OBAMA LIES AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN

Obama reminds Americans he inherited the high deficit from Republicans
THE POST IS FURTHER DOWN...BUT LETS READ THE COMMENTS FIRST....

We would all well be reminded that the surplus created from 1992 to 2000 was done by a person who used social security funds. Research it. This person reallocated the money from the "Social Security Administration", of which is now lacking in any funds, and used the money to make the U.S. Government look like it was running a surplus. The 1992 to 2000 Administration also had the opportunity to rein Bin Laden in to save future generations from Bin Laden’s doings. They failed to do so. Read about it. The administration from 2000 to 2008 had to deal with terrorists and Osama Bin Laden’s network that the administration in the 1990’s let go. The last administration called for the SEC to disallow much of the shenanigans regarding lending and insurance on loans. The 2003 Congress would not let that administration do it. The administration in the first decade of this century basically was challenged in salvaging what the prior administration had torn apart because the 1992-2000 Administration was too busy making things look good instead of getting down to work.

when congress was recaptured by the democrats in 2006, they sat on their hands for the next two years. Didn’t do a thing to solve any problem facing this country. Their sole agenda was to do nothing so Bush could be blamed for the problems over the next two years.

It amazes me how Bush is blamed for the financial crisis, but congress administers the funds, not the president. The democrats are as guilty as any republican because they wasted two years up to the “crisis” in Oct 2008. Then, since an election was around the corner, they got religious and screamed regulation of the financial industry needed to happen right away.

John McCain had been screaming for regulating the financial industry in those two years, but democrats like Rangel, Frank and Dodd would have nothing to do with it, Only after everything fell apart in Oct of 2008 did they scream for regulation.

Those democrats should be put in jail for that.

During 7 of Bush’s 8 years in office, the deficit increased to approx. $500B. In the last six months of his last year, the Congress (including Obama) passed, and Bush signed, the $800B bailout package (necessitated by Democrat failures over the years as much as Republican). This $800B was a LOAN, not an “expenditure,” but the federal accounting process does not have any way to account for a loan, so this went down as “spending,” artificially increasing the deficit to the mythical, and false, $1.3 trillion figure. Now, for all you screaming that “it wasn’t a loan!,” guess what? $500B has already been repaid!! That’s what’s called “a loan.” There is little doubt the other $300B will be repaid as well. Thus, the REAL deficit left by Bush to Obama was $500B, not the $1.3 trillion figure that Obama likes to use to lie to the public. Now, if I know that, and (almost) everyone else knows that, how come Obama doesn’t? Well, there are 2 choices: (1) he does know that, but he’s a liar, or (2) he doesn’t know this and he’s ignorant. Ignorant or a liar, either way he’s in over his head.

Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush, blah blah blah. Amazingly, a lot of people still swallow this nonsense.
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress,and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009, though, Pelosi and Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a ma$$ive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.
And where was Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009.
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is, I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

I have not noticed the current administration changing their historical pattern of free spending ways. They’re response to irresponsible spending is…more spending. Throw ‘em all out!

Our labor unions demand what the companies can not pay and price us out of the market by doing so. Our Gov’t gives non citizens more help than they do a native born American. You can not spend your way out of debt.

NOW....HERE IS THE POST THOSE COMMENTS RELATE TO.

Lest there be any doubt, President Barack Obama, a Democrat, blames Republicans for leaving him a huge deficit when he took office.

Heard that before? Many times, probably. The president, who is under pressure for spending associated with the $787 billion stimulus package, bank bailouts and car company rescues, introduced his budget on Monday with another reminder of what he faced when he came into office.

“The fact is, 10 years ago, we had a budget surplus of more than $200 billion, with projected surpluses stretching out toward the horizon,” Obama said.

“Yet over the course of the past 10 years, the previous administration and previous Congresses created an expensive new drug program, passed massive tax cuts for the wealthy and funded two wars without paying for any of it — all of which was compounded by recession and by rising health care costs,” he said.

The result: a $1.3 trillion deficit when he first took over the Oval Office.

On Monday his administration forecast a $1.56 trillion deficit in 2010.

Administration officials acknowledge that even though Obama didn’t create the full problem, it’s now his to fix.

What do you think? Is it right for Obama to put most of the blame for the high deficit on the opposition party and his predecessor, George W. Bush?

Expect to hear the reminder again.

Photo credit: Reuters/Jason Reed (Obama)


http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2010/02/01/obama-reminds-americans-he-inherited-the-high-deficit-from-republicans/

BILL BURTON IS ANOTHER SCUMBAG PUPPET FOR OBAMA

BILL BURTON IS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A BRAINSWASHED FOOL IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTATION. A truly brainwashed SCUMBAG ! LOOK HIM UP ON THE NET. BILL BURTON'S LIES ! YOU WILL FIND MANY MANY OF THEM.
Everytime you turn around he is telling another lie. Today he defends a new position. THIS DAMN ADMINISTRATION JUST KEEPS ADDING TO THE DEBT THIS COUNTRY IS INCURRING DUE TO THE POLICIES OF OBAMA. CZARS OUT THE YING YANG AND NEW DEPARTMENTS OUT THE YING YANG. Spending all this moeny is no problem to him. He is running AMERICA INTO THE GORUND. That has been his intention from the very start. WHAT A SICKO SCUMBAG THEY ALL ARE.
Why don't you ask the 9-11 victims familes how they feel about interrogations. The damn murderers get treated better than the victims. This is administation is made up of a bunch of brainswashed scum. They bow to their New Messiah.


WASHINGTON — Barack Obama has approved creation of a new, special terrorism-era interrogation unit to be supervised by the White House, a top aide said Monday, further distancing his administration from President George W. Bush's detainee policies.

The administration has also decided that all U.S. interrogators will follow the rules for detainees laid out by the Army Field Manual, according to senior administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the decision. That decision aims to end years of fierce debate over how rough U.S. personnel can get with terror suspects in custody.

The new unit does not mean the CIA is now out of the interrogation business, deputy White House press secretary Bill Burton told reporters covering the vacationing Obama at Oak Bluffs, Mass.

Burton said the unit will include "all these different elements under one group," and it said that it will be situated at the FBI headquarters in Washington.

The unit would be led by an FBI official, with a deputy director from somewhere in the government's vast intelligence apparatus, and members from across agencies. It will be directly supervised by the White House, but the senior administration officials insisted the unit's agency bosses will make operational decisions, not the White House.

The officials also said that in cases where terror suspects are transferred to other countries, the U.S. will work harder to ensure the suspect is not tortured.

Separately, Burton said that a recommendation now before Attorney General Eric Holder to reopen and pursue prisoner abuse cases is a decision solely for Holder to make without any intervention from the president.

The structure of the new unit the White House is creating would depart significantly from such work under the previous administration, when the CIA had the lead and sometimes exclusive role in questioning al-Qaida suspects.

Obama campaigned vigorously against Bush's interrogation policies in his successful run for the presidency. He has said more recently he didn't particularly favor prosecuting Bush administration officials in connection with instances of prisoner abuse. Obama still believes "we should be looking forward, not backward," Burton said Monday.

Nonetheless, the spokesman added, Obama believes the attorney general should be fully independent from the White House and he has full faith in Holder to make the decision on whether to reopen several such cases with an eye toward possible criminal prosecution. "He ultimately is going to make the decisions," Burton said of Holder.

CIA Director Leon Panetta said in an e-mail message to agency employees Monday that he intends "to stand up for those officers who did what their country asked and who followed the legal guidance they were given. That is the president's position, too," he said.

Panetta said some CIA officers have been disciplined within the agency for going beyond the methods approved for interrogations by the Bush-era Justice Department. Just one CIA employee— contractor David Passaro— has ever been prosecuted for detainee abuse.

"The CIA has played a vital role in the work of the task force, and its substantive knowledge will be essential to interrogations going forward," agency spokesman George Little said Monday.

Obama campaigned vigorously against President George W. Bush's interrogation policies in his successful run for the presidency. He has said more recently he didn't particularly favor prosecuting Bush administration officials in connection with instances of prisoner abuse. But the issue now before Holder for consideration would have the new administration do precisely that: reopen several such cases with an eye toward possible criminal prosecution.

The new interrogation unit will be known by the acronym HIG.

The administration was publicly confirming the new interrogation unit on the same day that the CIA inspector general was to unveil a report on Bush administration handling of suspects. Details were expected to show that highly questionable tactics were used.

Now, all such questioning will fall under the rules of the Army manual.

The manual, last updated in September 2006, authorizes 19 interrogation methods used to question prisoners, including one allowing a detainee to be isolated from other inmates in some cases.

The manual prohibits forcing detainees to be naked, threatening them with military dogs, exposing them to extreme heat or cold, conducting mock executions, depriving them of food, water, or medical care, and waterboarding.

Subjecting prisoner abuse cases to a new review and possible prosecution could expose CIA employees and agency contractors to criminal prosecution for the alleged mistreatment of terror suspects in the years after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Holder reportedly reacted with disgust when he first read accounts of prisoner abuse earlier this year in a classified version of the IG report. And the Justice report is said to reveal how interrogators conducted mock executions and threatened at least one man with a gun and a power drill. Threatening a prisoner with death violates U.S. anti-torture laws.

A federal judge has ordered the IG report made public Monday, in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The accounts of the White House-supervised interrogation unit and the ethics recommendation to Holder were first reported, respectively, by The Washington Post and The New York Times.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705325517/Official-New-interrogation-unit-set-up.html

AARP LIES LIKE HELL AND SO DOES OBAMA. DECIDE FOR YOUR SELF !

DECIDE FOR YOURSELF. I have ! AND.. THEY REALLY SUX !
http://aarplies.com/

Is AARP's Facts Vs. Myth Website lying?! Read from the bill here and decide for yourself.
And we challenge AARP to put data and links on their website and remove their misinformation.

Updated Saturday 8/15/09, 8:45 pm PDTLatest updates: Medicare Advantage to be eliminated
Extra update: Another GREAT alternative health care plan from Whole Foods' CEO
Sen. Arlen Spector (R, er, D) caught clueless about what's in the Bill
We were shocked when we compared the most recent House bill (H.R.3200 - America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009) with the AARP website.
The AARP website misrepresents what is in the Bill.
All we want is honest information so we as voters can decide. Please read and decide for yourself, and let's have our Representatives and Senators quote from the bill and defend and convince us with FACTS, instead of trying to snow us with "trust us" (watch Sen. Arlen Specter lie and make a fool of himself). NOTE THAT EVERY CLAIM ON THIS WEBSITE HAS LINKS TO THE ACTUAL BILL OR VIDEO OF SPEECHES -- SO YOU CAN DECIDE.
First, we'll summarize the problem and the obvious solutions, and then we'll refute the AARP "Facts vs. Myths" webpage section-by-section. Obviously, we are NOT affiliated with AARP, nor any other group -- we're indepdent thinkers and voters, who can't stand disinformation. We reference sources for all linked information and include excerpts without claiming ownership or authorship. And we DID call AARP and try to get them to change their misleading website but they refused, so we had to make this website.
Also, here's a good summary table of some of the House and Senate Bills from Examiner.com.
And another good summary with even more scary details, here, from The Free Republic
And a doctor's analysis of the bill, here
What should you do if you agree that AARP is being misleading?
Call your local Representative and Senator TODAY and tell them how you feel
Call AARP TODAY at 1-888-687-2277 and CANCEL your AARP membership (so they know you mean it !)
The ways to reduce costs for healthcare are to:
Increase insurance company competition -- allow writing of policies across state lines.
Reduce government regulation and requirements of extra coverages in ALL policies only used by very few customers (they could be required for certain policies just like 'assigned risk' in auto insurance, and yes, those policies would cost more, but also cover more, and people could choose)
Have a considered (= 3-5 months of debate), public discussion of ways to help the 9-12 million US Citizens who can't afford health insurance.This is much cheaper than ANY option in the current bill!
Work on tort reform (to limit legal judgments, so insurance costs don't need to be so high).
Encourage Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) so you can control where you spend your money
Don't put the US Government and your tax dollars into running another bureacracy. A Single-Payer health system will not make money or even cover its costs, but will undercut the free market and subsidize itself off your taxes -- actually increasing the cost to you while reducing care -- it's a death spiral !
NOBODY IS SUGGESTING DOING NOTHING!Here's another great set of alternatives from Whole Foods' CEO
Why we don't trust our Representatives and Senators:
Congress won't be required to enroll. Why isn't it good enough for them but good enough for us? (The current bill exempts Congress -- and Members even refused good faith attempts to fix this: "On July 16, Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., went further and offered an amendment to the House version during the Ways and Means Committee markup that would require members of Congress to enroll in its own government-run health care program. Democrats defeated the amendment, 23 to 18.)"
Will the government be the only insurance company? (This is called "SINGLE PAYER")Will this force the private insurance companies out of business? President Obama has said that it will and that IS HIS INTENT. He has said it may take 10 or 15 years, but that's his plan. You can debate the result, but not what's on record. Watch the video here and watch another video here.
When the President keeps saying, "If you like your current health plan, you can keep it," that's a lie: No, you can't. And in his videos (paragraph above) he repeatedly gives his "vision."
If you're a Senior Citizen, note that the Bill will penalize hospitals for readmitting you (as often happens when you're being treated for several things when you're older). See Section 1151 REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS..
Medicare Advantage Insurance Options will be limited by the whims of one person appointed by the President. From Section 1162 (E): "(iv) AUTHORITY TO DISQUALIFY CERTAIN PLANS- In applying clauses (ii) and (iii), the Secretary may determine not to identify a Medicare Advantage plan if the Secretary has identified deficiencies in the plan's compliance with rules for such plans under this part." And President Obama confirmed his plan to STOP MEDICARE ADVANTAGE AS A "WASTE OF MONEY" DURING HIS TOWNHALL MEETING IN MONTANA: Obama says he can get savings of "about $177 billion over 10 years. That's how much we think we could save by eliminating subsidies to insurance companies that are offering what's called Medicare Advantage. It doesn't help seniors any more than regular Medicare does." (<-- you can click on the link, and the use control-F to search for the phrase 'medicare advantage' to find the quote) If you have a Health Savings Account (HSA), that will be illegal under the new plan. Why? Because they are not included in the definition of a'Qualified Health Plan.' BOTH Democrats and Republicans of good character tried to add that definition. It was denied. Does that seem like sneaky lawerly tricks to you? Yup, to us, too. Again, read the data and be an informed voter:"To protect the existing coverage of Americans who currently have these plans, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT), and Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) offered an amendment that would include health benefits plans with HSAs in the bill's definition of a 'qualified health benefits plan.' The Committee majority defeated this amendment. In other words, Americans who wish to buy HSA plans would be stripped of their freedom to choose them."
Tort reform is not addressed in the current bill, but tax penalties for US citizens and exemptions from penalties for illegal immigrants are included: Sec. 59B, Pg. 170, Line 1 - "Any NONRESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes."
Still Reading? GREAT! Now let's look at the misleading AARP site(you can click on any of the images below to enlarge it and see the AARP site)



Myths? Ha! Unlike AARP, we use data to back up our claims. Does AARP refuse to use REAL DATA with citations from the BILL because they are lying, or lazy, or both?! Or do they just think you won't find out?!
The real myth is that we need to do something, anything before we've had time to discuss and debate it, make sure we can pay for it, and not throw away our current health system when it's the envy of the world!

REAL FACT: You'll get to keep your insurance for only 5 years (page 17), OR LESS if *anything* changes in your health plan, INCLUDING if you change jobs. Then, you MUST enroll in the US Gov't Health Plan (page 21+ ). You may get to choose your own doctor, but that is misleading because the doctor may not accept your insurance, or may have US Government guidance on what procedures to perform, etc. Read the bill, please! Do you think that healthcare bills that are 1,018 pages long are designed to make it hard for YOU to read and understand and be informed on what's going on?! Us, too! See what can you do.
REAL FACT: So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised, BUT: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. And once the bill takes effect in about 2 years, insurance companies are prohibited from writing new policies.

REAL FACT: We're only talking about the House Proposal, since the Senate's isn't public and the White House hasn't published anything (so much for leadership, or rather political deniability),or do you have special information, AARP? The Bill won't "stand between individuals and their doctors" but it will define what can be in medical plan (page 16) and while it will allow the "best possible care", it WILL DEFINE "what best care is possible"! (page 16)

REAL FACT: The White House looks like it's cutting temporary side-deal with the drug companies (in typical Chicago-thug fashion), so drug prices might not go up for now, but long term, it's a Faustian deal once the government's the only buyer.
REAL FACT: The Bill doesn't "prevent" hospital readmissions for seniors, it just reduces the payments to hospitals if they do so (See Section 1151 REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS). To us, AARP is telling the truth here, but is misleading you!

REAL FACT: The President's "commitments" have quadrupled our national debt in less than 6 months, and the CBO's cost estimate for the current Bill recently jumped from "only" $200 billion to now closer to $1-1.5 TRILLION over just the next 10 years, with deficits never stopping and the debt just increasing!


REAL FACT: No one is suggesting doing nothing, but doing the wrong thing is something we can't afford and may push us into losing our National debt rating resulting in higher interest rates and much worse economic times. Doing the right things (see above), and carefully improving our current system, are the right things to do.

REAL FACT: Again, misleading. The government cannot refuse to treat you, but it defines what care you must "choose" to receive. YOU still "choose" to accept what they offer, OR to die (not something you have much choice in, as we see it).
REAL FACT: The current plan Section 1233 spells out "end of life planning," Obama has suggested people get "a pain pill instead of surgery," and there will be healthcare recommended practices board (a "healthcare benefits advisory board"). But still, it will be your "choice" to live or die. Right.

TAKE AMERICA BACK FROM THE THUGS IN WASHINGTON DC

A Direct Report TO Congress
Uncle Sam's Tavern ^ 8/7/09 April Clark

Posted on Monday, August 10, 2009 10:42:00 PM by Anejo

There are some things you folks in Washington need to know about the "mobs" that are "storming" your town hall meetings. I proudly count myself among their number, and would like to take this opportunity to explain a few things. I hope you're listening.

Listening. So much would be different if you were better at that particular skill. For years we have written to you, respectfully voicing our concerns and opinions. In response, we get form letters, telling us what you, in your infinite wisdom, plan to do - regardless of our desires or opinions. I have gotten form letters from my representative that pertained to an entirely different subject than the one about which I had written. Clerical error? Sure, but also entirely indicative of just how much you care about satisfying those who hired you and pay your salaries. I have written, I have called, and I know dozens of others who have done the same. On cap and trade, I heard that the calls were 200 to 1 against the legislation - you passed it anyway. Do you know how that makes us feel? Do you have any idea what a slam that is?

You see, we, the people, still believe in the Constitution. We believe that this country is supposed to be all about us, not a few hundred disconnected, power hungry, pompous and self-righteous elected officials in Washington who long ago forgot what it's like to be a real American. We, the people, do not approve of your scorn and contempt for our opinions. We, the people, have spoken out every way we can, often and loudly, and you have brushed us aside. We, the people, will not be silenced.

For years you ignored our phone calls and letters, so we began gathering around the country to express our grievances. Our signs told the story clearly, but you, and your shills in the media, chose not to read them. You laughed at us and dismissed us as "tea baggers." All very amusing. We, the people, are not amused. Had you read the signs and given us five minutes of real consideration, you might have understood and stopped it all then. Instead you slapped us with your rhetoric.

Here is one more chance for you to get the message. This is not about taxes, at least not currently assessed taxes. This is about liberty. This is about your belief that you know better than we how to manage our lives. You do not. This is about a federal government that has spent more than two centuries making laws - layers upon layers upon layers of laws - and almost never repealing any law. This is about a federal government that has vastly overstepped its bounds as explicitly stated in the Constitution of this great nation. This is about the few seeking to control, manage and mandate the many.

We are Americans. Do you remember what that means? Do you even have a clue? Let me explain.

An American is free. Free to pursue his chosen course in life, free to succeed beyond his wildest dreams, and, importantly, free to fail.

An American is strong. Strong enough to work hard for what he wants out of life, and to fight and die, if necessary, to retain that right.

An American is proud. Proud of the accomplishments of his nation through the decades, and the millions of people in other lands who are free because of the efforts of this nation. Proud of our personal productivity and ingenuity, proud of our children and determined to leave them a country that affords them the same chances we ourselves were given.

An American is loyal. There is nothing we will not do for those we count among our own, and nothing we will not do to defend against those who would harm our people or our nation.

An American is self-sufficient. We do not wish to be taken care of by our government - we ask only for government to get out of our way and let us do what comes naturally: produce.

We are the most productive people in history. We have done more to improve the lives of people in every other nation than any people in history. Our innovations, our ingenuity, our generosity to those in need, are all unsurpassed in recorded time. We, the people, are the shining city on a hill. Our spirit is what has made this nation the envy of the world, the destination of the most immigrants, the engine that keeps the global economy humming along. All we ask is that we be allowed to keep some of what we produce. That is our incentive, and that is what you would take from us with your grand schemes of a utopian society where everyone is equal and poverty is no more.

Your intervention has done nothing to better our nation. Your entitlement programs are a curse to their recipients - when a person is handed a means of existence without having to expend any effort, he is stripped of any incentive to better himself. Hunger is a wonderful motivator.

We, the people, know how to live on a budget. Of course we want more than we have - that is the beauty of our system. If we want something badly enough, we will work, save and scrimp to obtain it. We can no longer tolerate your unwillingness to conduct yourselves likewise. You are running up ever larger debts, printing money, borrowing from questionable nations like China, mortgaging our futures and our children's futures for generations to come - all to enact legislation that goes against everything we, the people, stand for and believe in. Just think about that for a minute. Imagine someone telling you that they were taking out a loan in your name, a loan so large that there is no possible way you, personally, will ever be able to repay it, and the obligation will fall to your children when they are grown. You cannot refuse this debt, and you have no say in how the money will be spent. If you refuse to pay, you will go to jail. Is that liberty? Is that justice? Is that, in any way, logical, fair or reasonable? We believe it is not.

We have been in that exact situation since the day we were born. Each and every one of us has inherited debts owed by our ancestors, and those debts continue to grow, never to shrink, no matter how much we are taxed. The programs grow ever more numerous, the handouts ever more generous, the disregard for the impact of all of these programs on the productive ever more blatant. We have had enough.

We want only to live our lives unimpeded. We do not enjoy painting signs and taking time away from our jobs and our families to go to protests. We do not relish the thought of shouting down our elected representatives in government at town hall meetings. We are not right-wing extremists, potential terrorists, thugs or swastika carrying mobs. We are the American people, and we want our country back.

Each time you ignore us, we will have no choice but to escalate our attempts to communicate. The letters and phone calls led to tea parties. The tea parties led to noisy confrontations at town hall meetings. Those confrontations, rather than making you listen, are apparently being met by a mustering of troops to confront us and shout us down, by union thugs and ACORN members being called out to suppress our voices. Their presence is already resulting in minor violence at these formerly peaceful gatherings. What is your goal? Do you seek riots in the streets?

Hear me now: NO MORE!

You and your thugs will never silence the American people. We will continue to speak out, with our voices and our votes, until we purge our government of those who violate our Constitution. We seek only to return our country to its former greatness. We do not wish violence, but, rather than silence us, it will only make us more determined to prevail. You are gravely mistaken if you think that this is manufactured anger, or some kind of passing trend. We are not shills for any political party or special interest - that is your world, not ours. We have watched in silence for far too long as you have perverted everything that is great about this country. We will not be silent again. Hear us now or hear us later - but with each passing day the anger at your audacity grows. With each passing day our numbers grow and our conviction solidifies. Ignore us at your peril.


Sorry to inform you idiots that keep hollering racism. It is not racism at all.
I am sure Obama is a good family man. He is just "not" Presidential Material.
He has chosen all these scum bags from Chicago to be in his cabinet and all these other idiots from environmental groups, Unions, AARP, and it goes on and on and on that he feels he owes a debt of gratitude to for helping to get him elected. That is no way to run a country.
All these groups of people have their own agenda's and it sure as hell aint for the good of the country and the American people that reside in this country.
He has no clue on how to run a country and has turned it all over to all of these fools and the fools in congress and the senate and they have had agendas for years. I mean look at ALL THE PORK they put in the stimulus bill. That was not stimulus. It was all their little pet projects they have wanted for years.
All the pork needs to stop. These people in congress need to run on their own merits of helping all Americans and America as a whole to become a better country...Not promises of what kind of pork projects we as Americans pay for with our tax dollars for things that don't even concern us. We don't live in those communities. If they need things done let them lobby there state congress for these things. If the state congress votes for it let the states sell bonds to pay for it. There is a better way. Our congress is out of control and they do not care what WE THE PEOPLE think of them.
If real Americans with a brain sit around and do nothing about these people running and ruining our country right now then YOU will be the ones to blame when things become so screwed up that everyone will suffer.
Get off your duff and when you have a few send letters to your representatives and senators. Write your local newspapers, do something.
I do not see Mr.Obama being re-elected in 2012. He just does not have what it takes.He is an appeaser and has been form DAY 1 !
People that voted for him did not really realize what he had in mind when he said change.
If it aint broke don't fix it.
Our healthcare system is not in dire straits. It may need a few tweaks here and there and the insurance companies need to be scolded and more fair to who they insure but the whole system does not need an overhaul. They need to scrap the bill and start over.
All this BS about cutting medicare and medicaid is disgusting. You can't hardly find a Dr. now that will take it because of how little they pay the Dr.'s. It will get even worse if it is all turned over to the government.
Do you hate Dr's that went to medical school for years and years just to be a Dr. and all they want to do now is make a living. They spent a lot of money and time going to school to learn and the government treats them like crap.
Drugs companies spends billions on research and development for the drugs you take to help you and you hate drugs companies ?
Everyone takes everything for granted and never even thinks about what it takes to be a DR. or what went into the making of drugs or machinery that do those MRI'S and such.
They never think about how much it cost to run a hospital. LIGHTS GAS, WATER, PHONE, MEALS, INSURANCE ON THE BUILDING, TAXES ON THE BUILDING,PAYMENT ON THE BUILDING, EMERGENCY ROOMS, OPERATINGS ROOMS, NURSES, MAIDS, DRS. It goes on and on.
These people that are complaining about having no health care think it is mandatory that they have health insurance. Get damn job.
There are programs in place for the poor. It is proven that they do not apply for it. Who's fault is that ? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.
Maybe Obama can send his troops out to pick all these folks up and take them to the Dr. every month, week, or whenever and sign them up.
It's like all these crazy folks on Obamas wagon, that want a government run system just want a new mommy and daddy. They are pathetic.
THERE IS A BETTER WAY TO TACKLE THIS. The current one is wrong !!
Some of the crap in that bill is down right evil just like SARAH said.
GOD BLESS AMERICA !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk&feature=player_embedded

DINGEL'S TOWN HALL MEETING~THUGS THREATENED MANS LIFE !

SEE VIDEO BELOW. APPALLING. GOD BLESS THIS MAN !

Protester: My family was threatened after I spoke up at Dingell town hall
posted at 5:05 pm on August 10, 2009 by Allahpundit

Share on Facebook

That’s what you get for being un-American, pal. Someone in the comments to our Headlines item on Pelosi’s and Hoyer’s op-ed this morning suggested it was part of a wink-wink-nudge-nudge scheme by Democrats to legitimize violence against protesters.

I won’t go that far — questioning her opponents’ patriotism is actually par for the course for Madam Speaker — but it truly is amazing to think how many “climate of hate” pieces have been written about the right’s rhetorical excesses vis-a-vis the near total pass the left’s gotten over the past week.

We’ve had congressmen screeching about “political terrorists,” “brown shirts,” and “rabid animals,” Senators denouncing “un-American” activities, the DNC running ads about “angry mobs,” the president himself telling his opponents to shut up and get out of the way, and the Democratic brain trust now setting up a “war room” to respond to health-care “attacks.”

Glenn Beck’s said repeatedly on his show that he supports nonviolent resistance only, but a fat lot of good that’s done him with liberals more interested in the “subtext” of his messaging; pray tell, what “subtext” should we glean from the dehumanizing venom being spit by the Democratic leadership over the past 10 days?
Be happy, I guess, that they’ve finally found a war they can support unequivocally, where for once there’s no need to ponder the “root causes” that alienated the other side.

Dr.Obama's Death panels? What death panels? Oh, those death panels

Sarah Palin’s warning about the effects of Obamacare on the elderly and infirm have been met with derision and ridicule. William Jacobson has a good round-up.
Meanwhile, the effects of socialized medicine in Britain — engineered by government-run cost-cutting panels on which Obamacare would be modeled — continue to wreak havoc on the elderly and infirm:
*Elderly left at risk by NHS bidding wars to find cheapest care with reverse auctions
*Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections
*Elderly suffer in care shambles
*Twisted priorities that let the elderly suffer
*NHS neglects elderly depression.
*NHS failure on Down’s screening kills healthy babies
*‘I said to the nurse, please feed her:’ Pauline Pringle’s mother went into hospital for a hip operation and came out close to starvation. And as Blake Morrison reports, hers is not an isolated case
Last year, my mother-in-law fell off her Stannah and broke a hip. If that sounds like the cue for a Les Dawson joke (”I was hoping it would be her neck”), it isn’t: I’m fond of my mother-in-law and the result of her little accident, not funny in the least, was that she nearly died. After a belated but successful operation, she developed c diff (clostridium difficile, the nation’s favourite hospital killer bug after MRSA), and three courses of antibiotics failed to clear the infection.
Suddenly a robust, cheerful woman of 79, whose only mobility problem had been climbing stairs, began to talk of never leaving hospital again but of being “laid out on a marble slab” - and when the hospital asked for our permission not to resuscitate her should she lose consciousness, we realised this was no paranoid fantasy.
Thanks to the efforts of her five children, who travelled long distances to see her, brought food, pleaded with staff not to write her off and eventually - because the pleas were falling on deaf ears - moved her to another (I’m afraid, private) hospital, my mother-in-law is still around, less active than she used to be, but alive to see in another new year. She was lucky. We were lucky. But as I’m beginning to discover, many people with elderly relatives are not.
Pauline Pringle wasn’t lucky. Her mother Sarah Ingham died around the same time and in similar circumstances, on January 6 last year: a badly dislocated hip was missed and after the operation that eventually followed, Sarah spent 12 weeks in Tameside hospital, Manchester, failing to shake off a post-operative infection and - denied a proper diet - losing three and a half stone in weight. She was then sent home, where the local GP knew nothing of her discharge and didn’t recognise her as the same woman he’d seen three months earlier. She died within a fortnight. At the inquest the coroner, John Pollard, said that he would be writing to the hospital to demand an explanation for Sarah’s malnourishment: “It is totally unsatisfactory in a major city in a western democracy that families have to bring food into a hospital because their loved ones are not being fed properly by staff.”
…One much quoted figure suggests that up to half a million elderly people in the UK are being abused at any one time. Unlike child abuse, elder abuse is rarely reported beyond local newspapers, and those who inflict it are less likely to be held to account.
When a House of Commons health committee produced its report, Elder Abuse, in 2004, it suggested that “abuse in domiciliary settings is the commonest type”. Overall, though, whereas the old are more likely to be robbed of money or possessions by their nearest and dearest, they’re more likely to starve to death in a hospital or care home. Dr Adrian Treloar, a specialist in geriatric psychiatry, caused a furore in 1999 when he applied the phrase “involuntary euthanasia” to the way in which elderly patients in NHS hospitals were being deprived of food and water and “left at the bottom of the pile”.
*Shame on the doctors prejudiced against Down Syndrome
[D]espite all the progress which children with Down Syndrome are now making in schools and homes up and down the country, the medical profession in general still has a visceral bias in favour of eugenic termination, which its practitioners are often startlingly crude in expressing. This is not based on a realistic and up-to-date assessment of the possibilities open to those with Down Syndrome, still less of the happiness which such people can and do bring to families and even communities as a whole: it is a function of the fact – which is undeniable – that people with Down Syndrome are likely to cost the NHS more in subsequent medical treatment than a child without any disabilities.
Yesterday the BBC News website ran a selection of comments on this issue by members of the public. One in particular, by Heather of Livingston, Scotland, is worth reproducing in full here: “I was told that my daughter had Down’s when I was about 12 weeks pregnant and every doctor, gynaecologist I saw tried to convince me a termination was the best option. I was still offered this at 26 weeks! One reason given to me by a cold-hearted consultant was that ‘these babies put a strain on the NHS’. My daughter was stillborn and when pregnant again, I refused all tests apart from a scan. It’s not society who are looking for the ‘perfect baby’, it’s the medical profession.”
Death panels? What death panels? Oh, yeah, those death panels.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/09/death-panels-what-death-panels-oh-those-death-panels/

RAY LAHOOD IS A LIAR !! ANOTHER OBAMA CROONIE !

Did Secretary LaHood lie to Congress? (Updated with better audio)
By: David Freddoso
Commentary Staff Writer
08/05/09 8:08 AM EDT

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the ranking member on the Government Oversight Committee, has written White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel requesting information about whether Emanuel coordinated a political multi-agency response to Republican criticisms of the stimulus.

Specifically, the question is whether he put four cabinet secretaries up to writing bullying letters to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, R. The letters asked whether Arizona wanted its stimulus funds cut off, shortly after Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., suggested repealing the stimulus package. In this Politico story by Jonathan Martin, two administration officials have confirmed Emanuel's involvement in demanding that the secretaries write the letters.

[A]fter seeing [Sen. Jon] Kyl [R-Ariz.] and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) again paint the legislation as a failure on Sunday talk shows, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel directed that the letters from the Cabinet secretaries be sent to Brewer, according to two administration officials.

If this is true, then Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood lied to Congress two weeks ago, during testimony before the House Budget Committee. LaHood, who wrote one of the letters to Brewer, had to be asked seven times in a July 24 budget hearing whether anyone in the White House had encouraged him or put him up to writing Brewer.

Unsatisfied with LaHood's evasive and repeated answer that he "needed no encouragement" to write the letter, Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., finally complained to the chairman: "Mr. Chairman, would the witness please answer the question?" (The committee's audio and video are of poor quality, but you can hear the whole exchange between Garrett and LaHood here.

LaHood, a former Republican congressman from Illinois, finally answered "No." But if Martin's reporting is correct, then LaHood was lying.

OBAMA AND HIS TIES WITH AARP..CROOKS AND CROONIES~AARP SUX !

Mark Tapscott: Tripping up AARP's dance with Pelosi and the Democrats
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
August 6, 2009 Washington Wink-Winks were flying fast Monday when a memo surfaced from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi describing the Democrats' plan to "partner" with AARP, SEIU and others in an August recess PR blitz for Obamacare and against Republicans who oppose it.

Triple Ws are the lame excuses Washington elitists like Pelosi and AARP activists hide behind whenever they are caught red-handed. Then they deny what is obvious to everybody else while winking reassurance to their momentarily puzzled supporters that they don't really mean the denials.

Here's how it came down Monday. Connie Hair of Human Events reported on the Pelosi memo, including this key graph:

"The Leadership is working in close coordination with the White House and outside groups (including but not limited to HCAN, Families USA, AFSCME, SEIU, AARP, etc.) to ensure complementary efforts during August. The President, Secretary Sebelius and other principals in the reform debate will be working throughout the month to hold events, promote the message in the press and move the reform effort forward."

Nothing unusual there. Congressional leaders always launch PR blitzes at opponents during the August recess, right? Working with activist allies is part of the game: They ask the leaders' planted questions at constituent forums and town halls, help generate favorable home-town press from like-minded journalists, and issue "reports" full of glowing praise for favored lawmakers.

But Hair's story caught my eye because it flatly contradicted a Friday declaration in The Washington Examiner by AARP CEO Barry Rand that "AARP has not endorsed any of the bills currently being debated in the Congress."

The WWWs started coming thick and fast as soon as I asked AARP about the Pelosi memo. The 40 million-member group's vice president, Drew Nannis, immediately got on the phone with Pelosi's staff, and within a few minutes came back with the claim that the memo Hair published was just a "draft" composed by an "over-zealous staffer."

Nannis also said AARP would just be "answering our members questions" and - here's the clever clincher - "AARP is participating in AARP's campaign." He even kindly secured a copy of the "final" Pelosi memo, from which the offending paragraph magically disappeared.

It was all I could do not to ROFL at this display by multiple specimens of the rapidly proliferating breed constantly seen and heard going to and fro in the nation's capitol, the Boobus Liberal Extremis Elitum Politico (BLEEP).

Washington BLEEPs come with either brilliant blue or fading red markings, but all of them think gullible tax-paying Joe Six Packs believe them when they toss out lines like the "over-zealous staffer" bit to explain away a memo describing what everybody else in town with a pulse and brain waves already knows.

Of course AARP is helping Democrats confront hordes of outraged constituents. Many of those shouting the loudest are seniors who now see that they've been had by politicians and organizations they once trusted.

Remember, AARP has more than a billion dollars in assets and nearly a billion in annual revenues from membership dues, profits on insurance sales and endorsements, seminars, and other money-making ventures tirelessly aimed at every American age 50 or older. And it spends more lobbying than any other non-corporate Washington special interest.

Most seniors oppose Obamacare, yet the Washington AARP staff is a major employment center for Democratic activists, policy wonks, campaign contributors, and propagandists. The group's lavish Washington headquarters is a BLEEP hot house.

That's why I doubt that anybody reading this column can name one bill in Congress that AARP has supported in the past decade to freeze or cap any federal entitlement. To the contrary, more than 50 pages are needed on its official disclosure report to list all the issues on which AARP lobbies to keep government growing.

The AARP guys weren't the only BLEEPs rolling out the Triple Ws Monday. When I asked Brendan Daly, Pelosi's spokesman, why the "over-zealous staffer" included the graph mentioning AARP in the memo in the first place, his response was: "It shouldn't have been."

Shrewd BLEEPS know some questions from Joe Sixpack are best ignored, no matter how foolish it makes the Washington guy look.


Mark Tapscott is editorial page editor of The Washington Examiner and proprietor of Tapscott's Copy Desk blog on Mark Tapscott is editorial page editor of The Washington Examiner and proprietor of Tapscott's Copy Desk blog on washingtonexaminer.com.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Tripping-up-AARP_s-dance-with-Pelosi-and-the-Democrats-8068565-52520252.html

OBAMA THE LAME DUCK PRESIDENT AFTER ONLY 6 MONTHS IN OFFICE~BOOT HIM OUT NOW, WHY WAIT ?

Is the American public getting steamrolled by a lame duck president?
By: J.P. Freire
Associate Commentary Editor
08/04/09 12:57 PM EDT
While every president gets a honeymoon in his first hundred days to push legislation he deems important, no one told that to President Obama who's been pushing a wide variety of unpopular measures in the hopes he can get away with it. It seems that every initiative he's taken up has either soured in the public's mind or meets with public indifference. At this rate, Obama may become a lame duck mere months into his presidency.

Here are a few examples:

Just today a new Rasmussen poll finds that 54 percent of Americans oppose giving more money for the "Cash for Clunkers" program, while only 33 percent support it. The additional funding was approved by Congress on Friday.

In June, Gallup found that the majority of Americans did not want to shut down Guantanamo Bay, despite it being one of Obama's main campaign promises.

In mid-July, most Americans felt that cap-and-trade would hurt the economy, contrary to a fierce push by Obama and Democrats in Congress. In fact, Democrats needed to grease the wheel among their own party to get support for the bill. In an all-too-weird coincidence, yes-voters wound up getting a nice bit of campaign cash in the days prior to the vote.

Gallup's Frank Newport writes that Obama's efforts to push a health care fix are met with skepticism by most voters because they don't see it as that great a crisis, though they do recognize that costs are a problem. Part of the problem? The American public is very concerned with fiscal restraint. "The push for healthcare reform is occurring in an environment characterized by high levels of concern about fiscal responsibility, government spending, and the growing federal deficit. Americans are being asked to approve major new healthcare expenditures at a time when they are not yet convinced that the last massive outlay of government money -- the stimulus -- has made an impact."

Another poll shows that 41 percent of Americans expect their taxes to go up under Obama, despite Obama's consistent promises not to hike them. That may be because Obama has already raised taxes -- on cigarettes -- and just this past weekend, both his own Treasury Secretary and economic adviser refused to go on record ruling out a tax hike.

People are so frustrated with bailouts that 46 percent of Americans said they'd be more likely to buy Ford because it didn't get a bailout.

Public support for the stimulus is tepid, given that, according to Rasmussen, 25 percent say it has helped the economy while 31 percent think it has hurt. Gallup finds a similar problem, though it chalks many of these issues up to partisanship: "Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to say the stimulus has made and will make both the economy and their family's financial situation worse, and Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say the opposite. Independents are evenly divided about the economic stimulus' effect on the economy, for better or for worse, to date or in the future. They are slightly more negative than positive about its effect on their own families." So much for the post-partisan presidency.
How is it that every item on the President's agenda has met either strong disapproval or sheer indifference from the American public, when this was the presidency glorified as a realigning moment? Heck, when Obama came into office, CBS/NYTimes ran a poll showing that most Americans were happy to see government grow. Now, even the rabidly Pro-Obama bloggers at FireDogLake are wondering what went wrong:

President Obama is not very new anymore. We have all seen him operate, and he has so far not produced legislation that is “change we can believe in." But, rather, legislation that seems to reinforce the trend away from democracy and towards plutocracy. So, how can folks trust him to deliver this kind of change with health care reform?

Better question: How can folks trust him to deliver any kind of change whatsoever?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Is-the-American-public-getting-steamrolled-by-a-lame-duck-president-52442432.html

OBAMA & HIS SCUMMY CRONKIES ARE SPYING ON US ALL NOW. FISHY ???? OUTRAGEOUS !

REPORT THIS...FISHY ????!! OBAMA AND HIS CROONIES ARE SPYING ON US ALL NOW THAT DO NOT AGREE WITH HIM ON HIS HEALTHCARE BS.....MAKE MY DAY...REPORT THIS. LOL

Imagine telling an old person that they are not worthy of life and their treatment is too expensive. Go home and take a pain pill. What a frigging idiot jerk off creep.

Obama's dissident database could be secret -- and permanent
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
08/06/09 4:47 AM EDT
The White House request that members of the public report anyone who is spreading "disinformation" about the proposed national health care makeover could lead to a White House database of political opponents that will be both secret and permanent, according to Republican lawyers on the Senate Judiciary Committee who are examining the plan's possible implementation.

On Monday, White House director of new media Macon Phillips posted a note on the White House web site complaining of "disinformation about health insurance reform." "These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation," Phillips wrote. "Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

In a letter to Obama Tuesday, Republican Sen. John Cornyn wrote that, given Phillips' request, "it is inevitable that the names, email address, IP addresses, and private speech of U.S. citizens will be reported to the White House." Cornyn warned the president that "these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data collection program."

"I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward emails critical of his policies to the White House," Cornyn continued. "I urge you to cease this program immediately."

Senate Judiciary Committee lawyers studying the proposal say that although there is no absolutely settled law on the matter, the White House plan is likely not covered by the Privacy Act, which prohibits government agencies from keeping any records "describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained." Therefore, it appears the White House can legally keep records of the emails and other communications it receives in response to Phillips' request.

Those lawyers also point out that the White House is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, which means it would not have to release any information on the plan to members of the public who make a request.

In addition, the lawyers say the collected emails likely will be covered by the Presidential Records Act, which requires the White House to preserve and maintain its records for permanent storage in a government database. Phillips' request suggests that whatever information the White House receives on health-care reform "disinformation" will be used to further the goal of passing a national health-care makeover, which is, of course, one of the president's main policy initiatives. Such material, and whatever the White House does with it, would qualify as presidential records. Only after more than a decade would such records be publicly available.

"So the White House, whether by design or accident, has requested information from the public that will become 'records' under the Presidential Records Act, yet would be impermissible for any government to otherwise collect under the Privacy Act," writes one Judiciary Committee source. "Where were the lawyers in all of this? What is their legal basis for authorizing the collection of these records?"

Linda Douglass, head of communications for the White House Office of Health Reform, says the White House is "not compiling lists or sources of information" on opponents of health care reform. But if "fishy" information is indeed collected, as Phillips' request suggested, the laws involved mean that the information obtained by the White House could not only be secret but permanent. A dissident database, in whatever precise form it ultimately takes, could be around for a long time to come.

-Byron York

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obamas-dissident-database-could-be-secret----and-permanent-52571822.html

Health Care ‘Change’ You Shouldn’t Believe In

Health Care ‘Change’ You Shouldn’t Believe In

While running for President, Barack Obama used the word “change” as his mantra. A lot of people thought he meant that in a good way.

They’re finding out they were wrong.

To put it in Hollywood terms, Obama campaigned like he was the Music Man, and he’s turned out to be Kaiser Soze. Recently, President Obama said one of the ways we (aka: the government) can cut back on health care costs is by denying medical care to old people. If you think that was heartless, check out the thoughts of Obama’s science czar. Apparently he’s for “forced abortions, mass sterilization, and a ‘Planetary Regime’ with the power of life and death over American citizens.”

Sounds like he fits right in.

This administration made a lot of promises it has broken. But it’s determined to force socialized medicine on us through the false promise of a government insurance plan that would effectively kill off all private medical insurance companies, leaving Americans with a single-payer system that will be insanely costly and inefficient. It will also effectively kill off medical innovations in America because there will be no more incentive to develop them.

When the government health care plans we already have are set to run out of money in a few years, there is no reason to assume this one would be any more efficient. Especially considering what a spendthrift Obama has been already.

When the government has people dependent on a medical system it starts to treat them like property and tells them how to live. It also makes decisions on whether they live or die by telling them whether or not they will get an operation.

The change Obama wants for America is fundamentally inhumane and dangerous. Real change begins next November when we clean house and start sending politicians home. Take away those who vote for his bills and he becomes a paper tiger with the words “One-Termer” on his forehead.

OBAMA IS AN ARROGANT JERK OFF ! SAY NO TO HIS HEALTH CARE BS

IF OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE PLAN IS PASSED WE ARE ALL DOOMED.
He wants to play God now and his cronies in the WHITEHOUSE AND CONGRESS will decide who lives and who dies and who gets care and who does not. SCREW THESE PEOPLE. WHO THE HELL DO THEY THINK THEY ARE ??? THEY CAN ALL GO TO HELL FOR ALL I CARE.

OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST AND HATES OLD PEOPLE

OBAMA AND AARP LIES TO OLD PEOPLE

Obama says we’re not proposing cuts to Medicareposted at 4:20 pm on July 29, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

During Monday’s AARP ->(IN THE TANK WITH OBAMA AND LIES AS BAD AS HE DOES) town hall meeting on health care reform, Barack Obama tried to allay the fears of senior citizens by insisting that he would not cut Medicare benefits as part of his reforms. “No one is talking” about cuts to Medicare benefits, Obama insisted:

Well, no one is talking about it … except Barack Obama, apparently. Just a few weeks ago, Obama outlined cuts to Medicare that add up to over $300 billion in reductions. Obama claims that he meant to trim waste, but how exactly did he define waste, anyway?
President Barack Obama Saturday proposed an additional $313 billion in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other programs to pay for health care reforms expected to cost about $1 trillion over the next decade. …
About $110 billion of the new cuts would come from reducing scheduled increases in Medicare payments. That would encourage health care providers to increase productivity, White House budget director Peter Orszag told reporters.
Obama also proposed cutting payments to hospitals to treat uninsured patients by $106 billion on the assumption those ranks would decline as health care reforms phase in.
An additional $75 billion would come from “better pricing of Medicare drugs,” Orszag said, adding the White House was in talks with stakeholders over the best way to do that.
The remaining $22 billion in proposed cuts would come from smaller reforms, such as adjusting payment rates for physician imaging services and cutting waste, fraud and abuse.
I’m not sure which school of economics Orszag and Obama attended, but cutting payments to providers won’t incentivize them to “increase productivity.” It will push them to take fewer Medicare patients. If they don’t get paid enough to provide the services, which is what the AMA has steadfastly argued and why more providers refuse to take Medicare patients, reducing the existing payments means that fewer Medicare patients can access care and will have their choices reduced.
Those who participate in the Medicare Advantage program, and who pay premiums to join, would normally have better options for seeking care, as the public-private partnership works to coordinate benefits and get better and more reliable payments to providers. Unfortunately, the millions of people in MA will also be out of luck. Obama’s message to seniors who use the program to get some rational coverage is this: choose between Medicare and private insurance, but you can’t have both. And good luck in finding an insurer who will replace Medicare for seniors and the disabled, pal!
It’s a shockingly dishonest performance, and a good look into the ObamaCare future for America’s seniors and the middle-aged voters who will join them soon.

OBAMA HATES OLD PEOPLE AND WANTS THEM TO REPORT TO HOSPICE

In His Own Words: Barack Obama’s Healthcare Lies

Warner Todd Huston Bio
Email Article


By Warner Todd Huston Wednesday, August 5, 2009
The most shocking part of this whole healthcare debate is the lies coming from the left — the leading liar being the president himself — that the “public option” or the government plan isn’t meant to destroy insurance companies and eliminate private heatlhcare plans.

Barack Obama himself has repeatedly said over the years that he wants to see a universal healthcare plan replace all private plans, one administered through government and not employers. Since 2004 Obama has been heard saying that he wants to replace all healthcare with a government run system… until, that is, he became president.

Then, all of a sudden he has eschewed his prior rhetoric claiming that he wants a government run system and decided instead to tell the nation that “nobody is saying” that a government take over of healthcare is the goal with Obamacare.

Of course, he is saying this because he knows that his nefarious, destructive plans will not get past the voters unless he pretends that he doesn’t want to destroy our current healthcare system replaced with a single payer, government only option.

So, he lies.

I wish that there were another way to say this. But this simple fact of the matter is that Barack Obama is a straight up liar about what his plans for healthcare are.

Don’t believe me? Then watch him lie and listen to is own words on the issue…



And now the other part of this situation that simply amazes for its audacity. The Old Media simply refuse to call this liar on his own words. We have video and sound of this president making himself a liar. Were this a Republican president, this tape would be played 24/7 on TV and radio both.

But since it is Barack Obama, The One, their Obamessiah, they refuse to air it. If more Americans saw this man lie in his own words, his healthcare machinations would be easily defeated. But the Old Media want so badly to protect Barack Obama that they are willing to cover up his bald-faced lies.

We are not only witnessing the most socialist president in American history, but we are seeing a supplication by the Old Media establishment that beggers the mind.

GOD BLESS DICK CHENEY~Obama is an Idiot~FOOL IN THE WHITE HOUSE

VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY IS RIGHT ! GOD BLESS THIS MAN ALWAYS FOR STICKING TO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR AMERICA !















Obama declared defiantly Thursday that the U.S. "went off course" in fighting terrorism over the past eight years, and said his policies will "better protect" the country against al Qaeda.
















In a remarkable split-screen presentation of opposing worldviews, former Vice President Dick Cheney spoke across town moments later, saying he supported the controversial policies "when they were made, and without hesitation would do so again in the same circumstances."

"The point is not to look backward," Vice President Cheney said. "A lot rides on our President’s understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country, those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history."

Obama, in a major address at the National Archives, argued that waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods "did not advance our war and counter-terrorism efforts – they undermined them."

Obama unblinkingly, methodically confronted a string of national-security decisions that have drawn criticism from the political left or right. He called the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay an inherited "mess" that "has weakened American national security" by providing a rallying cry for enemies.

Seeking to defuse one of Republican's most potent arguments, the president added: "Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: we are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people."

Obama rejected calls for a "truth commission" about the Bush administration's handling of the war on terror, saying he has "no interest in spending our time re-litigating the policies of the last eight years."

"I want to solve these problems, and I want to solve them together as Americans," he said. "In all of the areas that I have discussed today, the policies that I have proposed represent a new direction from the last eight years. ... If we cannot stand for those core values, then we are not keeping faith with the documents that are enshrined in this hall."

"Decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable – a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as a compass," Obama said. "And that is why I took several steps upon taking office to better protect the American people."

In a stark warning, he said: "We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again. We know that this threat will be with us for a long time, and that we must use all elements of our power to defeat it."

"I know some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more," Obama continued. "As commander-in-chief, I see the intelligence, I bear responsibility for keeping this country safe, and I reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation. What’s more, they undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America. They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured. In short, they did not advance our war and counter-terrorism efforts – they undermined them, and that is why I ended them once and for all."

Obama repeated his pledge to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"Rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security," Obama said. "It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That is why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign. And that is why I ordered it closed within one year."

Cheney appeared at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, where the audience watched the president on large TV screens.

"When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support," Cheney said. "And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer."

Cheney continued: “Though I'm not here to speak for President George W. Bush, I am certain that no one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do. ... What I want to do today is set forth the strategic thinking that drove our policies.”

"Watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities," Cheney said. "To make certain our nation country never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy.

On the domestic eavesdropping program, Cheney said: "The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn’t serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people."

Both Obama and Vice President Cheney rested a good part of their case on effectiveness, with the president saying the last administration’s approach to fighting terror was not effective, and Cheney arguing that those programs are the reason there has been no second Sept. 11

"We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe," Obama said. "Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset – in war and peace; in times of ease and in eras of upheaval."

Obama said that while the nation must ensure that its security measures and our justice system are ready to address the threats of the 21st century, the Obama administration will uphold America’s laws and its values that are the reason we have become the strongest nation in the world and persisted through crises that have threatened our core.

Obama said that the paramount responsibility of any president is to keep the American people safe. That is what he thinks about every morning when he wakes up and every night when he goes to sleep. The president believes with every fiber of his being that we cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values.

Obama referred to the setting, saying that the documents in the National Archives — including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights — "are not simply words written into aging parchment.

"They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world," he said. "I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values."

Obama said he had tried to "strike the right balance between transparency and national security," including in his decision withhold of an inflammatory series of detainee photos.

"There is a clear and compelling reason to not release these particular photos," he said. "There are nearly 200,000 Americans who are serving in harm’s way, and I have a solemn responsibility for their safety as Commander-in-Chief. Nothing would be gained by the release of these photos that matters more than the lives of our young men and women serving in harm’s way. "

Obama pointed out that he is providing the resources to take the fight to the extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan who attacked us on Sept. 11; investing in the 21st-century military and intelligence capabilities; re-energizing a global nonproliferation regime and locking down loose nuclear material to deny the world’s most dangerous people access to the world’s deadliest weapons; protecting our borders and increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural disaster; building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda and its affiliates; and renewing American diplomacy.

Referring back to the opening week of his rule, Obama pointed out that he ordered the closing of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay. For over seven years, the U.S. has detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo. During that time, the system of Military Commissions at Guantanamo succeeded in convicting only three suspected terrorists.

"In dealing with this situation, we do not have the luxury of starting from scratch," he said. "We are cleaning up something that is – quite simply – a mess; a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a flood of legal challenges that my Administration is forced to deal with on a constant basis, and that consumes the time of government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our country."

Obama contended that the record is clear: Rather than keep Americans safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. Turning to detainees who remain, the president will announce this framework:

--When feasible, try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts.

--When necessary, try those who violate the rules of war through Military Commissions.

--When possible, transfer to third countries those detainees who can be safely transferred.