posted August 15, 2010 04:37 PM            

well, I don't recall anyone actually paying O'Bomber to speak. I don't even know anyone who wants to hear O'Bomber speak.

There's serious doubt that O'Bomber wrote those books. Seems the domestic terrorist communist bomber Bill Ayers wrote at least one of them.

Here's a sample of O'Bomber's writing. What do you think?

Under water grottos, caverns

Filled with apes

That eat figs.

Stepping on the figs

That the apes

Eat, they crunch.

The apes howl, bare

Their fangs, dance,

Tumble in the

Rushing water,

Musty, wet pelts

posted August 18, 2010 12:15 PM            

Surely, if you allege Palin didn't write her book...then katatonic, you must know who did.

Hmmm, please don't confuse a co-writer with THE AUTHOR.

posted August 18, 2010 01:39 PM              

"thanks to Lynn Vincent for her indispensable help in getting the words on paper. the skills of " 5 peoples names here "in so many ways to communicate the message in a truly collaborative process"

posted August 18, 2010 01:49 PM            

However, there is a difference between a co-writer and a ghost writer.

Lynn Vincent is acknowledged as co-writer.

O'Bomber didn't even have the good grace to acknowledge the domestic communist terrorist bomber as...anything at all.

posted August 18, 2010 02:06 PM              

and i'm sorry but your double standard - what is okay for palin can't be all right for obama ...or that smart PRIVATE nasty quips indicating palin's unpopularity are the same as o'riley's broadcast wish that san francisco be bombed by al qaeda - is showing again...

and your alleging that ayers wrote obama's books is just that. i haven't seen any serious evidence that he didn't write them himself. telling your life story and how you see it is a lot different than writing shakespear or blake.

posted August 18, 2010 05:35 PM            

The books swooned over by the press which they say shows his brilliant mind.

I don't know how Palin's poetry is katatonic.

Post some of it here and I'll have a look.

Book confirms: Ayers wrote Obama's book
"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.

In the way of background, I had first advanced the thesis that Bill Ayers played a major role in the writing of Obama's much acclaimed 1995 memoir, " Dreams From My Father," in WorldNetDaily more than a year ago.

Relying on inside sources, quite possibly Michelle Obama herself, Andersen describes how "Dreams" came to be published, and it is just as I envisioned it.

According to Andersen, Obama was "hopelessly blocked" in his effort to honor the $150,000 contract Simon & Schuster had advanced him after three years of trying.

Obama was particularly worried because he had spent $75,000 of the advance and had produced nothing. In 1993, the publisher canceled the contract but let Obama keep the money after he pled poverty due to "massive student loan debt."

After his agent secured Obama a smaller contract with the Times Books division of Random House, Barack and Michelle decamped to Bali in the hope that he would be able to finish the book without interruption. That did not happen either.

With the deadline pressing, Michelle recommended that Barack seek advice from "his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers."

posted September 09, 2010 09:17 AM            

O'Bomber needs some professional help.

That's coming on November 2nd.

Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t Data
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

The U.S. Treasury Department divides the federal debt into two categories. One is “debt held by the public,” which includes U.S. government securities owned by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments and other entities outside the federal government itself. The other is “intragovernmental” debt, which includes I.O.U.s the federal government gives to itself when, for example, the Treasury borrows money out of the Social Security “trust fund” to pay for expenses other than Social Security.

At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That means all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan had accumulated only that much publicly held debt on behalf of American taxpayers. That is $335.3 billion less than the $2.5260 trillion that was added to the federal debt held by the public just between Jan. 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, and Aug. 20, 2010, the 19-month anniversary of Obama's inauguration.

By contrast, President Reagan was sworn into office on Jan. 20, 1981 and left office eight years later on Jan. 20, 1989. At the end of fiscal 1980, four months before Reagan was inaugurated, the federal debt held by the public was $711.9 billion, according to CBO. At the end of fiscal 1989, eight months after Reagan left office, the federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion. That means that in the nine-fiscal-year period of 1980-89--which included all of Reagan’s eight years in office--the federal debt held by the public increased $1.4788 trillion. That is in excess of a trillion dollars less than the $2.5260 increase in the debt held by the public during Obama’s first 19 months.

When President Barack Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, the total federal debt held by the public stood at 6.3073 trillion, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. As of Aug. 20, 2010, after the first nineteen months of President Obama’s 48-month term, the total federal debt held by the public had grown to a total of $8.8333 trillion, an increase of $2.5260 trillion.

In just the last four months (May through August), according to the CBO, the Obama administration has run cumulative deficits of $464 billion, more than the $458 billion deficit the Bush administration ran through the entirety of fiscal 2008.

The CBO predicted this week that the annual budget deficit for fiscal 2010, which ends on the last day of this month, will exceed $1.3 trillion.

posted September 12, 2010 04:40 PM            

61% Say Cutting Spending Will Create More Jobs Than Obama’s New $50 Billion Program
Friday, September 10, 2010

President Obama this week proposed a long-term federal jobs program with a $50 billion price tag, but 61% of U.S. voters say cutting government spending and deficits will do more to create jobs than the president's new program.{****The Republican Plan is favored by Americans****)

posted September 12, 2010 04:46 PM            

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of U.S. voters prefer a smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes to a more active one that offers more services and higher taxes. That's the second highest finding in Rasmussen Reports surveying on the question since November 2006, exceeded only by a 70% finding in August of last year.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 24% of voters prefer a more active government with more services and higher taxes. Only 19% felt that way in August 2009 as voters stormed congressional town hall meetings across the country to complain about pending health care legislation, the bailouts of the auto and financial industry and the $787-billion economic stimulus plan.

Just two months ago, 63% favored a smaller government, while 26% opted for a more active one.

In nearly four years of surveying on the question, support for a smaller government has ranged from 55% to 70%, while backing for a more active government has run from 19% to 32%.

posted September 13, 2010 10:10 AM            

Gangsta government is alive and well in the O'Bomber administration.

Now, these gansters are threatening reprisals against the 1st Amendment right of free speech.

This is what one could logically expect when a Marxist Socialist Progressive...like O'Bomber and his Marxist comrades are at the top of the American government.

Michael Barone
Gangster Government Stifles Criticism of Obamacare

"There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases."

That sounds like a stern headmistress dressing down some sophomores who have been misbehaving. But it's actually from a letter sent Thursday from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans -- the chief lobbyist for private health insurance companies.

Sebelius objects to claims by health insurers that they are raising premiums because of increased costs imposed by the Obamacare law passed by Congress last March.

She acknowledges that many of the law's "key protections" take effect later this month and does not deny that these impose additional costs on insurers. But she says that "according to our analysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact ... will be minimal."

Well, that's reassuring. Er, except that if that's the conclusion of "some" industry and academic experts, it's presumably not the conclusion of all industry and academic experts, or the secretary would have said so.

Sebelius also argues that "any premium increases will be moderated by out-of-pocket savings resulting from the law." But she's pretty vague about the numbers -- "up to $1 billion in 2013." Anyone who watches TV ads knows that "up to" can mean zero.

As Time magazine's Karen Pickert points out, Sebelius ignores the fact that individual insurance plans cover different types of populations. So that government and "some" industry and academic experts think the new law will justify increases averaging 1 percent or 2 percent, they could justify much larger increases for certain plans.

Or as Ignagni, the recipient of the letter, says, "It's a basic law of economics that additional benefits incur additional costs."

But Sebelius has "zero tolerance" for that kind of thing. She promises to issue regulations to require "state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases" (which would presumably mean all rate increases).

And there's a threat. "We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014."

That's a significant date, the first year in which state insurance exchanges are slated to get a monopoly on the issuance of individual health insurance policies. Sebelius is threatening to put health insurers out of business in a substantial portion of the market if they state that Obamacare is boosting their costs.

"Congress shall make no law," reads the First Amendment, "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

Sebelius' approach is different: "zero tolerance" for dissent.

The threat to use government regulation to destroy or harm someone's business because they disagree with government officials is thuggery. Like the Obama administration's transfer of money from Chrysler bondholders to its political allies in the United Auto Workers, it is a form of gangster government.

"The rule of law, or the rule of men (women)?" economist Tyler Cowen asks on his marginalrevolution.com blog. As he notes, "Nowhere is it stated that these rate hikes are against the law (even if you think they should be), nor can this 'misinformation' be against the law."

According to Politico, not a single Democratic candidate for Congress has run an ad since last April that makes any positive reference to Obamacare. The First Amendment gives candidates the right to talk -- or not talk -- about any issue they want.

But that is not enough for Sebelius and the Obama administration. They want to stamp out negative speech about Obamacare. "Zero tolerance" means they are ready to use the powers of government to threaten economic harm on those who dissent.

The closing paragraph of Sebelius's letter to AHIP's Karen Ignagni gives the game away. "We worked hard to change the system to help consumers." This is a reminder that the administration alternatively collaborated with and criticized Ignagni's organization. We roughed you up a little, but we eventually made a deal.

posted September 13, 2010 10:24 AM              

since when has false advertising been legal? fudging the facts to make your increased price "reasonable"? why would the govt reward shysters with inclusion in an exchange that is supposed to benefit the insured? there is a difference between free speech and freedom to blatantly lie to customers so you can keep your profit margins up.

posted October 23, 2010 09:36 AM            

A fascinating interview with someone who knew Barack Obama at Occidental College, and was a fellow Marxist at the time, can be heard here.
http://glenmeakem.com/2010/10/16/october-16-17-dr-paul-kengor-guest-hosts-the-glen-meakem-program/

Dr. John Drew is interviewed by frequent AT contributor Paul Kengor, as he guest hosts the Glen Meakam Show.

Drew was founder of the Democratic Student Socialist Alliance at Occidental - basically, the Marxist club, as he describes it in the interview. He got to know young Obama fairly well, and notes that Obama described himself at the time as a Marxist-Lenninist, and anticipated a revolution in the United States.

To listen, click on "play now" following the words "Standard Podcast" at the top of the page, and scroll to 41 minutes on the podcast scroll bar that will appear as the podcast loads.

posted October 23, 2010 02:00 PM            

He's still got his head stuck firmly in the ass of Karl Marx...just as I said he does long before his old classmate showed up to spill the beans on O'Bomber.

There's a particular stench coming off the speech of Marxists that's recognizable by those of us who did grow up after college.

posted October 23, 2010 03:59 PM            

For instance, YOU...out of your hate for Sarah Palin accused her of being indicted in Alaska and YOU have continued your attacks on NO PROOF whatsoever.

Just the other day, NPR...the leftist so called radio news organization which is operated on public taxpayer funding fired a "liberal", Juan Williams for straying from the leftist orthodoxy.

Leftists here posted pictures of Bush dressed as Hitler, dressed as Satan and attacked Bush...not on his policies but on the substance/essence of his being.

That's the main reason I'm here..on this forum..katatonic. To rub leftist noses in their own vomit...using the only language leftists understand; inflammatory rhetoric which is the only language leftists speak or understand.

Lots of leftists...Socialists, Marxists and Progressives...have come and gone here katatonic but I'm still here, still doing what I said I would do...years ago.

If you should be feeling sorry for anyone, it should be for yourself...and your leftist icon comrades who are about to lose their offices on November 2nd.

posted October 23, 2010 05:05 PM              

i don't hate sarah palin. she makes great fodder for jokes, is all. and if i DARED to commit BLASPHEMY by jumping the gun on her indictment? why are you so het up about that 18 months later? is she, your goddess, so small that she can't take people assuming she did wrong somewhere sometime? it's not me who worships icons. you act like she was a defenseless 5 year old in the middle of a pit bull ring!

oh yes, i forgot, she quit on alaska because she didn't like the nasty comments being made...and thought she could get to the white house better by joining fox and sucking up to the corporate bosses.

i actually hope some of your folk get in this election, so people can see what it's like having real psychos in office before it's too late.

posted October 23, 2010 05:07 PM              

THIS is not from anyone remotely near the left:

From the December 2005 Idaho Observer:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President confirms Constitution status in angry outburst

"It’s just a g-d piece of paper," President Bush reportedly exclaimed in reference to the U.S. Constitution.

The alleged comment came last month during a meeting with congressional leaders who were cautioning President Bush about implementing some of the more controversial provisions of the new-improved Patriot Act and was reported by Capitol Hill Blue editor Doug Thompson. Capitol Hill Blue publishes the dirt coming from secretly disgruntled sources inside the Bush administration. The president’s dramatic mood swings, substance abuse issues and profane language are commonly reported.

Thompson is hard to discredit. He has been a D.C. journalist for over 40 years and is known to have eyes and ears everywhere.

President Bush even commented that Dick Cheney is one of his best friends because he doesn’t read about their private conversations in the press the next day.

The truth is that President Bush is right, in a practical sense: The Constitution is just a piece of paper that was superceded by the 14th Amendment and replaced by U.S. Code. However, blatant irreverence for that sacred document is unbecoming of a president.

See full story below

Did President Bush really say that?

If you will notice, President Bush no longer (if he ever did) carries himself as the commander-in-chief of the world’s most formidable military leader of the free world and president of the United States. For the last couple months he acts like he’s running for office. His administration is sinking in a quagmire of corruption and its capacity for fiscal irresponsibility and diplomatic arrogance seems to reach new highs (or lows) with each passing day. His job is no longer steering our nation through this difficult time, but to convince the American people that the times are not difficult and everything is going according to some secret plan that he and his cronies are working. And then this: Did he really refer to the Constitution as a "g-d piece of paper?" As many who have considered the possibility since the story broke in Capitol Hill Blue Dec. 9, 2005, we believe that he did say it. Even if he didn’t, he acts that way. And, in all honesty, it’s true—just as true as the statement, "It’s just a g-d book" when a soulless psychopath describes the Bible.

by Pastor Chuck Baldwin

Internet news site Capitol Hill Blue’s founder Doug Thompson wrote in his column on December 9 that in a private meeting with congressional leaders, President G.W. Bush was urged to take caution in implementing his new Patriot Act because it would potentially "alienate conservatives." According to Thompson, the president retorted by saying, "I don’t give a g-d-, I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way!"

During that same meeting, Thompson quotes an aide as telling Mr. Bush, "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law [the Patriot Act] undermine the Constitution." Thompson quotes the president as screaming back, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a g-d- piece of paper!"

Thompson said he talked with three people who were present for that meeting and that they all confirmed that President Bush called the Constitution a "g-d- piece of paper."

Please understand, Thompson is a career journalist. To my knowledge, his news site only produces credible news. For the sake of this column, therefore, let’s deal with the possibility that what Thompson wrote was truthfully told him by people who were in attendance at that meeting (No, Thompson did not name those persons).

Before going further, let’s acknowledge that Doug Thompson is not a fan of President Bush. In fact, he is an outspoken critic of the president. But then again, it seems to me that he is an outspoken critic of most politicians. In my opinion, that’s not all bad. But that’s not the point. All that matters is the truthfulness of the report. If it’s not true, Thompson must bear responsibility.

However, what if it is true? What if President Bush actually said the things Thompson said he said? In that case, every American must bear responsibility!

If President Bush said the things Thompson accuses him of saying, it is monumentally important! It reveals a side of G.W. Bush that has been heretofore hidden from the public, a side of the president that should cause all true Christians and all lovers of liberty deep consternation!

If G.W. Bush said the things he is quoted as saying, it means that our President is not only the worst kind of liar but also a very clear and present threat to freedom!

Remember that President Bush twice put his hand on a Holy Bible and took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Such an oath carries with it the most sacred of intentions and the most serious of consequences.

It is one thing for a president to proceed upon the conviction that his actions are constitutionally justified even though he is criticized for those convictions; it is another thing altogether for a president to feel in his heart and to verbalize with his lips that the very document which he swore an oath to uphold is nothing more than a "g-d- piece of paper."

Americans must understand that the only reason (humanly speaking) that this country has been able to maintain a 200 plus year legacy of liberty and individual freedom is due to our respectful adherence (at least in principle) to the U.S. Constitution. To quote Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, "I don’t have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it’s better than anything else." Amen.

The Constitution is better than anything else! It is the most magnificent governing document ever written by man! Along with our Christian heritage and common English language, the Constitution has formed the glue which has held our republic together. Rightly did Daniel Webster say, "The hand that destroys the Constitution rends our Union asunder forever."

If President Bush truly believes the Constitution is "just a g-d- piece of paper," he is capable of any attack against it.

Yet, there is another revelation contained in President Bush’s remarks, if they be true: his repeated blasphemy of God’s name.

It has been long known that G.W. Bush is a prolific swearer. That much we know is true. One former congressman told me of hearing Bush repeatedly use the "f" word. Most Christians would not want their children using that or any other swear word, but probably don’t mind too much (sadly) that their president, even one who professes to be a Christian, would use profanity. But what about repeatedly using God’s name in vain? Is that insignificant?

To many people, swearing is nothing more than everyday communication. However, using God’s name in vain is more than vulgar talking: it is blasphemy!

The Holy Scriptures are very clear on this point. The Third Commandment is emphatic: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." Furthermore, Psalms 139:20 states, "Thine enemies take thy name in vain."

We need to get something settled: George W. Bush (or any other U.S. President or Congressman) is not above the Constitution or the Word of God! And while we are at it, let’s settle something else: those conservative Christians who would allow G.W. Bush (or anyone else) to trample our Constitution and our Biblical values have become idolaters in their own hearts by giving to man (any man) the kind of preeminence that only the Bible and the U.S. Constitution deserve!

Did President Bush really say the things Doug Thompson quotes him as saying? I sincerely hope not. And if he did not, Mr. Thompson certainly owes his readers and the president an apology. However, if it proves to be true, will conservative Christians admit that everything they were led to believe about G.W. Bush was a lie, because indeed it would be?!

© 2005 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence.

posted November 05, 2010 09:36 AM            

No one, and I mean NO ONE I've ever seen or heard has backed this Bozo up on his allegation about Bush. Further katatonic, we dealt with Thompson and his bullshiiiit right here...years ago.

Of course, demoscat Socialist Progressives now have plenty to be "blue" about..just as I said they would repeatedly and often.

Anyone who believes the US Constitution has been replaced by the 14th Amendment...which is part of the Constitution....IS a moron without the intellectual voltage to power a pissant's flashlight.

posted November 05, 2010 09:48 AM            

November 05, 2010
President's presser shows he's in serious denial
Patricia McCarthy

Wittier minds than mine have weighed in on the President's post-election press conference, Jeff Dunetz and Victor Davis Hanson to name two. But it was clear from the first moments that it was going to be a dismal experience for all involved.

The President began by thanking Pelosi and Reid for their "extraordinary leadership" these past twenty-one months. On what planet does this man reside? With Obama's blessings, it was those two miscreants and their minions who just cost the Democrats their biggest loss since 1938 by willfully, and with mind-numbing arrogance, governing against the clearly expressed will of the people.

Then he talked about all the "listening" he has been doing! He may have listened to these "folks all across America" but then he ignored them and did exactly what he wanted to do: spend the country into oblivion, destroy the best health care system in the world, and take over so many aspects of the private sector that our heads are spinning still. He proved to all Americans that our tax dollars are NOT being spent wisely but irresponsibly. He has insured that our great grandchildren will be born into debt.

The President went on to observe that "no one party will be able to dictate where we go from here." Oh my. This is apparently a shock to him. He has been doing all the dictating, refusing to even look for common ground and is now clearly peeved that his stint as a tyrant is not appreciated. Not only are we intellectually challenged, we are ingrates for failing to thank him for his massive intrusion into our daily lives.

Days after his inauguration, he snidely told the Republicans that "elections have consequences. I won!" After nearly two years of refusing to negotiate anything at all with them he wants a sit-down to find common ground! Is there no end to this man's chutzpah? He has stubbornly refused to take any of the time-tested actions that do jump-start stagnant economies. He has proven, over and over again, that he cares little about solving the nation's economic woes. He does care about redistribution of wealth, at any cost. He means to punish those who create wealth and indeed he has. As more and more small businesses close and more people lose jobs, he remains firm in his refusal to cut taxes of any kind, roll back job-killing environmental regulations, or reconsider his nightmarish and devastatingly expensive health legislation.

When the assembled reporters began to ask their questions, his obstinacy became ever more apparent.

Their questions were surprisingly not the softballs we have come to expect from the national press. Many were good and tough. But he refused to acknowledge, over and over, that the election results were a repudiation of his policies but rather were due to the voters' inability to grasp the wisdom of his works. He discounted any suggestion that his forcing an unread, massive takeover of our health care was perhaps the number one reason for the loss of sixty seats in the House. He actually said that "if the Republicans have ideas for how to improve our health care system.....I'm happy to consider some of those ideas." This is unbelievable! They tried and tried to get him to consider countless ideas better than Obamacare and were rebuffed at every turn.

Chip Reid asked about the public's abhorrence of all the spending and he blathered on, and I do mean blathered, about the debt he "inherited" without acknowledging that he has tripled that debt and quadrupled the deficit. When Peter Baker asked him about where he might compromise, he said he "has been willing to compromise in the past..." but of course he absolutely has not. Not at all. Not one bit.

When Laura Meckler asked about his intentions regarding getting the EPA to enact his unpopular cap and trade scheme, he made it clear that he buys into the completely discredited hoax of man-made global warming. Where has this man been? Does he ever read a thing beyond Saul Alinsky's rules? Is he so dim he still thinks it's a viable theory? Who knows. The public, and the press corps, is beginning to realize that he knows very little.

In short, this is a man in serious denial about the meaning of yesterday's election results. He likes to say he takes responsibility for this or that but it is clear from his presser today that he takes responsibility for NOTHING. He blames others for whatever does not go his way. Numerous psychologists and psychiatrists have weighed in on the psychopathy of this president and they all agree that he is a narcissist of one form or another. Today's press conference was a sad example of just how right they are.

posted November 05, 2010 11:21 AM              

obama campaigned on healthcare reform, financial reform, and reform in washington. people voted for him in droves. those in washington who colluded with the big money in this election were desperate to get in there before #3 on the list came round.

the mandate was the direct result of the lack of willingness by the republicans to come up with a better way to make universal healthcare practicable.

obama's biggest problem? he is a "class traitor"...a president who tried to address the problems of the MAJORITY of the population, the little guy. how dare he??

tell wall street it needs to sell real product and not phantasms? insist that our biggest businesses look to efficiency instead of billion dollar bonuses for the ceos? traitor!

and how dare he refer to his sworn enemies as what they actually are? that includes you, jwhop, whose whole mission in life has been painting him as a murderous, lying, communist thug.