Political Truth and Fact

Wednesday's Web

The day's Top Political News:

N.Y. Health Care Workers Revolt Over H1N1 Vaccine

Saying They Should Be Given A Choice, Employees Rally In Albany, New York, Chant "No Forced Shots!"Health care workers are being told to either get the swine flu vaccine or lose their jobs.

New York is the first state in the country to mandate flu vaccinations for its health care workers. The first doses of swine flu vaccine will be available beginning next week. Much of it is reserved for state health care workers, but there is growing opposition to required innoculations.

Health care workers in Hauppauge screamed "No forced shots!" as they rallied Tuesday against the state regulation requiring them to roll up their sleeves.

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/swine.flu.h1n1.2.1216352.html

Georgia cheerleaders' religious signs draw fire

Banners at a Catoosa County, Georgia high school football field have messages designed to inspire victory: "take courage and do it" the cheerleader banners have been scrapped and banned for fear of lawsuits by anti religious groups such as the infamour ACLU.

The ACLU has long conspired to impose atheism as a national religion in direct violation of the First Amendment provision protecting freedom of religion.

School officials say they feared costly lawsuits, while the community is rallying around the cheerleaders after their signs were banned as a result of a single compliant from a local religious bigot.  Other ACLU-inspired attacks on religions rights have been on a rise in recent months.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/09/29/georgia-cheerleaders-religious-signs-draw-fire.aspx

A New York state appeals court on Tuesday dismissed former TV newsman Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS Corp in which Rather claimed he was made a scapegoat in a scandal over a 2004 report on then-President George W. Bush's military record.

Rather was fired after it was shown a documentary he produced relied on forged documents and phony claims.  In short, Rather lied and got fired for it.

The ruling on Tuesday by a panel of judges of the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division said Rather's $70 million complaint should be dismissed in its entirety and that a lower court erred in denying CBS's motion to throw out the lawsuit.

Rather says CBS breached his contract by not giving him enough on-air assignments after he was removed as anchor of the "CBS Evening News" in March 2005.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090929/tv_nm/us_rather_cbs_1

Opinion:
Desperation and outrageous claims prove Democrats know they are swimming against the tide of public opinion from normal America

An increasing number of extreme actions and outrageous claims by Democrats betray deep seated anxieties by liberals regarding the ultimate outcome of the health care debate.

Just yesterday, a liberal Democrat from Orlando, Alan Grayson, took to the floor of Congress displaying a sign proclaiming “GOP wants you to die”.

Hmm, seems only a few days back when liberals claimed they were bent out of shape by Congressman Joe Wilson’s having violated Congressional decorum by shouting “You Lie” during an Obama speech.

Needless to say, at last report, no Democrat Congressman has been man enough to apologize for Grayson’s extremist remark.  The Far Left is quite selective in its outrage.

There is an obvious difference between the actions of Joe Wilson and Alan Grayson.  Wilson spoke the truth – as subsequent revelations prove.

(NOTE: This morning, Democrats turned back Senator Orrin Hatch’s amendment that would have specifically banned use of federal funds for abortions.  The Democrat vote reveals THEY INTEND TO MAKE FEDERAL FUNDING OF ABORTIONS POSSIBLE!  Not our claim – Democrat action…telling action.)

Wilson’s shout challenged Obama claims federal funding would not cover abortions or illegal aliens.  In the days since the outburst, the continuing debate has proven Wilson had an obvious option with which to respond “Truth is an absolute defense” has long been chiseled in stone.

Not so with Grayson.  Not only is his claim “The GOP wants you to die” a lie per se, but it is ironic, since liberal Democrats – including Obama and his close advisor Tom Daschle – have had no reluctance to advance the opinion that senior citizens have an obligation to “just die and get out of the way”.  Perhaps Grayson was confused and Googled the wrong citation.

In any case, Grayson lies.  He owes Republicans an apology, but – as noted above – neither he nor any other far left Democrat will be man enough to apologize. 

But lying is on the increase among Democrats who realize they are losing the American people in their tortured efforts to sell a health care scam a majority don’t want.  The Obama scheme – and other Democrat plots – seek to impose “single payer” health care which is socialized medicine along the lines of the muddled mess currently afflicting Canadians to such an extent that those who can afford it, escape to the US for honest care.

Monday, the latest Kennedy on Capitol Hill followed a family pattern and lied his head off as he attempted to assault GOP efforts to beat back liberal plans.  Shamelessly exploiting the deaths of JFK and Robert, young Patrick overreached as he tried to warn emotion invoked in the health care debate can lead to violence. Patrick claimed Florida Congressman Alan Boyd was hung in effigy when 300 voters in Panama City ambushed him over his vote to impose a huge tax disguised under the title “Cap and Trade”.  Kennedy was lying – there was no violence or threat of violence in that demonstration.  If you wished to see for yourself, we have posted video of the Panama City demonstration on our other web site: www.TellWashingtonNo.com.  See for yourself.

Kennedy also lied about George Wallace – a fellow Democrat.  Kennedy said “Wallace  didn’t pull the trigger”…inferring Wallace instigated violence.  Had Kennedy not flunked history or told the truth, he’d note Wallace was a victim of liberal violence – shot down in Maryland as he was closing in on winning the 1972 Democrat presidential nomination.

Of course, Obama has lied over and over in his reassurance his schemes will not force anyone to give up their doctor or health plan – if they want to keep them.  He is either really dumb, or intentionally lying.

We face the certainty that Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid will use the overwhelming numerical domination of Capitol Hill by liberal Democrats to impose radical health care – no matter how much Americans don’t want it, and even if not a single Republican votes for it.

So much for “democracy” with a little “d”. 

We are finding there is more to the story – Reid has a sweetheart deal cut that will mean a major windfall in Medicare spending for his home state of Nevada.  Reid needs to bring home government rip offs favoring labor unions and other Democrat supporters.  Reid is seriously challenged  in his re-election bid.  Unfortunately, Nevada has many first time voters who may not know just how embarrassing Reid is.  As Senator, he has fumbled the ball again and again – unilaterally declaring the war in Iraq – following the traditional Democrat war strategy of “cut, run, and surrender to our enemies”. 

He has no honest health plan because he needs no plan.  He has the numbers.  Huge numbers of far left Democrats.  Enough numbers to enable him to force all Americans to be placed under some form of socialized medicine.

Meanwhile, Democrats cant handle people telling the truth as Obama’s machine moves to clamp down on insurance giant Humana for trying to honestly inform its customers.  Humana is being threatened by Obama in an effort to block the truth from getting out.

“Obama don’t need no stinkin’ truth” seems the Democrat refrain.

The more Democrats strain, the more outrageous their actions become, the more they lie about their schemes, the more real Americans can understand just how scared Obama’s folks are about the health debate.

In their customary world of the Chicago Democrat Machine – debate is a nicety,  while brute force gets things done.  Obama, of course, is a product of that machine. So maybe we cant blame him entirely.

We can, however, take a degree of comfort from what we have seen in recent years…especially this past summer.

Democrats were quite desperate to force passage of their huge tax hidden under the Cap and Trade cover.  They gained passage in the House, but by a narrow margin needing betrayal of their constituents and their party by eight Republicans – and a few Blue Dog Democrats such as Alan Boyd.  Public opinion demonstrated by the tea party protests, have forced a major delay in a Senate vote – in spite of Reid’s heavy numbers.

Tea party protests also prevented passage of the Obama health care plot on the White House schedule. 

No wonder.  Democrats don’t want Americans to have enough time to learn all they need to know about the extremist legislation they are pushing.  The “stimulus” bill – so-called – was forced to a vote mere hours after the bill was presented.  Much the same was the case with Cap and Trade as 300 additional pages hit the desks at 3am the day of the vote.

Avoiding the truth, hiding the facts, keeping the mask, is today’s Democrat way of doing business.  If you think that claim too over the top, note that only a few days ago, a party line vote defeated Republican efforts to require 72 hours of analytical time for legislation.  “Not on our watch” was the Democrat response, and the Democrat tactic.  So we will continue having to operate in the dark.

We combat such tactics by keeping up the pressures.  It is quite logical to assume any legislation sponsors demand be passed without sufficient time for reading, is bad legislation that must be opposed.  ANY legislation.  FULL COURT PRESS  Push back, deny, deny, deny, delay, delay, delay.

After all, the day for stopping the conspiracy is about 13 months away.  We must shut things down and keep them down until then…while doing all we can to make sure we take away as many Democrat seats on Capitol Hill as possible.

It’s a major challenge.  Our running check on how things are going can be measured by how many more lies Democrats are selling, and just how outrageous their actions are in and outside Congress.

Buddy

The day’s top Blogs:

1.

Inside Politics
BAILOUT BLUES
Sean Lengell

The top Republican on the House Financial Services Committee predicts that Congress won't extend the government's $700 billion Wall Street bailout program past its scheduled year-end expiration.

When asked on C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" program Sunday if there was enough support on Capitol Hill to let the program sunset after Dec. 31, Rep. Spencer Bachus said, "I think we do."

"We have a lot of our colleagues who agree with us, I think, more every day," the Alabama lawmaker said.

Mr. Bachus added that "any legislation we pass that I'm a party to, and the Republicans in the House are a party to, won't have the bailout of individual companies."

"We believe we ought to get out of the business of taxpayers coming in and assuming the risk.... The debt is still there, it's just been shifted from the private sector to the U.S. government, and therefore, the taxpayer."

Despite differences of opinion between Democrats and Republicans on how best to update Wall Street regulatory laws, Mr. Bachus said he thinks Congress would pass meaningful legislation on the matter this year.

"There is consensus between the American people and, I think, a growing majority of Congress that we're not going to bail out any individual companies," he said. "I think there is an agreement in Congress that we need to do a better job of protecting consumers, and we can't do it by having eight or nine different [financial regulatory] agencies trying to do the job, because if everybody is in charge, then no one is in charge."

He added that he isn't in favor of a Democratic plan to create a new agency to oversee Wall Street regulation.

"You can't just go out and create a new agency without any expertise, without any understanding of safety and soundness and tell them to go protect the consumer," he said.

2.

Conservatives to Hoyer: Here's our health care bill

Democrats have been ripping Republicans over the past few days for not providing a clear, concise alternative in the health care debate. They even celebrated "100 days" since the GOP promised its own bill.

But the Republican Study Committee has tossed this back on Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's lap today, cutting and pasting the GOP alternative, HR 3400, which was introduced July 30. If you're not big on that whole "read the bill" thing, there's a short summary, a long summary and a section by section summary, depending on your attention span.

Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), the chairman of the RSC, says Hoyer is "making the certifiably false claim that Republicans have 'not only failed to produce legislation, but they have yet to offer any real solutions or ideas' for health care reform."

A closer look at the 44 co-sponsors, however, shows that no top Republican leaders have signed on to the RSC bill, which is a pretty straight forward conservative approach to health care, relying on tax credits for people to purchase health care, caps on malpractice, limits on abortion funding and patients rights.

"Last time I checked, the House Republican Conference does not have a proposal," Hoyer spokeswoman Stephanie Lundberg said. "When the RSC becomes the leadership of the Congressional Republicans let us know."

Hoyer has already done his own scathing analysis of the bill. And critics will point out that the $5,000 tax credit proposed for low income families family to purchase health care isn't quite enough when the average family premium is approaching $13,000 a year these days.

"Americans have waited far too long for reforms that control rising costs and provide guaranteed access to quality, affordable health care," Hoyer said. "Republican plan or not, the time for health care reform is now.”

3.

Unmasking Obama
Thomas Lifson

It is now abundantly clear that the image of Barack Obama sold to the American electorate was tightly edited, air-brushed, and exaggerated. He has worn a series of masks -- eloquent orator, brilliant scholar, centrist, and literary sensation. All of these masks are coming off as he copes with a job for which image will not suffice.  For instance, hiding behind the eloquent orator mask is a guy who says "uhh" a lot when he is winging it, and who makes lots of factual and grammatical mistakes.

Now, thanks to Jack Cashill, the literary mask has been removed. Obama is a literary pretender. Case closed. The evidence is overwhelming that Bill Ayers ghost-wrote Dreams from my Father, the book which established Obama's pose as a brilliant writer (and therefore a fine mind, in the estimation of many). The stylistic resemblance between the Dreams and Ayers' work is stunning. Now we know, thanks to Chris Andersen's new book,that Obama hit a brick wall trying to fulfill his contract to produce a book, and shipped off his notes and tapes to Ayers. That is the classic description of a ghost writer's assignment. And it completely fits the theories Cashill had inferentially reasoned from the data of his literary studies.

The revelation that Chris Andersen had two separate sources means that this fact meets the journalistic standard of reliability, provided by a respected, established bestselling author. Obama's dismissal of Ayers as "just a guy in the neighborhood" has been shown to be an outright lie.

That will certainly be the verdict of history, regardless of whether or not the issue of Obama's ghost written book ever breaks through into the national discussion. My bet is that the media will not be able to suppress discussion. The image of Obama packing boxes full of tapes and notebooks and hauling them over to Ayers' house a couple of blocks away, is simple and compelling evidence of a ghost writer being put to work. Jack's literary detective work made the case, and Andersen's two neighborhood sources confirm it.

Anyone who refuses to deal with this issue is willfully avoiding topics that make Obama look bad. The facts are in the public domain.

The New York Times has just appointed a new editor to monitor online conservative websites and talk radio, to make sure the paper doesn't embarrass itself again, as it did on the Van Jones and ACORN stories. Unlike every other editor, the Times is keeping the name of this editor secret.

[Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news,] and Bill Keller, the executive editor, said last week that they would now assign an editor to monitor opinion media and brief them frequently on bubbling controversies. Keller declined to identify the editor, saying he wanted to spare that person "a bombardment of e-mails and excoriation in the blogosphere."

So, whoever you are at the New York Times, you're probably reading American Thinker as an unpleasant duty. If I knew who you were, I'd bombard you with a polite note laying out the trail for you to follow on this important story. The President of The United States lied when he claimed that "I actually wrote them [his books] myself."

I think that's news that's fit to be printed, even if uncongenial to the incumbent Democrat president. Don't you?

Thomas Lifson is editor and publisher of American Thinker.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/unmasking_obama.html

4.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/28/breitbart-podesta-spends-soros-money-stupidly/?feat=home_headlines
 
BREITBART: Podesta spends Soros' money stupidly
Andrew Breitbart
ANALYSIS/OPINION:

A telling event occurred on Sept. 15, Day 6 of the drip, drip, drip ACORN video rollout. President Obama met for lunch with former President Bill Clinton at trendy Il Mulino in New York City.

For the second consecutive day, the New York Post featured the ACORN scandal on its cover - complete with James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles in their outrageous "pimp and ho" costumes.

Does anyone think the president and the former president were unaware that the city in which they were dining was mesmerized by the ACORN scandal - especially since ACORN had bragged that its employees had kicked Mr. O'Keefe and Ms. Giles out of their New York office?

The Sept. 15 edition of the New York Post explored the political angles and directed attention to the Brooklyn District Attorney's investigation into why an ACORN office in its jurisdiction helped instruct a prospective brothel owner how to hide his prostitution proceeds in a tin in his backyard.

No one in the morally superior media world has asked, why did Mr. Obama have lunch with Mr. Clinton that day? So let me take a guess, and it seems like an obvious answer. Mr. Obama, under siege by a video-a-day expose that was exposing the Democratic Party to an avalanche of consequences (ACORN defunded in the House and Senate, ACORN delinked from the census, etc.), needed advice from the last president to navigate through a major political scandal.

On this day, neither the president or the former president, nor the media knew how many more videos were coming.
The next day,

linton Chief of Staff John Podesta, the Democratic Party's top fix-it guy with control over much of the left's well-funded vast attack machinery (think George Soros, the Tides Foundation, et al.), was among a small advisory group placed in charge of investigating the matter.

With the mainstream media continuing to ignore the evidence on the tapes, Mr. Podesta is now clearly in charge of feeding them information about his well-structured investigation into the investigators.

The ACORN internal probe is a "war room" aimed at destroying the messengers and is not meant to clean up major corruption.

Since Mr. Podesta was appointed to investigate ACORN, the only thing investigated has been the investigators, Mr. O'Keefe, Ms. Giles and the publisher of the journalism behind it, yours truly.

Every journalism inquiry from the mainstream media continues to focus on the successful operation that exposed ACORN, not on ACORN itself, as if there is no evidence to sift through or common traits to be found in the videos. Why is the story about journalistic process rather than institutional corruption?

The Washington Post and the Associated Press have had to issue embarrassing retractions for falsely implying Mr. O'Keefe's motives were racist. The New York Times, too, had to issue a retraction on an issue raised to impugn his tactics.

It was so predictable that I actually predicted it - in this column four days before the first video was aired. We needed to document the plan to prove it was a success. And to show that the media's duplicity and institutional biases were directly targeted.

So, who is John Podesta? He runs the Center for American Progress think tank, which in 2004 helped launch Media Matters for America, the well-funded watchdog outfit run by ex-conservative journalist David Brock, which feeds the media reams of anti-conservative documents that attempt to diminish the credibility of alternative media outlets.

Both the CAP and Media Matters sites are focusing their attention on Ms. Giles, Mr. O'Keefe and me.
Does anyone really think Mr. Podesta is investigating ACORN, when his well-greased external machinery is so blatantly investigating us?

To show the Sept. 15 lunch is still bearing fruit, Mr. Clinton showed Sunday that the 1998 "blame the messenger" strategy is back in full force, claiming the "vast right-wing conspiracy" is up to its old tricks.

"It's not as strong as it was, because America has changed demographically," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "But it's as virulent as it was."

Need we remind Mr. Podesta and Mr. Brock and Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama of Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" rant that should have put an end to the attacks on the messenger: "ACORN appears to be a corrupt organization that aids and abets criminals and gets millions of dollars in taxpayer money."

The left is betting that 2009 is 1998 again and that the media will help them out like last time. Mr. Obama is betting that Mr. Clinton's 1998 strategy and his resources can extricate him from this growing mess. But 2009 has a new set of circumstances, new technologies and new citizen journalists that can now hold the mainstream media in check for its naked partisanship.

Plus, unlike Mr. Clinton's war-room blame-the-messenger excuse - "it's just about the sex" - this year's ACORN scandal won't be pushed aside, because this time it includes 13-year-old sex slaves from El Salvador.

• Andrew Breitbart is publisher of the news portals Breitbart.com and Breitbart.tv. His latest endeavor, Big Hollywood (http://bighollywood .breitbart.com), is a group blog on Hollywood and politics from the center-right perspective.
 

 

Tuesday's Web

The day’s top political news:

Veteran pop singer Andy Williams, accuses Obama of "following Marxist theory" and "wanting the country to fail".

Williams, a lifelong Republican whose hits include Moon River and Music To Watch Girls By, told the Radio Times he thought Mr Obama wanted to turn the US into a "socialist country".

The 81-year-old was a friend of the Kennedy family during the 1960s and was present at the Los Angeles rally where Robert F Kennedy was assassinated in 1968.

Politicians, media personalities and conservative activists have accused the US president of espousing socialist ideas. Earlier this month, Jim Greer, Florida GOP chairman says he is "absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology", after the US leader appeared in a televised address to be shown in classrooms around the country.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/6241196/Andy-Williams-accuses-Barack-Obama-of-following-Marxist-theory.html

Cong Patrick Kennedy warns health-care debate could turn violent

Drawing on his family’s violent past, the Democratic congressman told roughly 75 people gathered at a private health-care forum Saturday morning that opponents of Democrat-backed health-care legislation had gone too far. He cited, as an example, 10,000 signs distributed at a recent Washington protest that read, “Bury ObamaCare with Kennedy.”

In a subsequent interview, Kennedy went further in warning that angry opposition could create physical danger for elected leaders.  Scare tactics from a Democrat running full throttle.

Kennedy claims Anti-energy bill protesters tarred and feathered an effigy of Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Fla. Kennedy lies.  Boyd faced 300 angry constituents because of his vote to impose the Cap and Trade tax – there was no effigy at all and the demonstration was totally peaceful.  But the Kennedy claim is a clear lie – films of the demonstration prove it was quite peaceful.

http://www.projo.com/news/content/KENNEDY_ON_HEALTH_CARE_DEBATE_09-27-09_K7FRTR_v20.3617923.html

Without Bush, media lose interest in war caskets

Critics accused Bush of trying to hide the terrible human cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In April of this year, the Obama administration lifted the press ban, which had been in place since the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Media outlets rushed to cover the first arrival of a fallen U.S. serviceman, and many photographers came back for the second arrival, and then the third.

But after that, the impassioned advocates of showing the true human cost of war grew tired of the story. Fewer and fewer photographers showed up. "It's really fallen off," says Lt. Joe Winter, spokesman for the Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operations Center at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, where all war dead are received. "The flurry of interest has subsided."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Without-Bush-media-lose-interest-in-war-caskets-8310113-62427012.html

Opinion:
Many politicians lie, but Obama is setting new records

Obama, when asked about the scandal involving his own ACORN: “ACORN?, what ACORN?” 

Obama’s response when ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, brought it up, is reminiscent of an old Amos and Andy routine: “hello there stranger who I don’t know and who I’ve never ever seen.”

There’s no polite word for it – Obama lied and owes Congressman Joe Wilson a heart felt apology.

One of the last things you want to be in Washington these days is an Obama friend or associate who suddenly gets bad press.  The closer the friendship, the greater the probability of being thrown under the bus.  Way under the bus.

Obama’s closest advisor and spiritual maven, Jeremiah Wright, was tossed out despite a pledge just days earlier in which Obama said “I could no sooner denounce Jeremiah Wright than…” (take your pick).  Obama didn’t blink as he completely shunned Wright despite having fully endorsed, embraced, and supported him for 20 years.

Obama even denounced his White grand mother as a bigot just so he could make a point in a speech on racism.

In the past couple of week’s, Obama’s own ACORN has taken center stage in a scandal that has seen Washington entities scurrying for cover like a colony of roaches when a bright light is suddenly turned on.

Being caught participating in a conspiracy to bring young teen age girls into the country illegally in order to set up a bordello is not the sort of story likely to win friends in Washington – it will cause people only to shun someone quicker than a sneeze in a Swine fly clinic.

The IRS has cut ties with ACORN – after all, among the services ACORN provided the couple posing as pimp and hooker was advice on how to avoid paying taxes and how to lie about information on the returns.

Earlier, the Census Department ended contracts through which ACORN would help gather data. Given the ACORN loose modus operandi in securing voter registration, the census connection could have rigged Congressional districts in favor of Democrat candidates far into the future.

Congress is moving aggressively to cut all other federal funding – costing ACORN untold millions – “untold” being an appropriate term since there is no telling yet just how deeply into the public till, ACORN’s tentacles run.

In his weekend interview with Stephanopoulos, Obama came down with a case of selective amnesia.  Despite having worked for, trained for, and represented ACORN in court as its lawyer, Obama told Stephanopoulos he “hadn’t been following the ACORN story recently.” 

“Frankly,” says Obama, “it’s not really something I’ve followed closely. I didn’t even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money…What I know is that what I saw on that video was certainly inappropriate and deserves to be investigated…George, this is not the biggest issue facing the country. It’s not something I’m paying a lot of attention to.”

(I’ll pause waiting for the laughter to subside.)

Obama DID know ACORN was getting federal funding, and also has another ACORN operator among the highest tiers of White House ranks still.  Obama lies with alacrity.

On Glenn Beck’s show Monday, John Fund of the Wall Street Journal politely suggested Obama’s claims are nonsense.  (Fund is a nicer guy than I am)  Fund says Obama’s reaction is “curious” because ACORN has gotten federal funding throughout its entire existence and Obama has a very long history of working with ACORN. He was their lawyer.

At some point ACORN paid him -- probably with federal funds.

Meanwhile, useful idiots on the left are tripping over each other in the rush to defend their embattled ally ACORN.

http://newsrealblog.com/2009/09/22/obamas-sudden-acorn-amnesia/

Obama responded to Stephanopoulos with a straight face.  

Obviously Obama was lying.

We have choices regarding what to make of this – Obama has convinced himself it didn’t happen, Obama is not as bright as his handlers would have us believe, or Obama is playing America for fools and suckers and believes he can make us swallow any lie he sells.

He even thinks he can make us believe if you are happy with your current doctor and health care plan, you need have no fear of being forced to change it.  He says his health plan has no funding for abortion.

I’m highly insulted.  All America should be. 

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

The Bank of America suspends its dealings with the ACORN Housing entity.

WASHINGTON – According to an Associated Press article, The Bank of America is suspending its dealings with ACORN, an activist group linked to voter registration fraud and other potential criminal activity.
 
            The decision follows a letter sent Friday by Congressman Spencer Bachus (AL-6) and two House colleagues, Reps. Darrell Issa and Lamar Smith, that 14 banks to disclose all of their financial arrangements with ACORN to the House Financial Services Committee.
           
            Bachus is Ranking Member on the Financial Services Committee.
 
 Bank suspends dealings with ACORN housing entity

(AP) WASHINGTON — Bank of America Corp. is suspending its work with the housing affiliate of embattled community organizing group ACORN.

The decision comes as three Republicans in Congress ask Bank of America and 13 other financial institutions to give Congress a complete accounting of their dealings with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now or its affiliates.

In a statement, Bank of America said it would not enter into any further agreements with ACORN Housing Corp. until the bank is satisfied all issues have been resolved. ACORN Housing Corp. and Bank of America have worked together for years on mortgage foreclosure issues.

"We completely understand why our lending partners like Bank of America want assurances that the recent allegations against us won't happen again," ACORN Housing Corp. said. "We are taking a number of steps to ensure this, including providing ethics training to all of our staff."

Long a target of conservative critics, ACORN employees were caught on videotape recently giving advice to a woman posing as a prostitute and to a man posing as her pimp about cheating on taxes and operating a brothel with underage immigrant girls.

The Wall Street Journal first reported on Bank of America pulling back from working with ACORN Housing Corp.

On Friday, GOP Reps. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, Darrell Issa of California and Lamar Smith of Texas sent a letter to 14 banks requesting disclosure to the House Financial Services Committee of all financial arrangements with ACORN and its subsidiaries or affiliates.

Each of the three congressmen is the ranking Republican on a House panel: Bachus on the House Financial Services Committee, Issa on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and Smith on the Judiciary Committee.

"The Republicans are trying to intimidate banks that have stepped up to help stop the foreclosure crisis," said ACORN chief executive Bertha Lewis. "These same Republicans ignored ACORN's warnings about predatory lending and the foreclosure crisis, then gave Wall Street free rein and are now obstructing efforts to help families."

2.

Doctors fed up with Obama, massive march planned 10/01/09!
From MedScape:

Physicians Are Talking About: The Million Med March on Washington

(NOTE: Physicians fully understand the threat to their profession and to quality health care in general posed by the Democrat schemes and scams aimed at imposing a form of socialized medicine on all Americans.  Being dedicated Americans, they plan to protest openly October 1 in Washington.  They should.  They have an obligation to underscore the threat Obama poses to their profession and to our care.)

"I'm tired, mad as hell, and just not going to take it anymore," says Richard Chudacoff, MD, a gynecologist from Las Vegas. "I am going to Washington, DC. At noon, on Thursday, October 1, 2009, I will be on the Mall with a few other physicians."

Dr. Chudacoff is not talking about vacation plans. Rather, he intends to unite with other physicians in what he calls the Million Med March.

"We simply decided that we will not work that day and perhaps the day before and maybe even the day afterward," says Dr. Chudacoff. "Perhaps we will show the country that physicians are worth more than a $5 copay; that physicians are more important than a mid-level healthcare worker; and that our profession is needed, our services are required, and our practice is a calling to be respected, not a trade that is to be negotiated to the lowest bidder."

A letter posted by Dr. Chudacoff on www.obgyn.net in June has been spreading like wildfire across the Internet, finding its way to personal blogs, discussion groups, and professional forums. On June 23, it was posted to Medscape's Physician Connect (MPC), a physician-only discussion group, where it sparked a flurry of responses. A number of MPC postings suggest that Dr. Chudacoff will have plenty of company on October 1.

"Finally, something constructive," says a dermatologist. "I'll see you in DC on October 1. Some of the office staff, including our nurse, expressed a wish to be there too. Bring spouses and friends and anybody else who actually cares about healthcare in the US."

"I have cleared my schedule and plan to attend," responds a vascular surgeon. "I think this type of grassroots action, unaffiliated with hospitals, insurance companies, or the AMA, is likely to get the most sympathetic attention."

"This is the best proactive effort I have heard from physicians," says an MPC family medicine physician. "Actions speak louder than words."

"I can be there without changing my schedule," adds an anesthesiologist. "I was just terminated from my office-based practice where I have been for 7 years."

One physician's decision to take a stand and unite with his fellow colleagues has given doctors a simple way to show the public and elected officials that healthcare, for them, is not a political agenda. It is their life and livelihood. And in recent weeks, the partisan discussions in the Senate and House of Representatives on healthcare legislation have seemingly marginalized -- and at times even maligned -- physicians.

"I was for nationalized healthcare," says a family medicine physician, "but I thought that meant providing a safety net for needy Americans. But this monster of a bill is something quite different."

"Politicians and payers have turned our profession into a political football," retorts an anesthesiologist.

President Obama's recent tonsillectomy remark, in which he insinuated that doctors make medical decisions based on what they would be paid for a procedure rather than the best treatment for the patient, has further incensed physicians. "As a hard-working, conscientious physician, I am offended. It's like racial stereotyping. Only now it's about a group that is mostly overworked, tired, and saving people's lives," retorts a family medicine practitioner.

If the president is looking for greed within the healthcare system, Dr. Chudacoff suggests that he not take aim at primary care physicians. Chudacoff adds, "Medicine is going corporate, and we physicians are just flipping burgers so corporations have an improved bottom line."

Although fair compensation is an important issue among the organizers of the Million Med March, it is not the only issue. Medicine has become a toxic environment in which to work. Dr. Chudacoff underscores the situation. "Quality of care suffers with less time to see patients and less reimbursement received when we do see patients. We cannot do pro bono work as we have in the past because we have to see an ever increasing number of patients. This extra work is forced upon us when insurance companies, especially Medicare and Medicaid, constantly refuse to pay us in a timely fashion for our time and efforts. And then once we do see patients, our clinical acumen is stifled as we must follow a cookbook approach to patient care. It is time that we stand up for ourselves."

A vascular surgeon comments, "We can lead the way to real reform. Now is clearly the time to act, not just type."

On July 10, an MPC contributor and one of the supporters of the Million Med March launched a Website, www.millionmedmarch.com, to build support for the October event. The site announces a physician grassroots movement to re-establish honor, dignity, and worth to the medical profession. "The Million Med March movement has taken off, on so many sites, and within so many communities. Why now? The debate on national healthcare has forced this conversation, and this conversation has pushed us over the tipping point."

The mandate as stated on the Million Med March Website includes the following points:

•Services must be adequately reimbursed so that we may spend more time with our patients and not be forced to see an unsafe number of patients to pay for increased business costs.
•Less money must go into the hands of insurance companies' administrative costs, and more money must go towards patient care and medical research.
•We must abolish third-party payers or prevent a single-payer system for office visits and medical services; these services are costly to the patient, physician, and society as a whole.
•Our patients need access to brand-name drugs that are as affordable in the United States as in Canada and Mexico.
•We must have medical malpractice reform, with caps on all damages, so that we can practice without the fear of needless and unwarranted lawsuits that only benefit attorneys.
Some MPC contributors voice concern that the Million Med March scheduled for October will occur too late to have any meaningful impact on healthcare reform. "The health reform bill is going nowhere," says an anesthesiologist. "Let's make a major statement between its failure and the next attempt to marginalize the docs."

A plastic surgeon adds, "Stand up for our profession and come to DC."

3.

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/28/acorns-man-in-the-white-house

Breaking News
ACORN's Man in the White House
Matthew Vadum

Newly discovered evidence shows the radical advocacy group ACORN has a man in the Obama White House.

This power behind the throne is longtime ACORN operative Patrick Gaspard. He holds the title of White House political affairs director, the same title Karl Rove held in President Bush's White House.

Evidence shows that years before he joined the Obama administration, Gaspard was ACORN boss Bertha Lewis's political director in New York.

Lewis, the current "chief organizer" or CEO of ACORN, was head of New York ACORN from at least 1994 through 2008, when she took over as national leader of ACORN. With Gaspard at work in the White House, Lewis might as well be speaking to President Obama through an earpiece as he goes about his daily business ruining the country.

Erick Erickson of the website RedState recently did an excellent job explaining the relationship of Gaspard to Lewis and President Obama so I won't take up space here recalling all his valuable insights. Suffice it to say Erickson reported that Gaspard figures prominently in Lewis's rolodex, which Erickson has in his possession.

Skeptics among you may ask, How do we actually know the low-profile Gaspard, who prefers to work outside the public spotlight and who can hardly be found in Nexis searches at all, was Lewis's right hand man?

Because Gaspard's employment with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is acknowledged by no less an authority than ACORN founder Wade Rathke himself. Rathke writes at his blog: 

Tell me that 1199's former political director, Patrick Gaspard (who was ACORN New York's political director before that) didn't reach out from the White House and help make that happen, and I'll tell you to take some remedial classes in "politics 101."

The "before that" time period Rathke is referring to is 2003 when Gaspard was executive vice president for political and legislative affairs for 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East. According to publicly available disclosure documents, Gaspard registered as a federal lobbyist for SEIU on Oct. 22, 2007. The registration and subsequent disclosures indicate he lobbied Congress on SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Incidentally, the lines between ACORN and radical left-wing SEIU, whose acronym stands for Service Employees International Union, become fuzzy in places.

SEIU Locals 100 and 880 are part of the ACORN network of organizations. Local 100 in New Orleans is headed by Rathke. SEIU Local 880 in Chicago is headed by longtime ACORN insider Keith Kelleher.

You'd never know about the SEIU connection from visiting ACORN's website, www.acorn.org. That's because the website has been receiving a thorough scrubbing in recent months. On ACORN's affiliated organizations page, references to the two SEIU locals mysteriously disappeared.

It's worth noting that Gaspard's ties to ACORN, SEIU, and Lewis go way back.

According to the Complete Marquis Who's Who, Gaspard has a long history of political involvement stretching back to at least 1989 when he volunteered for the David Dinkins mayoral campaign in New York City. In 2003 he became acting field director for Howard Dean's presidential bid. He was national field director in 2004 for America Coming Together, a now-defunct get-out-the-vote operation that received a $775,000 fine for campaign finance abuses. In 2006 Gaspard was acting political director for SEIU International.

Gaspard also worked for New York's Working Families Party, which is an appendage of ACORN. Lewis is a co-founder of that party -- which endorsed Obama last year --  and has close ties to Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) who has been most reluctant to have the House Judiciary subcommittee he chairs investigate ACORN.

Nadler invented the incredibly creative argument that recent legislative language aimed at depriving ACORN of federal funding constitutes an unconstitutional "bill of attainder." Perhaps singling out the mafia for a federal funds cutoff would be unconstitutional too in his eyes.

(NOTE: We must be missing something.  Obama claims he is unaware of any scandal involving his ACORN organization.  He and Nadler are up to their necks in a scandal they are desperate to escape.  It’s up to America to make sure they cant and they don’t.)

eanwhile, the American public is beginning to realize that ACORN is a vast criminal conspiracy whose reach extends to the highest levels of the U.S. government.

Obama's statement that he's barely aware of ACORN's problems is nothing short of ridiculous, especially so because Patrick Gaspard was a political director for ACORN New York.

Last year he worked as national political director for the Obama campaign followed by a stint as associate personnel director for the Obama-Biden transition team.

As the old Washington saying goes, politics is personnel. Who knows how many administration officials were put in place by Gaspard with direct input from ACORN's Bertha Lewis. It boggles the mind. 

We also now know the Obama administration was lying about ACORN's high level involvement in the 2010 Census. The coordination between ACORN and the Census was revealed as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the relentless investigator Tegan Millspaw of Judicial Watch. The Census and other government agencies have cut ties with ACORN as the ACORN scandal widens.

We have to wonder: when it comes to ACORN, what else is the Obama administration lying about?

Monday's Web

The day’s top political news:

FOX-TV CHICAGO ORDERED NOT TO RUN ANTI-OLYMPICS STORY

A local TV station that reported on Chicagoans NOT wanting the Olympics has been told NOT to run the report again, insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT!

The Chicago Olympic Committee told FOX Chicago that its broadcast "would harm Chicago's chances" to be awarded the games. The station's news director ordered staff to hold fire after the report aired once last Thursday morning, claims a source.

Obama and wife Michelle are reported preparing to make personal appeals to Olympic officials on behalf of Chicago.  How dare real news operations report dissent. It’s another “Obama Moment”.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashocc.htm

Support for Obama’s Health Care Plan Hits New Low

Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats…down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% are opposed to the plan.

Senior citizens are less supportive of the plan than younger voters … just 33% of seniors favor the plan while 59% are opposed. The intensity gap among seniors is significant. Only 16% of the over-65 crowd Strongly Favors the legislation while 46% are Strongly Opposed.  Really bad news for AARP which supports the Obama plan.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Liberal Democrats seek health-care access for illegals

Fearful that they're losing ground on immigration and health care, a group of House Democrats is pushing back and arguing that any health care bill should extend to all legal immigrants and allow illegal immigrants some access.

The Democrats, trying to stiffen their party's spines on the contentious issue, say it's unfair to bar illegal immigrants from paying their own way in a government-sponsored exchange.

Obviously Obama and House Democrats owe Congressman Wilson a heart-felt apology.  Obama DID lie when he claimed his health care scheme would not fund illegal aliens.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/28/liberals-seek-health-care-access-for-illegals/

Opinion:
Obama wants children in school longer

Obama has taken another sharp turn away from closely held values of normal America.  He know wants to prolong the school year.  This, of course, will have an effect of destroying the American practice of using the summer months as prime family time.

Summer is a time of family vacations. A time in which many families go off to destinations at the beach or in the mountains.  It’s an important time for bonding for most American families. 

My own family operated that way.  My father was a college professor, so  after taking University of Georgia forestry students to a nine week camp during which they tramped the woods surveying property lines and determining the timber values, we headed off some where like to the beach, or to visit relatives in New Mexico.

They were great times I treasures still.

Most American families have similar experiences.  But Obama did not.

Obama was denied a normal family life.  His mother developed a disdain and hatred for this country – especially for American men.  She found comfort with men of backgrounds – a former Mau Mau terror member from Kenya, then an Indonesian man.

Obama was thus trundled around without the sort of anchor most of us enjoy and treasure.  There had to be problems with feelings of security and stability.  Obama just doesn’t view many things the same way most of us do.

There’s nothing wrong with that, of course, unless that experience – or lack thereof – leads to actions that impose such misconceptions on others.  Obama’s longer school year does precisely that.

I admit I may not fully understand or appreciate the details of Obama’s early life.  I have no opportunity to make other judgments.  Obama’s handlers have worked overtime and spent huge sums in legal fees, to prevent his having to come clean on details of his early life.   

We DO know young Obama’s mentor in Hawaii was a Frank Marshall Davis – an avowed member of the Communist Party – dispatched to Hawaii by his party with orders to recruit members and create a Communist cell on our 50th State.  Hardly an experience most Americans faced – and we all pray Frank Marshall Davis was a miserable failure in carrying out his mission from The Party.

Obama’s young life is more that of a South Asian youngster than of any normal American.  That’s not necessarily a bad thing, by any means.  However, it does rob Obama of viable insight, knowledge, and appreciation for customs and observances of most American families.

So Obama doesn’t appreciate what his longer school year may do to further erode American families.  He should be able to calculate the damage such an edict would do to small businesses – especially those of the travel and hospitality industry.

Since I now reside in Panama City, Florida, I have a particular appreciation for the resort industry and the economic impact vacationers bring.  We even profit from Canadians who flood areas such as this in search of real health care and medical attention their own system refuses to provide them at home.

You know – the same sort of health care system Obama is working day and night to impose on American families.

Once again, he fails to understand the negative impact his version of health care will have on American families and our futures. 

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

http://washingtontimes.com/staff/washington-times/

Transparency! No, you can't read the legislation!:

EDITORIAL: No, you can't read the legislation
Democrats try to sneak through unexamined health bills
At the president's pleasure
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Democrats don't want lawmakers to know what's in health care legislation before Congress votes on it. President Obama and Democratic leaders apparently recognize their chances of ramming through a vote are hurt if members of Congress actually have a chance to read the bills.

On Wednesday, Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee killed a Republican amendment to Chairman Max Baucus' health care proposal that would require a three-day waiting period between when the bill is completed and a committee vote could be held. This short waiting period would allow panel members time to examine the actual legislative language and full cost of the Baucus bill before voting on it. This is important for a tax-heavy bill that - when combined with other existing legislation - could nationalize as much as 10 percent of the U.S. economy.

(NOTE:  The audacity of Republicans demanding they be allowed time to read bills on which they are asked to vote by Democrats who control things on Capitol Hll!!!.  Rushing bills through has become an Obama tactic – avoiding due analysis and understanding of what liberals are attempting to impose.  They know the Democrat legislation cannot stand the light of day.  Nuff said.)

House Republicans have introduced a measure that would require the final version of all nonemergency legislation to be posted online 72 hours prior to any floor vote. This would be a valuable reform, but few Democrats will have the courage to buck House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and provide the support needed to ensure members actually have the chance to know what they are voting on. Mrs. Pelosi promised a 48-hour waiting period before a vote on the $787 billion stimulus package but didn't deliver. We wouldn't be surprised to see similar shenanigans this time around.

When major legislation is completed, it is the result of negotiations that can be years in the making, with many last-minute changes. Hundreds of pages can get jammed into bills in the middle of the night with only a few staffers knowing what's in them. Having a few days to digest the information should be mandatory.

The president and the Democratic majority in Congress have put their prestige on the line with the government health care proposals. Back in 2004, then-Sen. Barack Obama complained about the federal budget and the Patriot Act not being read before passage. That's an inconvenient truth for the president now that he is in charge and his party can benefit from laws being passed unseen. 
 
2.

http://townhall.com/columnists/CarolineGlick/2009/09/21/our_irredeemable_international_system?page=full
 
 
Our Irredeemable International System-- The UN
Caroline Glick 
 
Our international institutions are irredeemably corrupted. From the United Nations to the International Criminal Court and their affiliate and subordinate bodies, these institutions are rotten at their core.
It isn't that they don't function. They function just fine. The problem is that through their regular functioning, they advance goals antithetical to those they were established to achieve.
Instead of promoting global security, human rights, freedom and international peace, they facilitate war and aggression, human suffering and tyranny.

(NOTE: The UN record – when not conducted with US and allied troops to control things – has often become a part of the problem – not a solution.  In fact, UN actions have a record that should generate massive outrage – especially from our own media.  Need I explain how our “mainstream” media has chosen to become corrupted and ignore fact and truth?”

The UN General Assembly is now convening its 64th session. As they do every year, heads of state from across the globe are descending on the Big Apple to participate in the proceedings. As they convene, their agenda will demonstrate the failings of the UN. On the one hand, they will consider the UN Human Rights Council's latest broadside against Israel, which comes this week in the form of the UNHRC's 575-page report of its probe of Israel's behavior in its military campaign against the Hamas terror regime in Gaza this past December and January.

On the other hand, they will not give the slightest consideration to the fact that Iran is about to become a nuclear power, in contempt of its international obligations, and so is poised to become the gravest threat to international security in the past 25 years. Moreover, they will pay no attention to the fact that as it sprints toward the nuclear finishing line, the Iranian regime is engaged in a systematic and brutal repression of its political opponents, who since the stolen June 12 presidential election have been clamoring for freedom and democracy.

Both in its treatment of Israel and in its treatment of the Iranian regime, the UN demonstrates that its practices are an inversion of its stated mission.

Despite its leaders' and supporters' repeated claims to the contrary, the UN stands shoulder to shoulder with tyrants and aggressors against democrats and democracies seeking to advance the causes of freedom, human rights and international security.

MANY ISRAELIS reacted angrily to the UNHRC's probe of Israel's prosecution of Operation Cast Lead, claiming that its final report presents Israel - a liberal democracy - as the moral equivalent of Hamas - an illegal terrorist organization dedicated to the commission of genocide against Israelis.

Yet in their anger, they missed the real problem with the report.

As Prof. Avi Bell from Bar Ilan University law school notes, Richard Goldstone's report does not present Israel and Hamas as moral equivalents. Rather, it presents Israel as terrorist and Hamas as a legitimate government.

The Goldstone Report does not accept as fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization and that consequently, in accordance with binding UN Security Council resolutions, all UN member states are required to work to disband it and give no quarter to its members and supporters. Instead it treats Hamas - which is charter-bound to a policy of genocide against Jews and rose to power through a campaign of murder and intimidation - as the legitimate governing authority in Gaza, which, the report's authors irrationally claim, is simultaneously governed by an Israeli occupation four years after Israel withdrew its civilians and military forces from the area. In the UNHRC's parallel universe, Hamas is the only lawful actor in town. Israel - and the Palestinian Authority under Fatah - are guilty of illegally persecuting Hamas by arresting its members.

Hamas, which is working to establish a terrorist Islamic theocracy in Gaza, is not seen as systematically violating human rights and freedom. Israel is. Since it downplayed the 12,000 rockets, mortars and missiles that Hamas and its terror affiliates in Gaza have shelled southern Israel with during the eight years preceding Operation Cast Lead, the Goldstone Commission was unable to understand the overwhelming popularity the operation enjoyed among the Israeli public. Consequently, their report attributed that public support to Israel's abrogation of the civil liberties of the operation's opponents.

In contrast, the Goldstone Report downplays the importance of Hamas's systematic persecution of women, Christians and its political opponents.

And so it goes. For 575 pages, rather than promote the cause of human rights as one would expect from the UN's Human Rights Council, the Goldstone Report promotes a fiction of Israeli criminality and Hamas victimization. That is, it promotes the cause of human rights abusers against human rights defenders.

Many Israelis have expressed disgust with Goldstone, a South African Jew who purports to "love Israel."

This is a reasonable reaction, for Goldstone indeed disgraced himself by leading this commission. But the fact is that the report would have drawn the same conclusions based on the same lies regardless of who led the commission. By its very nature, the UNHRC is incapable of doing anything else.

Like the UN itself, it is a body dominated by dictatorships and supported by leftist elites who love them. Its political agenda, of supporting dictatorships on the one hand and attacking Israel on the other, is indistinguishable from that of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

THEN THERE is Iran. Before he flies to New York for his annual visit, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad intends to finish off his political opponents back home.

Friday is Jerusalem Day in Iran. Jerusalem Day is the day the regime organizes mass demonstrations throughout the country calling for Israel's destruction. The regime's democratic opponents, who since the stolen June 12 election have been doggedly maintaining their protests against Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the police state they run, are planning to use the day to stage renewed protests.

Aware of their intention, Khamenei warned that anyone demonstrating for anything other than Israel's destruction will be severely punished. Reports abound of the regime's plan to use the day to arrest opposition leaders Mir Hossain Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, who both ran against Ahmadinejad in June.
Friday would be a good day to arrest them. After all, now that the US has agreed to hold negotiations with Ahmadinejad's representatives next month about whatever Iran would like to discuss, the Americans have lost any residual leverage they still held over Iran. Today it is Ahmadinejad, not the US or the UN Security Council, who sets the agendas and conditions for meetings. And Ahmadinejad can be certain that in light of this, no one will utter a peep if on the eve of his trip to America, he arrests or even murders his chief political opponents.

In the weeks following the election, before the regime began its crackdown and arrested, killed, tortured and raped thousands of its opponents, many of the demonstrators held signs demanding to know where the UN was.

Why, they wished to know, was no one at the UN supporting them in their demands for democracy and human rights? Why was there no international community standing at their side as they sought to bring down the most dangerous regime on earth - a regime that has made genocide a strategic goal and is steadily working to acquire the means to commit genocide through nuclear war even as it murders its own people?

And that's the thing of it. The same UN that appoints a new commission to criminalize Israel seemingly on a weekly basis, has been a major facilitator of Iran's nuclear weapons program.

First, for three years, from 2003 until 2005, the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency ignored mountains of evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and refused to refer the issue to the Security Council. Then, after the IAEA finally referred the issue to it, the Security Council failed to pass anything but the mildest of sanctions against Iran. Worse than doing nothing to prevent Teheran from acquiring nuclear weapons, these Security Council sanctions actually facilitated the Iranian program. While passing ineffective sanctions, the council gave the appearance of addressing the issue and so made it impossible for individual states to convince other states to adopt harsher, and perhaps more effective measures - like for instance cutting off trade with Iran or divesting from companies that trade with Iran - outside the Security Council.

DUE TO the UN's unvarnished belligerence toward it, in recent years a consensus has formed in Israel that there is nothing to be gained from cooperating with this openly and dangerously hostile body.

Reflecting this consensus, Israel's leaders, from former prime minister Ehud Olmert to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to President Shimon Peres, are united in their condemnation of the Goldstone Report.

For a time during president George W. Bush's first term in office, the US also recognized that the UN and the UN-based international system is irredeemably corrupt. Bush and his senior advisers spoke of the need to build international coalitions of willing governments to advance the causes of international security, human rights and freedom that the UN and its affiliated bodies are inherently incapable of advancing.

Although this policy received public support at home, it provoked fierce opposition among the US foreign policy elites in Washington and in the media and among their allies on the political Left.
Due to their criticism, by his second term in office, Bush agreed to give the UN a leading role in dictating US foreign policy. He subordinated American policy to the Security Council on the issue of Iran's nuclear weapons program and cooperated with the UN as it advanced its openly anti-Israel agenda, even increasing US funding of such anti-Israel groups as UNRWA.

Bush's eventual surrender to the establishment set the course for what under President Barack Obama has become a cornerstone of US foreign policy.

Unlike Bush, Obama has enthusiastically embraced the notion that the UN should by rights have a leading role in international affairs. He has also accepted the UN's basic notion that in the interest of world peace, the US and its democratic allies should bow to the desires of despots and dictators.

So it is that this week he abandoned US allies Poland and the Czech Republic in his bid to appease Russia. So it is that his administration has sided with ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya, who, with the support of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, sought to undermine Honduran democracy against Honduras's lawful government and democratic defenders. So it is that the administration has sided with the genocidal mullahs in Teheran over their democratic opponents. So it is that the administration has adopted the view that Israel is to blame for the absence of peace in the Middle East and embraced as legitimate political actors Palestinian terror groups that refuse to accept Israel's right to exist.

Until Obama came along, Israel could afford not to make too much of the fact that its enemies control the UN-led system of international institutions, because it could trust that the US would use its Security Council veto to prevent these forces from causing it any real harm.

This is no longer the case. With the Obama administration fully on board the UN agenda, Israel and other threatened democracies like Honduras, Poland, the Czech Republic, South Korea and Japan will have to loudly proclaim the UN-based international system's inherent moral, political and legal corruption and seek ways to undermine and weaken its power. 

3.

  http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/andersen_book_blows_ayers_cove.html

 Andersen Book Blows Ayers' Cover on 'Dreams' (updated)
Jack Cashill

In his new book, "Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage," Best-selling celebrity journalist, Christopher Andersen, has blown a huge hole in the Obama genius myth without intending to do so.

Relying on inside sources, quite possibly Michelle Obama herself, Andersen describes how Dreams came to be published -- just as I had envisioned it in my articles on the authorship of Dreams.  With the deadline pressing, Michelle recommended that Barack seek advice from "his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers."

(NOTE: Of course, Obama claimed during the campaign that Ayers was only “some guy in the neighborhood”.  Actually, Ayers is a committed terrorist who hasn’t the slightest regret for what he did.  There’s no wonder Obama sees nothing wrong with terrorism per se – his own father was a member of the Mau Mau terror group back in Kenya – a terror movement that slaughtered at least 3,000 people.)

To flesh out his family history, Obama had taped interviews with various family members.  Andersen writes, "These oral histories, along with a partial manuscript and a truckload of notes, were given to Ayers." Andersen quotes a Hyde Park neighbor, "Everyone knew they were friends and that they worked on various projects together.  It was no secret. Why would it be? People liked them both."

Andersen continues, "In the end, Ayers's contribution to Barack's Dreams From My Father would be significant--so much so that the book's language, oddly specific references, literary devices, and themes would bear a jarring similarity to Ayers's own writing."

More to come!

Sunday's Web

The day’s top political news:

Bill Clinton speaks of vast, right-wing conspiracy

Bill Clinton says a vast, right-wing conspiracy that once targeted him is now focusing on President Barack Obama.

The ex-president made the comment in a television interview when he was asked about one of the signature moments of the Monica Lewinsky affair over a decade ago. Back then, first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton used the term "vast, right-wing conspiracy" to describe how her husband's political enemies were out to destroy his presidency.

Bill Clinton was asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether the conspiracy is still there. He replied: "You bet. Sure it is. It's not as strong as it was because America has changed demographically. But it's as virulent as it was."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gG6zOGWoZh9MbfCgUqOUgbO7djPwD9AVM4780

John Edwards' ex-mistress, Rielle Hunter, targeted by Elizabeth Edwards in blog comments - source

Former presidential candidate John Edwards is said to be ready to admit that he fathered a love child. But Hades may have a skating rink before his wife, Elizabeth, signs off on such a confession.

As a grand jury in North Carolina considers whether Edwards misused campaign funds to cover up the scandal, Elizabeth still can't abide his former mistress, Rielle Hunter.

Word is Elizabeth vehemently opposed the plan, now in place, for Hunter and daughter Quinn to move from New Jersey to Wilmington, N.C., where the Edwardses have a beach house. For months now, Elizabeth, who is said to be talking to a divorce lawyer, also has been sniping at Hunter - painting her as a blackmailing gold digger - in blog comments where she uses the pseudonym "Cherubim," according to a source who knows Elizabeth.

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/09/27/2009-09-27_john_edwards_exmistress_rielle_hunter_targeted_by_elizabeth_edwards_in_blog_comm.html

More school: Obama would curtail summer vacation

Obama says American kids spend too little time in school, putting them at a disadvantage with other students around the globe.

"Now, I know longer school days and school years are not wildly popular ideas," the president said earlier this year. "Not with Malia and Sasha, not in my family, and probably not in yours. But the challenges of a new century demand more time in the classroom."  The president, who has a sixth-grader and a third-grader, wants schools to add time to classes, to stay open late and to let kids in on weekends so they have a safe place to go.

Having grown up in what – at best – can be called an “unconventional” home and having not shared summer vacation family experiences as a child or with children, Obama has no concept of what total chaos his threat entails for real American families. Ignorance can be a very dangerous thing.  Obama is, after all, a product of Southeast Asia.  He doesnt fully understand how our families do things.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090927/ap_on_re_us/us_more_school

Opinion:
Republicans and their plans for honest health care reform.

Democrats under attack for their schemes and scams designed to take over our health care system and convert it to a socialized medicine operation similar to that of Canada, have a constant response – when they are trapped by fact and truth on the issue, they claim the GOP is simply opposing for the sake of opposition.  Democrats charge the GOP opposes reform.

Of course, that charge is just another political lie.

For the record, we present a real GOP reform plan:

A Republican Solution – Empowering Patients, Not Bureaucrats!

Republican Congressman Tom Price invites others to support "THE EMPOWERING PATIENTS FIRST ACT"

Republicans have put forth bold, positive ideas to transform American health care -- without a government takeover of medicine.  Before the August recess, I joined with a number of colleagues to introduce H.R. 3400, the Empowering Patients First Act.  Our solution is built upon the principle that when individuals (not the government, insurance companies, or employers) are given control and ownership, we will achieve full access to coverage and see the entire system move in a positive, patient-centered direction.
 
The Empowering Patients First Act makes the purchase of health care financially feasible for all Americans, provides access to insurance for those with pre-existing conditions, protects employer-sponsored insurance and shines light on existing health care plans through transparency and insurance reform measures. The bill grants greater choice and portability to the patient and gives employers more flexibility in the benefits they offer.  This legislation also establishes doctor-led quality measures and prohibits the rationing of care by an unelected federal board, thus ensuring that you get the quality care you need.
 
Another critical reform is reining in out-of-control costs.  The Empowering Patients First Act does this by reforming the medical liability system and establishing Health Plan and Provider Portals to provide standardized information on plans and price and quality information on health care providers. Also, the cost of the plan is offset through decreasing defensive medicine, savings from health care efficiencies, sifting out waste, fraud and abuse, plus an annual one-percent non-defense discretionary spending step-down.  
 
Rather than a government takeover of medicine or allowing the status quo to persist, there is a third path. By empowering patients, we can preserve what is good with our current system and improve what ails it, all without threatening the world class quality of care that we enjoy in America. I hope that you will join me and your fellow colleagues by co-sponsoring the Empowering Patients First Act. For more information, or to co-sponsor, please contact Emily Henehan Murry at emily.murry@mail.house.gov. 
                                                                                       YoursTruly,                                              
  /s Rep. Tom Price, M.D.
  Chairman
  U.S. House Republican Study Committee

Republicans offer a real reform plan, and one that will not destroy what is good about our system. 

Above all else, should Democrats impose their plan (as Harry Reid threatens to do), Americans would lose the battle for quality care.  Obama care – in any form – will impose government-run care and government is an eternal enemy of “quality”.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/26/is-jimmy-carter-racist/?feat=home_commentary

Is Jimmy Carter racist?
Jay Ambrose

Jimmy Carter time and again blames the Middle East's only true democracy, Israel, for the woes in that region while providing excuses for Arab terrorists, and there we have it. This Sunday school-teaching Baptist is an anti-Semite, a hater of Jews, someone whose political views on the subject of Arab-Israeli peace are most persuasively informed by his deep-seated bigotry.

Unfair? Of course it is, but no more unfair than Mr. Carter's own recent blather that the extent of opposition to President Obama's policies is driven by racism, an accusation unfounded in any substantive evidence but owing a lot to a game that certain holier-than-thou liberals especially love to play. It's the old ad hominem ruse, the resort to name-calling instead of logical argumentation when the debate gets tough.

If you happen to believe that increasing the minimum wage has a virtually meaningless impact on national take-home pay while costing people jobs, liberals say you lack compassion. If you believe illegal immigration drives down wages for low-income workers while making it harder for them to find employment, liberals say you are prejudiced against Hispanics. If you believe vastly expanded health care entitlements could be economically ruinous for the United States, some liberals say you are a downright mean, greedy and probably stupid person.

And so now, when something like half the population is getting worried sick about Mr. Obama's massive, nation-altering and unaffordable proposals, the easiest response of supporters is to say it's perfectly clear what's up: racism. Their tune is that these whites out there don't think a black is fit to lead us, are going at him like no one has ever gone at a president before and that it is disgusting, awful, scary.

The fact is, of course, that critics have been going after presidents with vitriol, caricature and worse since the days of the founders, and mentioning Rep. Joe Wilson's shout of "You lie" during an Obama speech in the Capitol proves absolutely nothing.

He was one individual immediately and properly criticized by everyone on both sides of the aisle.

 Democrats loudly booed President George W. Bush when he was giving a speech, and although it was outside the chamber, senators such as the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy insisted Mr. Bush lied us into war in Iraq, in effect saying he slaughtered Americans for personal advantage.

I've watched the town-hall protests on TV, and while I think the shouting got out of hand, it was not being directed at a black president. Most of the time, it was being directed at some flabbergasted, pathetically out-of-touch white congressman.

The recent Washington protest was a peaceful affair, and Mr. Carter got it wrong when he said he saw a sign saying Mr. Obama should be buried with Mr. Kennedy. The sign - utterly distasteful, to be sure - said to bury Mr. Obama's health care plan with Mr. Kennedy.

Nothing I read about that protest compared with the shouts of anti-Vietnam college students screaming in the 1960s, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"

Yes, of course, absolutely - there's still racism in America. But we just elected a black president in many ways admired even by his critics, we have put all kinds of civil rights laws in place, we have thrown away he worst of the past. And the examples of persisting racism are not all instances of whites manifesting deplorable attitudes about minorities, but the other way around. One thing that seems to me in some subtle way racist is to make the charge of racism without reasonable, intellectually persuasive arguments, to assume its existence based on nothing more than skin color.

The horror of this kind of thing in a democracy, of course, is that it tends to chill discussion because of the fear that criticizing a black president's actions will be taken as tantamount to bigotry. Mr. Carter, who has in fact been accused of anti-Semitic attitudes because of his Middle East stands, ought to know better.

Jay Ambrose, formerly Washington director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard newspapers and the editor of dailies in El Paso, Texas, and Denver, is a columnist living in Colorado

2.

http://townhall.com/columnists/DougGiles/2009/09/26/acorn_and_their_allies_on_the_left_lambaste_giles_and_o%E2%80%99keefe%E2%80%99s_politics_and_faith
 
ACORN and Their Allies on the Left Lambaste Giles and O’Keefe’s Politics and Faith
Doug Giles

Let me see if I have this right: ACORN, in five locations coast-to-coast are on tape counseling tax fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, and the coup de grace, how to set up a whorehouse for 12 to 15-year-old El Salvadoran sex slaves, and now ACORN and the Left are POed about it being exposed without ACORN’s consent?!

What else ticks the Left off about ACORN being uncovered assisting in some of the worst kind of scandalous scat known to mankind?

Well, if you Google around you’ll find the “progressives” are peeved not because ACORN had the spotlight bare down on their dirty deeds done on our dime but because of the fact that Hannah is part of the Young America’s Foundation and James, at one time, was a member of the Leadership Institute.

That’s crazy! Run for your life, people! Hannah and James have been influenced by conservative principles and traditional values! Run away!   

Yes, according to some the shame should fall on Hannah and James for hanging out with college students who love America and our founding documents. We can’t have that, now can we?

(NOTE: The more desperate Democrats become about covering up the potential criminality of Obama’s own ACORN, the more absurd their attacks will become.  Of course the mainstream media – ALL over-the-air TV network news operations and over 90% of ALL daily newspapers, will support the Democrat effort.  Ultimately, it’s all a part of the general liberal conspiracy.)

Also, I have to chuckle every time I hear Hannah referred to as a “political activist.” That’s some funny stuff. I have lived with Hannah ever since she came out of her mama’s belly, and I can tell you the extent of her “activism.” Are you ready? Brace yourself. You might want to sit down. Here it comes. She voted this past election for McCain, she went to two YAF.org conferences as a teenager in ‘07 and ‘08, and she interned for the National Journalism Center this past summer writing columns on economics. Oh, and I almost forgot: She went to a tea party last April 15th. I guess that “radical activist” resume puts her right up there with Bernadine Dohrn, Bill Ayers, Van Jones and Che Guevara.

Listen all on the left and the right: Hannah’s motive for doing what she did to ACORN was moral, not political. Her BS detector went off on that organization, and she tackled it. It’s that simple. And I can guarantee, those on the right, that if you’re ACORNing around doing equally whacked smack, when Hannah gets freed up from lassoing this tornado you could very well be next. In Hannah’s world, crap is crap no matter how it’s politically framed.

In addition to their political penchants, Giles and O’Keefe’s faith has come under fire. Yep, because they confess they’re sinners who trust in Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice for their salvation, they must be bad and crazy radicals.

It seems that conservativism and orthodox Christianity in this twisted theater of the progressive absurd are the evil entities and not poor wittle ACORN. I guess the progressives’ strategy to cover ACORN’s compost can be summed up in a nutshell: lambaste Giles and O’Keefe for their politics and faith and ignore ACORN’s in-frickin’-sane corruption. How quaint. How . . . progressive?

Here’s a little FYI to ACORN and the few media outlets defending ACORN by defaming Giles and O’Keefe’s faith, politics and tactics: You are ticking off the majority of Americans breathing air on our God-blessed United States soil. If you don’t believe me, just ask Frank Luntz.

In addition, you might wanna note that the U.S. Census Bureau and the Internal Revenue Service severed ties with ACORN because of these videos; the House and the Senate voted in an overwhelming majority to defund ACORN; and the Treasury Department and the DOJ are smelling rats, as well, and are going to take a looky into this organization rightly named after a nut.

For those who’d like to contribute to Hannah’s defense fund, go to www.defendhannah.com.
O’Keefe’s defense fund is forthcoming. 
 
Doug Giles’ new book “If You're Going Through Hell, Keep Going!" is now available. Ann Coulter says "Doug Giles is a substantive and funny tour de force for traditional values.” Doug’s talk show and video blog can be seen and heard at www.ClashRadio.com. 
 
  
3.
 
http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2009/09/27/a_principled_conservative
 
A 'Principled Conservative'
George Will 
 
MIAMI -- Florida, a geological afterthought, was the last portion of what are now the lower 48 states to emerge from the ocean, and it emerged halfheartedly: Its highest point is just 345 feet above sea level. But the fourth-most-populous state will loom over American politics next summer when Republicans select a Senate nominee. Their primary will test whether the party has become so risk-averse that it flinches from interesting choices.  

The nominee almost certainly will be either Gov. Charlie Crist or Marco Rubio, former speaker of the Florida House (term limits, which he supports, retired him). Leading national Republicans rushed to endorse Crist. In tennis, such decisions are called unforced errors.

Republican Sen. Mel Martinez was elected in 2004. In 2007 the Republican National Committee, worried about declining GOP strength among Hispanics, made Martinez, who was born in Cuba, chairman of the party, a position for someone with a zest for politics. Last December, however, Martinez said he would not seek re-election to the Senate, and last month he said he would not even wait until 2010 to skedaddle. He resigned.

(NOTE: The resignation of Martinez, along with the party switch of Arlan Specter, rid the GOP of two RINOs…and the party is better because of it.  As a Florida voter, I will do all I can to make sure Crist’s efforts don’t succeed and work to do all possible to see Rubio is successful.  Florida reflects a general cross section of America – that makes it critical we have representation that reflects our convictions and beliefs.  Crist cannot fill that bill.)

Not wanting to be a senator is understandable, but it is a nuisance to voters who thought Martinez did want to be, and to Senate Republicans, who number only 40, one short of the total needed to stop a Senate action. In 2010, the GOP and the Democrats both will be defending 19 seats. Because so many companies do business with state governments, governors are fundraising dynamos, so a Crist nomination would not burden the national party, which helps explain why party leaders like him. But that is myopic reasoning.

Crist appeared at a rally with Barack Obama promoting the $787 billion stimulus that got no votes from House Republicans and only three from Republican senators. He is a climate-change worrywart who wants to cap Florida's carbon emissions. He has chosen his former campaign manager to serve as a placeholder in the Senate during the crucial next 16 months.

And in order to reduce property insurance costs, especially for Floridians living near the nation's second-longest coastline, Crist expanded, and vetoed reform of, the state's reckless version of a property insurance "public option." It is government-run insurance that, by offering rates lower than rational assessments of risk would dictate, has driven private insurers to limit their business or even stop doing business in the state. When a huge hurricane hits, Florida -- and U.S. -- taxpayers might have to foot the bill, by which time Crist plans to be in Washington.

Rubio, who is 38 and in a decade might look that old, says Crist will not be there. Crist, says Rubio, "never thought he'd have to run in a Republican primary again." Probably only about 20 percent of Florida's 4 million registered Republicans will vote in the closed primary in late August in a nonpresidential year. So, about 450,000 votes might win it. That many can come from Republicans who are attentive to politics even in late summer because they are ideologically driven.

As is Rubio, which is why National Review, the bimonthly encyclical of the church of conservatism, had him on a recent cover and why the Club for Growth, a group that contributes to Republicans friendly to free markets, should support him. Crist has a large lead in name recognition, and hence in polls. But where Rubio and he are both known, they are neck and neck.

A Catholic and father of four, Rubio, whose parents fled Cuba in 1959, says, "It is hard to be apolitical when you are raised by exiles." He worries that his children's generation "will be the first to inherit a diminished country." His preventive medicine includes limited government, tax reform, spending restraint and removal of all impediments to the entrepreneurship that makes America a place "where poor people can put billionaires out of business."

Florida will not soon be pushed back under the ocean by the weight of its expanding population. For the first time since the Second World War, the state lost population -- 58,000 people -- in a 12-month period (April 2008 to April 2009). In January 2011, one Floridian will leave for the U.S. Senate. He is unlikely to be a former governor at odds with his party's nominating electorate, or the probable Democratic nominee, Kendrick Meek, a hyper-liberal congressman. Rubio intends to prove that "in the most important swing state, you can run successfully as a principled conservative." He probably will.

4.

Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-Al) Statement During Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act 
Calling for Full Support for Congressman Ron Paul’s legislation.

WASHINGTON – Congressman Spencer Bachus, the top Republican on the Financial Services Committee, made the following statement today during the Full Committee hearing entitled, “H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009.”

 “Thank you Mr. Chairman and I think that appointing Dr. Paul to this position has proved to be a wise decision. Mr. Chairman, this hearing on the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, which is sponsored by our colleague Dr. Paul and the vast majority of the Republicans on the Committee. In his role as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, Dr. Paul has been a consistent champion in the taxpayer and a strong advocate for greater transparency and accountability at the Federal Reserve.

“Americans are tired of paying for Wall Street’s mistakes with costly bailouts, many of which have been funded by the Federal Reserve. Over the last year and a half the Fed has used its authority under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act to conduct a series of extraordinary interventions in the financial markets that have doubled the size of its balance sheet to over 2 trillion dollars. In fact, in testimony yesterday before the committee, the Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker expressed his own misgivings about invoking 13(3):
 
He said, ‘I have mixed minds about that because I squirm when it's used, frankly. We spent a lot of time trying to avoid its use because we knew if it ever got used, it would become a precedent for the future.’

“That’s why the Republicans on the Committee have introduced our alternative reform bill which actually does not allow the Fed to invoke 13(3). Most of us were at the hearing the day before yesterday when we urged Secretary Geithner to say there would be no bailouts and he would not be invoking 13(3), and he actually declined to say that he wouldn’t use it and use as much as a trillion dollars in a bailout which should of shocked a lot of people and should have been headline news around this country.

(NOTE: The battle on Capitol Hill to protect the American people from liberal scams and schemes goes on unabated.  Congressmen Ron Paul and Spencer Bachus continue fighting the good fight and working to force liberals to come clean on what they actually propose.)

“Just this week the Federal Open Market Committee voted unanimously to extend its program to purchase 1.2 trillion dollars worth of mortgage back securities, and up to $200 billion of agency debt through the first quarter of next year. In fact, before our eyes we’re seeing what Chairman Frank said last year with President Obama and a strong Democratic Senate we can get the Federal Government back in the housing business. We’re seeing that happen. He was right, in fact, we’re talking about the Federal Reserve, they’re the biggest holder of US Government debt, not private companies, not China, not the Middle East, it’s the Federal Reserve. They are buying, according to the Wall Street Journal, 50% of all new treasuries issued by the Treasury. That was in the second quarter. And, they buy a good portion of the GSE bonds that Fannie and Freddie issued.

“So you have on government agency buying another government agency’s debt. We’ve shifted debt from the private sector on to the US Government taxpayers back. And now we have one government agency in a way bailing out another government agency. It’s a classic example of musical chairs, with one Federal Agency bailing out another, and you just wonder when the music stops who is going to bailout the U.S. government? And I think that taxpayers have figured out it’s we the taxpayers, and that’s one reason why we desperately need this legislation.”
 

Saturday's Web

The day’s top political news:

Senator Ensign receives handwritten confirmation of Obamacare penalty and tax

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."

When is a tax not a tax? When liberals are desperate to lie out of reality.  Obama care will impose additional taxation on all Americans – violating another campaign pledge by Obama.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html?showall

Financial pledges hold steady at Clinton summit

Financial pledges to the Clinton Global Initiative held steady this year compared with 2008 in spite of the recession, Bill Clinton, former US president, said on Friday.

Mr Clinton’s annual philanthropic conference drew 282 commitments worth “more than $8bn” this year, he said at the conclusion of the conference. Last year CGI drew 250 commitments valued at $8bn.

The commitments include moves to battle hunger, improve roads, fight human trafficking and broaden access to education. Members of the CGI, who must pay $20,000 annually to be part of the group, are required to fulfill their commitments to retain membership.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/263afec4-aa15-11de-a3ce-00144feabdc0.html

Podesta Says Value-Added Tax ‘More Plausible’ as Deficits Grow

Far left operative and former Clinton White House aide, John Podesta, compares the nation’s current budget crisis to that Clinton faced in 1993.  Podesta says some form of a value-added tax is “more plausible today than it ever has been.”  Of course left wing Democrats love taxing other people.

A so-called consumption tax would “create a balance” with European and Japanese economies and “could potentially have a substantial effect on competitiveness,” said Podesta. Value- added taxes in Europe and Japan encourage savings by taxing consumption.

Podesta said such a tax may be regressive, but can be balanced by exempting some products and using “the money to support low-wage workers.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGxdXdfWrZ7o

Opinion:
No matter how much the White House opposes the idea, it’s time to make certain all Americans know the truth about the Obama scheme against health care

Incredibly, the Obama government has clamped down on Humana to prevent the health care giant from sharing the truth about Obama’s health scheme with their customers.

Whatever happened to the First Amendment?

Humana has an obligation to inform its patients.  The fact that such “truths” run afoul of the party line from the White House makes no difference.  The act is an admission by Obama that his ideas and plans regarding health care cant stand or survive the harsh light of truth or fact.

Nothing new about that news, of course.

In a conference call with conservative Americans on Thursday, Congressman Tom Price of Georgia, himself a physician, laid out current reality regarding Democrat efforts to eventually impose socialized medicine on Americans.

Price reports on pending health care legislation from Democrats:

• The House is disconcertingly quiet publicly but is hashing it out behind closed doors.  Speaker of the House Pelosi doesn’t care about bi-partisanship.  They would pass the bill with no Republican support.

• Olympia Snowe is one Republican Senator they are targeting.  Her support is enough for them to declare their “bipartisanship.”

• Senator Baucus is deceptively saying that he will not allow the bill to move forward without at least one insurance policy allowing abortion.  The truth is there are several that will allow it.

• They have accepted some conscience language but it’s taken a hard fight to get it.

• Two Debbie Stabenow amendments expand eligibility for family planning coverage under Medicaid (which is abortion planning) and establish school-based health centers, which is an attempt for more government control.

Should any normal American wonder about who is telling the truth about Obama’s health scheme – its necessary to just consider what Democrats are doing to impose it.

Not just avoiding First Amendment rights of Humana and others – but threatening to move without regard to any vestige of honest democracy.

Senate Democrat Leader, Harry Reid, mumbles threats that he will bring Obama’s plan before the Senate and achieve passage no matter what Republicans (or a growing majority of Americans) want or agree to.  Reid intends to pass the socialized medicine bill through by using the dominating majority Democrats have in the Senate. 

Pelosi has the same dominating numbers in the House.

Nothing could make it clearer that ALL Americans need to do all that can be done to defeat Democrats next November.  The dominating majorities must be brought down.

Noting could be clearer.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

http://www.tothepointnews.com/

MORE MUSH FROM THE WIMP

Jack Kelly   

Last March, President Obama fired the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, replaced him with Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and announced "a comprehensive new strategy."

"So it was a little startling to hear Mr. Obama suggest in several televised interviews Sunday (9/20) that he had second thoughts," the Washington Post said in an editorial Tuesday (9/22).

 "Until I'm satisfied we've got the right strategy, I'm not going to be sending some young man or woman over there," the president told NBC's David Gregory.

Mr. Obama is waffling on Gen. McChrystal's urgent request for more troops because Democrats worry that if he provides them, Mr. Obama may meet the fate of Lyndon Johnson, whose ambitious domestic agenda was overshadowed by the war in Vietnam.

But it's a more recent president Barack Hussein Obama more closely resembles.

On March 14, 1980, Kirk Scharfenberg of the Boston Globe wrote a mock headline over an editorial the Globe was planning to run on a speech President Jimmy Carter had made, planning to replace it with a serious headline before publication.

To Mr. Scharfenberg's horror, the mock headline was inadvertently printed in 161,000 copies.  The headline was: "More Mush from the Wimp."

The headline resonated with millions of Americans because of Mr. Carter's perceived weakness on foreign policy.  Iranian militants were holding Americans hostage in our embassy in Tehran, and Mr. Carter didn't seem to be able to do anything about it.  He said he was surprised by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and he didn't seem to be able to do anything about that, either.

The Carter administration, Henry Kissinger said, had achieved at one and the same time "the worst relations with our allies, the worst relations with our adversaries, and the most serious upheavals in the developing world since the end of the Second World War."

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) said in a radio interview last week Jimmy Carter was the worst president in the 20th Century, perhaps ever.  That may soon no longer be true. 

(NOTE: If John McCain makes that observation, it should be duly noted.  McCain went overboard during his campaign to avoid saying nasty things about Obama.  He even attacked some of his own people for daring to mention Obama’s middle name is Hussein.)

The hallmarks of the Obama foreign policy have been craven -- and thus far futile -- efforts to appease America's enemies, and callous treatment of our allies.

The most recent outrage was the administration's unilateral abrogation of treaties with Poland and the Czech Republic to put anti-ballistic missiles (ABMs) and radars in their countries.  The announcement of the capitulation to Russian demands came, with bitter irony for the Poles, on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet Union's invasion of Poland.

The ABMs were no threat to Russia.  They were to guard Europe against the threat of nuclear blackmail from Iran.  Russian strongman Vladimir Putin railed against them in part because he needs an external enemy to divert Russian attention from deplorable economic conditions at home, in part because he has dreams of reabsorbing Eastern Europe into a new Russian empire.

"The U.S. sold us to Russia and stabbed us in the back," said the Polish newspaper Fakt in a front page editorial.

"An ally we rely on has betrayed us, and has exchanged us for its own, better relations with Russia, of which we are rightly afraid," said the Czech newspaper Hospodarske Novine.

President Obama received exactly nothing for selling out America's friends in Eastern Europe.  Russia continues to oppose sanctions on the mullahs in Iran, and continues to sell advanced weapons to them.

Nothing is also what the administration received from North Korea for agreeing to North Korea's demand to scuttle the six party talks on North Korea's nuclear program in favor of the direct talks the Norks have long sought.

The hostile tone the Obama administration has taken toward Israel has not made the Palestinians or the Saudis more willing to recognize the right of Israel to exist.  Peace in that region remains as chimerical as ever.

"Regimes in Moscow, Pyongyang and Tehran simply pocket his concessions and carry on as before," wrote Edward Lucas in the London Telegraph Monday (9/21). "The picture emerging from the White House is a disturbing one, of timidity, clumsiness and short-term calculation. Some say he is the weakest president since Jimmy Carter."

In Afghanistan and elsewhere, we need decisive leadership.  But all we get is more mush from the wimp.

Jack Kelly is a former Marine and Green Beret and a former deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force in the Reagan administration. He is national security writer for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

2.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/25/top-republican-pulls-out-intelligence-in/
 
EXCLUSIVE: Top Republican pulls out of intelligence investigation
Kara Rowland
EXCLUSIVE:

The top Republican on the Senate intelligence committee has pulled out of the panel's bipartisan review of Bush-era terrorist interrogation techniques, saying Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s criminal investigation into the CIA undermines the committee's ability to interview witnesses.

"Had Mr. Holder honored the pledge made by the president to look forward, not backwards, we would still be active participants in the committee's review," said Sen. Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, the panel's vice chairman. "Instead, DOJ sent a loud and clear message that previous decisions to decline prosecution mean nothing and old criminal charges can be brought anytime against anyone — against these odds, what current or former CIA employee would be willing to gamble his freedom by answering the committee's questions?"

Since March, Mr. Bond had been working with Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, on the committee's review of U.S. detention and interrogation practices, including controversial techniques such as waterboarding. They have said their investigation was designed to figure out the policies, not to punish interrogators.

But Mr. Holder last month appointed a prosecutor to look into whether interrogators broke the law — and Mr. Bond said that put interrogators in an impossible position. Mrs. Feinstein said she regrets the decision by Mr. Bond to withdraw from the investigation.

"However, that study and investigation is being pursued, additional staff are being hired, and the committee is continuing to work with all due diligence," she said. The investigation was expected to last about a year

3.

CONGRESSMAN SPENCER BACHUS, COLLEAGUES REQUEST INFORMATION ON ACORN FUNDING
 
WASHINGTON – House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Spencer Bachus (R-AL), Oversight and Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX) sent a letter today to financial institutions requesting full and complete disclosure of funds provided to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), and any of its subsidiaries and affiliates, including ACORN Housing Corporation.
 
“Support for ACORN is not limited to the federal government,” Reps. Bachus, Issa and Smith noted in the letter. “Corporations provide a significant source of ACORN’s operating budget.”

After new evidence surfaced linking ACORN to possible criminal activity, House Republicans undertook a series of steps designed to protect taxpayers, and to spotlight the role of corporations, including those that receive taxpayer support, in funding ACORN’s operations.
 
“In addition to corporate contributions to ACORN, many companies have partnered with ACORN on numerous programmatic projects including Low-Income Housing Tax Credit transactions, affordable housing development and ACORN’s mortgage brokerage firm, Acorn Housing Affordable Loans, LLC,” Reps. Bachus, Issa and Smith wrote. “In an effort to promote transparency, accountability and proper oversight by Congress, and in conjunction with the Oversight Committee’s ongoing investigation, we request that your corporation provide the Committee on Financial Services with a complete accounting, by October 15, 2009, of all financial arrangements that your company and its foundation have with ACORN and its subsidiaries and affiliates.”

The letter calls on the institutions to disclose any settlements and other forms of contracts with ACORN, the amount of funds the company or its Foundation has given to ACORN over the last 15 years, the amount of any funds to ACORN originating from TARP funds, the names of individuals who make executive decisions regarding corporate and foundation contributions to non-profit organizations, and plans to continue providing funds to ACORN.
 
 4.
 
Democrats Refuse to Allow Vote on Measure to Save $84 Billion
 
Washington, D.C. – Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) issued the following statement after Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats in charge refused to allow Republicans to offer an amendment authored by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) to save taxpayers billions of dollars. Because Speaker Pelosi chose to fold the continuing resolution to extend government funding for an additional month into unrelated legislation, Republicans were not allowed to offer an amendment that would save $84 billion over an entire fiscal year by setting funding at the fiscal year 2008 level.
 
“Republicans drafted a positive alternative solution to this continuing resolution that would save taxpayers $84 billion,” said Chairman Price. “True to form, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats in power would not allow it to be voted on by the full House of Representatives.  Are they worried some of their members might actually believe that saving $84 billion is a good idea?  Our nation is on the brink of bankruptcy, yet Democrats in charge continue to spend with reckless abandon.  It speaks volumes that those in charge won’t even allow a vote on our cost-saving amendment.
 
“This is just another example of the Democrat lack of leadership pretending that Republican solutions don’t exist.  Perhaps they don’t believe the problems caused by running up $11.8 trillion in debt can be solved by spending less money.  Their refusal to allow a vote on an amendment that saves $84 billion proves once again that they have no plan to deal with their skyrocketing deficits.  This is a reckless decision.”
 

Friday's Web

The day’s top political news:

Obama’s White House spokesman dismisses British media rumors

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs tried to quiet speculation about a possible falling out between Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown by taking aim at one of his favorite targets: the British media.  British media are not Obama lap dogs as is the case with US media…no wonder Gibbs attacks them.

Gibbs faced a series of questions about accounts that the White House had rebuffed overtures from the British government, which reportedly asked for a bilateral meeting in New York during the United Nations General Assembly in New York this week. The White House spokesman argued that Obama and Brown had crossed paths repeatedly and their governments were in close communication.

Obama is basically anti British – as was noted when he insultingly returned a bust of Churchill previously in the Oval Office.  Obama’s father was a member of the terrorist group the Mau Mau in his Kenya homeland.  Obama seems to resent the British based on that fact.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0909/gibbs_blasts_tabs_again_5b6efd61-69d5-490a-8518-1ebe155152da.html

Joe Biden calls some fellow Democrats "turkeys"

Biden asserts. "Some of the guys I have campaigned for are turkeys. Not all Democrats are created equal, while most Republicans are.”  Biden’s grammar is quite flawed, but his evaluation of other Democrats is not.

The voluble Biden has a reputation for sometimes getting carried away in remarks, as refreshingly candid though they may be to some non-administration ears. Last fall at one gathering a shirt-sleeved Biden paced the stage with a microphone and said Hillary Clinton would have been a better running-mate choice for Barack Obama to make, a gaffe that prompted the campaign to end most of Biden's media interviews then and there.

GOP candidates may also have some fun in coming months speculating to partisan crowds which Democrats the vice president had in mind as small-minded birds.  Of course, normal Americans who pay attention to politics may find Biden’s noting some Democrats are “turkeys” the first thing Biden has said with which they can agree.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/09/joe-biden-update-virginia-gaffe.html

Gore-Backed Start up Car Firm Gets Half billion Dollar U.S. Loan

A tiny car company backed by former Vice President Al Gore has just gotten a $529 million U.S. government loan to help build a hybrid sports car in Finland that will sell for about $89,000.

The award this week to California startup Fisker Automotive Inc. follows a $465 million government loan to Tesla Motors Inc., purveyors of a $109,000 British-built electric Roadster. Tesla, like Fisker, is a California startup focusing on high-end hybrids, with a number of celebrity endorsements that is backed by investors that have contributed to Democratic campaigns.

In Washington, it’s still “who you know” that matters.  This half-billion dollar loan for start up capital for an enterprise producing products for the very wealthy – follows Obama government take over of General Motors and Chrysler. Questions of Gore’s engaging in political corruption are sure to be asked.  Don’t expect honest answers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories

Opinion:
Obama and his open bigotry regarding all things British

Great Britain is the most loyal and consistent ally of the US – history proves it beyond question.  The British almost always stand with Americans.

That fact cuts no ice with Obama who make no secret of his disdain for Great Britain.  Now it seems to be intruding on our foreign policy.  Reports say Obama refused five times to meet with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, when the British asked for such meetings during current days when both Brown and Obama are at the UN meeting in New York.

It was an incredible snub – and has left Obama’s mouthpiece Robert Gibbs frantically trying to disclaim the report.

Obama’s hatred of the British presents a major problem for our foreign relations.  This is especially the case in view of today’s admission that Iran has a hidden nuclear facility most likely involved specifically in acquiring a nuclear potential.

Surprise, surprise.  Is anyone really shocked by the information?  Unless the allied nations move quickly, Iran’s acquisition could represent all radical Islamic terrorists obtaining nuclear capabilities.  Radical Islam has declared war on civilization and Iran is now a focal point for providing support and direct aide for terrorists world wide.

Iran has replaced Saddam Hussein as the most important supporter of world wide terror.

It is critical for us to work in concert with the British in confronting the Iranian threat.  Although Russia seems inclined to join in such an effort – they are hardly as reliable in troubled times as the British.  Needless to say, the same applies to France.

Obama was quick to display his anti British feelings.  Unceremoniously, he returned a bust of Winston Churchill to Britain’s Washington embassy.  Churchill is a WWII hero by any intelligent measure.  His stand against Hitler was a major element in the defeat of Nazi Germany.

To Obama, this matters not.  He was born long after WWII, plus his father was an active member of the Mau Mau terrorist organization in Kenya…Obama’s family homeland. 

The Mau Mau were a militant African nationalist movement active in Kenya during the 1950s.  Their main aim was removal of British rule.  They were terrorists, pure and simple, and Obama’s father was one of them.  No wonder he hates his father’s enemies.

During their reign of terror, the May Mau killed around 2,000 people.  In 1963, Kenya was granted independence.  But Obama seems to still harbor grudges.

Insulting gifts to the British by the Obama White House, have been taken as dumb mistakes by the American media – the US media long ago signed onboard with all things Obama.  In truth, the “innocent mistakes” were almost certainly intentional insults.

On their first Washington meeting after Obama took office, Prime Minister Brown was given videos produced on a medium alien to the British system.  That didn’t matter much since the Prime Minister is almost totally blind.  Not to miss a chance to insult our allies, Obama gave the Queen an I-pod with audio from his speeches.  An act from a group of Chicago Democrats?  Just another innocent gaffe?

Hardly.

Now the resentment is creating more critical problems.  An open rift between this country and Great Britain is a serious problem for us and even more for Great Britain.  Even his own party is sniping at Gordon Brown, and Obama’s petulant boorishness will only make problems worse.

Of course, Brown leads the liberal “Labour” party – one burdened with the same sort of far left ideologues as Obama’s Democrat party.  Brown’s opponents on the extreme left may be applauding Obama’s anti British bias and plan to use it.  There may even be private collusion designed at bringing Brown down and electing a far left Prime Minister  supportive of Obama’s own extremist philosophy more.

At any rate, the world faces a critical moment in the global war on terror.  Allies defending civilization need a solid front with which to defeat radical Islam.  THEY declared war on us, after all.

(Sigh) Don’t look now, but Obama is also insulting our other dependable ally – Israel.  He did that openly in his UN speech a couple of days ago.  Obama sided with the Palistinians who have a history of providing sanctuary for Islamic terrorists.

Where is all this heading?  We understand Obama’s hatred of Great Britain, can we even guess what is causing Obama’s revealed bigotry against the state of Israel?

Buddy

The days’ top blogs:

1.

A Secret White House Power Grab Is In Full Swing
Phil Kerpen 
FOX News.com

It’s one thing for President Obama to surround himself with the advisers he’d like to have, but it’s another to bestow on them sweeping powers to broker secret negotiations and push forward vast new regulations that could cost American families thousands of dollars.

Cap-and-trade energy tax legislation appears stalled, at least for now, in the U.S. Senate. But that doesn’t mean the cap-and-trade energy tax isn’t imminent.

Senate Environment Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer hasn’t even introduced the bill yet; new Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln has declared the House bill dead on arrival; and there are several other cross-cutting controversies that divide Democrats on the bill. The Obama administration is unfazed. They are moving full steam ahead with an even more costly regulatory scheme in the name of global warming—shoehorning the regulation of greenhouse gases into the 1970 Clean Air Act, a bill passed before anyone had ever thought of global warming and that couldn’t be less suited to the task.

Driving the push for this massive power grab and circumvention of the elected branches is a key White House official who avoided Senate confirmation by being installed not as EPA director, but instead as White House Climate Czar: Carol Browner.

Long before the Supreme Court ruled in a highly questionable 2007 case, Massachusetts v. EPA, that the EPA has the legal authority to justify its proposed 18,000 pages of greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act, Browner (then EPA director under President Bill Clinton) had her general counsel, Jonathan Cannon, prepare a now-infamous memorandum arguing—for the first time—that the EPA possessed such a power. At the time it was dismissed as a wild-eyed overreach that Congress would never allow. Now it’s happening, and Browner is right at the center of it.

Mary Nichols, the chair of the California Air Resources Board, has confirmed that Browner was the lead White House negotiator in establishing new automobile emissions standards, which for the first time rely on EPA’s presumed authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the 1970 Clean Air Act. Nichols told The New York Times that Browner quietly orchestrated private discussions from the White House with auto industry officials. “We put nothing in writing, ever,” Nichols said.

Left unchecked, Browner will move beyond automobiles to EPA’s entire staggering 18,000-page blueprint for regulating the U.S. economy. It will eventually regulate everything that moves (light-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks, buses, motorcycles, planes, trains, ships, boats, tractors, mining equipment, RVs, lawn mowers, fork lifts, and just about every other piece of equipment that has a motor) and lots of things that don’t (any building over 100,000 square feet could be pulled in, along with smaller carbon dioxide emitters, like restaurants, schools, and hospitals that have commercial kitchens with gas burners).

It’s bad enough that the EPA is moving ahead with plans to pursue expensive global warming regulations instead of leaving the complex issue to Congress, the branch of government constitutionally tasked with making laws. It’s made much worse by the fact that the effort is being led not by Lisa Jackson, the duly confirmed and therefore accountable administrator of the EPA, but by Carol Browner, the unaccountable, unconfirmed White House Climate Czar.

Browner was made a czar so that her powers could be more sweeping than they would be in any single official appointment—witness her cross-agency role in the secret automobile emissions regulations—and to avoid the scrutiny of Senate confirmation, which would have been difficult for Browner. Since leaving the Clinton administration she has moved further left, even becoming one of the 14 members of the “Socialist International Commission for a Sustainable World Society” on whose Web site she was listed as a member as recently as January 5, the day she was named White House Climate Czar.

This Commission pursues a clearly socialist agenda of centralized control under a regime of "global governance" that would enforce extreme environmental political correctness on a global basis. It’s far outside the political mainstream and would have presented serious problems for centrist Democrats facing a confirmation vote.

It’s one thing for President Obama to surround himself with the advisers he’d like to have, but it’s another to bestow on them sweeping powers to broker secret negotiations and push forward vast new regulations that could cost American families thousands of dollars.

Fortunately, we’ll be able to see this week where members of the U.S. Senate stand on allowing Carol Browner to direct taxpayer dollars and pursue vast new regulatory power grabs. Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana has introduced an amendment (SA 2440) to the Department of the Interior appropriations bill that prohibits any federal funding for Browner’s policy directives. Any senator who votes against it is voting to support not just Carol Browner, but also her vast regulatory power grab and the president’s system of unaccountable czars.

Mr. Kerpen is director of policy for Americans for Prosperity. He can be contacted through PhilKerpen.com. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.  His free two-minute Podcast is available daily.

2.

CONGRESSMAN SPECER BACHUS (R-AL) STATEMENT ON “AUDIT THE FED” ACT
 
(NOTE: Congressman Spencer Bachus (AL-6), Ranking Member on the House Financial Services Committee, made the following statement today during the Full Committee hearing entitled, “H.R. 1207, The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009.”   Bachus is a cosponsor of the legislation, also known as the “Audit the Fed” Act.  Bachus appointed Congressman Paul to the position of Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology.)

“Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing on the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, sponsored by our colleague Dr. Paul. In his role as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, Dr. Paul has been a consistent champion of the taxpayer and a strong advocate for greater transparency and accountability at the Federal Reserve. 
 
“Americans are tired of paying for Wall Street’s mistakes with costly bailouts, many of which have been funded by the Federal Reserve. Over the last year and a half, the Fed has used its authority under Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act to conduct a series of extraordinary interventions into the financial markets that have doubled the size of its balance sheet to over $2 trillion. And just this week, the Federal Open Market Committee voted unanimously to extend its program to purchase $1.2 trillion worth of mortgage-backed securities and up to $200 billion of agency debt through the first quarter of 2010.  All of these actions were taken without consulting Congress.
 
“Watching the central bank exercise such enormous and largely unchecked power should give us all pause.  Indeed, even proponents of retaining the Fed’s 13(3) authority express serious reservations about its use.  In testimony before this Committee yesterday, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker expressed his own misgivings about invoking 13(3):
 
“I have mixed minds about that because I squirm when it's used, frankly.  We spent a lot of time trying to avoid its use because we knew if it ever got used, it would become a precedent for the future.”  
 
“The Fed’s interventions in virtually every corner of the American economy require greater disclosure if Congress is to perform effective oversight.  Enactment of H.R.1207 would allow the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a full audit of all activities of the Federal Reserve Board and regional Reserve Banks.  Audits would give taxpayers and market participants a better understanding of the reasoning behind Fed policies.  Increased transparency should lead to better-informed decisions. 
 
“Mr. Chairman, the proper role of the Federal Reserve is central to our regulatory reform debate and the U.S. economic recovery. In addition to the work of the gentleman from Texas, the House Republican Regulatory Reform Plan promotes principled Congressional oversight by refocusing the Fed on its primary mission of conducting monetary policy and expressly prohibiting it from using section 13(3) to bailout specific financial institutions. I again commend the gentleman from Texas for his work on the legislation, and look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.”  
 
3.

http://corner.natioalreview.com/

Is Obama Naïve?  

Michael Ledeen

I don't think so. I think that he rather likes tyrants and dislikes America. I think he'd like to be more powerful, I think he is trying to get control over as much of our lives as he can, so that he can put an end to the annoying tumult of our public life. As when he said (about health care) to the Congress, "Okay, you've talked enough, now it's time to do the right thing (my thing)." And he's trying to end American power in the outside world. He's saying "I'm going to stop us, before we kill again."

There is nothing unusual about elitist hatred of freedom. Back in the 18th century, when book publishing really got going, British authors were infuriated that they had to submit to the judgment of a marketplace. They didn't want to be judged by people who were obviously inferior to them, and there was a great rage among the intelligentsia, including some very famous men. And in modern times, we can all name famous intellectuals who fawned all over Mussolini, Stalin, Fidel, and even Hitler.

American politics are very fractious, and always have been. Leaders are constantly frustrated, and some of them come to yearn for an end to our freedom. They think they know best, they just want to tell us what to do and have us shut up and do it. I think Obama is one of them. He's not naïve. It's different. He doesn't like the way things work here, he thinks he can do much better, and he's possessed of the belief that America has done a lot of terrible things in the world, and should be prevented from doing such things ever again. The two convictions mesh perfectly. It's The Best and the Brightest run amok Democratic leaders' envy of tyrants' power can be understood. But it can't be forgiven.

Obama Likes Tyrants and Dislikes America . . . and Here's More Proof   [Andy McCarthy]

Michael hits the nail on the head . . . and then comes this: The Obama administration has notified Congress of the State Department's intention to contribute $400,000 to foundations run by Muammar Qaddafi's two children — $200,000 each for daughter Aisha and son Saif. Saif, you may recall, is the son who escorted the Lockerbie terrorist Abdel Baset al-Megrahi home to a hero's welcome in Libya after President Obama sternly "warned" Qaddafi that there was to be no hero's welcome.

Illinois Republican congressman Mark Steven Kirk (House Appropriations Subcommittee on State/Foreign Operations) has sent Obama a letter asking him to rescind the funding.

Could somebody please tell this president that this is not just Annenberg Foundation cash he's passing out to his personal terrorist pals like Bill Ayers but American taxpayer dollars he's doling out to the terrorist tyrant behind the murder — in just that one incident — of 270 people, including 189 Americans.

Just 40 months to go. God help us.
 

 

Thursday's Web

The day’s top political news:

Bid farewell to dollar supremacy

The sun is setting on the US dollar as the ultra-loose monetary policy of the US Federal Reserve forces China and the vibrant economies of the emerging world to forge a new global currency order, according to a new report.

Crucially, China and rising Asia have reached the point where they can no longer keep holding down their currencies to boost exports because this is causing mayhem to their own economies, stoking asset bubbles. Asia's "mercantilist mindset" of recent decades is about to be broken by the spectre of an inflation spiral.

The policy headache was already becoming clear in the final phase of the global credit boom but the financial crisis temporarily masked the effect. The pressures will return with a vengeance as these countries roar back to life, leaving the US and other laggards of the old world far behind.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/6211858/HSBC-bids-farewell-to-dollar-supremacy.html

A Real Stimulus Fund impact – At Least 25,000 more Bureaucrats

The $787 billion economic recovery package also is stimulating growth in the federal government as agencies hire thousands of workers and spend millions of dollars to oversee and implement the package, according to government records and spokesmen.

Fourteen of the top federal agencies responsible for spending under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act say they've hired about 3,000 workers with stimulus money. That's helped fuel the continued growth of the federal government, which increased by more than 25,000 employees, or 1.3%, since December 2008, according to the latest quarterly report. During that time, the ranks of the nation's unemployed increased by nearly 4 million, Labor Department statistics show.

Thirteen agencies that report stimulus-related administrative expenses separately on their weekly spending reports say they've spent $186.8 million so far on salaries and other overhead. Those agencies have reported spending $46.1 billion in stimulus funds overall.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-09-23-stimfed_N.htm

IRS severs ties with ACORN over scandal

The IRS is severing ties with Obama’s own ACORN, the community activist group involved in a scandal after employees were caught on video giving advice to a couple posing as a prostitute and pimp.

The Internal Revenue Service said Wednesday it will no longer include ACORN in its volunteer tax assistance program. The program offered free tax advice to about 3 million low- and moderate-income tax filers this spring.

The IRS said ACORN, which is short for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, provided help on about 25,000 returns. The House and Senate voted earlier this month to sever federal funding to ACORN. And the Census Bureau severed its ties with the group for the 2010 national head-count.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9AT86L00&show_article=1

Opinion:
Obama vs America itself.  A matter of fear of domination by government and of surrender to our enemies.

Over the last several decades, and especially since George McGovern grabbed the Democrat presidential nomination in 1972, Democrats have had a consistent strategy for military situations: “cut, run, and surrender to the enemy”.

That is their policy, their history, and their approach to military confrontations.

We first saw it rise up during the Vietnam era.  Despite the fact that war – legitimately engaged to prevent Communist takeover of an allied nation – was entirely a creation of the most liberal White House in history, liberals took to the streets.  Some committed open treason.  Senator John Kerry was in that group, but that story has been told over and over.

Communist leaders of the time have admitted that after their disastrous Tet Offensive in 1968, they were prepared to come to the table and sue for peace.  They were deterred in this matter by liberal Americans of the Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda stripe.

They won, and as a direct result of that liberal victory, millions of innocent South East Asian people were slaughtered by the Communists.  The liberal Democrat conspiracy has haunted American foreign policy ever since. 

Not since Vietnam has it been more apparent than today as Barack Obama presides over the UN Security Council in the wake of his speech to the General Assembly in which he accused the US of having engaged in torture, and in which he admitted other items of American culpability.  It was not a speech with a strong pro-American theme.

The Obama speech was heavy on anti Israel rhetoric – as if the Palestinians – long among the most flagrant hosts to terrorists of organizations such as the PLO, Hamas, and Hezbollah.  The Obama UN speech was a betrayal of one of our most dependable allies.

Betrayal of allies has developed as a pattern for Obama.  Within the past two weeks, the Obama administration has caved (read “surrendered”) to Russian demands we call a halt to missile defense systems in Europe.  No one even claims a quid pro quo on the part of the Russians. 

Now we await Obama actions regarding manpower requests for our efforts in Afghanistan.  Generals claim they need 40,000 additional men, far left Democrats want us to simply walk away.  Obama seems tending toward his far left supporters and a repetition of the cut, run, and surrender strategy so eagerly embraced by the Democrat party these days.

Our foreign policy gives us reason to fear the path being blazed by Obama, but Democrat domestic actions are also terrifying for normal Americans.
We are seeing revelations of facts regarding Obama’s own ACORN, that are so extreme that even having “friends in high places” cannot save them.

Despite their being joined at the hip with Obama, demonstrations of ACORN’s willingness to support illegal immigration, child prostitution, and tax evasion are so great the Census Bureau has severed all ties, and the IRS has followed suit.  Politically, the action regarding Census data gathering is the most damaging for ACORN.  The Census provides data that will be used in drawing Congressional District lines – lines that will control politics on Capitol Hill for the next ten years – or longer.

Mark up one victory for real Americans.

But the fight is not over.

Harry Reid threatens to impose a health care bill on unwilling Americans because he leads a dominating Democrat majority in the Senate.  He can do so, of course.  Hopefully, the resulting political fallout will inflict deep and serious wounds in the Democrat Party.

As if to underscore their intent to rule by edict, Democrats yesterday defeated Republican efforts to force making it possible for lawmakers (and all Americans) to read legislation before a vote.

WOW!  Senators and Congressmen actually reading a bill on which they will vote?  What an absurd idea!!

Since the arrival of the Obama administration, haste has been the by-word of legislative action. Speed, speed, speed has been the order of the day.  No apparent reason for the speed – just speed for the sake of speed.

Actually, rushing legislation to a vote is a clear Obama White House strategy – force passage before the bill can be read, analyzed, and undergo reasoned consideration.

Given that corruption of the nation’s over-the-air TV network news operations, expect to see all this explained with covers up that should astonish us all.  They will ridicule objections to extreme proposals that will cut care to seniors, impose a new tax on many Middle Americans, and provide a pathway to single payer, Canadian style, socialized medicine.

In all these recent developments, Democrats have openly betrayed those within some of their most reliable voting blocs: Jews, Seniors, and our European allies.  Of course others have been betrayed as well.  They will learn that in due time.  As will normal Americans everywhere.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

 http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110243
 
© 2009 

I think I've finally figured it out.

What is it about this administration and the mainstream media that grates on people's nerves? Why are folks so angry that they're holding heated town hall meetings, rallies and tea parties from coast to coast? Why do we object so strongly to current policies that we're willing to travel great distances at our own expense to protest, only to be called loathsome names?

Is it that the government is trying to shove health-care reform down our throats despite the fact that 83 percent of Americans are satisfied with what they have? Is it the cap-and-trade farce that will skyrocket prices on every conceivable good and service for no discernible benefit? Is it Obama's goal to spread our hard-earned wealth to those who haven't earned it?

It's all of those things, of course, and more. But the objections of many Americans can be summed up in one single word: ARROGANCE.

Have you noticed the arrogance of this administration and its media? If you combine a liberal president with a liberal Congress, reported by a liberal press … the result is a degree of egotism and superiority toward the citizens of this country seldom equaled in any presidential term.

Consider Rep. Joe Wilson's shout of "You lie!" during Obama's address to a joint session of Congress.

 Putting aside the fact that the president was lying (on the issue of whether illegal immigrants would have access to government-run health care), it seems the administration is determined to make an example of Wilson by demanding multiple apologies in various locations and under assorted conditions (standing on his head, hopping on one foot, walking while chewing gum, that kind of thing).

Have you seen our Tea Party Store? Everything you need to express your outrage with the Obama Socialist Express

Next we listened, mouths agape, as Jimmy Carter lavishly painted us all with the same hateful brush of racism if we disagreed with Obama. "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president," he snarked. That's amazing, don't you think? Every waitress, every lawyer, every stay-at-home mom, every house painter and secretary and mechanic and grocer and farmer and banker – we're all racists if we don't like our government's out-of-control spending and wild ride into socialism. Who'da thunk?

Then we have the mainstream media's persistent refusal to cover the shocking fact that ACORN encourages child prostitution supported by your tax dollars. Reporters and news agencies will no longer report major breaking news stories if it might make the administration look bad (Van Jones, anyone?).

 Apparently, anything that might even indirectly cast aspersions on our godlike president is off-limits.

How about when Obama stood before cameras in Cincinnati and said, "I've got a question for all these folks who say, 'You know, we're going to pull the plug on Grandma' and 'This is all about illegal immigrants' – you've heard all the lies. I've got a question for all those folks: What are you going to do? What's your answer? What's your solution? And you know what? They don't have one." Wrong.

 Republicans have offered up at least three alternative plans for health-care reform. Obama just doesn't want to admit it.

Then of course there's last weekend's tea party in Washington, D.C. Did you know – you're gonna love this – that the White House was unaware that the protest was going to take place?

A million people planned to show up outside their door and they didn't notice any preparations? Didn't they see all those workmen putting up Port-a-Potties the week before? Didn't that register? "I don't know who the group is," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters with a shrug.

With a shrug … And what does that "shrug" mean? Why, it's quite simple: You shrug when you're dismissing something. We the People don't exist. We're just a bunch of racist whiny brats having a collective temper tantrum. Doubtless Mr. Gibbs feels that the current administration should be allowed to do anything it likes since we're too stupid to know what's good for us.

Undaunted – or perhaps "unaware" – of the 9/12 March on Washington, Obama chose last Saturday to stump for his health-care reform far away in Minnesota rather than face his own citizens screaming for governmental restraint.

Yawn.

Though crowd estimates vary from as low as 60,000 to 70,000 (ha!) according to ABC News to a high of 2 million by the London Daily Mail, photographs and videos of the rally clearly demonstrate its enormity. (The best guess seems to be 1.2 million.) Do you realize this means roughly one out of every 300 Americans was on the doorstep of the Capitol last Saturday? And for those unable to go, there were oodles more that were there in spirit, my family included.

It's like the administration and the media are all saying, "Awwww – it's so CUTE when the rabble gets agitated!" White House senior adviser David Axelrod said that the protesters do not represent the views of the broader public when it comes to health-care reform.  "I don't think it's indicative of the nation's mood. … My message to them is, they're wrong."

Only somebody filled with breathtaking arrogance can look out the window at over a million protesters and tell them they don't represent the views of a broader public.

And therein lies my point. Probably one of the biggest gripes Real America has about the current administration is not just the out-of-control spending, it's the arrogance of not listening to us. It's the conceit they show in ignoring us. It's the contempt they express for our legitimate complaints.

Nancy Pelosi dismisses the citizens who object to a socialist agenda as Nazis and Astroturf protesters "funded by the high end." Don't make me lob cow patties at you, Nancy dear. No one's paying us to protest, though I've heard rumors that the administration is orchestrating and manipulating its own rallies to only allow supporters, not detractors. Just rumors, you understand.

Probably the best comment I've heard comes from Frank Turek who wrote, "Astroturf doesn't grow." He's quite right – it doesn't. But We the People do.

This time it was a million of us in the capital streets.

Patrice Lewis is a freelance writer and the author of "The Home Craft Business: How to Make it Survive and Thrive." She is co-founder (with her husband) of a home woodcraft business. The Lewises live on 40 acres in north Idaho with their two homeschooled children, assorted livestock, and a shop that overflows into the house with depressing regularity. Visit her blog at

http://www.patricelewis.blogspot.com/.

2.

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/24/weve-figured-him-out

Why is President Barack Obama in such a hurry to get his socialized medicine bill passed?

Because he and his cunning circle realize some basic truths:

Ben Stein

The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust voted for a pig in a poke in 2008. They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith.

They ignored his anti-white writings in his books. They ignored his quiet acceptance of hysterical anti-American diatribes by his minister, Jeremiah Wright.

They ignored his refusal to explain years at a time of his life as a student. They ignored his ultra-left record as a "community organizer," Illinois state legislator, and Senator.

The American people ignored his total zero of an academic record as a student and teacher, his complete lack of scholarship when he was being touted as a scholar.

Now, the American people are starting to wake up to the truth. Barack Obama is a super likeable super leftist, not a fan of this country, way, way too cozy with the terrorist leaders in the Middle East, way beyond naïveté, all the way into active destruction of our interests and our allies and our future.

The American people have already awakened to the truth that the stimulus bill -- a great idea in theory -- was really an immense bribe to Democrat interest groups, and in no way an effort to help all Americans.

Now, Americans are waking up to the truth that ObamaCare basically means that every time you are sick or injured, you will have a clerk from the Department of Motor Vehicles telling your doctor what he can and cannot do.

The American people already know that Mr. Obama's plan to lower health costs while expanding coverage and bureaucracy is a myth, a promise of something that never was and never will be -- a bureaucracy lowering costs in a free society. Either the costs go up or the free society goes away.

These are perilous times. Mrs. Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State, has given Iran the go-ahead to have nuclear weapons, an unqualified betrayal of the nation. Now, we face a devastating loss of freedom at home in health care. It will be joined by controls on our lives to "protect us" from global warming, itself largely a fraud if believed to be caused by man.

Mr. Obama knows Americans are getting wise and will stop him if he delays at all in taking away our freedoms.

There is his urgency and our opportunity. Once freedom is lost, America is lost. Wake up, beloved America. 
 
3.

Obama tries to reclaim debate on financial reform
Associated News
ANNE FLAHERTY (AP)

WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Wednesday he supports Democratic efforts to narrow the scope of a new consumer protection agency, ceding ground on the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's proposal to tighten the rules governing financial institutions.

Rep. Barney Frank, a liberal Massachusetts Democrat, has proposed creating the agency but limiting its reach. Under Frank's plan, retailers would escape agency oversight, as would real estate brokers, lawyers, auto dealers and other industries.

Frank's proposal also would not subject companies to a requirement that they offer standardized financial products known as a "plain vanilla" option.

In congressional testimony, Geithner said the administration was supportive of the changes and called them "a pragmatic helpful way to make sure you have the choice for protection."

"There are lots of different ways to make sure that you don't create too much unbridled authority that would be damaging to what's an important part of our financial system," Geithner said.

Geithner's appearance before the House Financial Services Committee comes as the administration tries to reclaim debate on financial reform.

Lawmakers remain divided on how to prevent another financial crisis, with Republicans decrying Democratic proposals as dangerous. Meanwhile, Democrats are debating among themselves how to clamp down on big financial firms without hurting smaller community banks.

Democrats have said they want to pass by the end of the year legislation reforming financial regulations. But they've acknowledged the effort could slip into next year.

Frank promised his plan would give the government the power it needs to prevent future government bailouts by being able to dismantle large financial institutions, even if they aren't banks. Last year, the government was powerless to unwind insurance giant AIG, for example, even though its failure threatened the economy; instead, the government responded with more than $180 billion in rescue funds.

"There is no one magic bullet that does away with 'too big to fail' but you'll have the ability to resolve them in ways that protects taxpayers and gives people a disincentive to get into that situation," Frank said.

Rep. Spencer Bachus, the panel's top Republican from Alabama, called for "smarter regulation but not necessarily more regulation." Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a conservative from Texas, said the administration plan would reward regulators with "sweeping new draconian powers."
 
CONGRESSMAN BACHUS' STATEMENT DURING FINANCIAL REGULATORY REFORM HEARING
 
WASHINGTON – Congressman Spencer Bachus (AL-6), Ranking Member on the House Financial Services Committee, made the following statement today during the Full Committee hearing entitled, “The Administration's Proposals for Financial Regulatory Reform.”
 
“Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today’s hearing. I would also like to thank Treasury Secretary Geithner for returning to our Committee to continue discussing the President’s plan to further regulate the financial services industry.
 
“The Administration has presented Congress with a far-reaching regulatory reform proposal which has, to date, failed to achieve anything approaching consensus, either on Capitol Hill or among the Federal regulators who would be responsible for implementing it.
 
“The lesson that we learned from the events that led to the financial crisis and subsequent government actions is that our 1930s regulatory system is not up to the task of monitoring the safety and soundness of complex financial firms in a 21st century economy.  We need smarter regulation, not necessarily more regulation. We need better enforcement of existing regulation, not another layer of regulation or more government bureaucracy.  We do not need government policies that encourage harmful business practices.
 
“Unfortunately, the Administration’s regulatory reform plan continues the pattern that we have also seen with health care and energy of big-government solutions that replace individual choice with bureaucratic mandates. Their plan establishes the Federal Reserve as a “systemic risk” regulator despite the fact that the Fed has historically done a poor job of identifying and addressing systemic risks before they become crises. It tasks the Fed with identifying a class of “systemically significant” firms that the market will view as “too big to fail,” and then compounds this mistake by creating a so-called “resolution authority” that will promote continued taxpayer-funded bailouts of these institutions, rather than actually unwinding and shutting down their operations. And finally, the Administration plan would establish a massive new government bureaucracy known as the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which consumers will ultimately pay for, on top of the regulatory patchwork that currently exists.
 
“Mr. Chairman, my deep-seated reservations about the Administration’s financial reform proposals –which again I point out are shared by Members on both sides of the aisle and many of the regulators themselves –should not be interpreted as a rejection of common sense reform. Although Republicans take a different path than the Administration, Republicans are not saying no to reform. Republicans are saying no to bail outs and no to the “more of the same approach” of misguided government regulations and interventions which helped bring about this crisis in the first place. 
 
“Republicans have offered a clear alternative to the Administration’s approach to reform. The House Republican plan promotes effective consumer protection by streamlining and consolidating the functions of four bank regulatory agencies, including consumer protection, into a unified agency. To end the bailouts, the House Republican plan directs all failed non-banks to an enhanced bankruptcy process that will force creditors and counterparties of those firms to bear the costs of that failure, rather than sticking taxpayers with the tab. To promote sound monetary policy, the Republican plan relieves the Fed of its current supervisory duties and prohibits the Fed from bailing out any specific financial institution. 
 
“Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with my colleagues and Secretary Geithner in the months ahead on a regulatory reform plan that addresses the need for smarter regulation, not more regulation, not more government bureaucracy, and not more incentives to engage in harmful business practices,” Bachus says.

Wednesday's Web

The day’s top political news:

Obama tells the UN the US cant go it alone

In a blunt challenge to his nation's critics, President Barack Obama exhorted world leaders who once accused the United States of acting alone to now join with him in solving global crises rather than wait for America to do it on its own.

In his first address to the U.N. General Assembly, Obama sought to set a new tone in U.S. relations, moving away from the unilateralism of his predecessor, George W. Bush. He coupled conciliatory words about a "new era of engagement" with a blunt challenge for other nations to shoulder more of the burden.

Obama said past policies and a perception of unilateralism by the United States had fed "an almost reflexive anti-Americanism," that too often was used as an excuse for inaction.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090923/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama

Lawmakers push for bill review period

A bipartisan group of House lawmakers on Wednesday announced an effort that would force Democratic leaders to give members of Congress -- and the public -- 72 hours to review legislation before a bill is brought to the floor for a vote.

The measure, sponsored by Rep. Brian Baird, Oregon Democrat, and Republican Reps. John Culberson of Texas and Greg Walden of Oregon, would require House leaders to post all non-emergency legislation online, in its final form, three days before a vote.

The lawmakers have begun circulating a discharge petition that would force House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to hold a vote on their bill, which has been stuck in committee for months.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/23/house-lawmakers-aim-push-back-against-hasty-votes//print/

Obama’s Transportation Secretary slams political 'trash talk'

Republican member of President Barack Obama's cabinet blistered conservative talk-radio hosts and cable-television news yesterday, saying they have eroded civility and impeded the nation's ability to solve big problems.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told The Dispatch that the level of "harsh discourse in Washington has probably reached an all-time high," and he partly blamed it on "all of this trash talk about the process and about politicians 24/7" on cable television and talk radio.  It would seem LaHood has failed to read or observe the mainstream media of late.

LaHood referred to criticism Obama received for appearing Sunday on five television news shows to promote his health-care overhaul. The secretary also indicated that even the president's bully pulpit is no match for the cacophony over the airwaves from the political right.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2009/09/23/copy/lahood.ART_ART_09-23-09_A1_PHF5KK7.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

Opinion:
Taking the UN seriously can be a danger to world peace and all living things.

I remember reading about plans for creating an organization to insure world peace when I was in junior high school.  It was a hopeful idea spawned in reaction to the world having so recently ended the threat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. 

All sane people want peace.

However, those unwilling to stand firmly against aggression, terrorism, or any potential threat, give enemies aid and comfort.  What is good and right will not always prevail simply because it is good and right.  “Good” it must be defended – even fought for.

The United Nations was designed with admirable goals in mind.  The world was free, the good guys had won World War II – it was time for not “studying war no more”.

Within five years, Communist North Korea sent its hoards across its border with South Korea, and war returned to the world stage.  While the Greeks beat them back, Communists in Indo China defeated the French. But Korea provided the first example of “UN forces” arrayed in the name of freedom.   

In the decades ahead, when peace has been challenged, the US has had to provide the opposition if the effort was to be effective.  The US and allies such as Great Britain have always provided the only meaningful resistance to aggression. 

When the UN decided to “go it alone” – as it did in Rwanda, for example, it made a major mess of things.  UN forces – without the US – not only failed to stop the slaughter – it often made matters worse and even participated.

The UN is powerless.  Its “resolutions” are meaningless.  Effective sanctions are very rarely imposed and even more rarely enforced.   

Yet the UN provides a ready platform from which verbal attacks on the United States can be launched. Of course, the US media usually gives aid and comfort to such anti American accusations and movements.

When George Bush moved to enforce UN resolutions imposed on Saddam Hussein when Saddam’s aggression against Kuwait had been defeated, the “World Body” condemned Bush – not Saddam.

Face it – the UN is nothing more than a very expensive chat room for pampered diplomats.  The UN will never stop aggression unless the US shoulders the load and does it.  Yet the US pours tens of millions of dollars into UN scams and schemes.  The UN “Oil for Peace” conspiracy comes to mind. Crooks made millions and no effective action resulted.

Today, Obama addressed the UN General Assembly followed immediately by the Libyan dictator Qaddafi who underwrote and sponsored the bombing of an American airliner – murdering Americans. 

The UN shrugs away such conflicts.  Listening to dictators is nothing new.  Hugo Chavez speaks occasionally, Fidel Castro has too. Decency is not a requirement.

The UN is consistently anti American – but even that’s not its major issue.  The real damage the UN inflicts is the impression it gives that something positive is being (or might eventually be) done to insure world peace.  So many use the UN as cover – an excuse for inaction.

World peace would be better served by a gathering of those nations capable of achieving real goals – discussing threats, problems, and proposals.  Something productive just might be done.  At its worst, such an arrangement would remove the false patina of respectability enjoyed today by the UN.

Expecting the UN to preserve world peace – or even achieving anything of value in that regard – is like leaning on a broken stick for support.

The UN is worse than impotent – by implying honest efforts for peace – it weakens those who really can achieve it.  Too bad.  It’s time for an honest reappraisal of the idea, and time to embrace a new plan entirely.  Chat rooms can be better handled over the Internet.

Buddy

The days top blogs:

1.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/59677-deficit-claim-on-health-bill-is-questioned

Deficit claim on health bill is questioned
Jeffrey Young

Deficit reduction as part of healthcare reform is a major selling point for centrist Democrats, but the effectiveness of the proposals in a bill written by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) is subject to considerable uncertainty, according to experts.

Baucus’s proposal would spend $774 billion over 10 years to reduce the number of uninsured people by 29 million while actually reducing the federal budget deficit by $49 billion, according to a preliminary Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis.

For the 10 years after that, CBO offered a rough estimate that the bill would further reduce spending by 0.5 percent of the gross domestic product because the “added revenue and cost savings are projected to grow more rapidly than the cost of the coverage expansion,” CBO Director Doug Elmendorf wrote.

These projections are “subject to substantial uncertainty,” particularly for the years outside the 10-year budget window, Elmendorf cautioned.

Moreover, budget experts said, the estimated reductions in healthcare spending would require Congress to make politically difficult decisions about Medicare and other healthcare spending in future years — the likes of which lawmakers are typically loath to make.

“The Baucus bill on paper looks like it’s more fiscally responsible, but the question is, Will Congress actually follow through?” said Diane Lim Rogers, the chief economist for the Concord Coalition, a budget watchdog group.

“Our somewhat cynical worry about the Baucus bill is that it’s counting on Congress to make the tough choices later.”

“It depends on politicians doing what they say they’re going to do,” said Marc Goldwein, the policy director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, noting that lawmakers historically have not shown a willingness to make cuts to costly entitlement programs nor to raise tax revenue to pay for them, leading to escalating deficits.

Baucus, whose committee will begin marking up his bill Tuesday, trumpeted the figures, which received an enthusiastic response from centrist Democrats. “Unlike any other plan that has come from any other source, this plan is not only paid for and produces deficit savings over the first 10 years but also holds out the prospect of having over a trillion dollars of savings over the second 10 years,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Baucus’s closest ally on healthcare reform.
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), another centrist Finance Committee member, likewise highlighted the budget numbers as a reason she could support the bill. “We’re seeing that it’s deficit-neutral, we’re seeing that we’re increasing insurance coverage. Those are a lot of the hot points. Looks good,” she said.

Centrist Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) — who could play decisive roles in the outcome of the healthcare debate — also praised Baucus for introducing a bill with a positive CBO score. Baucus and the White House have heavily courted Snowe, who is a Finance Committee member, to support healthcare reform.

Fiscal conservatives in the House, unnerved by the $1 trillion-plus price tag of the lower chamber’s bills and Elmendorf’s comments that they would increase the deficit in future years, welcomed the Baucus bill.

But achieving the budgetary savings the CBO says are possible required compromises that displeased liberals, including several Finance Committee Democrats.

In order to keep the price tag below the $900 billion limit established by President Barack Obama, Baucus included less generous health insurance subsidies for the middle class. In addition, he would generate $215 billion in revenues by levying a 35 percent excise tax on insurance companies when they sell plans valued at $21,000 for a family.

Already, Baucus has admitted he will have to raise the price tag for his bill — and thus decrease its deficit-reduction potential — to appease liberals. Baucus plans to increase the subsidies and reduce the number of people affected by the excise tax, he said Monday in interviews with The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. According to the Times, those changes would cost an additional $28 billion.

The bill calls for more than $400 billion in cuts to spending on federal health programs, mostly by cutting pay rates for medical providers. In addition, the bill would raise hundreds of billions from the excise tax and fees on healthcare companies.

But those savings and new revenues mostly would be redirected to pay for expanding Medicaid and providing tax credits to help people purchase health insurance.

“It’s not spelling out these hard choices,” Rogers complained.

One of the most ambitious elements of Baucus’s bill is the creation of an independent Medicare commission that would recommend payment policies that Congress must take up. But as it is constituted in the bill, Rogers said, the decisions of the panel would be subject to lobbying and political influence that could result in difficult spending cuts being avoided — and deficits continuing to rise.

From 2019 on, the commission would have to recommend cuts in Medicare when spending grows at a rate 1 percent faster than gross domestic product per capita. But the commission would be forbidden to suggest cuts in benefits, changes in eligibility or new taxes, leaving those decisions to lawmakers who have eschewed such policies in the past, Rogers said.

For evidence that Congress leaves crucial fiscal problems unsolved in healthcare, Rogers and Goldwein each pointed to the problem with the Medicare pay rates to physicians.

Under a formula widely regarded as deeply flawed, physicians have faced increasingly steep annual payment cuts this decade. Next year, their fees would drop by 21.5 percent. Congress has been enacting short-term patches to this problem but has failed to replace the flawed payment formula because the price tag is too high. The Baucus bill proposes a one-year fix.

2.

WWW.FORBES.com

Financial Regulatory Blitz
Brian Wingfield and Aleksandra Kulczuga

A barrage of hearings this week is likely to revive opposition to key proposals.

WASHINGTON -- Contrary to popular belief, health care has not entirely consumed the domestic policy agenda in Washington. This week, lawmakers are blitzing Capitol Hill with hearings on financial regulatory reform.

The House Financial Services Committee holds the biggest show in town Wednesday. In the morning, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will testify about the Obama administration's reform proposals.

"There is little doubt that we have moved back from the financial brink and toward economic recovery," Geithner is expected to say in his remarks Wednesday. "But make no mistake: The flaws in our financial system and regulatory framework that allowed this crisis to occur, and in many ways helped cause it, are still in place."

The Treasury Secretary is expected to make the case for the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, and he'll say that regulation must prevent taxpayers from having to foot the bill for future government-funded bailouts, such as those for Citigroup, American International Group and General Motors. He'll also say that the administration's regulatory proposals will not establish a "fixed list" of firms of so-called Tier 1 financial holding companies, also known as firms that are too big to fail.

Later in the day, the panel will grill the chairmen of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

Also on Wednesday, the Senate's banking committee will hear government experts testify about the effects of the $700 billion bailout package, originally intended exclusively for the financial services sector. On Tuesday, the House Agriculture Committee hauled in Mary Schapiro and Gary Gensler, the respective heads of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to talk about oversight of over-the-counter derivatives.

Over the last year, hearings on financial regulation have proliferated on Capitol Hill. The new element is that the Obama administration has produced all the legislative language on its overhaul proposals, giving lawmakers something solid on which to grill regulators. And to be sure, Democrats also want to claim some victories this year in the financial regulatory arena.

The renewed reform effort is reviving opposition to some proposals. House Republicans have already outlined their own, very different goals, which include a rewrite of the U.S. bankruptcy code to wind down non-bank financial firms that are considered too big to fail. (See "Spencer Bachus On Rethinking Regulation.") Deep-pocketed industry groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Financial Services Roundtable remain opposed to the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, a key goal for Democrats.

"The scope is too broad, the authority is massive and it won't fix transparency for consumers," says David Hirschmann, president of the Chamber Center for Capital Markets, who spoke a briefing for reporters Tuesday. "It's not an approach that will direct resources toward what will actually fix the things that got consumers in trouble. The problem is regulatory attention and enforcement."

Especially worrisome, says Hirschmann, is that the CFPA would separate consumer protection regulation from so-called "safety and soundness" rules for financial institutions, which currently resides with existing banking regulators. That could lead to more red tape and perhaps contradictory regulation. Because states would be able to add their own layers of regulation on top of the federal CFPA, they might shop around for jurisdictions with the least amount of regulation, which could also harm consumers, Hirschmann says.

In addition to consumer protection, look for lawmakers to grill Geithner and FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair on the status of the FDIC's dwindling deposit insurance fund, which has been sapped by the failure of 94 banks so far this year. The agency could borrow as much as $100 billion from the Treasury Department, but instead is considering borrowing money from healthy banks, according to a report by The New York Times Tuesday. An FDIC spokesman said that while all options are on the table, borrowing from banks isn't being given serious consideration.

If that were to occur, it would cast banks in the role of "good citizens" and their "political standing will dramatically improve," says Brian Gardner, a financial services analyst with Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, in a research note. This leverage could also reduce the chances of a new consumer protection regulator, an idea opposed by many in the banking industry, adds Gardner.

Another twist that's sure to come up in hearings this week: consolidation of some of the regulatory powers of the Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC and OTS into one banking regulator, an idea being pushed by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn.

Dodd's pitch is just that--he hasn't proposed any legislation--and it's considered to be more of a legislative starting point than a realistic proposal for what the future of U.S. financial regulation might look like. But for now, it doesn't seem to have legs. Bair has publicly opposed merging regulatory agencies. (See "Financial Regulatory Round-Up.") Moreover, the idea doesn't have the support of House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass.

"He'll be moving ahead with the administration's proposal," says a spokeswoman for Frank. The White House has suggested merging the OTS and OCC, an idea endorsed by both Republicans and Democrats.

One area where there's likely to be some progress this year: closing loopholes and tightening oversight of the derivatives markets at the heart of the financial crisis last fall, especially credit default swaps that are traded over the counter. The Obama administration wants swaps traded on an exchange, or at least cleared by a central party.

By Sept. 30, the SEC and CFTC are expected to present Congress with a report on harmonizing their regulation of derivatives. SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro wants securities-related swaps to be regulated like securities and futures-related swaps to be related by the CFTC. But lawmakers will still have to figure out how to reduce the risk of regulatory arbitrage, since some derivatives don't fall neatly into those categories.

None of it will get solved this week, of course, but this week's hearings are a sure sign that financial regulatory reform will soon reclaim its place in the policy spotlight. Consider this blitz the beginning of a fourth-quarter drive.

Liz Moyer contributed reporting from New York

3.

Promised one-on-one time with Obama hard to come by for GOP
Molly K. Hooper

House Republicans are feeling no love from President Barack Obama in the debate over healthcare – and Democrats want them to quit complaining.

The White House has refused to schedule meetings with Obama and a handful of GOP lawmakers who RSVP’d to his blanket invitation to sit down one-on-one with any member of Congress to discuss his landmark legislation.
 
Outspoken Democratic Rep. Barney Frank (Mass.) sees nothing wrong with the White House disregard for his GOP colleagues, saying they have no intention of supporting any healthcare bill offered by the president.

“They are irredeemably opposed, ideologically dug in; they’ve already made it clear that they have no interest in this,” Frank said.

For its part, the White House is quick to point out that throughout this process the president has met and spoken with key Republicans to get their ideas and input, including, among others, GOP Sens. Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Mike Enzi (Wyo.), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Susan Collins (Maine), Bob Corker (Tenn.) and Bob Bennett (Utah).

In fact, Bennett had an audience with the president last week to discuss a bill that he co-sponsored with Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.).

But Obama needs the support of at least one or two Senate Republicans to pass his healthcare package with 60 votes in order to avoid resorting to a technical maneuver that would only require 51 votes – but would likely have significant negative ramifications for his future agenda items.

The president has regularly called Snowe, hoping she'll provide the support he needs in order to pass a final package out of the upper chamber. On Tuesday, Snowe said she could not back the Finance Committee’s bill.

Still, the president on several occasions has extended a blanket offer to meet one-on-one with any lawmaker, in order to assuage concerns about the ramifications of his mammoth overhaul plan and listen to diverse ideas for improving it.

“If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open,” Obama said to a Joint Session of Congress on Sept. 9. In late July he told participants of a townhall meeting in Raleigh, N.C., that he would “be available” to “go over line-by-line what’s going on (with the bill)” to any lawmaker with questions or concerns.

On Thursday GOP Reps. David Roe (Tenn.), Bill Cassidy (La.), Jason Chaffetz (Utah), Steve Scalise (La.) and Tom Price (Ga.), all of whom have repeatedly attempted to take Obama up on his offer, sent a joint letter to the president asking to sit down with them as a group if he doesn’t have time to do so on a one-by-one basis, “in an effort to accommmodate (Obama’s) schedule.”

Roe, Cassidy and Price practiced medicine for decades before being elected to the House.

“I think it is absolutely appropriate to take someone like myself, who has had 30-plus years' experience in healthcare in the real world, not in some think tank but in seeing patients every day, going to the emergency room to see uninsured people at 3 a.m. He needs to hear this from someone who has had feet on the ground and seen the problems with this,” Roe said, noting that on the day after formally asking to meet with the president, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told him he would personally make sure “to get that done.”

A top House Democrat said that the president doesn’t have time to sit down with 535 members of Congress, despite his promise to do so – especially with the 178-strong GOP conference that he believes will ultimately oppose whatever plan Democrats put forward.

Hawaii’s liberal Democratic Rep. Neil Abercrombie said that the Republicans need to grow up.

“Open door doesn’t mean you walk through it. What it means is: send the ideas up to him – that’s what I’m doing. Do you hear me complaining?” Abercrombie told The Hill on Thursday afternoon.

GOP Rep. Michael Burgess (Texas), who also requested to sit down with the president and has attempted to work with the White House on healthcare reform as early as December 2008, did send a packet of suggestions to the administration on Thursday.

But again, the White House hasn’t scheduled a meeting with Dr. Burgess.

Only one House Republican has made headway in his effort to talk to Obama. GOP Rep. Joseph Cao (La.), the Democrats' top target in 2010 as 70 percent of his district voted for Obama in the election, is considering voting for the president’s bill.

Obama’s healthcare czar Nancy Ann DeParle has held several lengthy meetings with Cao.

“Cao was able to express concerns in some areas and attempt to get more clarification in others,” a source privy to the discussions said. “The White House seems to understand that there are some unclear parts of the bill, and they really seem to genuinely want to reach conclusions.”

Constituents in the majority-minority district share a number of concerns that Cao explained: “Whether the bill is going to be fiscally neutral, how the proposed cuts will impact the elderly and the poor – whether or not there will be tort reform, whether or not the public option is the right way to be approaching this.”

At this point it is unclear whether Obama will meet with Cao face-to-face, but the Louisiana lawmaker, who won his race by a whisker against then-indicted, now-convicted former Rep. William Jefferson (D), said that if he pressed the issue a meeting would probably happen.

4.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110531

 YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK
Stung! Undercover celeb exposes Obama fiasco
'Milk it, baby – It's free money': You won't believe what happens inside Cash for Clunkers operation
Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDail

While President Obama delivers speeches praising the alleged success of Cash for Clunkers, a former rebate processor for the federal program – also working undercover for WND – is calling it "complete chaos."

After the federal "Cash for Clunkers" program ended Aug. 24, the Department of Transportation reported that nearly 700,000 clunkers were taken off the roads and replaced by more fuel-efficient vehicles. Rebate applications worth $2.877 billion were submitted by the 8 p.m. deadline. The Transportation Department hired federal employees and private contract workers to process the rebates vouchers so car dealers would be compensated.

(NOTE: An expose of the Obama “Cash for Clunkers” program – another shocking example of how government projects and schemes usually provide the criminal elements of society another opportunity to prosper – at the expense of tax paying Americans. 

Read and heed – this is an inside story of how a liberal scheme really worked.  Think of this sort of operation providing health care – its all in the same bucket, after all.)

Former White House aide Kathleen Willey was hired as an employee with Vangent Incorporated, a company that provides information technology management and business process outsourcing services to the public and private sectors. Its clients include federal agencies such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the U.S. Departments of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Justice and Labor and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

But what her employer did not know was that Willey, the author of the book, "Target: Caught In the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton," was also taking notes on all she observed and experienced for WND.

Kathleen Willey helped send President Clinton to the White House in 1992. Little did she imagine how the Clintons would repay her. Get Willey's explosive hit, "Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton," at WND's Superstore!

Vangent, based in Arlington, Va., secured a contract from the Department of Transportation in late August and earlier this month to handle 300,000 applications – or nearly half of all Cash for Clunkers vouchers.Vangent Vice President Eileen Rivera told WND the company hired at least 4,000 temporary employees in Chester, Va., Tampa, Fla., and London, Ky.

No work history needed

Willey processed the Cash for Clunkers vouchers at her position in Chester, Va. She attended a job fair on Aug. 31 and was hired through Astyra Corp., a minority-owned staffing company.

"We were told that we would be working on the Cash for Clunkers programming, examining all of the documents that the government had received from dealers all over the country," Willey told WND.
She said many of the applicants had never even heard of the Cash for Clunkers program.

"We were not asked for any prior work history," Willey said. "The job description was listed as data entry and called for the ability to type 30 words per minute. There were no job requirements actually listed on the application."

The form requested direct deposit information, signature on a confidentiality agreement and background check, tax information and two forms of identification.

Willey said, "Some people did not have two forms, and I heard one recruiter say, 'We will work with you on that.'"

Kathleen Willey

She asked a woman who interviewed her what she would need to do before beginning her new position.
"When I asked if I needed to take any kind of test, the answer was, 'No,'" Willey said. "She told me to report for work the next day at 4:30 p.m. When I asked if I had to pass a background check before I started, she said, 'No.'"

However, Rivera said, "That's absolutely not true. Every single temporary employee who was hired went through a background check. If the background check did not clear, then they were released. They were not allowed to work on this program."

Barefoot and foul-mouthed employees

Willey said she was the only non-minority applicant in the room. While human resources required a strict dress code for the position, she said she was shocked by the clothing and conduct of other candidates who were interviewed:

I was the only one dressed for a job interview. Everyone else had on jeans and T-shirts. Most women wore flip-flops. One woman was barefoot. The women were dressed extremely unprofessionally, in jeans and very revealing tops. A lot of them wore T-shirts that barely covered their stomachs. What I noticed most were the foul mouths of everyone around me.

The next day, Willey reported that as many as 300 new employees attended orientation for new positions with Vangent.

"One of the first things we were told was that Cash for Clunkers will help the environment," she said.
One supervisor told the group, "The president has passed a good bill to do something good for the American people, but this program is a 'moving target.' Rules are changed daily."

A Department of Transportation webinar instructor repeated the statement about the program being a "moving target."

"He was obviously with the administration because he told us that the Cash for Clunkers program was a huge success for the country as well as the environment," Willey said. "He told us that we are dealing with 'three times the business in one-third of the time.' He also told us repeatedly that we were going to have to 'get out of our comfort zones' and be flexible.'"

She said she knew of only two professional trainers who had been brought in by the Department of Trainsportation to train everyone – supervisors, managers and employees. The supervisors and managers frequently contradicted one another and talked to the employees as if they were "in the first grade." The recruits were told they would soon receive photo identification badges.

A paycheck to do 'absolutely nothing'

The following day, on Sept. 2, employees waited outside from 4:30 p.m. until 6 p.m. to get into the building.

"Once inside, we waited another 30 minutes to sign in 'so we would get paid,' Willey recalled. "I noted that it was written on the piece of paper that our work day started at 4:30. We then waited in line at the 'badge table' to get our badges. When I got there, I had no badge. I finally got to my desk at about 6:45 p.m., where I sat with nothing to do until 10 p.m."

The employees waited for their user IDs and passwords to access the Car Allowance Rebate System, or CARS. Meanwhile, they were being paid $14.71 an hour "to do absolutely nothing," Willey said.

"There was not a supervisor to be found," she said. "Because I was bored to death, I read a newspaper and a book."

At 10 p.m., more than five hours after signing in, she said the employees were still being paid to remain idle. Willey and another employee went to find a supervisor.

"When we finally found one, we told her we wanted our user IDs and passwords so we could get to work, but she was too busy ordering out," she said. "At 10:20 p.m., we finally tracked down someone who had a list of our user IDs and passwords. I tried to get in and was ultimately locked out of the system. At 11:30 p.m., I found another supervisor and told her my problem. She told us she would look into it, but we couldn't find her again. We were told to go home at midnight, but that we should put 12:30 a.m. on our timesheets."

Rivera told WND, "It's very likely that she went through four or five hours of training. There was about two or three hours of onboarding to make sure that they were familiar with what they were about to be doing. A lot of employees all had to be trained at the same time, and there were different waves of that process that were going on."

Willey stopped by the security room to request her badge before leaving. A woman told her the badges were ready but that she could not have hers yet.

"I told her that we were told that we would have to wait another hour and a half the next day to get in, and I asked if she would reconsider giving them to us," Willey recalled. "She told me, 'No, because there were four bags of them,' and she didn't want to go through the bags. I asked if we could look ourselves or help her look because we wanted to get into the building to start working, but she again said, 'No.' When I asked why, she said, 'No.'"

More trouble with federal CARS system

On Sept. 3, Willey said she waited almost two hours to get into the building and collect her badge.

"Once again, I was unable to sign in to CARS," she reported. "My desk was filthy. On my way to the bathroom to get paper towels to clean my desk, I went in search of a supervisor to ask for help with signing in. When I finally found one, he told me that he couldn't help me and I should go to the other side and look for help. I finally found one who took my name and said he would check on it and that he would be back."

Willey went to the restroom to gather paper towels to clean her desk. When she arrived, she said she was shocked at the condition of the facility.

"I found overflowing toilets and vomit all over the floor," she said.

At 9:15 p.m., Willey was still waiting for help to access the CARS system.

"Despite all of my efforts to find help, I found myself sitting at my desk with absolutely nothing to do," she said. "Most everyone around me seemed to have no problem with that. I finally started reading my newspaper while I waited."

Suddenly, she said, a supervisor appeared and admonished her for reading at her desk.

"When I tried to explain to her that there was no work and that I had nothing to do but stare at a blank screen, she ordered me to put my paper away," Willey said. "When I asked her if she would help me get into the system, she told me she could not. I folded my newspaper and put it on my desk. She reappeared and yelled at me to remove it from the top of my desk, saying that newspapers, books, etc., are not allowed on your desk."

Another supervisor appeared to help the employees with the computer problem.

"I finally got in, but was immediately locked out again," she said. "She was gone and could never be found again. My friend and I finally figured out by ourselves how to get in and stay in."

Once in the CARS system, employees were told to send an e-mail requesting assignments. Willey waited for work until 11:50 p.m., when she approved her first transaction. She ended the shift and left work only 50 minutes later.

During a 37.5-hour work week, Willey reported actually working only 14 hours – but she was paid for more than 37 hours of work.

"Two of those nights, I had no work at all," she said. "On those two evenings, when I left, I complained to two different supervisors and I got two different responses: 'Milk it, baby!' and 'Free money!'"

However, Rivera told WND, "A 37.5-hour work week was typical, but it is very unlikely that anyone was sitting around with nothing to do because there was so much work to do."

Willey continued, "After our 10:30 p.m. break, it was party time. Not a lot of people worked between 10:45 p.m. and 12:30 a.m. I will say, that there were some hard workers there, but they were all older women and a few older men."

Willey, a Level 2 reviewer who examined Cash for Clunkers vouchers after they had been checked once by a Level 1 reviewer, said the vouchers were being returned to "irate" dealers as many as seven times.

She said the vouchers are "rife with idiotic mistakes by Level 1 reviewers who are rejecting them for no reason at all, mostly because they are not paying attention."

"I am amazed at the number of vouchers that have been rejected in the last six weeks," Willey said.

"Many have been rejected and returned to dealers three to seven times! And for no good reason. What is happening here is that the Level 1 examiners are so inept and lazy that, rather than take the time to closely examine and review these vouchers the way that they should, they just hit the reject or approve button without a second thought. That, of course, slows down the whole process and the dealers aren't getting paid by the Department of Transportation. The dealers are frustrated and irate, and make no bones about it when they return their documents that are correct and don't need to be revised. When their documents are returned for revision, they have no number to call or person to e-mail."

Willey told WND that auto dealers were often very good about submitting the eight documents required to receive a rebate, but some vouchers were being sent back because Level 1 examiners failed to hit the "next" button to go to the following page of documents.

She said, "I saw that time and time again. Then the dealers would write back and say, 'It's on Page 2.'"
Willey said a single voucher would be passed around to as many as a dozen workers without being processed.

"I'd get something, and I would see that it had gone around to people in our office in Chester six or seven times and nobody had worked on it," she said. "It was obvious that maybe someone would look at it and say, 'This is too complicated. I'm going to back out of it.' Then they would back out of it and someone else would do the same."

Crashing CARS

The New York Times reported that the CARS computer systems were often overloaded, and dealers said they would finish one page in the application, hit enter and nothing would happen. Then a message would notify the dealer that the page had "timed out."

The DOT declined to respond to WND's requests for information on its CARS database. Vangent Vice President Eileen Rivera said, "There were times when an ID had to be reset. If you can imagine, there were thousands and thousands and thousands of people all logging in to the system at the same time. We were asked by the Department of Transportation to use this system, so we did our best to train everyone."

Dealers have indicated that failure to be reimbursed would be a "nightmare" for them. At Los Angeles' Galpin Motors, Vice President Beau Boeckmann told the New York Times his company would "try to 'unwind' the sale, get the slightly used car back and try to sell it again."

Other dealers told the Washington Post that failure to repay them for the Cash for Clunkers program could force them into bankruptcy. When Cash for Clunkers was first announced, the government said it would reimburse dealers within 10 days of a sale. But many dealerships pulled out of the program early following frustrations concerning delays on federal payments.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the government has compensated dealers or approved rebates for 83 percent of the cars sold. The government has paid or cleared $2.38 billion of the $2.87 billion in dealer vouchers, according to the Transportation Department. Officials claim 8.8 percent of applications have been rejected and 8.1 percent are still being reviewed.

"I know some of you have a little heartburn, but you're all going to get paid," LaHood said in a Sept. 16 speech to the National Automobile Dealers Association. "Maybe not in the timely way you would have liked."

Complete waste of taxpayer money'

LaHood has said all dealers will be reimbursed by Sept. 30. In August, the Dow Jones Newswire reported that federal bailout recipient Citigroup was selected as one of the private contractors to process Cash for Clunkers paperwork. It was awarded an estimated $7.7 million federal contract. 

 Edmunds.com, a website for car buyers, predicts that the hangover from Cash for Clunkers could be responsible for the loss of 100,000 car sales across the nation this month. Some dealerships now say they are once again facing hard times because car sales are declining and many companies are still waiting for voucher reimbursements, the Boston Globe reported.

"It was probably, in the end, a complete waste of taxpayer money," said John Wolkonowicz, a senior auto analyst at IHS Global Insight, Lexington forecasting firm. "The dealers, who were supposed to be the primary beneficiaries, many were forced into cash flow problems because the government didn't pay them in a timely fashion."

Robert O'Koniewski, executive vice president of the Massachusetts State Automobile Dealers Association, which represents 441 dealerships, told the Globe that most dealers are probably still owed money.

"This program was very good at getting product off the lot, but there haven't been long-term benefits," he said. "Dealers are reporting that showrooms are pretty dead right now."
On Sept. 14, less than two weeks after she was hired, Willey received a surprise when she appeared for work:

"After sitting at work tonight from 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., we were all herded into a room and told that our jobs were over and we were no longer needed."

Willey said the contractor released the day and night shifts without explanation. Likewise, Vangent workers in Florida were let go after only two weeks, according to the Tampa Tribune.

"I spent the majority of my time sitting in that office waiting for work. I have never seen anything like this," she said. "What I saw while I worked on Cash for Clunkers rebates was complete chaos."

However, Rivera told WND that Vangent successfully processed 300,000 vouchers in less than three weeks –with 98 percent accuracy.

"If you think about it, that was a lot of work," she said. "It was a matter of ramping up the number of employees as quickly as we could, getting everybody trained and processing the vouchers. We finished the contract."

Rivera told WND she believes the government will finish processing the vouchers and meet its Sept. 30 deadline.

"We were very efficient," she said. "We are very proud of the work we did, and 98 percent of all the vouchers done correctly is testament to the good work that all of the employees did during the program."

Note: Media wishing to interview Kathleen Willey or Chelsea Schilling, please contact WND. 
 

Tuesdays's Web

The day’s top political news:

CBS fails to end its Dan Rather suit; Redstone may testify

A New York judge has rejected CBS Corp's bid to dismiss former TV news anchor Dan Rather's $70 million lawsuit claiming he was fired over a controversial election-year report on former President George W. Bush's Vietnam War-era military service.

The Rather documentary was based on documents slandering Bush but which were proven to have been falsified by someone involved with the Rather producers.

New York State Supreme Court Justice Ira Gammerman set a December 22 hearing in the case and directed that testimony be taken from witnesses including Sumner Redstone, the 86-year-old chairman of Viacom Inc, which once controlled CBS.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE58K57U20090921

U.S. to push for new economic world order at G20

The United States will urge world leaders this week to launch a new push in November to rebalance the world economy, but there are doubts national governments will bow to external advice.

A document outlining the U.S. position ahead of the September 24-25 Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh said exporters, which include China, Germany and Japan, should consume more, while debtors like the United States ought to boost savings.

The framework drafted by U.S. policy makers foresaw analysis of G20 members' economic policies by the International Monetary Fund to figure out if they were consistent with better balanced growth.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE58G34Z20090921?sp=true

Health Bill Could Assist Four Cancer Centers

The Nevada Cancer Institute, in Las Vegas, may not have a national reputation as a clinic or a research facility. But it does have the ear of its state’s senior senator, Harry Reid, the Democratic leader. And that is why the four-year-old institute could reap a big gain in federal reimbursements as part of the health care overhaul.

After months of noisy public debates over big policy ideas like universal coverage and a public insurance option, the health care legislation is getting down to the fine print.

This is the time when powerful members of Congress such as Reid, customarily tuck in their pet projects, either to please their constituencies or as sweeteners to win the votes of lawmakers who may be sitting on the fence. We used to call such plums “ear marks”.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/health/policy/22earmarks.html?_r=1

Opinion:
Cap and Trade – just another Democrat scam to create a new tax on all Americans

Obama stepped before the UN this morning, checked that his teleprompters were in full gear, then began another climate issue speech – a product of professional writers armed with focus group data and full confidence our mainstream media will be in full support of whatever they claim, propose, or promote.  .

At least Obama’s UN speech was brief.

Unfortunately, the issue it supports will not be as quickly or as easily put aside.  Cap and Trade – the title concealing the reality --  has been on the table for months, and Nancy Pelosi almost saw her efforts in passage it conclude with an embarrassing loss.

Let me make it as clear as possible: “Cap and Trade” legislation now pending in the US Senate, if passed, will impose a new tax on you and yours of more than  $3,000 a year, each and every year, from now on.  The $3,000 figure is not my personal calculation, but that of the Heritage Foundation – among the very top political analytical groups in Washington.

Let there be NO ambiguity – if Cap and Trade passes the US Senate, it will cost every American more than $3,000 in indirect taxation.  It’s just that simple.

I don’t have an extra $3,000 for new Democrat-created taxation.  Not by a long shot.

It gets worse.  This tax is a hidden one for consumers. It will be levied on energy producers who will be forced to pass the Democrat levy on to their customers – all users of energy.  This scheme will bury itself deeply into our society – like a vicious cancer eating into the core.  As energy costs rise, so will the costs of services and products that use energy. 

Expect grocery prices to soar.  Gasoline prices at pump side – will rise.  Expectations of $5 a gallon are common if Cap and Trade gets the nod from our Senate.

How much will this scheme actually cost each of us?  Calculations continue.  Obama himself, no slave to concerns for oratorical accuracy or honesty,  has warned “prices will soar”. 

Cap and Trade narrowly passed the House.  The betrayal by 8 Republicans and about three dozen Blue Dog Democrats, were necessary for Pelosi and Company to eke out a victory.  The deal cutting, the threatening, and full steam backroom political arm twisting  were all in full play.

The House bill cannot be reversed.  Obama will most certainly sign whatever bill he gets from the Senate.

Public pressures, the tea party protest movement, and grass root activism has so far been able to distort the Democrat Cap and Trade time table.  Senate action has been delayed.  Debate may not come before December or January.

Time remains to increase pressures on Democrat senators.  Blue Dog Democrat House members and the eight GOP turncoats, have already felt stern rebuke of constituents angered by their votes for Cap and Trade.  Many will be defeated next November.

It is crucial that Senators who are wavering on Cap and Trade be confronted with as much honest anger and real fury as possible. 

Seldom is the actual cost of bad legislation so evident.  Cap and Trade will cost us all heavily.  It’s another case of Obama’s willing violation of campaign pledges – this time  that “no American making less than $250,000 a year would see a dime in increased taxation”.   Obama lied and must be held fully accountable.

I guess, if pressed, Obama would claim Cap and Trade will not raise our taxes a dime – the amount he is raising them is far, far greater -- $3,000 greater … and growing.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

'Killing Granny'
Cliff Thier

A virulent moral blindness has seized hold of a substantial slice of America's educated elite. Convinced they know better, they argue for a shallow, illogical, and horrifying vision of people as disposable.

I was wrong last week when I declared that Newsweek's cover showing a baby next to a headline declaring that we're all born racist was evidence that the mainstream media had hit bottom and destroyed itself. It was intellectual arrogance on my part that led me to underestimate the determination of Newsweek's editors to find new deeper bottoms to hit.

This week's Newsweek cover exceeds the sheer breathtaking ugliness of last week's cover: "The Case for Killing Granny." Alongside a photo of an electrical plug. The cover story is penned by Evan Thomas, (Andover, Harvard, Virginia Law), currently teaching at Princeton, alongside Peter Singer, who believes newborn infants can be killed because they lack "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness" and thus don't qualify for personhood.

There is also an opinion piece declaring that America's "character" is less than the "character" of those countries that have government-provided ("universal") health care. It's by Washington Post columnist T.R. Reid (classics, Princeton, who coincidentally is the author of a new book pushing for "fairer" health care).

A third "thumb-sucker" piece titled "I Was a Teenage Death Panelist" (yuk, yuk) argues that we all need to be "more comfortable" with death. It also attacks "right-wing opponents" of ObamaCare for the "lie" that ObamaCare will include "death panels." The author Jon Meacham, Newsweek's editor (summa cum laude, English, University of the South), doesn't explain why that is a "lie," and is content to only say that the idea of death panels arose from the "sensible and humane" idea that families should discuss end-of-life options.

The central idea behind each of these three pieces is that we spend too much money on people during their last six months of life. We all should be more willing to die, say these writers. And, we should all be more willing to "let" other people die (by withholding medical treatment, water, food, air, etc.)

Newsweek seeks to make us more comfortable with the idea of killing our parents and grandparents. The ObamaCare deal they want us buy is that only if more old people die, will there be better medical treatment for everyone else. That is, you and me.

It's a sucker's deal. Because not only will more "old" people die with ObamaCare, but more of everyone else will die too. Because the quality of care for everyone will deteriorate for a long list of behavioral and economic reasons. Clearly, all of us would be at the end-of-life way station much, much earlier in life if we didn't get medical care we need. The same is as true for a person over 65 as it is for a person who is 25 -- only more so. Not just rationing for Granny and Gramps, but rationing for Mommy and Daddy and Dick and Jane, too.

The dishonesty of the we-spend-too-much-money-on-the-last-six-months crowd is a result of their inability to think clearly. In the course of their elite educations, they came to think of themselves as a lot smarter than they really are. They mistake verbal and written analytical skills with wisdom. Surrounding themselves with like-minded people, they don't question their own choice of perspectives and premises.

Consider the 65-year-old individual who needs an expensive medicine. If the government decides that a person over 65 shouldn't get that medicine, then almost every one of those people are in their last six months of life.

If, however, they get that medicine, their lives may be extended another 10 years.

In Which category do we count such people?

(NOTE: Liberals get indignant when real Americans make accusations about end of life threats to seniors.  "Death panels" have become a liberal code word suggesting rhetorical overreach.  Liberals are quick to corrupt language as a means of hiding their reality.  Read the stories of end of life discussions with veterans -- they suggest, even encourage thoughts regarding suicide. I dont intend to present myself for any such counseling.)

T. R. Reid, while saying that the US is morally inferior to countries with socialized medicine, doesn't get around to postulating what it says about the "character" of those countries deprive older citizens of life-extending medicines and treatments.

I'll take a crack at it, though. I think that we (society, you, me, us) owe the oldest among us the most. The world we live in, our affluence, our civil rights, our drugs and life-extending technology, all exist because of their work. The America that we (and the entire world) benefit from would not exist but for the work and sacrifices of those people over 65, over 75, over 85.

All the medicines and all the health care technology that we have we owe to them. They already "bought" them by making their discovery and invention possible.

What kind of country would we be if we withheld the fruits of their labors so we can have them all for ourselves?

I am nauseated by the arrogance and moral blindness I see on display here. When elites start regarding certain classes of people an inconvenience worth eliminating, a terrifying slippery slope is in prospect.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/killing_granny_1.html

2.

Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-Al) On Rethinking Regulation

 Brian Wingfield

 The GOP's point man on financial services issues weighs in.

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Spencer Bachus, the House of Representatives' top Republican on financial services matters, is the GOP's front man for a chorus of critics who want the government out of the private sector.  Rep. Spencer Bachus, a Republican, has represented Alabama's 6th congressional district (near Birmingham) since 1993. Since his election to Congress, Bachus has served on the House Financial Services Committee, and he has been its ranking member since 2007. From 2001-2006, he was chairman of the Financial Institutions Subcommittee. Before becoming a member of Congress, Bachus, an attorney by training, served for a decade in the Alabama State Senate.  Earlier this week, he introduced a bill, with support from a few Democrats, to end Uncle Sam's stake in   Citigroup ( C -  news  -  people  ), General Motors, American International Group ( AIG -  news  -  people  ) and other major companies by the end of 2011.  "The market factors are going to have to be taken into consideration, and a return for the taxpayer," Bachus says. "But we do need an acknowledgement [that] this can't go on and on." 

 Bachus is particularly concerned with financial regulatory reform--the main task of the Financial Services Committee for the foreseeable future.  Forbes recently spoke with Rep. Bachus about what's likely to get accomplished on financial services regulation this year:   Forbes: Republicans and Democrats have very different plans for financial regulatory reform. Where do you think we're likely to see some compromise?   Bachus: I think with derivatives. It's essential that it's addressed. Another area, we've obviously realized from last September, is that certain institutions or even certain practices can pose a systemic risk to the entire economy. We have to address systemic risk, and there you're not going to address it until you decide the too-big-to-fail issue.

And that's a monster.  So how do you do that?  You [could] make an assumption that you're going to permit companies to be big enough that if they fail they do create a degree of systemic risk.

You could certainly argue we're just not going to let them get that big. The negative there: Do we want to limit the size of our corporations? From a global competitiveness [standpoint], I believe we need companies of the size that they can compete with some of the large European [firms], and I think going forward, you're going to see more and more large financial institutions in Asia.

We may need--  Bank of America ( BAC -  news  -  people  ) would be an example--to compete, we may need some banks of that size.  Are you saying that we may need to have some firms that are too big to fail?  I wouldn't dismiss that. I guess what I'm saying is that needs to be addressed.

... If you determine too big to fail then you're also saying too small to save, which is to me very unfair.   Both plans have a consumer protection element. They're obviously very different. What can be done?   What hasn't been addressed--and how we address it needs to be in a bi-partisan way--we had tremendous gaps in the regulation. For instance, Wachovia, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Wells Fargo--they were all regulated. However, all of those institutions had unregulated subprime lending affiliates, which in every case resulted in a significant financial loss for the depository institution ...

So going forward, I believe we could easily agree that if you have a financial institution, that you regulate the holding company. ... You don't have unregulated affiliates.   Democrats want to see the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency.   I see that the Democrats are split badly [on what the CFPA should regulate] ... Let me tell you where I think we'd go on consumer protection. One [option] is we go back to the agencies that were charged with protecting the consumer and we find out why they didn't do that. At the SEC, I think Mary [Schapiro, the chairman] is doing a great job over there. I think she is making changes, and I think you're going to see an SEC that does much better at protecting the consumer. But that doesn't need legislation out of the Congress.   We've seen a lot of hearings on financial regulation within the past year, but we haven't seen much done legislatively. Has the delay affected the momentum?  I would say that there has been a recovery in the stock market. I'm not as sure that there's been a recovery in the economy. Things have stabilized, they have not improved. But I think that's a false sense of security, and we should be no less committed to reform than we were last September.  And if we don't close gaps in the regulation, if we don't address the issue of systemic risk, if we don't provide some mechanism for disclosure on derivatives, we could begin to have these same problems. In fact, I would predict that our chances are more than 50-50 that in the foreseeable future we will have another crisis.  Of what kind?  Well, you don't know [whether] it's a trade disagreement with China. ...

Moving forward, we could begin to have the failure of some of our regional banks. Your other proble--and this is the biggest problem, the reason that I'm totally skeptical that this is a sustainable recovery, or that there's been any recovery--is government obligations. We have converted tremendous amounts of private debt into public debt, and we're running massive deficits, and the government going forward is going to have tremendous challenges in financing the debt.   When do you think we're likely to see some type of new financial regulation?  I think between now and December, we will successfully address derivatives. I think we will come together and agree to appoint a board or an overseer of systemic risk. I believe we will decide to regulate parts of the market that have been unregulated today. And I would hope that the regulators would come to us and say, "It's 2009. Here are changes and updates we need in the regulations to reflect changes in the market from 1930 and the 1980s."

www.Forbes.com

3.

More Government Health Care Means A Smaller U.S. Military 
GREG ZERZAN

As America considers the merits of creating a government run health-care program a vitally important part of the debate has been ignored. One inevitable consequence of increased government intervention in the health-care arena is a corresponding reduction in funding for the U.S. military.

The numbers tell the story. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) defense spending makes up a total of 20% of the federal budget. Discretionary, non-defense spending accounts for roughly 18% of the budget, while interest on the debt accounts for 8%. The rest is composed of entitlement and mandatory spending on programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

These figures do not include de facto government obligations such as the debt of government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, nor other costs potentially arising from the continuing dysfunction in parts of the banking sector.

It is broadly understood that in coming years both interest on the national debt and spending on entitlements will take up a larger share of the total budget. According to the Government Accountability Office, these two sources of government spending alone will exceed U.S. government revenues somewhere around the year 2030. Heretofore the U.S. government has avoided making painful spending choices by borrowing trillions of dollars. It seems increasingly unlikely that this borrowing binge can continue.

Now imagine increased government intervention in the health-care system, for instance through the creation of a government-run insurance option. The President's budget for fiscal year 2010 totals $3.6 trillion, up from the roughly $2.98 trillion Congress spent in 2008. For the current fiscal year the national debt will increase $1.6 trillion, up from 2008's increase of $1 trillion. According to estimates by the CBO, current health-care reform proposals in the House and Senate would cost between $1 and $1.2 trillion over the next decade; depending on the type of policy enacted and the scope of government's role, the true cost could edge closer to $1.5 trillion or more. While this figure could be partially offset by revenue increases and reductions in other areas, divided over 10 years this equals roughly 7.5% of annual discretionary spending based on the fiscal year 2008 budget, and an increasingly larger share of discretionary spending heading out towards 2030 when interest and entitlements consume all federal revenues. And this does not account for the tendency of government programs to be more expensive than advertised.

As these numbers demonstrate, the U.S. government is quickly running out of room for new spending.

Creating a government run health-care program will inevitably require cuts in other areas, and there are two strong reasons to believe spending on America's defense will be the most likely target for reductions.

The first reason is that a comparison of U.S. government spending on health care and defense with that of our allies shows a clear "guns or butter" dichotomy. For most of America's allies, government plays an expanded role in daily economic life by establishing a social welfare state, the centerpiece of which from a fiscal standpoint is health care. For comparison, the U.S. spends about 4% of GDP on defense. Among our allies the highest spenders are France and the UK, at 2.6% and 2.4% respectively.

 Germany's defense spending amounts to about 1.5% of GDP; other nations with government run health programs like Sweden and Canada spend a little over 1% of GDP on defense. When it comes to health care, however, these countries spend between 11% and 8.4% of their GDP. The U.S., according to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimates, actually spends far more, roughly 17% of GDP. But remember that in these other countries it is the government that is spending money on health care, whereas in the U.S. private expenditures account for the bulk of that amount (U.S. government spending on Medicare and Medicaid accounts for roughly 5 % of GDP, according to the CBO). These figures indicate that a nation's government can fund a military with worldwide presence and state of the art weaponry, or operate a nationalized health-care system. It can't do both. Our allies have almost uniformly chosen to create government-run health care at the expense of creating a rapid deployment, combat ready military.

It can be (and is) broadly debated whether nations that provide state-run health care actually provide better care than those that do not. But there is no precedent for a nation having both a national health-care system and a military with the reach and capabilities of the current U.S. armed forces.

There is a second, geopolitical reason to believe that cuts to fund health care will come out of the military budget. As noted above, the U.S. has borrowed heavily over the last two decades to fund its spending. Increasingly this borrowing has come from foreign creditors flush with U.S. dollar reserves as their economies have boomed in the 21st century. It cannot be overlooked that many of these regular purchasers of U.S. debt, such as China, Russia and Brazil, are also actual or potential strategic competitors of the United States. How long is China, our biggest foreign creditor, likely to continue to purchase Treasuries while watching the Pacific Fleet sail through the straits of Taiwan, or while witnessing increasingly sophisticated missile interception systems being deployed throughout the Asia-Pacific region? America's competitors are likely to balk at purchasing trillions more in Treasuries so the U.S. can pay for both military dominance and universal, government-run health care.

There is reason to believe the Obama Administration recognizes this and has already begun to lay the groundwork for a smaller, less costly U.S. force. While the pullback from Iraq was expected, other moves by the Administration indicate a bias against the types of expensive but unmatched weapons systems that give America its military superiority. Lately, the President has threatened to veto defense appropriations legislation on the grounds that it would fund the production of F-22 Raptor fighter jets beyond 187 planes, as originally called for by the Bush Administration. Instead the President wants to curtail development of the fighter jet altogether after fiscal year 2011. He also cited development of back-up engines for F-35 multi-role fighter jets as an unnecessary expense. In his threats against the proposals the President accused supporters of "pushing weapons that even our military says it doesn't want. At a time when we're fighting two wars and facing a serious deficit, it's inexcusable." Many in the military, however, do in fact want more fighters that will continue America's unmatched aerial superiority, as well as other expensive systems likely to be on the chopping block in future Presidential budgets.

More revealing perhaps are comments by Treasury Secretary Geithner in recent months acknowledging that recurrent federal deficits are unsustainable. Although many took this to mean the Administration is open to further tax increases (which they surely are), the other obvious implication is that projected spending will have to come down. For a President who ran on a platform of bringing home U.S. troops and expanding government-sponsored health care, the likely source of spending cuts seems obvious.

There is no question that a great deal of waste occurs in U.S. military spending. Some conservatives even share the view of many liberals that what President Eisenhower described as the "military-industrial complex" needs to be brought under control. But it should be unquestioned that new spending on a government run health-care system means a smaller, less powerful U.S. military.

 Whether that price is worth paying should be openly and honestly debated.

Mr. Zerzan served as Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions in the US Treasury under the Administration of President George W. Bush. 

4.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/the_race_bullies.html

The race bullies
James Lewis

When "communist" was the allegation of the day, it lost its sting in due course. Today, in spite of sixty years of immense black progress since Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights laws, the media and Demagogues love to read "racism!" into the minds of ordinary, decent Americans. It is pure a Stalinist tactic to shut up opposition. It is done with malice aforethought as a power play. For Democrats there are no "racists" on the Left, just revered old Ku Klux Klanners like Senator Robert Byrd. So the real demagogues have risen to public notoriety and power. That's what demagogues always try to do. You and I have allowed it to happen, and we cannot allow the "racist" smear any more credibility, or we'll lose the country.

There is good news. The very fact that so many decent and outraged people stormed Washington DC on 9/12 shows that "You're a racist!" is losing its sting. That dog has howled too once often. When Jimmy Carter is trundled on the media stage to back up the "racist!" mind-reading charge, you know the Left is hemorrhaging power. Make it hemorrhage faster. The country is at stake.

The irony is of course that we now have the farthest Left administration in power, simply filled with people far, far to the Left of American voters, from the President on down. But the Lynch Mob Media is in full-throated cry, even as they get the lowest approval levels in history. Along with Congress --- and coming soon, a scape-goating president. Still, Jimmy Carter and Maureen Dowd have infallibly read the mind of Rep. Joe Wilson, who simply told truth to power. It is not an accident when all the Lefties say the same thing on the same day. It is coordinated by Axelrod, Obama and the White House.

(NOTE: "Racism" has become a common thread in defending programs, proposals, and projects of the Obama administration -- a prevailing sense that any opposition on any issue has racism as its basis.  Jimmy Carter, not known for keen insight or quotable rhetoric, chimed in this week suggesting much the same -- fortunately, he was largely laughed at.  It's all ridiculous, of course, but anyone thinking absurd charges of racism cannot have serious impact or serious effect, should review the records of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.  They have enriched themselves on just that theme.)

The Left hates its domestic enemies -- we, the people -- with exactly the same blind hatred that Dixiecrat lynch mobs used to feel against blacks while on the rampage. The logic of the lynch mob is alive in the land, and it all comes from the ranting Left. Since that is the explicitly stated method of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, the manual of the Left since the 1960s, this should come as no surprise. These are not decent people. They are thugs and bullies, and their sociopathy is designed to intimidate and seize power for themselves. They are old-style Stalinists.

It was Clarence Thomas who first publicly called the Leftie media on this: His maltreatment in his Senate confirmation hearings were a "high-tech lynching" he said, and he was spot on target. Thomas' counter-attack finally shut up the media mob, and allowed a rational Senate vote to take place. That why he is now on the Supreme Court. But he suffered much, as he describes in his account of those horror days. That was twenty years ago but the Lynch Mob Media are still in the saddle, though their audiences are deserting in droves

We should call them on it every single time they yell "racist!" -- because Clarence Thomas wasn't their only victim. Throughout the academic and educational world, utterly false charges of "racist!" happen all the time. I've seen them over and over again.

In politics it is still the kiss of death. At Harvard Larry Summers was fired as president when he made a reasonable remark to which the Harvard feminists took exception. When Harvard throws out its president for speaking a politically incorrect truth, American academia is in deep, deep trouble. So is our whole political and media system, and all the institutions that are borne along on the same mass hysteria.

This is media mob tyranny. It is intolerable. It is what led to the election of Barack Hussein Obama, supported by the Media Lynch Mob, and no, they haven't become post-racial. Even as the Decrepit Old Media are losing market share to the New Media, they are bitterly attacking good and decent Americans. They deserve to go down, and sooner or later, they will. May it be tomorrow.

We can see it in their hysterical reaction to the 9/12 March. The media will never admit how many people there were demonstrating peacefully and passionately against Barack Obey Me.  The Million Man March ten years ago didn't  have a million men. It was just a slogan. A million conservatives is small compared to all the conservatives in America, now a majority in a country of more than 300 million. So I'll call it the Million Conservative March -- or maybe the Million Decent People March of 9/12/09. The latest ACORN and Van Jones scandals, not to mention Barney Frank and the rest of the corruptocrats in Congress, show who has the side of decency, traditional respect and good manners. Joe Wilson had a momentary outburst and immediately apologized. But the opposition is utterly indecent, demagogic, and mobbish. The media are just the lynch-mob cheerleaders. They have no decency, and they deserve no credibility. They are straight out of the days of Jim Crow, and they deserve just as much respect as old Southern Lynch Mobs.

For sixty years the Alinskyite Left has called us "the enemy." That's how Alinsky labeled the American middle class. We have to recognize the war doctrine of the Left -- because that's what it is when you call your domestic opposition "the enemy," and justify personal destruction and scapegoating as the primary tool for political warfare. I've seen it now for forty years, increasingly dominating our culture. It has destroyed any chance at genuine dialogue, and it is continuing to undermine decent relationships among Americans, because Barack Obama is constantly using that Alinskyite tactic from the Bully Pulpit of the White House.

When Theodore Roosevelt called the presidency the "bully pulpit" he meant is as "bully for you!" -- a cheerleading cry. But Obama is using it to bully the car companies, insurance companies, medical doctors (smeared in the most absurd and outrageous way), and all conservatives who become visible. All the bullies are on the Left today.

Well, bullies deserve to be beaten. Americans have always done that peacefully. But a bully is a bully, and deserves to be called that. Political Correctness is an ideology of intimidation, a Bullying Doctrine. Let's treat it as such. When the decent people understand what's going on and become properly outraged, PC will be gone.

Make it happen soon. Each of us has his or her job in returning America to normality and decency

Monday's Web

The day’s top political news:

Obama open to newspaper bailout bill

The president said he is "happy to look at" bills before Congress that would give struggling news organizations tax breaks if they were to restructure as nonprofit businesses.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) has introduced S. 673, the so-called "Newspaper Revitalization Act," that would give outlets tax deals if they were to restructure as 501(c)(3) corporations. That bill has so far attracted one cosponsor, Cardin's Maryland colleague Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D).

Almost all daily newspapers have been completely corrupted by the far left and no longer honestly report the news.  Readers are following the lead of TV audiences, in rejecting the corruption and dishonesty by seeking information elsewhere. Government underwriting of  purveyors of dishonest news material, should produce a major scandal, but who would tell normal Americans?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/59523-obama-open-to-newspaper-bailout-bill

Fed Rejects Geithner Request for Study of Governance, Structure

The Federal Reserve Board has rejected a request by U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for a public review of the central bank’s structure and governance.

The Obama administration proposed on June 17 a financial- regulatory overhaul including a “comprehensive review” of the Fed’s “ability to accomplish its existing and proposed functions” and the role of its regional banks. The Fed was to lead the study and enlist the Treasury and “a wide range of external experts.”

The Senate passed 96-2 a nonbinding budget amendment in April supporting “an evaluation of the appropriate number and the associated costs” of the district banks. The measure was sponsored by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, and Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, the senior Republican on the panel.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=adjvXg1zP.zY

Obama ready to slash US nuclear arsenal

Far left Democrats such as Congressman Barney Frank, have demanded slashing our ability to defend ourselves by a huge amount.  Following Obama’s caving to Russian demands on European defense missiles, growing unease develops regarding Obama and our national defense.

Obama has rejected the Pentagon's first draft of the "nuclear posture review" as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.

The move comes as Obama prepares to take the rare step of chairing a watershed session of the UN security council on Thursday. It is aimed at winning consensus on a new grand bargain: exchanging more radical disarmament by nuclear powers in return for wider global efforts to prevent further proliferation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/20/barack-obama-us-nuclear-weapons

Opinion:
Barney Frank, and other problems liberals have with truth.

Of late, liberals have had serious problems with truth and fact.  Sunday, Obama had the nerve to claim, with a straight face (if you are willing to ignore his constant smirk) that forcing Americans to buy health insurance through his legislation, is not a tax.

Let me make it clear: anyone who makes such a claim is either ignorant, or a bald faced liar.  I leave it to others to appraise the intellectual level Obama brings to the discussion.

Liberals try to use selective language rather than logic, reason, or truth in their attempts to defend their absurd position.  If the government mandates an expenditure of its citizens – especially when that expenditure is in specific furtherance of a government scheme – then it is taxation per se.

Liberals have tried to lie out of the fact Cap and Trade is not a tax either.

Cap and Trade will force every American to immediately begin paying an additional tax of more than $3,000 -- according to calculations of the Heritage Foundation.  The Cap and Trade tax will be compounded in its assault on Middle America by its forcing higher prices for groceries and gasoline. 

Am I calling Democrats liars?  Perish the thought.  I am simply stating what they are doing, what they are claiming, and standing back to allow inescapable fact to determine what they are.  Can I have a “nuff said”?  

Meanwhile, infamous liberal Congressman Barney Frank has been trapped as well and I squealing like a young hog to escape reality.  Democrats have been trapped by videos showing Obama’s own ACORN organization conspiring to encourage using young teen age illegal aliens to run a prostitution effort, and further conspire in explaining to the phony pimp and hooker, just how they can avoid paying federal taxes.

Now we know where so many Obama cabinet appointees got their crib notes on cheating on taxes.

A House vote last week cut off and federal funds for the far left ACORN.  Americans are outraged over what has been proven about the Democrat group – one earlier accused of election fraud and theft in nearly 20 states.

The vote was overwhelming – Democrat were trapped and unable to protect their allies.  But voting to defund ACORN has perilous potentials for Democrats who need their support, their chicanery, and their corruption.  (We probably still don’t know the full scope of what ACORN does, has done, and may do for politicians they support – all of them Democrats, of course.)

Barney ran from the ACORN vote.  Like a scalded dog.  His office claims he was attending White House ceremonies honoring Medal of Honor recipient, Sergeant First Class Jared Monti of Raynam.

No problem with paying due respect for such a fallen hero, of course, but it was a somewhat rare demonstration of patriotic fervor by Barney.  He usually is on the other end of the argument when it comes to our military.  It was Barney who was (and probably still) beating the drums demanding we slash our budget to defend ourselves from Radical Islam by a full one third.

It thus is logical to cite Barney’s failure to vote on the ACOEN issue was a cowardly escape from reality.  His attendance at the White House ceremony was used by Barney to shield him from having to stand and be counted.

I could discuss the outrageous equation – using honoring a certified hero as a means of hiding from an act of duty.  But we expect no less from Barney – his record, not our claims make that point without argument.

Backed into a corner, Harry Gural, Frank’s spokesman, admits Barney would have voted against cutting federal funds to ACORN. 

Of the discussion of his actions in running from an honest answer on the ACORN issue, Barney responds: “What do they think I should have done – attend the Medal of Honor ceremony, or a vote?”"

The answer is clear – Barney should have voted.  His sudden discovery of patriotic fervor, while praiseworthy, is quite suspicious.   Voting was his duty.  His most compelling defense will be his voting record going forward. 

I think those paying attention are quite award of that probable result. 

We certainly salute the fallen Sergeant, but we cannot salute Barney’s far left record in the House.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

Conservatives are coming for the Democrats on their blind side — the left.
The evidence is everywhere.

At tea parties and town halls, conservative demonstrators oppose health care reform with signs bearing the abortion-rights slogan “Keep your laws off my body” or the line “Obama lies, Grandma dies” — an echo of the “Bush lied, they died” T-shirts worn to protest the Iraq war.

Conservative activists are yelling “Nazi!” and “Big Brother!” where they used to shout “Nanny state!” and “Big Government!”

And the 1971 agitator’s handbook “Rules for Radicals” — written by Saul Alinsky, the Chicago community organizer who was the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis, and whose teachings helped shape Barack Obama’s work on Chicago’s South Side — has been among Amazon’s top 100 sellers for the past month, put there in part by people who “also bought” books by Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck,and South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint.

Yes, the same folks who brought you Obama the socialist have been appropriating the words and ways of leftists past — and generally letting their freak flags fly.

The left-wing rhetoric and symbolism are so thick on the right, in fact, that some conservatives have been taken aback by it: The logo for the Sept. 12 protest in Washington, which organizers called the “March on Washington,” featured an image that looked so much like those associated with the labor, communist and black power movements that some participants objected to it — until they found out that’s what the designers were shooting for.

“As an organization, we have been very closel

 studying what the left has been doing,” explains FreedomWorks press secretary Adam Brandon, who says he was given a copy of “Rules for Radicals” when he took his current job . Brandon describes the Sept. 12 rally in D.C. as the “culmination of four years worth of work” and says that organizers were “incredibly conscious” of the symbols they chose.

With the logo, he explains, they were “trying to evoke the imagery of the counterrevolutionary protests of the 1960s that captured the imagination of the world.” And as for the phrase “March on Washington,” Brandon says, “this is something people said in the office. If we had been alive back in the 1960s, we would have been on the freedom bus rides. It was an issue of individual liberty. We’re trying to borrow some from the civil rights movement.”

From the outside, at least, it doesn't look like an obvious fit.

Dick Armey did not, in fact, participate in the freedom rides of the 1960s. Brandon said the former House majority leader was an undergrad in Jamestown, N.D., at the time, working his way through school putting up electric poles, and “wasn’t politically active at the time.”

And while they’re handing out Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” at FreedomWorks, Armey himself told the Financial Times last month: “What I think of Alinsky is that he was very good at what he did but what he did was not good.”

But if the tactics of the left helped end segregation and the Vietnam War in the last century, conservatives say there’s no reason those same tactics can’t be used to keep liberals in check now.

James O’Keefe, the activist and filmmaker who posed as a pimp for an expose of several ACORN offices in the Northeast, told the New York Post earlier this week] that he, too, had been inspired by “Rules for Radicals,” which includes such tactical lessons as “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon” and “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27285.html#ixzz0Rf6SwlYj

2.
 
Lawsuit Firesale
Get yours while the getting is still good.

Here and there across America, good news does happen. Take Oklahoma, where the looming prospect of legal reform is causing a run on lawsuits.

Earlier this year the state legislature passed a reform abolishing joint and several liability and imposing a $400,000 cap on noneconomic damages, among other medical malpractice changes. The law will soon take effect, and this month one of Oklahoma's leading plaintiffs firms, Merritt and Associates, sent an all points legal email bulletin to potential clients: "DANGER! TORT REFORM LEGISLATION EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1ST. FILE YOUR LAWSUITS NOW!"

You have to admire the subtlety of the salesmanship.

John Merritt, the founder of the firm, defended the email by telling the local press that he was only trying to defend "people who are horribly injured and have a claim of clear negligence." Then he added, "I am certainly against frivolous lawsuits."

Sure he is. But what his firm and others in Oklahoma are most against is a law that will save the Oklahoma health-care system between $50 million and $75 million a year by limiting baseless suits.

The Oklahoma Chamber of Commerce estimates that nearly 50% of the cash awarded in malpractice lawsuits enrich not those "horribly injured" patients, but the lawyers.

This will also help the state keep up with neighboring Texas, which passed a major tort reform earlier this decade, causing the tort bar to target the Sooner State as its latest land of milk and settlement money. Now that tort possibility is closing, so better get your lawsuits filed now, or Mr. Merritt will have to find more productive employment.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203585004574393060909451366.html

3.

 'Blue Dogs' key in turning back ObamaCare
Three Republican lawmakers have warned a gathering of conservative activists in Washington, DC, there will be disastrous fallout if the House healthcare bill is signed into law.
 
Representatives Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota), Tom Price (R-Georgia), and Chris Smith (R-New Jersey) took part in a national healthcare town hall meeting at the Values Voter Summit on Friday.

Bachmann said 85 percent of Americans are currently happy with their healthcare coverage, but that H.R. 3200 -- the bill causing most of the stir in the current debate on healthcare reform -- would destroy what is working for that percentage to pay for the remaining 15 percent who either lack coverage or are unsatisfied with their current plan.

(NOTE: Many Blue Dogs are trapped.  Many ran by claiming they are really conservative, despite running as Democrats.  Now they are trapped.  They are forced to vote for huge tax schemes such as Cap and Trade, and to generally support the far left positions of the Obama Administration. – many will not return – nor should they.)

To buttress her opposition to a government takeover of healthcare, the Republican lawmaker cited research from Arizona State University showing that since corporate bailouts began last year, 30 percent of private business profits are owned by the government.  According to Bachmann, before the inception of "bailout nation," all of private business profits were private.
 
Additionally, she noted that on Thursday the House voted to enact another "government takeover" by doing away with private lending for student loans.
 
On another note, Congressman Smith told the audience that the public health insurance option would lead to the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade, and praised his pro-life colleague Bart Stupak (D-Michigan) for urging Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) to exclude taxpayer funding of abortion from the House legislation. Smith called Stupak's effort to get abortion funding removed from the bill "valiant, brave and courageous."
 
Stupak, along with Joe Pitts (R-Pennsylvania), offered an amendment in the House Energy and Commerce Committee that would have prohibited funds in the bill from paying for health plans that covered abortion. When committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-California) realized the vote would narrowly pass, he voted "yes" on the amendment. Under committee rules, Waxman's "yes" vote gave him the ability to bring the amendment up for a second vote.
 
Shortly afterwards, he succeeded in convincing "Blue Dog" Democrat Bart Gordon (D-Tennessee) to flip his original "yes" vote to "no," and the amendment was killed. Congressman Price, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, told the Values Voter town hall yesterday that "Blue Dogs" like Gordon and Stupak have an opportunity to "show backbone" and derail government-run healthcare because Republicans are united against it.
 
However, Price cautioned that "at every turn" of the healthcare debate thus far "hopes have been dashed" by wavering Blue Dogs, all of whom voted for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

 http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=688050

4.

House Republicans Ask Obama A Few Questions on Health Care

 Washington, D.C. – In advance of President Obama’s media breakthrough this weekend on five Sunday morning shows, (his running from such an appearance on Fox News, duly noted) the Republican Study Committee prepared a few questions we hoped the President would clear up.  Of course, he did not.
 
1) During your address to a joint session of Congress, you said, regarding health care, “I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.”
 
On your way out of the chamber, you were handed a stack of proposals from New Jersey Republican Scott Garrett, detailing 35 health care bills introduced by Republicans this year alone.  Have you or your staff had a chance to review any of these proposals yet?  Or do you consider Republican proposals “unserious?”
 
2) During your address to a joint session of Congress last week, you said: “To my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.”
 
Four times this year, the Republican Study Committee in the House of Representatives, which is a coalition of over 110 House Republicans, sent you a letter requesting a meeting to discuss their concerns about proposals to reform health care and the economy.  Additionally, on May 13, House Republican leaders all wrote the President a letter reading in part: “We write to you today to express our sincere desire to work with you and find common ground on the issue of health care reform….We respectfully request a meeting with you to discuss areas for potential common ground on health care reform.”  Seven months since the first letter was sent, a meeting with our conference has yet to take place.  Is it fair to say, Mr. President, that you are more interested in sounding bipartisan than truly trying to reach a bipartisan agreement?
 
3) Question: President Obama, one of the more contentious issues facing the health reform proposals is the idea of a mandate whereby every individual in America must purchase health insurance.  During your campaign for President, you were quite clear as to the consequences of this mandate.
 
Democratic debate, Austin, Texas, February 2008:
 
SEN. OBAMA: Number one, understand that when Senator Clinton says a mandate, it's not a mandate on government to provide health insurance; it's a mandate on individuals to purchase it. And Senator Clinton is right; we have to find out what works.
 
Now, Massachusetts has a mandate right now. They have exempted 20 percent of the uninsured because they've concluded that that 20 percent can't afford it. In some cases, there are people who are paying fines and still can't afford it, so now they're worse off than they were. They don't have health insurance and they're paying a fine. (Applause.) And in order for you to force people to get health insurance, you've got to have a very harsh, stiff penalty. And Senator Clinton has said that we will go after their wages.
 
The House “tri-committee” bill, as well as both versions of the Senate bill contain the individual mandate.  As the Washington Post described Senator Baucus’ proposal:
 
But some young people -- nicknamed the "young invincible" -- are also likelier than other Americans to assume that they won't need health insurance or to decide that they'd rather spend their money on other things.
 
To discourage that attitude, the Finance Committee bill would fine individuals who do not purchase coverage. An early draft of the proposal set the penalty at $750 or $950 per year for single people, depending on income. But according to various insurance experts, even the least expensive plan under the bill could cost more than $100 per month, making it cheaper for people to pay the fine than to buy insurance.
 
It is safe to say that the individual mandate would in effect raise taxes on individuals by either forcing them to purchase insurance or pay a fine.  Were you simply wrong during the campaign, or do you support raising taxes on the young and the healthy to subsidize a public insurance plan?  Isn’t this also a violation of your campaign pledge not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000?
 
4) During your speech to the joint session of Congress, you said very clearly, “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficit either now or in the future.”  The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has found that the House bill, H.R. 3200, would increase deficits by $239 billion over ten years and also found that the legislation “would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits” thereafter.  The Peter G. Peterson Foundation released a study last week which found that in its second decade, H.R. 3200 would increase federal deficits by more than $1 trillion.  Will you say, right now, as definitively as you did in your address before Congress, that you would veto the House bill were it presented to you?

5.

 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7d0c7a3a-9ca4-11de-ab58-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

Obama to seal US-UN relationship
Harvey Morris at the United Nations

Barack Obama will cement the new co-operative relationship between the US and the United Nations this month when he becomes the first American president to chair its 15-member Security Council.
The topic for the summit-level session of the council on September 24 is nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament – one of several global challenges that the US now wants to see addressed at a multinational level.

 “The council has a very important role to play in preventing the spread and use of nuclear weapons, and it’s the world’s principal body for dealing with global security cooperation,” Susan Rice, US envoy to the UN, said last week.

Her remarks were the latest by the Obama administration to emphasize a shift from the strategy of the previous Bush administration, sometimes criticized by its UN partners for seeking to use the world body principally to endorse its own unilateral policies. The US currently holds the month-long rotating presidency of the Security Council.

(NOTE: For practical purposes, the UN is little more than a chat room for pampered diplomats.  If peace keeping action is needed to enforce international demands, the military must be provided by the US. In fact, in the case of dealing with problems in Africa, UN forces have often been found to be among the perpetrators.  There is little to be gained from the UN other than ceremonial nicities.)

Obama will join other heads of government in New York during the week of the nuclear summit for the opening of the 64th session of the UN General Assembly. The annual meeting of world leaders is this year raising expectations on a number of fronts.

UN officials hope a climate change debate on September 22 will give fresh impetus to the search for a global climate deal at Copenhagen in December. There are also hopes a possible meeting between Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli prime minister, and Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Authority president, that Mr Obama would host, could lead to a breakthrough about a timetable for Middle East peace.

Heads of state are also likely to consider how to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Mr Obama gave Tehran a September deadline to reply to his offer of negotiations. Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadi-nejad will attend the General Assembly “to encourage Iranian views in managing the world,” an aide said.

US officials are concerned Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi might try to steal the limelight during his first visit to New York. A public outcry at the Libyan leader’s visit after he last month welcomed home Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the freed Lockerbie bomber, has already stymied his plans to pitch his tent in Central Park.

“How President Gaddafi chooses to comport himself, when he attends the General Assembly and the Security Council in New York, has the potential either to further aggravate those feelings and emotions or not,” Ms Rice said.

The State Department has not ruled out the possibility that Mr Obama and Colonel Gaddafi would cross paths. They are both due to address the General Assembly on the same day, and the Libyan leader, whose country is a temporary member of the Security Council, is entitled to attend the nuclear summit session that Mr Obama will chair.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.