Vote in Our Poll: What Has Been Obama's Worst Mistake Since Taking Office?

Remember to support our advertisers!

Obama Administration Asks FCC to Fine Fox News

FOX Facing Nearly $30 Million in Indecency Fines
Charles Glass
Huffington Post
October 20, 2009

President Barack Obama's Administration has declared from the beginning that one of its key goals is to return civility to the political arena. Over the course of nine months in office, the Obama White House has spoken to famed conservatives such as George Will and William Kristol and has displayed a new sense of openness with the White House Press Corps.

However, there have been increasing vitriolic attacks made on the White House by some in the broadcast media, especially FOXNews and other right-wing arms of the Republican Party. Some of the worst attacks come from Glenn Beck, the weepy radio host who regularly calls President Obama a "Kenyan" and once referred to former green jobs administrator Van Jones as a "monkey."

Other examples litter the FOX landscape. Bill O'Reilly's Factor is infamous for accusing the Administration of freeing pedophiles while regularly praising former President George Bush. Sean Hannity shows "government waste" on his show, often not totaling a million dollars, but is yet to criticize the $3 trillion waste better known as the Iraq War.

For all of these rabid right-wing attacks, the White House has become more cognizant of the American people. Recognizing that the American people are firmly against FOX's racist and bigoted attacks, the Administration is now directly challenging the "news" organization.

In a press release given to the Huffington Post and other press outlets this morning, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn stated that the Federal Communications Commission was asked to fine the FOX Corporation for violations of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005. This came after repeated racist and derogatory attacks made on FOXNews over the last two years.

In accordance with the 2005 law, every time the network featured a "particularly offensive" or "flagrantly untruthful" segment, a fine is levied. White House officials estimate the 2008-2009 fine to be nearing $29 million.

While FOX, owned by NewsCorp, is likely not to go into bankruptcy over the fines, it is called a "lesson in decency" by Ms. Dunn.

Dunn stated that the White House is considering asking the FCC to revoke or suspend FOX's privilege to broadcast on cable television. This appears unlikely at the moment, due to a lack of precedent.

"We cannot allow lies so flagrantly over the airwaves." Dunn stated in the release. "It is just like the propaganda that is used by foreign dictatorships. It is bordering on un-American."

EDIT: 12:50 pm: HuffPo link down. Hmm....

Outrage: Obama Refuses to Meet Dalai Lama

President Barack Obama has broken with presidential precedent and has refused to meet with the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama is the chief of the Buddhist faith and is also the acting head of state for Tibet, which China invaded in 1950.

The Dalai Lama is well-seen in many parts of American life and was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. Obama is the first President not to meet with the religious leader since 1991.

Obama perhaps believes that this move will placate China. Considering the relatively small power of the Lama, this sends the signal that Obama is willing to throw overboard leaders who are friendly to the US to appease hostile states.

This would be similar to President Reagan refusing to meet with Pope John Paul II during the height of the Cold War in order to make the Soviet Union happy. This would be absurd then and is terrible now.

Obama wants help in Iran, but this is not the move that will do it. Instead, it will isolate democratic Taiwan and political dissidents in China. It shames the memory of the Tienanmen Square protests and their horrific deaths.

GOP Congressman Frank Wolf stated: "It's against the law to even have a picture of the Dalai Lama. I can almost hear the words of the Chinese guards saying to them that nobody cares about you in the United States."

Obama should profusely apologize for this incredibly stupid and pro-dictator stance.

Obama's a Political Coward

Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism.

-- Barack Obama accepting the Democratic Nomination in Denver, August 2008

Politicians are famous for making promises they know they can't keep. Politicians are known for playing up small things into political distractions. Politicians often see themselves as the one person who can fix a broken world.

And I have news for you: Barack Obama is a politician. But he not just any politician. He is a political coward. Just as Keith Olbermann accused President Bush of using national security for political gain, President Obama is doing it fervently and transparently.

On issue after issue he has not shown backbone to debate his rivals and instead boils down his words into specious, nuanced attacks.

Obama v. Hillary

Take a look at the 2008 Democratic primaries. When Hillary pulled an upset in New Hampshire, the game had to change. So rather than debating Hillary on a health plan and showing how his might help working Americans, the debate devolved into pure phoniness.

Rumblings began that former President Clinton was a racist-- for stating that Obama didn't actually have a record to stand on. Racial undertones were played upon, even making it out in the open, delivering South Carolina to Obama. Rather than debate Hillary on national security, Obama simply changed to a simpler message, more easily digestible to young people and hard core leftists: Hillary was Bush's stooge for voting for the Iraq War. Not because Hillary looked at classified evidence or thought that Saddam was a threat. Nope. She might as well have had stock in Halliburton.

2008 General Election

After losing the popular vote in the Democratic primaries, but still winning the nomination (why is it acceptable for Obama, not the demon Bush?) Obama faced off against possibly the most bipartisan member of Congress. But his campaign was running low on steam and had to boil the race down to a couple of factors:

McCain's a stooge of Bush. Sound familiar? It was just too easy to push this line again, especially with so many of the under-30 crowd thinking that liking Bush was not avant-garde. Take a look at a key passage from his DNC speech:

John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time?

Translation: George W. Bush is dumb. McCain likes Bush. Do you really want to be dumb too?

Talk about a sophomoric argument.

And when McCain chose former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, the Obama team was knocked off message. She was young, popular, and inexperienced. Even though Obama had less executive experience, the bell rung that she must have no experience, so she's not qualified!

However, the strongest message that Team Obama and pop culture sent out was that-- Sarah Palin is dumb. Not that her policy choices were poor because of xyz, but no, she's dumb. She goes to a church where they say wacky things. Obama would have never done that. But in the end, the message was not to debate, but to belittle.

McCain challenged Obama to ten town hall debates. Obama realized that the more that he spoke without a TelePrompter, the dumber he sounded. So Team Obama declined. Who wanted to talk about policy, anyway? It's just much easier to promise Americans in a recession hope and change instead of a job.


Barack Obama depends on charisma and a few catchphrases to make up for a lack of political intelligence and backbone. Rather than actually debate issues and talk about specific points, he instead brings forward broad generalizations and belittles his opponents. He also relies on smooth deceptions from pop culture to keep the kids thinking he's cool. Kinda makes you wonder how he got elected.

I'll try to put up Part Two soon enough. If you like this post, please email it or share it or feel free to use it.

Obama's Health Care Plan a Travesty

President Obama has offered the the American people a lemon when it comes to the health care plan. His plan is pushing us towards nationalized medicine and is helping to balloon the deficit. I'm not even going to mention fetal reprocessing, which is so bad that even liberals can't defend it.

But let's take a look at other terrible options offered in the so-called health care reform package. Think of the idea for the public option. Not only will it create billions in new entitlements, but it will also help destroy current insurance. But the good news is that it's so poor that it looks like it might be dropped from the whole debate.

And sure that Obama says that illegals will not get free insurance though his plan. But take a look at what he really said. If an illegal comes into a hospital and needs treatment without money or insurance, they will have the bill picked up by Uncle Sam.

And even CBS News is now admitting that the health care plan will explode our deficit and cost us billions and billions of dollars. Obama's plan is a terrible fiscal idea.

But let's see the results ten years down the road. Many might lose quality care and we might owe $10 trillion on the health care plan. Inflation could be massive and unemployment may rise. What could we be thinking?

The official I am sorry I voted for Obama website has been launched

I think we all should have expected it to happen sooner or later, the official I am sorry I voted for Obama website has been launched. The website has been launched for Obama supporters, and those that know of Obama supporters, who now deeply regret the Presidential choice they made in the 2008 election.

Some of the funny, yet sad statements from former Obama supporters, includes:

"I want to apologize to the country. America, please forgive me.

I love my country. I wanted US to heal from our wounds and thrive again. I thought Obama could make it. Instead, it has become a nightmare. I’ll always regret dearly to have voted for him.

America, I have involuntarily contributed to your demise. The great country that our Founding Father created and our forefathers built over the span of 2 centuries lays now mortally wounded by the yoke of Communism.

We will have to pack our things again and resettle somewhere else. The American dream will live on … but not in America. "

"Both my daughters along with the husband of one have apologized to my wife and I for voting for Obama. They considered themselves Independents and had voted for Ron Paul in the GOP Primary, but could not stand the old fuddy-duddy McCain...and so went with the appeal of "change and hope" without realizing what Obama was really about."

"I voted for Obama in California. I encouraged all my friends and neighbors to do the same. Why? Well, I have an extended African American family by marriage, and I thought it would be empowering for my wonderful nephews to see a black President. I know…it's not a great method for voting. Also, I was beguiled by the "hope and change" rhetoric. I am a two-time Ross Perot voter, and I really REALLY wanted to find that post-partisan, post-racial American era.

However, six short months later, it is clear that the contents of the Obama presidential box do not match what was on the two-year Obama campaign label.

I have been betrayed. And I won't vote for him again."

"One of my son's teachers voted for Obama, and had been vocal in his support of Obama prior to the election. When my son saw him at the start of the new school year, the teacher admitted to having made "a big mistake in judgment" and regrets his previous thinking. He's even considering formally changing parties. "

- http://www.iamsorryivotedforobama.com/ If you feel regrets, or if you know someone who is feeling regrets, please do share...as the website has a goal of 4,000,000 former Obama voters expressing their remorse, either through statement, or silent petition.


- Tim Knight

Obama's Lost Summer

From POLITICO:

At the start of the year, Democrats were convinced they’d finally cracked the code.

They’d spent years testing and refining their message on health care reform. They had a popular president to push the effort, and Democratic majorities in Congress to support it. The public seemed receptive to big changes.

Eight months later, the effort is in serious trouble. The White House is almost back to Square One, struggling to break through with a message that has undergone several major course-corrections and on the defensive against wild charges that caught Democrats off-guard.

What went wrong? Bearing the brunt of some of the criticism is Obama himself – once viewed as a sure-fire closer, now facing grumbling on the left for letting critical months slip by without a constant, coherent and consistent argument. Think “change” and “hope” from the campaign, catchwords that Obama practically trademarked. In this fight, his key messages have shifted, from fixing health care to fix the economy, to “stability and security” for people who already have insurance.

And this week, he returned to an argument Democratic strategists said shouldn't be part of the pitch this year – trying to convince Americans they have a “moral obligation” to help people without insurance, a discredited argument from the reform effort under President Bill Clinton.

“I don’t think the messaging has been very clear,” said Celinda Lake, a leading Democratic pollster on health care. But more so, she added, “the campaign to disseminate the messaging has not been as relentless and organized as it needs to be.”

Said Drew Altman of the Kaiser Family Foundation, “The whole debate drifted in a direction that was disconnected from the core concerns of the American people.”

Democratic strategists see signs of hope in Obama’s recent moves, by focusing on insurance reforms that can provide more security for middle-class voters who are already insured.

Now they want to Obama to do more: Pick one message and stick with it. Steer the Democratic fight over the public insurance option out of the headlines and into the background. Stay above the fray and let his top aides fight the point-by-point policy battles.

In other words, return to being the inspiration leader that Democrats rallied around in the campaign, these strategists said.

“The president does need to get back on the high ground as the moral compass of why reform needs to happen and not spend much time down in the weeds arguing points of policy,” said Anne Kim, economic program director at Third Way, a centrist policy and strategy group that has produced messaging memos on health care. “His job is to tell people health care reform will remove a tremendous burden.”

Democrats fret that Obama has ceded the summer to critics who packed town halls to shout at lawmakers – and whose arguments seem to be taking hold among the public at large.

A new NBC News polls found Obama’s approval rating and voter support for health reform was largely unchanged from a month ago. But nearly half of all voters believe some of the “myths” being spread through the Internet and amplified by Republicans, including that the plan includes coverage for illegal immigrants and amounts to big-government takeover of health care.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs acknowledged this week that the administration has stumbled on messaging.

“I don't think anybody here believes we've pitched a no-hit game or a perfect game,” Gibbs said. “I don't think that's the case.”

Dan Pfeiffer, the White House deputy communications director, said the president isn’t discouraged by the ups and downs of the debate.

“This was never was going to be easy, if it was, it wouldn’t have happened decades ago,” Pfeiffer said. “While the pundit class in this town loves to pick winners and losers on a daily basis in concert with the cable news cycle, the fact is that we have made unprecedented progress toward enacting health reform and are confident on success in the long run.”

But there have been zigs and zags through the past eight months – a far cry from Democratic dreams of one consistent, poll-tested message that would resonate with voters start to finish.

Obama started in the spring with the “experts agenda,” as Altman put it. He talked about implementing health information technology, “bending the cost curve” on health spending, reforming the health care delivery system and funneling more federal dollars into research comparing the effectiveness of medical treatments and procedures.

Each element has been hailed by Republican and Democratic policy experts, but they did little to connect with the average person struggling to pay health care bills, Altman said.

When White House senior adviser David Axelrod briefed Senate Democrats in May, there was not a major emphasis on the insurance reforms that would come to dominate the White House messaging later in the summer.

Obama also focused heavily through the spring on the macroeconomic arguments for overhauling the health care system. The economy had yet to show signs of recovery, so talking about the impact of reforming health care on the economy as a whole may have fit the moment.

It was a solid pitch for his economy agenda, “but not for the health plan,” Lake said. “People want to know how it will affect them.”

Compounding the problem through June was the fact that the House and the Senate blew their deadlines for producing bills. The five committees working on health care had initially planned to release legislation right after the Memorial Day recess. But it wasn’t until mid-July that the committees began producing bills. And even then, the main player, the Senate Finance Committee, was nowhere close to finishing its legislation – and is still plodding along.

“We are in the most difficult period of messaging,” Lake said. “We don’t have a plan we are pointing to with specifics that would garner support.”

Democrats were also still looking for a villain. With all of the major industry players still talking with the White House, it was difficult to find one, Democratic strategists said.

By late July, Obama found one – the insurance industry – as he made another shift. This time, he emphasized reforms to the insurance market, which Axelrod urged senators to describe as “consumer protections.”

Democrats had long talked about the need to focus not on expanding coverage on the 47 million uninsured, but rather the insured, who make 85 percent of voters in an election year, Lake said.

Strategists were relieved to hear Obama start talking about “health insurance reform,” rather than “health care reform.” They liked the fresh attention to promising a more stable and secure existence for middle class voters who are worried about losing their coverage or being unable to afford it.

Lawmakers had hoped to hammer home this message during the August recess, but lost ground amid the spate of angry town halls and an avalanche of claims – which have been discredited – that Obama wants to cover illegal immigrants, establish “death panels,” and guarantee federal funding for abortions.
“In recent days, we have spent additional time correcting the absolute falsehoods about reform, which is a situation aided and abetted by many in the media,” a White House official said.

And this week, Obama returned to making a moral argument to provide insurance for all Americans during a call with faith leaders, a message Democratic strategists said they thought had been dismissed as a smart messaging strategy.

“It is not perfectly clear there is one frame targeted at the insured middle class,” Kim said. “If the message architecture were rock solid then the attack from the right wouldn’t have as much resonance.”

Democrats acknowledge they were lulled into complacency. One party official cited a largely under-the-radar dust up in February when Betsy McCaughey, the former New York lieutenant governor who played an influential role in torpedoing the Clinton reform effort, wrote an op-ed for Bloomberg News in February that Obama planned to ration health care. She cited a provision in the stimulus bill to spend $1 billion on comparative effectiveness research.

Reform advocates thought they won the fight when the money stayed in the stimulus bill, and the issue received only scant attention in the mainstream media.

Then, in May, Republican strategist Frank Luntz acknowledged in a messaging memo to his party that they shouldn’t argue against the need for reform. If even Luntz drew this conclusion from polling, then Democrats thought they were in good shape.

“We weren’t prepared for the level of passion coming from the other side because all signs indicated a greater national consensus on reform,” Kim said. “Luntz said don’t deny the need for health care reform. That lulled us into a sense of complacency – ‘Well, oh, the Republicans can’t say no, the impetus is too strong.’ The forces of ‘no’ were stronger than we thought.”

Obama's New Plan for Iraq: Release the Terrorists and Hope that They Don't Go on a Killing Spree

First, let me preface this with a statement. I understand the importance in counter-insurgency warfare to appear to be both merciful and tough. I understand that sometimes you have to release people who may have attacked you and re-integrate them back into a peaceful, productive society.

But still, everyone has their limits.

And today, when savage terrorists massacred at least 70 Iraqis, 300 veteran terrorists are set to be released. So are these simply poor farmers who were arrested wrongly? No. Were they people who just launched a rocket or placed a roadside bomb because they needed to feed their family? Probably not.

Instead, they are members of the Iranian-funded Asaib al Haq, who not only have launched attacks on Allied and Iraqi forces, but who led uprisings last year. Fortunately their group was almost annihilated by Maliki's swift offensives.

So all's well with the decision? Not exactly:

"The last thing the Iraqis need right now is for the wholesale release of members of this group just when the Iraqi security forces are trying to learn to walk," one official told The Long War Journal. "I see no indication the Asaib al Haq [League of the Righteous] is sincere about reconciliation; US troops are still being attacked by these Iranian surrogates."

Also released are members of the Iranian Qods Force, who have been coordinating attacks in Iraq for years. For example, Mahmoud Farhadi is one of the three leaders of the Qods Force in Iraq. ... And he's being released.

And this is in conjunction with another decision made by the White House to not bomb terrorists when they are in the Air Force's sights. Great.

Just Image if FoxNews Did This

MSNBC has been one of the main cheerleaders in the rise of Obama. It appears that the company behind the news station has taken the effort one step farther.

Despite paying Olbermann, Maddow, and Schultz, NBC now feels it necessary to assist the President's political future by selling merchandise slathered with his picture directly on their site. Maybe they need the extra money to pay off Olbermann's new salary.

So is this illegal? No. Is it completely misleading considering that NBC News wants to be 'impartial'? Absolutely. This is a gross smack in the face for anyone that wants to watch unbiased and non-snooty news.

Which brings us back to the original question. What if FoxNews was selling George W. Bush keychains and pictures and mousepads? It would have been 'exposed' as just another branch of the Republican 'hate machine.' Well, where are our lefty friends to call out this gross act of greed?

[Crickets]

That's what I thought.

Crotchety Old Man: Obama Cowering

Jack Cafferty is a relic at CNN. Cynical and always willing to complain, Cafferty was frequently eager to criticize President Bush during his years in office. Barack Obama was different... Cafferty's stone heart appeared to pump again and the Senator-turned-President engendered a more positive attitude.

That appears to be changing slightly. It's not that I really take Cafferty that seriously (and neither should you) but it appears that his return to morose cynicism marks the first major defeat of the Obama Administration with the health care debacle.

The honeymoon period appears to have ended and the glib adoration of Obama by many is under reconsideration.

Just take Cafferty's statements and viewer responses yesterday as an example. Ramon from California writes:

It means President Obama is willing to sell out millions of his supporters so he can placate a handful of senators who are in bed with the insurance industry. For goodness sakes, can the Democrats ever win? I thought we did last November. This isn’t the change we voted for. It’s pathetic.

It is pathetic. More and more Americans appear to realize the depths of which they were duped last November and if even crotchety Cafferty sees, we may be making progress.

FoxNews Growing in Obama's Shadow

President Obama was elected with over 50% of the vote last year. However, it appears that his political rivals may be able to swipe that much of the television ratings.

With some of the shine leaving the Obama Administration, many who are skeptical are already looking at alternative messages. MSNBC and the New York Times have grown almost infamous in their pro-Obama rallying and the internet is still abuzz with pro-Obama sentiment.

Enter FoxNews. The right-leaning network is definitely an anomaly and its message seems to be striking a tone with many in middle America. Heck, if even the San Francisco Gate is recognizing the rating bonanza that Fox is benefiting from, it must be serious.

Fox's ratings are up double-digits so far this year and it appears more likely that this will continue. Just take a look at this comment from the article:

Even if outnumbered, opposing voices are more likely heard in Fox's prime-time than on MSNBC's. Fox has also largely ignored the more extreme Obama opponents who question whether the president was born in the United States.

This is actually a really good point. Fox has largely been ignoring the crazy "birthers" while MSNBC eagerly had on many who accused Bush of lying about the War in Iraq. In addition, even though O'Reilly isn't my favorite person, he can at least have on opposing viewpoints on his show. Keith Olberdouche has built a veritable echo chamber of slobbering "guests."

'Un-American' Attacks Un-American

Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer made a big ruckus last week by describing health care protesters as "un-American." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has called the protesters "evil-mongers." The President himself has allowed his Administration to track critics and call on ordinary citizens to report their neighbors. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is calling protests out of the mainstream.

What's wrong with this picture?

In 2002 and 2003, in the run-up to the war in Iraq, many on the Left sated that they were being called unpatriotic. Still, if you look back on that time period, then-White House Press Secretary Ari Fleisher went out of his way to state that the protesters were excersizing their constitutional rights. president Bush reponded to his critics in a conciliatory tone, even meeting with Cindy Sheehan.

Many of the criticisms of the protests against the Iraq War was that the protesters didn't realize that many of their rights were determined by military action, not that these rights should be curtailed or silenced.

Still, now, the President and his political allies have regularly tried to paint their opponents as extremists. Reports of Nazi references and articles about increased militia activity are attempting to portray the average opponent of the health care plan (including perhaps some Blue Dog Democrats) as the ideological equivalent of Timothy McVeigh.

This demonization has been met with glee from the media. MSNBC, once so critical of President Bush's 'scare tactics' has taken a very harsh tone on these new protests.

The days are gone that city-clean Subarus carry that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Now, instead, the left is only attempting to protect the United States from a resurgence of the Klan, Neo-Nazis, and non-organic food eaters.

To call your political opponents un-American or unpatriotic while they are simply practicing the same rights you falsely stated that President Bush was curtailing is tactless and malevolent. To scream that they are extremists when they do not advocate violence or hatred is irresponsible and in itself 'fear-mongering.'

Political discourse is devolving as disagreeing with the President is slowly being perceived as hating America.

I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.

--Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Obama Health Plan Includes Controversial "Fetal Reprocessing"

Doctors Laud Proviso in Health Care Bill
Jamie Bullock
August 12, 2009

Washington is abuzz with the newest attempt at bringing affordable, quality health care to America's working families. President Obama, supported by the American Medical Association, has spearheaded an effort to give more American families coverage while making sure that existing coverage is not reduced.

Included in this legislation are many portions which have been cheered by the AARP, the AMA, and many in Congress. These include a public insurance option, electronic records, and private insurance reform. However, many doctors and hospitals have fully backed a clause regarding so-called "fetal reprocessing".

The health care bill presented to the House of Representatives offers $3 billion in direct tax benefits, as well as $1.2 billion in other incentives for this service. It is widely accepted as one of the greatest boons for modern medicine, both financially and scientifically.

Phillip Kimball, MD, who is an orthopedic surgeon at the Princeton Medical Center, helped advise Congressional leaders on the legislation.

"Basically, fetal reprocessing allows fetuses which either were terminated in miscarriages or abortions to be utilized for cutting-edge research. These include the use of stem cells, fetal organs, and especially brain matter."

While there was a large controversy regarding stem cells, Dr. Kimball states that these are not the focus. Instead, the most medically valuable portion of the prenatal infant is brain matter.

"The infant brain is incredibly tactile." Dr. Kimball stated to a group of New Jersey doctors, "By using many of the neurons in our testing, we can understand synapse connectivity and nervous expansion in a way which the adult brain cannot allow us." Dr. Kimball also stated that fetal brain matter could be integral to curing disorders such as cerebral palsy and mental retardation within a decade.

Fetal reprocessing has largely been illegal, due to the fact that most samples would have to be derived from aborted fetuses. As of today, this is illegal under most circumstances. However, the health care reform legislation will promote the idea of abortions as an option for birth control. In turn, this would give hospitals additional fetuses which could be a financial boon for the medical industry.

Many in the pro-life lobby are skeptical of this new health care proviso. However, Dr. Kimball is not one of them. "I think that it's ridiculous to hold up scientific progress for some small extremist group's opinion."

With passage in the House looking increasingly likely after meetings with conservative Democrats, President Obama's agenda appears stronger.

Town Hall Protestors 'In Risk of Being Arrested'

Nicolas French
New York Reporter
August 10, 2009

With public opinion turning away from the health care reform effort, President Obama's political allies have become increasingly frustrated. In many cases speeches made by Democratic lawmakers have been picketed by what have been referred to as "angry mobs."

To help counter these demonstrations, some in favor of health care reform have agreed to media interviews to explain their position. Often these forays into the public sphere have been lambasted by conservative radio hosts and outlets such as FOX News.

Tensions have been rising steadily over the last month, with some in the President's own party shying away from the "public option" bill. Congressional leaders have also expressed their anger over the increased protests.

"These extremists are getting in the way of creating a cheaper and more accessible option for millions of disadvantaged Americans." said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD). "If these continue, public discourse will devolve into a pool of rage and fistfights."

To make matters more contentious, White House officials have acknowledged that it asked prominent unions to "police" some protests. Unofficial reports have also noted that up to $100,000 in federal funds were paid to the AFL-CIO to attend three Missouri town halls in July.

In addition, with tempers flaring and the potential for violence increasing, the White House and its political allies have struck a different tone. Vice President Biden told a reporter to the NY Reporter that if protests continued and the reform bill was stalled, some of the protestors would "face consequences." When asked to clarify, Biden stated:

"These people come to these meetings and start fistfights and yell down their elected officials. You can't do that and still consider yourself a patriot. You can't go around with swatstikas spreading hate. If you do these things after you're told to calm down, you're going to get arrested."

Some attending local protests have noticed increased police activity, includng officers from federal agencies. Whether these occurances have anything to do with the Vice President's comments are unknown.

Copyright 2009, NY Observer. All rights reserved.

Obama: 'Health Care Reform Will Stabilize Economy' (No, Really, He Said This)

Over the last few months, I've contemplated why exactly the President is so terrible at his job. You know, declaring the Stimulus would prevent unemployment from going over 8% (it's at 9.5% right now, and rising), blaming Health Care reform stagnation on Republicans (instead of Blue Dogs and Ultra-Liberal Democrats), and making gaffe after gaffe.

Now, for months I've tried to ascribe to my personal theory that he is naive, uninformed, and has no experience. I didn't believe that he is intentionally destroying the US because he hates it or that he's an outright socialist. But my theories took a major hit when I read that the President stated that the 1.5 trillion dollar Health Care reform would "would stabilize the nation's fiscal health."

Such an egregious statement, one that is utterly idiotic, makes me seriously wonder if our President is simply naive or utterly stupid. Is he a liar? Normally I'd say not, and that his statements are just politics. But now...I'm just not sure.

I mean, there is no way in hell that he can believe this, and he can't "crunch" numbers and somehow come out with a profit for this thing. No...just no. There is something wrong here, something very wrong.

Rush Limbaugh on Greta: Obama Destroying the Economy on Purpose

Memo to Democrats: George Bush is no Longer President

Question : Who was President , when the massive housing entitlement program started, which led to this entire downfall?

Answer : President Bill Clinton.

Question : Who is the President, who has approve trillions in debt, wasteful spending, has increased our deficit faster then any other President in American history, and has led America to nothing but higher unemployment, and more dependency on government.

Answer : President Barack Obama.

Do the Democrats understand what I just wrote above? Nope, they just continue to blame Bush for all of the problems, please be noted...I did 100% disapprove of Bush on the TARP bailouts, and on the Auto bailout, so Bush did many stupid things, however he is not the main cause, that rests on the hands of Obama & Clinton.

So what the Democrats to do? With an economic crisis created by one, and then continued by another? They blame George W. Bush! A President who has remained silent, deathly silent I may add when it comes to the new administration, unlike the fighting Vice President Dick Cheney, whom I wish would consider a Presidential run.

Washington Post article - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/02/AR2009080201824.html?hpid=topnews


New Jersey - Corzine has raised taxes, Corzine has done a horrible job, increased governments size, increased government programs, etc. - he is the reason for the downfall of New Jersey, not George Bush, look at Texas..they are doing well, because of a 100% fiscal Conservative Governor.

Virginia - you are so desperate to defeat the Conservative Republican, McDonnell, who is winning by double digits, you just go back to the mud slinging, sorry, but I think the American people will no longer buy into the "Bush did it" baloney.

FACT CHECK: Distortions Rife in Health Care Debate

From the AP:

WASHINGTON – Confusing claims and outright distortions have animated the national debate over changes in the health care system. Opponents of proposals by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats falsely claim that government agents will force elderly people to discuss end-of-life wishes. Obama has played down the possibility that a health care overhaul would cause large numbers of people to change doctors and insurers.

To complicate matters, there is no clear-cut "Obama plan" or "Democratic plan." Obama has listed several goals, but he has drawn few lines in the sand.

The Senate is considering two bills that differ significantly. The House is waiting for yet another bill approved in committee.

A look at some claims being made about health care proposals:

CLAIM: The House bill "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia," House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said July 23.

Former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey said in a July 17 article: "One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years ... about alternatives for end-of-life care."

THE FACTS: The bill would require Medicare to pay for advance directive consultations with health care professionals. But it would not require anyone to use the benefit.

Advance directives lay out a patient's wishes for life-extending measures under various scenarios involving terminal illness, severe brain damage and situations. Patients and their families would consult with health professionals, not government agents, if they used the proposed benefit.

CLAIM: Health care revisions would lead to government-funded abortions.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says in a video, "Unless Congress states otherwise, under a government takeover of health care, taxpayers will be forced to fund abortions for the first time in over three decades."

THE FACTS: The proposed bills would not undo the Hyde Amendment, which bars paying for abortions through Medicaid, the government insurance program for the poor. But a health care overhaul could create a government-run insurance program, or insurance "exchanges," that would not involve Medicaid and whose abortion guidelines are not yet clear.

Obama recently told CBS that the nation should continue a tradition of "not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care."

The House Energy and Commerce Committee amended the House bill Thursday to state that health insurance plans have the option of covering abortion, but no public money can be used to fund abortions. The bill says health plans in a new purchasing exchange would not be required to cover abortion but that each region of the country should have at least one plan that does.

Congressional action this fall will determine whether such language is in the final bill.

CLAIM: Americans won't have to change doctors or insurance companies.

"If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won't have to do a thing," Obama said on June 23. "You keep your plan; you keep your doctor."

THE FACTS: The proposed legislation would not require people to drop their doctor or insurer. But some tax provisions, depending on how they are written, might make it cheaper for some employers to pay a fee to end their health coverage. Their workers presumably would move to a public insurance plan that might not include their current doctors.

CLAIM: The Democrats' plans will lead to rationing, or the government determining which medical procedures a patient can have.

"Expanding government health programs will hasten the day that government rations medical care to seniors," conservative writer Michael Cannon said in the Washington Times.

THE FACTS: Millions of Americans already face rationing, as insurance companies rule on procedures they will cover.

Denying coverage for certain procedures might increase under proposals to have a government-appointed agency identify medicines and procedures best suited for various conditions.

Obama says the goal is to identify the most effective and efficient medical practices, and to steer patients and providers to them. He recently told a forum: "We don't want to ration by dictating to somebody, 'OK, you know what? We don't think that this senior should get a hip replacement.' What we do want to be able to do is to provide information to that senior and to her doctor about, you know, this is the thing that is going to be most helpful to you in dealing with your condition."

CLAIM: Overhauling health care will not expand the federal deficit over the long term.

Obama has pledged that "health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it."

THE FACTS: Obama's pledge does not apply to proposed spending of about $245 billion over the next decade to increase Medicare fees for doctors. The White House says the extra payment, designed to prevent a scheduled cut of about 21 percent in doctor fees, already was part of the administration's policy.

Beyond that, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the House bill lacks mechanisms to bring health care costs under control. In response, the White House and Democratic lawmakers are talking about creating a powerful new board to root out waste in government health programs. But it's unclear how that would work.

Budget experts also warn of accounting gimmicks that can mask true burdens on the deficit. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says they include back-loading the heaviest costs at the end of the 10-year period and beyond.

Obama Polls Continue to Fall

Once again, new polls from Rasmussen show that the President's support is quickly deteriorating. Good news for the country, better news for the world.

How Millionaires Will Pay Over $500,000 in Taxes Over Ten Years for Health Care if Obamacare Approved

Watching President Obama's Press Conference on Health Care, I spent much of my time with my mouth hung open with disbelief. For fun, I decided to elaborate on one of the Commander in Chief's answers to the question 'Have you informed Congress on how to pursue Health Care reform.' Of course he answered as if the question was "How will you pay for Health Care" were asked, but oh well, it's all politics and semantics, right?

The President stated that 2/3s of his Health Care Plan was deficit neutral because tax revenue would be shifted from one area to another. He'd make everything more efficient in order to make this happen. All right, I doubt that will work, but let's say it will to humor the President. For the rest of the answer, he touted that taxes and sacrifices will only pay for the other 1/3. Over and over again. the President referred to the 'small' 1/3 of Health Care reform that people will have to pay for. But let's take a step back...

The Health Care Reform Bill will cost approximately 1.5 Trillion dollars, right? Okay, so the 1/3 of the cost that the rich will pay has been lauded by the Pres., correct. Well, if the President can do simple mathematics, that is $500,000,000,000, or 500 Billion. Wow, that's a lot. Wait, don't freak out yet, divided by a bunch of rich people that can't be too much, right? Right?

Well, the President says that he only wants to tax those who make over one million dollars a year. Okay, sounds good, but how many people in the US make over a million bucks? Not having a net worth of one million or more, but have an annual income of $1,000,000 or more. According to Leonard Beeghley, a Professor of Sociology at the University of Florida, .9% of the richest people make $350,000 annually. Well, that's still not quiet one million, so let's say that approximately .3% of the US population makes $1,000,000. I don't know the actual number, but I'm being kind and saying .3% instead of the more likely .25 or .2%.

All right, lots of math will bring a big payoff, so just a little more... There are approximately three hundred million people living in the United States. .3% of 300,000,000 is nine hundred thousand people, or 900,000. Okay, the big payoff: the five hundred billion dollars divided by the nine hundred thousand people who would pay for it is... $555,555.56 over ten years.

So in other words, if President Obama actually gets those making more than one million dollars annually to pay for health care, they will pay approximately $560,000 each.

$560,000 each!

Yes, my fellow Americans, President Obama cannot do math if he thinks this is viable.