, especially for people who do not have health insurance because they cannot afford it…or worse, for the 15 MILLION people that are out of work and have no income

    …so according to FDL, you are paying over $11,000 out of pocket and according to Hedges, you are paying over $7000 out of pocket before your insurance kicks in

    and do the 15 MILLION unemployed get fined, according to Baucus, with no income or does the government pay for those 15 MILLION…

    something tells me the politicians trying to force this thing together are not in touch with reality…this sounds like it is going to make things much worse for people…

    either I am missing something or we are about to get really screwed…and insurance co are going to make out like bandits

    frankly, I see lawsuits, people endlessly in debt to the IRS, and challenges to the constitutionality…alot, and I mean endless bureaucracy and a big, big mess…

    any thoughts?

    ****************************************************************
    ****************************************************************

    btw…since Obama is the ‘great eloquent omnipotent communicator of our day’…and is so brilliant…I think it should be mandated that he explain his health reform plan tonight WITHOUT HIS TELEPROMPTER…

    can you just imagine, if as with Bill Clinton, somehow his teleprompter malfunctioned or, as with Bill, had the wrong speech running…O would be completely LOST…there is no way in the world O could explain or ‘wing it’ in speaking about HIS health reform…

    his critics want ‘specifics’??? don’t hold your breath…

  75. They will probably have three tele’s there to make sure there is no malfunction.

    A court system that ignores the fact that a non elected leader of this country has spent $2M fighting proving he was born in the US as the Constitution states to me is not protecting our democracy. Yes I know certain criterias needs to be met, but believe me, I know enough about law to know that there has to be justification some place in our court law to allow us to make sure people running for office follow the constitution.

    But then perhaps the proving of your citizenship is only for the underlinks, as that famous lady in NY said about who pays taxes in this country, that is only for the LITTLE PEOPLE.

  76. From the slimy Ben Smith @ Politico; I have requested that the vid-clip be embeded, but you can just go to politico and view. The following are comments from the piece…

    September 09, 2009
    Categories: Hillary Clinton
    Clinton’s sarcasm

    Hillary was right all along. Another prescient moment (one of many in which she tried to warn voters) was when she pointed out that as great as MLK was the Civil Rights Act would not have passed if not for a knowledgeable, battle scarred, EXPERIENCED president like LBJ who was willing to FIGHT even his own party to get it passed. The message was VERY clear to those of us familiar with American political history as well as to the Kennedys (hence Teddy’s meltdown and why both he and Caroline immediately endorsed 0bama the following day). Hint hint message to voters: LBJ (Hillary Clinton) may not have had the good looks, youth, charisma and rhetoric flourish of JFK (Obama) but it was LBJ WHO GOT THE JOB DONE! JFK promised to pass the Civil Rights Act but did’nt have the backbone to take on the Southern Democrats who kept voting against it. LBJ did! JFK was more interested in remaining
    popular and being re-elected. Gee, now who does that remind me of?”

    “Hillary had his number way back then. The powers that be in the Democrat Party threw Hillary under the bus for Obama, the PRETENDER. The drooling, sycophants in the media were given their marching orders and his cult followers stayed in their tranches. The rest of us watched on in disbelief as the pretender ran his sexist, racist campaign, we watched it unfold before our eyes. Many tried to warn about Obama and who he truly is, they tried to warn us about his associates, his mentors, but it was in vain. I am sure many who voted for Obama have woken up from their messiah-induced hangover and are now saying WTF, this is not the hope and change I voted for and are just now demanding their change back. The magic has worn off the magic Negro, and his true colors are shining through for all America to see and it is not pretty. Obama the deceiver is attempting to rule the country and using Saul Alinsky methods in the process. Time to take back the country from the radicals.”

    “It’s amazing how beat-up she got over that comment. Though just about everything she said or did got taken out of context, over analyzed, and misinterpreted. I wish she was our President but I do support the one we’ve got despite his shortcomings. I have no doubt that McCain would’ve been worse than Obama. It’s just that Clinton would’ve been better than either of them. There’s really no use in longing for what could’ve been although I do permit myself to do so at times like this where she does and by extension those of us who supported her look pretty darn prescient. Hopefully, the beating Obama’s been taking will toughen him up and get him to understand there’s no appeasing the GOP right now. If I were Hillary I’d be biting my tongue to keep from saying, “Did you think it was just me they the republicans hated? Even I’m not arrogant enough to think their craziness and their hate was all about me.” Now that he’s in office, President Obama’s got teabaggers, birthers, deathers, and general right wing wackos showing up to town halls with guns. I guess he’s pretty darn “divisive” after all.”

    “OH! NOW she’s prescient!? I guess Obama and the FAR left who villified Clinton has learned, that words matter. Only when they are followed by ACTION! She said it during the Primaries…and even Edwards said it…Obama can talk a good game about Healthcare, but his actions don’t & won’t lead to it.”

    It’s beginning to snowball…

  77. Wish I knew. You are right JanH, following the money is an important issue. The question is do we have the right to know where that money is coming from, and how do we find out.

  78. We all have to ask ourselves, how long did it take to address other issue with the Supreme Court, such as the 2000 election. If you have to show emotion or monetary damage, why are not the petition by the independent candidates enough. After all did they not spend money on their campaigns, and I am sure those were donations to them. What are we arguing about here, that this money had to come from their own funds or resources. Are not the fact that there was money donated to them enough. If HRCs name was on the case, most if not all of her campaign funds donated. I don’t understand the courts on this point.

    Are they arguing that because they had a slim to no chance of being elected, there was no damage here? I guess I will never be a lawyer, as I still have a hard time understanding this.

  79. S Says:

    September 9th, 2009 at 11:44 am
    ————————————————————————

    At this point, it seems like paying a fine will be less expensive than buying insurance and paying all the deductibles and co-pays. This is change? Sounds more like highway robbery to me. The Bacus bill has been written by the insurance companies. What is favorable to the citizen? Not much from what I can see.

  80. yes, birdgal, that is what I am wondering??? WTH? wait until folks who have chosen not to have health insurance, for whatever reason, begin to understand that there are fines, etc…maybe this is why O is keeping everything so vague and mirky…

    not to mention…this is a job killer…in the climate we are in these days…no businesses are going to do unnecessary hiring with all this…

    if the dems sign off on this, they will not only be losing the seniors…this is a PR nightmare…with tons and tons of paperwork to follow – you can bet on it…endless probing

    like I said, if I am missing something??? maybe tonight “all will be answered”…”and the skies will open…and celestial voices will…”

  81. Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent

    By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer Alan Fram, Associated Press Writer – 34 mins ago
    WASHINGTON – Public disapproval of President Barack Obama’s handling of health care has jumped to 52 percent, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll released hours before he makes his case for overhaul in a prime-time address to Congress.

    With his health revamp moving slowly and unemployment edging ever higher, Obama’s overall approval rating has also suffered a blow. The survey showed that 49 percent now disapprove of how he is handling his job as president, up from 42 percent who disapproved in July.

    The grade people give Obama on health care also has worsened since July, when just 43 percent disapproved of his work on the issue.

    The poll underscores how the president has struggled to win public support to reshape the nation’s $2.5 trillion health care system and to put the brakes on a deep recession.

    Forty-nine percent say they oppose the health overhaul plans being considered by Congress, compared to just 34 percent who favor them.

    People are about evenly split over what lawmakers should do now on health care: About four in 10 say they should keep trying to pass a bill this year while about the same number say they should start over again.

    Significantly, though, only about two in 10 say the health care system should be left as is.

    There is a clear public desire for a bipartisan approach on the issue. Eight in 10 say it’s important that any plan that passes Congress should have the support of both parties, while two-thirds want Obama and Democrats to try winning support from Republicans, who with few exceptions have opposed the Democratic drive.

    Obama’s marks are also poor on the economy, with 52 percent saying they disapprove of how he’s handled that issue.

    A similar number disapprove of his handling of taxes, some of which may rise to help finance his health overhaul. And 56 percent dislike his handling of the budget deficit, which has skyrocketed under the costs of the financial bailouts and a recession that has caused sinking federal revenues.

    The survey of 1,001 adults with cell and landline telephones was conducted from Sept. 3-8. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

  82. S: Here are a couple of more links:

    emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/08/liz-fowlers-plan/

    If you drew an organizational chart of major players in the Senate health care negotiations, Fowler would be the chief operating officer.

    As a senior aide to Baucus, she directs the Finance Committee health care staff, enforces deadlines on drafting bill language and coordinates with the White House and other lawmakers. She also troubleshoots, identifying policy and political problems before they ripen.

    “My job is to get from point A to point B,” said Fowler, who’s training for four triathlons this summer in between her long days on Capitol Hill.

    Fowler learned as a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania that the United States was the only industrialized country without universal health care, and she decided then to dedicate her professional life to the work.

    She first worked for Baucus from 2001 through 2005, playing a key role in negotiating the Medicare Part D prescription drug program. Feeling burned out, she left for the private sector but rejoined Baucus in 2008, sensing that a Democratic-controlled Congress would make progress on overhauling the health care system.

    Baucus and Fowler spent a year putting the senator in a position to pursue reform, including holding hearings last summer and issuing a white paper in November. They deliberately avoided releasing legislation in order to send a signal of openness and avoid early attacks.

    “People know when Liz is speaking, she is speaking for Baucus,” said Dean Rosen, the health policy adviser to former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). ”

    and:

    emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/08/the-max-tax-distribution-list/

  83. thanks, birdgal…i read both of the links you provided…however, I have to say I do not believe one word out of Gibbs’s mouth…I find it very hard to believe the WH (O, DA & RE) did not know about Baucus plan…

    give me a break, Gibbs…and throw in chuck todd (Mr GE frontman)…they expect us to believe the WH did not know anything…either the WH is so out of touch they are on another planet…OR
    they are working together in collusion and playing us for suckers and some kind of good/bad cop routine to further confuse, divide and distract everyone…

  84. ‘they are working together in collusion and playing us for suckers and some kind of good/bad cop routine to further confuse, divide and distract everyone…”

    —————————————————————————————-

    I was thinking the same thing.

  85. birdgal Says:
    September 9th, 2009 at 1:40 pm

    ‘they are working together in collusion and playing us for suckers and some kind of good/bad cop routine to further confuse, divide and distract everyone…”

    —————————————————————————————-

    I was thinking the same thing.

    ===============

    As usual, cui bono. Baucus playing bad cop here? His fines will make some people vote against the whole thing. The insurance companies want the mandate to pass, they don’t want anyone thinking about the details yet….

  86. Egobama could never qualify for an honor such as this and the MSM will never cover any event for Hillary.We must continue to cover every event that she so gives her best for her country.I think the medicine man will continue slide down the slope of infamy and infinity.

    ————————————–

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will accept the Roosevelt Institute’s Four Freedoms Award, which honors a lifetime of distinguished service and an unwavering commitment to freedom, on Friday, September 11 at 7:00 p.m. at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York City.

    On January 6, 1941, in one of the most important speeches of the 20th century, President Roosevelt proclaimed four freedoms essential to any flourishing democracy: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

    Each year, a single individual is selected for the FDR Four Freedoms Award. Previous honorees have included some of the most distinguished Americans of our time, including Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Carter and Clinton; Coretta Scott King; Elie Wiesel; Katharine Graham; Robert C. Byrd, and Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall. International recipients have included: Princess Juliana of the Netherlands, the Dalai Lama, H.M. Juan Carlos of Spain, Mary Robinson, Desmond Tutu, Shimon Peres, Kofi Annan and Nelson Mandela.

    In addition, each year, a Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Medal representing each of these values is presented to an individual whose life and work embody that ideal. This year, Anthony D. Romero and the ACLU will be the Freedom of Speech and Expression Medal Recipients, Eboo Patel and the Interfaith Youth Core will be the Freedom of Worship Medal Recipient, Vicki B. Escarra and Feeding America will be the Freedom from Want Medal Recipient, and Pasquale J. D’Amuro will be the Freedom from Fear Medal Recipient.

    The event will be open to the press. RSVP to awillis@rooseveltinstitute.org by Thursday, September 10. Space is limited.

    PRESS CONTACTS:
    Office of Press Relations
    U.S. Department of State
    (202) 647-2492

    Roosevelt Institute
    Adrienne Willis
    awillis@rooseveltinstitute.org

    PRN: 2009/884

  87. ANALYSIS-Afghan election fraud dispute does Obama no good

    Wed Sep 9, 2009
    By Peter Graff

    KABUL, Sept 9 (Reuters) – Can President Barack Obama ask Americans to send more of their sons and daughters to die in Afghanistan to defend a government willing to steal an election? That is the stark political question that U.S. officials may have to grapple with in the next few weeks if President Hamid Karzai continues to ignore evidence of fraud in last month’s Afghan presidential poll.

    An election complaints watchdog mainly appointed by the United Nations has said it had found “clear and convincing evidence of fraud” in the vote and ordered a partial recount. That did not stop Karzai from praising in a statement on Wednesday the “honest” and “impartial” vote. The disputed preliminary results show him heading for a first round victory.

    Diplomats say the election is not over until the recount. Fraud investigators may yet succeed in cleaning up the tally and coming up with a result that Afghans can accept as legitimate, with or without requiring Karzai to face a second round run-off.

    “We have to see the result of their investigations,” British ambassador Mark Sedwill said. “We always knew there would be fraud in this election, a lot of irregularities, I’m afraid that was inevitable, and we talked about that before the election.” Sorting it out may yet take months. Whatever the outcome, the apparent fraud already on display has further hurt the image of a government seen by many in the West as feeble and corrupt. Tallies — some since removed from the election commission’s website without explanation — featured such anomalies as entire villages where Karzai received every single vote cast, including exactly 500 votes each at four neighbouring polling stations.

    Karzai’s apparent eagerness to ignore concerns, hurry through the process and claim the prize has chilled an already frosty relationship with the new U.S. administration. It could do far more damage in coming weeks when Obama has to decide whether to double down on a risky strategy and send more troops.

    WORST TIME

    The election standoff could hardly come at a worse time for Obama, who has made Afghanistan the primary foreign policy focus of his presidency. He has already sent 21,000 extra troops to Afghanistan, ramping up an escalation begun at the end of last year by his predecessor George W. Bush. Since then, the war has become far deadlier, support for it at home has eroded, U.S. opinion-shapers have come out against it and NATO allies have wobbled in public.

    Sitting on the president’s desk is a week-old classified assessment of the eight-year-old war from Obama’s hand-picked new commander, General Stanley McChrystal, which is widely believed to make a case for sending more troops. Obama was supposed to take that decision after the outcome of Afghanistan’s election was clear. Now, an announcement of more troops may coincide with newspaper headlines about a protracted dispute over vote fraud by Washington’s ally.

    “It will be very difficult to justify the support of the outcome of an election, for which hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent and NATO soldiers have died, … (if) fraud decides the outcome, not the will of the people,” Karzai’s main opponent, Abdullah Abdullah, told Reuters.

    The relationship between the Obama administration and Karzai — which both sides have acknowledged got off to an awkward start earlier this year — now appears headed off the rails. The day after the election, when Karzai’s campaign manager prematurely declared a first-round victory by a wide margin, Obama’s envoy Richard Holbrooke had a tense meeting with Karzai to urge him not to pre-empt the result.

    SEETHING

    Karzai has taken to seething to reporters about his perceived mistreatment at the hands of Obama officials. Speaking about himself in the third person to a French journalist last week, he said: “The Americans attack Karzai in an underhand fashion because they want him to be more tractable. They are wrong. It is in their interest … that Afghanistan’s people respect their president.”

    U.S. policy makers have long understood that this autumn would be crunch time for Afghanistan policy. With thousands of new troops pushing into Taliban-held areas, the summer just past was always going to be the deadliest period of the war. It lived up to that billing: July was the deadliest month of the war for U.S. troops until August surpassed it. Polls show the U.S. public losing patience. Democratic members of Congress are grumbling.

    In the past week, influential newspaper columnists George Will and Nicholas Kristof — representing the right and left of the U.S. political spectrum — came out in favour of an early exit. Another, Thomas Friedman, expressed deep reservations. If public support for the war has waned in America, it has cratered in Europe, where Washington still relies on allies for political support and 40,000 troops.

    Britain and Germany called on Sunday for a conference later this year that would set new targets for Afghanistan to take over its own security and let Western troops withdraw. “As the Afghans take on more responsibility for their security, then the international engagement can be reduced,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said at a news conference flanked by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. In a joint letter with French President Nicolas Sarkozy to the head of the United Nations, they called for “new benchmarks and timelines” for handing over responsibilities to Afghans. Brown offered on Wednesday to host the conference.

    While his allies appear to be looking for an exit, Obama is contemplating sending more troops. Karzai has not made that decision any easier.

    reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSL9270936

  88. “Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will accept the Roosevelt Institute’s Four Freedoms Award, which honors a lifetime of distinguished service and an unwavering commitment to freedom, on Friday, September 11 at 7:00 p.m. at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York City.”

    ———————

    Bravo! Congratulations to the honorable Secretary of state Hillary Clinton! What an amazing and appropriate tribute to this fine lady.

  89. This is such a joke. They are dealing with peoples lives here and both sides are just playing games. His speech tonight is going to consist of one big stretch of his pinnochio nose after another. If he is going to consider a compromise, why not just say so up front?

    ——————————

    Snowe: White House Needs to Compromise on the Public Option

    Brian Beutler | September 9, 2009

    Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) may be the deciding vote–and the deciding voice–on health care reform, but for the time being she’s warning President Obama that she doesn’t support a public option without a trigger and urging the White House to compromise with other Republicans.

    “I talked to [President Obama] last week while I was in Maine and I talked to him on Monday as well,” Snowe said on MSNBC earlier today. “We talked about the public option. I was … urging him if he could take the public option off the table in his speech this evening so it could provide, I think, a momentum of a different kind in moving this issue forward overall.”

    Despite this pressure, Obama is nonetheless planning to support the public option in his speech tonight, by some accounts very strongly. However, Snowe remains convinced that the President will be flexible on the public option when push comes to shove.

    “I think he is going to be very flexible, absolutely,” Snowe noted. “I have discerned that in my previous conversations as well, that he has a practicality and a pragmatism and he recognizes that those are essential to achieving an agreement. He would prefer to have a bipartisan a agreement and broad support at that.”

    “The point is I don’t support a public option. And none of my Republican colleagues do and some Democrats in the Senate and even in the House. I think the point is how do we bridge the divide?” That is why, she said, she suggested the so-called trigger mechanism months ago.

    tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/snowe-white-house-needs-to-compromise-on-the-public-option.php

  90. “It’s amazing how beat-up she got over that comment. Though just about everything she said or did got taken out of context, over analyzed, and misinterpreted. I wish she was our President but I do support the one we’ve got despite his shortcomings. I have no doubt that McCain would’ve been worse than Obama. It’s just that Clinton would’ve been better than either of them. There’s really no use in longing for what could’ve been although I do permit myself to do so at times like this where she does and by extension those of us who supported her look pretty darn prescient. Hopefully, the beating Obama’s been taking will toughen him up and get him to understand there’s no appeasing the GOP right now. If I were Hillary I’d be biting my tongue to keep from saying, “Did you think it was just me they the republicans hated? Even I’m not arrogant enough to think their craziness and their hate was all about me.” Now that he’s in office, President Obama’s got teabaggers, birthers, deathers, and general right wing wackos showing up to town halls with guns. I guess he’s pretty darn “divisive” after all.”
    ——————————————————
    This person is what Lenin called a “useful idiot”. They would do well to remember what happened to Trotsky.

  91. Obama is a gifted orator, but his empty rhetoric is finally catching up with him.

    3w dot bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=amOkhvv8xttA

  92. birdgal@ 1:33, Gibbs, is full of poop. In medical terminology it FOS, meaning full of sh*&! LOL!!

    Well, I see we have had a hijacking in Mexico from Cancun. I will bet it was loaded with Americans, everytime we have a weak dimocrat, this crap happens.

    So proud for Hillary getting this award, hope its a pre-cursor for the nobel!

  93. Sep 9, 2009 20:15

    The article cited below states that the artifacts are believed to be solid evidence proving the theory that Jews found refuge in the Judean Hills during the Bar Kokhba rebellion in 132-35 CE. So I’m assuming obama and his terrorist friends can take that as refuting their ongoing lies that the Palestinians were there first.

    Archaeologists find 120 coins from the Bar Kokhba Revolt era

    jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251804529782&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

  94. The public option is dead, no matter what the TOTUS states tonight. He already sold out to the insurance and pharmaceutical companies during all of the closed door meetings. All this back and forth is kabuki theater, nothing more. Remember that article in Business Week: “The Health Insurers Have Already Won.”

    businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/09_33/b4143034820260.htm

Comments are closed.