Lindaland
  Global Unity 2.0
  He's a Sick, Sick, Sick Man (Page 7)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 20 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   He's a Sick, Sick, Sick Man
jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 30, 2009 03:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Dismantling America: Part II
by Thomas Sowell



Many years ago, at a certain academic institution, there was an experimental program that the faculty had to vote on as to whether or not it should be made permanent.

I rose at the faculty meeting to say that I knew practically nothing about whether the program was good or bad, and that the information that had been supplied to us was too vague for us to have any basis for voting, one way or the other. My suggestion was that we get more concrete information before having a vote.

The director of that program rose immediately and responded indignantly and sarcastically to what I had just said-- and the faculty gave him a standing ovation.

After the faculty meeting was over, I told a colleague that I was stunned and baffled by the faculty's fierce response to my simply saying that we needed more information before voting.

"Tom, you don't understand," he said. "Those people need to believe in that man. They have invested so much hope and trust in him that they cannot let you stir up any doubts."

Years later, and hundreds of miles away, I learned that my worst misgivings about that program did not begin to approach the reality, which included organized criminal activity.

The memory of that long-ago episode has come back more than once while observing both the actions of the Obama administration and the fierce reactions of its supporters to any questioning or criticism.

Almost never do these reactions include factual or logical arguments against the administration's critics. Instead, there is indignation, accusations of bad faith and even charges of racism.

Here too, it seems as if so many people have invested so much hope and trust in Barack Obama that it is intolerable that anyone should come along and stir up any doubts that could threaten their house of cards.

Among the most pathetic letters and e-mails I receive are those from people who ask why I don't write more "positively" about Obama or "give him the benefit of the doubt."

No one-- not even the President of the United States-- has an entitlement to a "positive" response to his actions. The entitlement mentality has eroded the once common belief that you earned things, including respect, instead of being given them.

As for the benefit of the doubt, no one-- especially not the President of the United States-- is entitled to that, when his actions can jeopardize the rights of 300 million Americans domestically and the security of the nation in an international jungle, where nuclear weapons may soon be in the hands of people with suicidal fanaticism. Will it take a mushroom cloud over an American city to make that clear? Was 9/11 not enough?

When a President of the United States has begun the process of dismantling America from within, and exposing us to dangerous enemies outside, the time is long past for being concerned about his public image. He has his own press agents for that.

Internationally, Barack Obama has made every mistake that was made by the Western democracies in the 1930s, mistakes that put Hitler in a position to start World War II-- and come dangerously close to winning it.

At the heart of those mistakes was trying to mollify your enemies by throwing your friends to the wolves. The Obama administration has already done that by reneging on this country's commitment to put a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe and by its lackadaisical foot-dragging on doing anything serious to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. That means, for all practical purposes, throwing Israel to the wolves as well.

Countries around the world that have to look out for their own national survival, above all, are not going to ignore how much Obama has downgraded the reliability of America's commitments.

Iraq, for example, knows that Iran is going to be next door forever while Americans may be gone in a few years. South Korea likewise knows that North Korea is permanently next door but who knows when the Obama administration will get a bright idea to pull out? Countries in South America know that Hugo Chavez is allying Venezuela with Iran. Dare they ally themselves with an unreliable U.S.A.? Or should they join our enemies to work against us?

This issue is too serious for squeamish silence.
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/10/29/dismantling_america_part_ii?page=1


IP: Logged

katatonic
unregistered
posted October 30, 2009 03:37 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
the trouble jwhop is that you think you have shot down other people's positions when you have just proved how blinkered you are. so my "vacuuous" response was not to your superiority but to the utterly meandering, conclusion-jumping, party-line echoing qualities of your "arguments".

if you choose to spend your life looking for horrors perpetrated by the government, it is certainly a rich minefield which will probably keep you busy until the cows come home. but never mind, that might keep the alzheimer's away and protect you from having that dastardly plug pulled.

i have better things to do than box with shadows. and poking holes in your specious arguments is getting boring too.

IP: Logged

carl
Knowflake

Posts: 1126
From: My soul is all over the world! (aka vagabond)
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 01, 2009 11:00 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for carl     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Three words: Cult of personality

Obvious to some, some are slowly catching on while others remain totally oblivious.

IP: Logged

katatonic
unregistered
posted November 02, 2009 09:01 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
cryptic as ever, carl. care to elaborate?

IP: Logged

koiflower
Knowflake

Posts: 1984
From: Australia
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 03, 2009 04:26 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for koiflower     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm wanting to know more about carl, too. I'm all ears

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 03, 2009 11:53 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
katatonic, unlike you, I never drank the O'Bomber Kool-Aid. I told you exactly what to expect from this fake, made up, constructed personality and from his Marxist sidekicks in the Congress.

You need to face facts. I was right about O'Bomber and you're still drinking that Marxist O'Bomber Kool-Aid.

IP: Logged

katatonic
unregistered
posted November 03, 2009 02:37 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
i never drank any koolaid to begin with. and i wish you would come up with some new metaphors! maybe even one of your own?

as to marxism i have never had much time for it. you must be thinking of someone else.

but if i had the choice again to vote for obama/biden or mccain/palin i would do the same.

i recall cheney predicting obama would get us hit again. so far his record is better than bush/cheney's on that count - the ONLY count they defend themselves on...that they kept us safe for the 8 years AFTER they let the enemy in!! conveniently forgetting, of course, that except for pearl harbour, not really even part of the country at the time, we have ONLY been hit once in 200 years, ON THEIR WATCH.

so far i have watched, one by one, your predictions evaporate into thin air. i am not sold on obama but neither do i write him off. and life goes on! surprise surprise!

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 03, 2009 04:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sure, you drank the O'Bomber Kool-Aid katatonic. I remember you saying you had the right to believe what candidate O'Bomber said when he was campaigning..no matter that it was all a pack of outrageous lies. No matter you were warned in advance O'Bomber is and always was nothing but a lying leftist and a construct put up for Kool-Aid drinkers.

AND, you're still defending this Marxist Socialist twit and all the rest of the Marxist Socialist twits.

IP: Logged

katatonic
unregistered
posted November 03, 2009 06:56 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
that doesn't sound like anything i said, though if i did, feel free to post it and back yourself up. the only thing i'm defending is the reasonable doubt that every one of your posts inspires!

i HAVE said that no matter what transpires, the fact that MANY PEOPLE - the majority as you will recall - believed him enough to vote for him has created a big fat ALARM CLOCK to wake people out of the sleepwalk of the last couple of decades...

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 03, 2009 07:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
How strange; you don't even remember your own words....yet, you expect to be believed when you quote the words of others.

Waking up? Then you believe O'Bomber served a good purpose in alarming and alerting Americans to the fact far left radicals in and out of Congress cannot be trusted anywhere near the levers of power in America?

IP: Logged

katatonic
unregistered
posted November 03, 2009 07:17 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
do you expect me to remember every word i said? like you do?? show me, quite simple. at least i am not DENYING that i ever said something because it might be embarrassing....but i believe you are incorrectly paraphrasing me. not surprising since you rarely bother to read what i post with any attention.

waking up, yes, as in starting to realize that BOTH parties are in corrupt disarray and it's time WE THE PEOPLE realized this can change if WE don't go along with it...

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 03, 2009 07:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have no intention of searching this forum with no search function looking for your words which were not even the subject of a thread.

However, I have a most excellent memory and you said what I said you said...or close enough that I didn't change the meaning of what you said.

Even so, it's not as though you don't have the right to believe what candidates say when they're campaigning....BUT, I warned about O'Bomber the phony well in advance of the election.

IP: Logged

katatonic
unregistered
posted November 03, 2009 08:53 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
jwhop you can't even remember some of the words YOU have said, why should i trust your memory of mine? a good guideline might be
"don't quote people if you can't remember what they said..."

now while i AGREE that i have a right to believe anything i like, that is not the same as my having said what you think i said. so just leave it at that. you can't be bothered to prove it, don't use it...isn't that YOUR criteria? like when i didn't name innocent examples - you accused me of lying.
shall i return the favour?

IP: Logged

koiflower
Knowflake

Posts: 1984
From: Australia
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 04, 2009 01:30 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for koiflower     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Is Obama a member of the Illuminati?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 05, 2009 10:35 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The "Costs" of Medical Care: Part III
by Thomas Sowell
Thursday, November 05, 2009

One of the strongest talking points of those who want a government-run medical care system is that we simply cannot afford the high and rising costs of medical care under the current system.

First of all, what we can afford has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of producing anything. We will either pay those costs or not get the benefits. Moreover, if we cannot afford the quantity and quality of medical care that we want now, the government has no miraculous way of enabling us to afford it in the future.

If you think the government can lower medical costs by eliminating "waste, fraud and abuse," as some Washington politicians claim, the logical question is: Why haven't they done that already?

Over the years, scandal after scandal has shown waste, fraud and abuse to be rampant in Medicare and Medicaid. Why would anyone imagine that a new government medical program will do what existing government medical programs have clearly failed to do?

If we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical drugs now, how can we afford to pay for doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical drugs, in addition to a new federal bureaucracy to administer a government-run medical system?

Nothing is easier for politicians than to rail against the profits of pharmaceutical companies, the pay of doctors and other things that have very little to do with the total cost of medical care, but which can arouse emotions to the point where facts don't matter. As former Congressman Dick Armey put it, "Demagoguery beats data" in politics.

Economics and politics confront the same fundamental problem: What everyone wants adds up to more than there is. Market economies deal with this problem by confronting individuals with the costs of producing what they want, and letting those individuals make their own trade-offs when presented with prices that convey those costs. That leads to self-rationing, in the light of each individual's own circumstances and preferences.

Politics deals with the same problem by making promises that cannot be kept, or which can be kept only by creating other problems that cannot be acknowledged when the promises are made.

Price controls are a classic example. At various times and places, in countries around the world, price controls have been put on any number of goods and services-- going all the way back to the days of the Roman Empire and ancient Babylon.

Price controls create lower prices for open and legal transactions-- but also black markets where the prices are higher than they were before, because the risks of punishment for illegal activity has to be compensated. Price controls also lead to shortages and quality deterioration.

But politicians who take credit for lower prices blame all these bad consequences on others. Diocletian did this in the days of the Roman Empire, leaders of the French Revolution did this when their price controls on food led to hungry and angry people, and American politicians denounced the oil companies when price controls on gasoline led to long lines at filling stations in the 1970s. It is the same story, whatever the country, the times or the product or service.

The self-rationing that people do when prices are free to convey the inherent impossibility of any economy to supply as much as everybody wants is replaced, under price controls, with rationing imposed by government, which cannot possibly have the same knowledge of each individual's circumstances and preferences-- least of all when it comes to medical care, where patients differ in innumerable ways.

Here, as elsewhere, there is no free lunch-- even though politicians get elected by promising free lunches. A free lunch in medical care is one of the most dangerous illusions of all.

Waiting in long gasoline lines at filling stations was exasperating back in the 1970s, but waiting weeks to get an MRI to find out why you are sick, and then waiting months for an operation, as happens in countries with government-run medical systems, can be not only painful but dangerous.

You can be dead by the time they find out what is wrong with you and do something about it. But that will "bring down the cost of medical care" because you won't be around to require any.

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/11/05/the_costs_of_medical_ca re_part_iii?page=1

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 06, 2009 12:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
YES, he's a Sick, Sick, Sick man; Yes he is, Yes he is, Yes he is.

Siding with a mortal enemy against people who are on your side is appalling, disgusting, contemptible and Sick.

Are You with Us or with Them?
by Mona Charen
Friday, November 06, 2009

President Obama likes to preen himself on his supposed moral superiority to his predecessor. He announced the closing of Guantanamo in his first week on the job (though 10 months on, it remains open) to advertise the new administration's disdain for George Bush's war-fighting tactics. And at every opportunity since, he has stressed that his policies -- on taxes, on the Middle East, on health care, on "man-caused disasters," and on "climate change" -- reflect a more refined and elevated morality than has ever before held sway in Washington, DC.

So you have to wonder how the president slept last Wednesday night.

He has known that critics in the United States regarded his posture toward the Iranian regime as weak. But on Wednesday, he heard this critique from a different quarter -- one that will be more difficult to dismiss.

Every year, on Nov. 4, the anniversary of the day in 1979 when Iranian thugs took American diplomats hostage in Tehran, the government has organized a street demonstration outside the former American embassy. In the early days, the rallies may have engaged a certain number of spontaneous participants, but they have long since become utterly stage-managed government shows. The only people the regime could muster this year to chant "Death to America! Death to Israel!" were non-Iranian members of Hezbollah and students bused in from the provinces for the purpose.

But that wasn't the only demonstration in Tehran that day. Displaying awe-inspiring courage in light of the brutal tactics (including murder) the regime has used to quell opposition, tens of thousands of Iranians took to the streets again. Instead of "Death to America," they shouted "Death to the Dictator" referring to Ahmadinejad. And they trampled on photos of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini. Michael Ledeen, of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, reports that demonstrations also erupted in Shiraz, Isfahan, Kermanshah, Zahedan, Arak, Mazandaran, Tabriz, and Rasht. As before, the regime used paramilitary goons on motorcycles to beat, teargas, and bludgeon protestors. And again the regime disrupted cell phone service, text messaging, and the Internet to prevent demonstrators from coordinating their activities.

But this is what should awaken Obama's conscience: The protestors chanted something new this time. As they dodged the blows of the militia, they chorused: "Obama! Obama! Either you're with them or you're with us."

This exquisitely moral White House was unmoved. Incredibly, President Obama released a statement that very day commemorating (!) the 30-year anniversary of the kidnapping of America's diplomats, taking the opportunity once again to abase himself and us. "Thirty years ago today," the president recalled, "the American embassy was seized" -- he did not say by whom. But because some anonymous agent seized the embassy, it "set the United States and Iran on a path of sustained suspicion, mistrust, and confrontation" that Obama is determined to reverse. He wants to move beyond the past and seek "a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect."

By ostentatiously using the term "Islamic Republic" Obama tips his hand. He could have expressed his hopes for good relations with the people of Iran. That would have left the door open to a new Iranian regime that might not be politically Islamic. Instead he has signaled his eagerness to placate and yes, appease, the current malevolent Iranian leaders. "We do not interfere in Iran's internal affairs" he assured them. Asked about the demonstrations flaring around Iran, the president's spokesman Robert Gibbs hoped that "the violence will not spread," which sounds like something you'd say about rioters. In Iran, the violence is coming exclusively from the government, which is firing upon unarmed demonstrators.

Though the Obama administration has tripled the deficit in just 10 months in office, it has found one program to cut -- the $3 million to support the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. The tiny research organization, which kept records of the disappearances, murders, and other human rights abuses in Iran, was abruptly defunded last month, sending a clear message of contempt to the Iranians who are putting their lives on the line to resist this vicious regime.

A successful overthrow of the nearly nuclear mullahs in Iran would be the greatest boon to world peace and stability since the fall of the Berlin Wall. After this week's events, it can no longer be said that the Obama administration isn't doing enough to support the opposition. The people on Tehran's streets know the truth --he's effectively supporting the regime.

http://townhall.com/columnists/MonaCharen/2009/11/06/are_you_with_us_or_with_them


IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 06, 2009 01:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The "Costs" of Medical Care: Part IV
by Thomas Sowell
Friday, November 06, 2009

What is so wrong with the current medical system in the United States that we are being urged to rush headlong into a new government system that we are not even supposed to understand, because this legislation is to be rushed through Congress before even the Senators and Representatives have a chance to read it?

Among the things that people complain about under the present medical care system are the costs, insurance company bureaucrats' denials of reimbursements for some treatments and the free loaders at hospital emergency rooms whose costs have to be paid by others.

Will a government-run medical system make these things better or worse? This very basic question seldom seems to get asked, much less answered.

If the government has some magic way of reducing costs-- rather than shifting them around, including shifting them to the next generation-- they have certainly not revealed that secret. The actual track record of government when it comes to costs-- of anything-- is more alarming than reassuring.

What about insurance companies denying reimbursements for treatments? Does anyone imagine that a government bureaucracy will not do that?

Moreover, the worst that an insurance company can do is refuse to pay for medication or treatment. In some countries with government-run medical systems, the government can prevent you from spending your own money to get the medication or treatment that their bureaucracy has denied you. Your choice is to leave the country or smuggle in what you need.

However appalling such a situation may be, it is perfectly consistent with elites wanting to control your life. As far as those elites are concerned, it would not be "social justice" to allow some people to get medical care that others are denied, just because some people "happen to have money."

But very few people just "happen to have money." Most people have earned money by producing something that other people wanted. But getting what you want by what you have earned, rather than by what elites will deign to allow you to have, is completely incompatible with the vision of an elite-controlled world, which they call "social justice" or other politically attractive phrases. The "uninsured" are another big talking point for government medical insurance. But the incomes of many of the uninsured indicate that many-- if not most-- of them choose to be uninsured. Poor people can get insurance through Medicaid.

Free loading at emergency rooms-- mandated by government-- makes being uninsured a viable option.

Within living memory, most Americans had no medical insurance. Even large medical bills were paid off over a period of months or years, just as we buy big-ticket items like cars or houses.

This is not ideal for everybody or every situation. But if we are ready to rush headlong into government control of our lives every time something is not ideal, then we are not going to remain a free people very long.

Ironically, it is politicians who have already made medical insurance so expensive that many people refuse to buy it. Insurance is designed to cover risk. But politicians have mandated that insurance cover things that are not risks and that neither the buyers nor the sellers of insurance want covered.

In various states, medical insurance must cover the costs of fertility treatments, annual checkups and other things that have nothing to do with risks. What many people most want is to be insured against the risk of having their life's savings wiped out by a catastrophic illness.

But you cannot get insurance just for catastrophic illnesses when politicians keep piling on mandates that drive up the cost of the insurance. These are usually state mandates but the federal government is already promising more mandates on insurance companies-- which means still higher costs and higher premiums.

All this makes a farce of the notion of a "public option" that will simply provide competition to keep private insurance companies honest. What politicians can and will do is continue to drive up the cost of private insurance until it is no longer viable. A "public option" is simply a path toward a "single payer" system, a euphemism for a government monopoly.

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/11/06/the_costs_of_medical_care_part_iv

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 19, 2009 05:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Gee, even our friends in Britain believe O'Bomber has a terminal case of Marxist Socialism.

November 19, 2009
A view of Obama from across the pond
Rovin Dawson

As American Thinker's self-appointed "correspondent" in the outpost that is the United Kingdom, I am filing a report on what the man in the street here really thinks of your President.

The description most often used by those of us when gathered in the local pub is: "a dangerous wanker." For my American cousins, the definition of that most English of insults is: "a highly offensive term for somebody considered unpleasant, self indulgent, pretentious or arrogant"

Admittedly many of us Brits fell for the same "hope and change" mantra that ensnared so many of you. God knows we have ample need of "hope and change" in the United Kingdom. We are, and continue to be, your most faithful of allies -- as both countries slide into an economic abyss.

We turned the other cheek when President Obama unceremoniously returned the bust of Winston Churchill given to your government. The continued mistreatment of our Prime Minister has been dismissed as the mistake of someone new to the job. Your Leader and his wife slap our Queen on the back and he bows from the waist in subservience to the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emperor of Japan. None of your previous Presidents did the same.

As for those naive Poles and Czechs that believed the United States was a nation of its word, the withdrawal of the missile shield was simply a re-thinking of strategy in America's relationship with Russia. The fact that the withdrawal was announced on the 70th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland was just a coincidence. By the way, how is the new "reset" policy toward Russia working out for America and Europe?

We British are astounded as we watch President Obama go around the globe constantly denigrating and apologizing for the United States. Many of us still remember, or were taught, how twice in the 20th century the people of your country literally saved Europe from itself and freed untold millions from oppression throughout the world ever the past 90 years. The United States has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.

Despite the absolute disaster that is our economy, our pound is up 23% in value to your dollar since Obama was inaugurated. Even the most uneducated of us anchored to a bar stool hoisting our pints understands that Americans cannot keep spending enormous sums of money you don't have in the hope that the rest of the world will continue to give the United States a blank cheque in perpetuity -- or that the Obama administration can continue to print dollars.

We in Europe are finally getting the message that your President just isn't that into us. But the question I have is: how much is he into your country?

On the 5th of October last, in an excellent article on the American Thinker website by Steve McCann entitled, "Half A President," it was suggested that Mr. Obama was more interested in being head of state for the world rather than just President of the United States. It does appear on the surface that he has delegated much of his responsibilities to others and, as in the case of Afghanistan for example, he loathes the prospect of actually making a decision.

I might also suggest that he is captive to a left wing ideology more radical than most of the Socialist parties in Europe.

There appears to be an awakening among the citizens of United States, similar to what is happening here. Hopefully that will continue and expand and in your mid-term election in 2010. Perhaps a brake can be applied to the destructive polices of your President. A word of warning my American friends -- and this is not an overstatement: the future of the western world may well hang in the balance.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/a_view_of_obama_from_across_th.html

IP: Logged

katatonic
unregistered
posted November 20, 2009 12:14 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
what, you mean those socialist brits don't like him either? how can that be?

"a highly offensive term for somebody considered unpleasant, self indulgent, pretentious or arrogant"

actually it means something a good deal more pejorative than that!

and you still think by voting for some DIFFERENT morons we are going to change things back to the good old days?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 10, 2009 12:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The count of perverted sickos, Marxist twits, eugenics advocates and medical murder advocates continues to mount.

Van Jones, an avowed communist revolutionary was hired, then fired.

The communications director who praised Mao has been "reassigned".

The high level twit who believes Mao was right when he said..."political power comes from the barrel of a gun" is still there.

Now, we find a radical homosexual rights activist in the Administration in the job of "Safe Schools Czar". It's impossible to find a worse person for any job related to children...considering this twits background.

So what's the common thread running through all of O'Bomber's appointments and hires?

They're all O'Bomber and O'Bomber is all of them. It's no accident these brain dead morons are in the O'Bomber administration. No accident at all, they were chosen by this Sick, Sick, Sick man.

Fistgate: Obama chief 'knew' of 'disgusting' sex subjects
Jennings was co-chairman of committee that set up statewide program
Posted: December 09, 2009
8:01 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following includes descriptions of adult themes and objectionable subject material.

A pro-family organization is accusing President Obama's Office of Safe Schools chief, Kevin Jennings, of knowing in advance the "gross and disgusting" subjects that would be covered at a seminar on sex for teenagers.

There have been multiple reports about a Massachusetts school seminar 10 years ago sponsored by the group Jennings founded, the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, that included instructors providing explicit direction on homosexual activities, such as "fisting."

The subject has been raised as a direct challenge to Jennings' fitness to hold office, and as WND has reported, several dozen members of Congress have signed a letter to President Obama demanding his dismissal.

Now, Brian Camenker and Amy Contrada at Mass Resistance in Massachusetts have posted online audio recordings from the seminar, documenting discussions such as whether to "spit or swallow" during oral sex and how to accomplish "fisting."

The group also linked Jennings to the seminar.

"Of course Jennings and the Massachusetts Department of Education knew beforehand what the 'sexuality educators' would discuss with children at the 'fisting' workshop," the organization said in a new report today. "The instructor Margot Abels said so herself."

Further, Jennings was working closely with the state education department as co-chairman of the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth education committee, which set up the statewide program, according to the report.

Significant, the report said, was the reaction at the time the tapes were made.

"GLSEN (and Kevin Jennings) did not dispute that the recordings were genuine or that the events [took] place as we described them. Instead, they tried to get a court to ban the tape and sue us. In fact, Jennings defended the event," the report said.

The state instruction program, labeled "Safe Schools for Gay and Lesbian Students," was held April 18, 2000.

The seminar was attended by Scott Whiteman, who made the recordings. He was, at the time, executive director of the Parents Rights Coalition, now Mass Resistance.

An article was published in the May 2000 edition of Massachusetts News, whose publisher, Ed Pawlick, dubbed the incident "Fistgate." The tapes also appeared on WTKK radio in Boston, sparking a media firestorm at the time.

Mass Resistance reported the homosexual movement responded by obtaining a judicial ban on the playing of the tapes and taking Camenker, Whiteman and others to court over an alleged wiretapping violation.

The lawsuit later essentially was abandoned by the homosexual activists, and a separate claim by Abels was settled in 2006 with permission for Camenker to distribute the tape and its information without restriction, the report said.

Abels later was quoted in Massachusetts News describing her work as "sort of below the radar screen for a long time."

"We always knew that we were working in an area that in certain places was considered really controversial and we also knew that we were doing cutting edge work and that there are plenty of people that don't support doing work with gay kids. But I think that we flew sort of below the radar screen for a long time and were able to, and had the complete support of our agency," she said.

Multiple WND messages left with the U.S. Department of Education as well as Jennings' office were not returned.

But two tapes of various segments of the seminar have been posted online by Mass Resistance.

Please note Mass Resistance describes the subject matter of these tapes as "gross and disgusting."

Part 1 includes discussion of "spit versus swallowing" during oral sex. There's also the explanation to students as young as 12 about "fisting."

The instructor at the seminar explained, "A little known fact is that you don't make a fist like this (holding hand up). When they do it, it's like this (holding hand up again)."

There's also advice for a "young lesbian" on how to make the first moves toward someone they've never had sex with.

Tape 2 includes a promotion for homosexuality. "Homosexuality – they said don't knock it until you've tried it," said an instructor. "Just like you haven't tried a vegetable, how do you know you don't like it?"

A report by Camenker and Whiteman immediately after the event identified the education department officials at the seminar as Abels, Julie Netherland and Michael Gaucher.

"An enormous amount of very disturbing material was distributed at the conference. Much of it encourage[d] young children to become actively engaged in homosexual activities. The Sidney Borum Community Health Center table was giving out a cassette sized 'pocket sex' kit, which included two condoms, two antiseptic 'moist' towelettes, and six bandages, which were for 'when the sex got really rough,' according to the high school volunteer behind the desk. There was a supply of condoms supplied by both Sidney Borum and Planned Parenthood, all of which were for the taking. Children as young as 12 or 13 participating and receiving 'information' and materials," they said.

The congressional campaign to remove Jennings is available online under the website StopJennings.org. The site tells why signers believe Jennings is unfit for the office.

"We respectfully request that you remove Kevin Jennings, the Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, from your administration. It is clear that Mr. Jennings lacks the appropriate qualifications and ethical standards to serve in this capacity."
The letter was signed by U.S. Reps. Doug Lamborn of Colorado, Steve King of Iowa, Duncan Hunter of California, Darrell Issa of California, Paul Broun of Georgia, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania and others. The lawmakers pointed out Jennings "has played an integral role in promoting homosexuality and pushing a pro-homosexual agenda in America's schools."

As of today, 53 members of Congress have joined the effort to remove Jennings, who has described how he developed the strategy to use the word "safe" to promote homosexuality in Massachusetts schools.

In May, WND broke the news of Jennings' federal appointment to oversee "safety" in the nation's public schools.

WND also has reported Jennings' background and agenda, including when it was revealed a publisher of "gay erotica" sought him out to write a book aimed at encouraging homosexuality in high schools and colleges.

The result was "Becoming Visible," which opens with, "Why teach gay and lesbian history? … Indeed, as lesbian and gay studies has emerged as a discipline over the last two decades, its dramatic discoveries have shown it to be one of the most exciting fields in contemporary historical scholarship."

Researchers at Mass Resistance reported Sasha Alyson of Alyson Publications asked Jennings to do the book.

In Jennings' acknowledgments for the book, he writes, "Writing this part of the book has caused me more anxiety than any other. It simply is not possible to express my gratitude to the many people who have helped make this book possible. ... With apologies to anyone omitted, here we go! The obvious place to begin is with Alyson Publications. First, Sasha Alyson had the vision to conceive of this project, and I had the good luck to be the person he sought out to complete it. I am deeply appreciative of being afforded this opportunity."

WND also has reported concerns by Mission America over subject material in books recommended by GLSEN for school children.

The group's Linda Harvey warned, "GLSEN believes the early sexualization of children can be beneficial. This means that virtually any sexual activity as well as exposure to graphic sexual images and material, is not just permissible but good for children, as part of the process of discovering their sexuality."

Her report cited one passage from a book recommended for students in grades 7-12: "I released his arms. They glided around my neck, pulling my head down to his. I stretched full length on top of him, our heads touching. Our heavy breathing from the struggle gradually subsided. I felt …"

What follows in "Growing Up Gay/Growing Up Lesbian" by Malcolm Boyd is a "graphic description" of a homosexual encounter.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League wrote, "On September 23, I wrote a news release on the curious moral credentials of Kevin Jennings to be President Obama's Safe Schools Czar: a former drug user and irresponsible teen counselor, he is also a Christian basher.

"What was not known at the time is that he is also a proud member of Act Up, the homosexual urban terrorist group that broke into St. Patrick's Cathedral (in New York City) in 1989 and disrupted Mass; the Eucharist was desecrated and obscene depictions of Cardinal O'Connor were posted," he continued.

"Now a group called MassResistance, and the website WorldNetDaily, have exposed Jennings as a member of Act Up. And he is no mere member: Jennings is listed as a donor to a sick display, 'Act Up New York: Activism, Art, and the AIDS Crisis, 1987-1993,' currently featured at the Harvard Art Museum. Harvard, of course, would never feature a display of Klan paraphernalia and say it was being done for the purpose of 'dialogue,'" he said.

"The real story here is not the corruption of Harvard – that's old hat – the real story is the president of the United States choosing a morally challenged anti-Catholic homosexual to join his team. That Jennings belongs to, and sponsors, an urban terrorist organization, should alone disqualify him from public service at a municipal level. And remember, Obama did not choose him to monitor global cooling – he was chosen to instruct youth on moral matters," Donohue said.

"Catholics deserve to know why Obama likes Jennings."

A YouTube video revealed Jeff Davis, Jennings' "partner," addressing a banquet and saying of Jennings, "He was a member of Act Up. Act Up! So it's like – you know – here's a big gay activist. BIG gay activist!"

The video was removed shortly after the WND report appeared, but Mass Resistance makes it available on the Internet.

According to "The Marketing of Evil," by WND's David Kupelian, Act Up was extreme from its outset:

The defiant, storm-trooper tactics of in-your-face groups like Act Up (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) may or may not have been successful in pressuring the federal government to increase its commitment to combating AIDS. But such tactics definitely were successful in giving activist homosexuals a very bad name.

One infamous incident was the assault on New York's famed St. Patrick's Cathedral on December 10, 1989. While Cardinal John O'Connor presided over the 10:15 Sunday morning Mass, a multitude of "pro-choice" and "gay rights" activists protested angrily outside. Some, wearing gold-colored robes similar to clerical vestments, hoisted a large portrait of a pornographically altered frontal nude portrait of Jesus.

"You bigot, O'Connor, you're killing us!" screamed one protester, while signs called the archbishop "Murderer!"

Then it got really ugly. Scores of protesters entered the church, resulting in what many in the packed house of parishioners described as a "nightmare."

"The radical homosexuals turned a celebration of the Holy Eucharist into a screaming babble of sacrilege by standing in the pews, shouting and waving their fists, tossing condoms into the air," recounted the New York Post. One of the invaders grabbed a consecrated wafer and threw it to the ground.

Outside, demonstrators, many of them members of Act Up, carried placards that summed up their sentiments toward the Catholic Church: "Keep your church out of my crotch." "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries." "Eternal life to Cardinal John O'Connor NOW!" "Curb your dogma."

Clearly, the young movement was flirting with oblivion if it persisted in such ugly, indefensible tactics. It needed a new, more civilized direction if it ever hoped to convince Americans that homosexuality was a perfectly normal alternative lifestyle.

According to Mass Resistance research by Amy Contrada, the Act Up effort also:


Staged a "die in" at Massachusetts General Hospital to protest the unavailability of PCP drug AP.


Protested Astra Pharmaceutical Products' refusal to release the experimental antiviral drug Foscarnet.


Disrupted opening night at the San Francisco Opera.


Protested design of clinical trials planned by Harvard School of Medicine.


Jammed phone lines of health insurance database company protesting their use of "sexual deviation" classification.


Halted Boston's trolley service and traffic in front of Harvard School of Public Health to press the federal government into approving two new AIDS drugs..
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118484

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 10, 2009 12:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Here's another of O'Bomber's sickos. He's still there too, still plotting against the American people advocating for a One World Government run by the utterly bungling, incompetent and totally corrupt United Nations...and like the other sickos, O'Bomber hired him.

Holdren's guru: Dispose of 'excess children' like puppies
Science chief acknowledges Brown as inspiration for career in ecology
Posted: December 09, 2009
9:27 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi


This is the third of a three-part series of articles exploring Obama administration science czar John P. Holdren's self-acknowledged intellectual debt to geochemist and early ecological alarmist Harrison Brown. In the first part, WND reported Brown recommended pumping carbon dioxide into the global atmosphere in order to promote the food production needed to prevent starvation resulting from over-population. In the second part, WND examined Brown's endorsement of eugenics as a recommended means of controlling overpopulation to prevent ecological disasters.

Geochemist Harrison Brown, a member of the Manhattan Project who supervised the production of plutonium, advocated world government in the 1950s to impose mandatory controls over population growth, carried out, if necessary, through sterilization and forced abortions.

White House science czar John Holdren openly acknowledges Brown's writings influenced his decision to devote his career to the science of ecology.

Holdren has echoed Brown's call for global government by advocating the United States should surrender sovereignty to a "Planetary Regime" armed with sufficient military power to enforce population limits on nations as a means of preventing a wide range of perceived dangers from global eco-disasters involving Earth's natural resources, climate, atmosphere and oceans.

On page 260 of his 1954 book "The Challenge of Man's Future," Brown concluded "population stabilization and a world composed of completely independent sovereign states are incompatible."

Writing that "population stabilization" is a goal "with which a world government must necessarily concern itself," Brown advised that "maximum and permissible population levels" for all regions of the world could be calculated by world government authorities using the rule that "individual regions of the world should be self-sufficient both agriculturally and industrially."

Brown even contemplates infanticide as a permissible solution to overpopulation in extreme situations, writing that "if we cared little for human emotions and were willing to introduce a procedure which most of us would consider to be reprehensible in the extreme, all excess children could be disposed of much as excess puppies and kittens are disposed of at the present time."

That Brown considers such a reprehensible reality a possibility is made clear on page 261, when he writes: "And let us hope further that human beings will never again be forced to resort to infanticide in order to avoid excessive population pressure."

'Pulsating mass of maggots'

Imagining a world population growing out of control to as many as 200 billion people, Brown suggested on page 221 "a substantial fraction of humanity" was reproducing as if "it would not rest content until the earth is covered completely and to a considerable depth with a writhing mass of human beings, much as a dead cow is covered with a pulsating mass of maggots."

Believing that there are "physical limitations of some sort which will determine the maximum number of human beings who can live on the earth's surface," Brown argued on page 236 that "there can be no escaping the fact that if starvation is to be eliminated, if the average child who is born is to stand a reasonable chance of living out the normal life span with which he is endowed at birth, family sizes must be limited."

He continues to specify that the limitations in birth "must arise from the utilization of contraceptive techniques or abortions or a combination of the two practices."

Brown openly endorsed putting morals aside.

"The conclusion is inescapable," he continued on page 236. "We can avoid talking about it, moralists may try to convince us to the contrary, laws may be passed forbidding us to talk about it, fear of pressure groups may prevent political leaders from discussion the subject, but the conclusion cannot be denied on any rational basis."

As far as Brown was concerned, government-mandated population control was necessary to prevent overpopulation.

"Either population-control measures must be both widely and wisely used, or we must reconcile ourselves to a world where starvation is everywhere, where life expectancy at birth is less than 30 years, where infants stand a better chance of dying than living during the first year following birth, where women are little more than machines for breeding, pumping child after child into an inhospitable world, spending the greater part of their adult lives in a state of pregnancy."

Ultimately, Brown resolves preventing overpopulation justifies government limiting human freedom, at least with regard to reproduction.

On page 255, Brown announces "it is difficult to see how the achievement of stability and the maintenance of human liberty can be made compatible."

How many births should be permitted?

On page 262, Brown proposes a rule government officials can utilize to mandate birth control measures.

"Let us suppose that in a given year the birth rate exceeds the death rate by a certain amount, thus resulting in a population increase," he postulates. "During the following year the number of permitted inseminations is decreased and the number of permitted abortions is increased, in such a way that the birth rate is lowered by the requisite amount."

Next, Brown insists that in a year in which the death rate exceeds the birth rate, "the number of permitted inseminations would be increased while the number of abortions would be decreased."

Brown formulates his rule as follows: "The number of abortions and artificial inseminations permitted in a given year would be determined completely by the difference between the number of deaths and the number of births in the year previous."

Combining this rule with his desire to implement eugenics, Brown writes on the next page, "A broad eugenics program would have to be formulated which would aid in the establishment of policies that would encourage able and healthy persons to have several offspring and discourage the unfit from breeding at excessive rates."

Brown openly acknowledged population control requires government limitation of human freedom.

"Precise control of population can never be made completely compatible with the concept of a free society; on the other hand, neither can the automobile, the machine gun, or the atomic bomb," he wrote on pages 263-264.

"Whenever several persons live together in a small area, rules of behavior are necessary. Just as we have rules designed to keep us from killing one another with our automobiles, so there must be rules that keep us from killing one another with our fluctuating breeding habits an with our lack of attention to the soundness of our individual genetic stock."

Holdren follows mentor's lead

Holdren's call for a planetary regime dates to the 1970s college textbook "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment" that he co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich and Ehrlich's wife, Anne. The authors argued involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by "climate change."

Just as Brown had called for world government to control overpopulation to prevent eco-disasters, Holdren's call for a planetary regime was similarly motivated by ecological concerns.

On page 943, the authors recommended the creation of a "Planetary Regime" created to act as an "international superagency for population, resources, and environment."

Holdren clearly specified the Planetary Regime would be charged with global population control.

On page 943, Holdren continued: "The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime should have some power to enforce the agreed limits."

Holdren credits Brown with inspiring him in high school

Holdren openly acknowledges his intellectual debt to Brown's 1954 book "The Challenge of Man's Future."

In 1986, Holdren co-edited a scientific reader, "Earth and the Human Future: Essays in Honor of Harrison Brown."

In one of his introductory essays in the book, Holdren acknowledged he read Brown's "The Challenge of Man's Future" when he was in high school and that the book had a profound effect on his intellectual development.

Holdren acknowledged Brown's book transformed his thinking about the world and "about the sort of career I wanted to pursue."

As recently as 2007, Holdren gave a speech to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in which his last footnote included Brown as one of the "several late mentors" to whom Holdren was thankful for "insight and inspiration."

In the first slide of this presentation, Holdren acknowledged, "My pre-occupation with the great problems at the intersection of science and technology with the human condition – and with the interconnectedness of these problems with each other – began when I read 'The Challenge of Man's Future' in high school. I later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118497

IP: Logged

katatonic
unregistered
posted December 10, 2009 01:55 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"And let us hope further that human beings will never again be forced to resort to infanticide in order to avoid excessive population pressure."

in what way does this indicate that he thinks infanticide is okay? it says THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE of the writer's assertion...ie, that infanticide is to be avoided..!?

back in the 70s when zero population expansion was the goal (voluntary) of many forward thinking people...ie using birth control to prevent conception mostly out of a DESIRE to remain childless or have few children...it was discovered that BUSINESS CANNOT CONTINUALLY EXPAND WITH A STABLE POPULATION. recession! horrors! and the propaganda machine cranked back up with the deification of family life...and the NECESSITY of having kids for fulfillment...

and the stigma attached to deciding NOT to have kids, especially through abortion, raised its nasty head once more. the implication being that if you don't want kids you don't deserve to have a happy physical relationship with anyone...nice.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 10, 2009 04:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Obama's Science Czar Said a Born Baby 'Will Ultimately Develop Into a Human Being'

(CNSNews.com) - President Obama's top science adviser said in a book he co-authored in 1973 that a newborn child "will ultimately develop into a human being" if he or she is properly fed and socialized.

"The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being," John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in "Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions."
http://theobserver1.newsvine.com/_new s/2009/07/29/3089677-obamas-science-czar-said-a-born-baby-will-ultimately-develop-into-a-human-being

IP: Logged

katatonic
unregistered
posted December 11, 2009 03:39 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
well there's no fallacy in that. or hadn't you heard that fetuses and children need physical and emotional nurturing to thrive? i mean just plain physically thrive?? and those that are insufficiently nurtured wither either in the womb or after birth. many of these people SURVIVE, but not in any full sense of THRIVING. some are physically dwarfed. others emotionally or mentally. but the physical and emotional are BOTH necessary. emotional neglect and lack of physical comforting by a mother (or father actually) can prevent full development.


even monkeys and rats fail to thrive without "mothering" - even if the "mother" is a stuffed furry object...

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 17, 2009 07:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
So, what kind of sick, sick, sick man would give himself a grade of B+ in carrying out his duties as President....when his every move has been the wrong move and his every initative has failed and blown up in his face...and worse, blown up in America's face?

The President Is No B+
In fact, he's got the worst ratings of any president at the end of his first year.
By KARL ROVE


Barack Obama has won a place in history with the worst ratings of any president at the end of his first year: 49% approve and 46% disapprove of his job performance in the latest USA Today/Gallup Poll.

There are many factors that explain it, including weakness abroad, an unprecedented spending binge at home, and making a perfectly awful health-care plan his signature domestic initiative. But something else is happening.

Mr. Obama has not governed as the centrist, deficit-fighting, bipartisan consensus builder he promised to be. And his promise to embody a new kind of politics—free of finger-pointing, pettiness and spin—was a mirage. He has cheapened his office with needless attacks on his predecessor.

Consider Mr. Obama's comment in his interview this past Sunday on CBS's "60 Minutes" that the Bush administration made a mistake in speaking in "a triumphant sense about war."

This was a slap at every president who rallied the nation in dark moments, including Franklin D. Roosevelt ("With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph"); Woodrow Wilson ("Right is more precious than peace and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts"); and John F. Kennedy ("Any hostile move anywhere in the world against the safety and freedom of peoples to whom we are committed . . . will be met by whatever action is needed").

This kind of attack gives Mr. Obama's words a slippery quality. For example, he voted for the bank rescue plan in September 2008 and praised it during the campaign. Yet on Dec. 8 at the Brookings Institution, Mr. Obama called it "flawed" and blamed "the last administration" for launching it "hastily."

Really? Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and New York Fed President Timothy Geithner designed it. If it was "flawed," why did Mr. Obama later nominate Mr. Bernanke to a second term as Fed chairman and make Mr. Geithner his Treasury secretary?

Mr. Obama also claimed at Brookings that he prevented "a second Great Depression" by confronting the financial crisis "largely without the help" of Republicans. Yet his own Treasury secretary suggests otherwise. In a Dec. 9 letter, Mr. Geithner admitted that since taking office, the Obama administration had "committed about $7 billion to banks, much of which went to small institutions." That compares to $240 billion the Bush administration lent banks. Does Mr. Obama really believe his additional $7 billion forestalled "the potential collapse of our financial system"?

Mr. Obama continued distorting the record in his "60 Minutes" interview Sunday when he blamed bankers for the financial crisis. They "caused the problem," he insisted before complaining, "I haven't seen a lot of shame on their part" and pledging to put "a regulatory system in place that prevents them from putting us in this kind of pickle again."

But as a freshman senator, Mr. Obama supported a threatened 2005 filibuster of a bill regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He doesn't show "a lot of shame" that he and other Fannie and Freddie defenders blocked "a regulatory system" that might have kept America from getting in such a bad pickle in the first place.

The president's rhetorical tricks don't end there. Mr. Obama also claimed his $787 billion stimulus package "helped us [stem] the panic and get the economy growing again." But 1.5 million more people are unemployed than he said there would be if nothing were done.

And as of yesterday, only $244 billion of the stimulus had been spent. Why was $787 billion needed when less than a third of that figure supposedly got the job done?

Mr. Obama also alleged on "60 Minutes" that health-care reform "will actually bring down the deficit" (which people clearly know it will not). He said his reform reduces "costs and premiums for American families and businesses" (though they will be higher than they would otherwise be). And he claimed 30 million more people will get coverage through "an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses" to purchase insurance (though 15 million of them are covered by being dumped into Medicaid and don't get private insurance).

Mr. Obama may actually believe it when he says, "I think that's a pretty darned good outcome" and congratulates himself that he could succeed where "seven presidents have tried . . . [and] seven presidents have failed."

But voters seem to have a different definition of success. And they are tiring of the president's blame shifting and distortions.

Mr. Obama may believe, as he told Oprah Winfrey in a recent interview, that he deserves a "solid B+" for his first year in office, but the American people beg to differ. A presidency that started with so much promise is receiving unprecedentedly low grades from the country that elected him. He's earned them.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004574600002289276662.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

IP: Logged


This topic is 20 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright 2000-2017

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a