| March 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Update 1-21-10 - from the Miami Herald:
200,000 Haitian migrants could file for Temporary Protected Status
Federal immigration officials predict that up to 200,000 Haitians could apply for Temporary Protected Status, which would keep them from being deported. Applications will be accepted starting Thursday.
Update 1-22-10 - from Reuters:
TOLEDO, Spain, Jan 22 (Reuters) - Haitian citizens who arrive in the United States illegally after the Jan. 12 earthquake will be sent home, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on Friday.
Although the United States has said it will allow eligible Haitians living in the country when the 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck to stay and work for 18 months, this will not apply to those who leave Haiti to escape the disaster.
"Haitians need to be there to help rebuild their country, this is not an opportunity for migration," Napolitano said at a news conference in the Spanish city of Toledo.
Sounds good - but does it apply to those 45,000 evacuees mentioned in the 1-19-10 update of this post?
The unions had been opposing Obama's health-care bill due to the high tax it is to impose on so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans. Yesterday came news that Obama had gotten the union leaders on board. This post will show that Obama achieved this in a particularly vicious manner.
From Fox:
The breakthrough announced Thursday was a biproduct of the previous days talks: a deal on so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans. The White House and top union leaders heralded the agreement, which shields all union workers for five years from significant taxes on health benefit packages that non-union workers will face starting in 2013.
Obama lured in union leaders, not by offering them a way to improve the plan itself, but by telling them that the government will discriminate against non-unionized workers. For five years non-union workers will pay a tax that union workers will not.
This government-backed discrimination is vicious. It appealed to the worst instincts in the union leaders, who will use it as a hammer against non-unionized businesses.
Why are Reid, Pelosi, and Obama trying to push through the health care bill when the majority of the public opposes it?
Background: From Rasmussen polls, December 7th, 2009:
The Senate worked through the weekend on its version of the national health care bill, with President Obama stopping by for a rare Sunday visit, but for the second week in a row, only 41% of U.S. voters favor the health care plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 51% oppose the plan. And as has been the case for months, the emotion’s on the sign of the naysayers: 40% Strongly Oppose the plan, while just 23% Strongly favor it.
As Megan McAardle puts it:
It's pretty clear at this point that any health care reform which passes is going to have more voters against it than for it.
There's exactly one explanation. Led by Obama, Reid and Pelosi don't care about the will of the people. They want to destroy democracy and put their boots on our necks. They're tired of being servants of the people. They don't like always being worried about losing their jobs in the next election, and they don't like having to answer to huge number of pesky "voters." What they want to do is give the government the power to control our health so that nobody will dare to oppose them again.
They must be stopped. Their agenda must be destroyed. And the American people owe a huge debt of gratitude and support to every Republican Congressman and Senator who is holding the line against them, because these Republicans are the only thing standing between us and the destruction of democracy by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and every Democrat who supports this health care bill.
The following remarkable document was sent to me by a reader, Huda N. (not her real name). It is a warning from someone who appears to be personally knowledgeable about the subject. I emailed back, asking, "Can you provide some background on yourself and your experience with the subject you are writing about, that I could pass along to readers?" She replied:"I am very sorry I can't provide you with more information about myself because you know that fundmantalist if they knew anything about me, about my family, and even my name i might be killed or one of my family members might be hurt or at least they might send threatning letters with abusive language. So if you want to post the article refer to me as Huda only."
I responded, "May I tell readers what country you are in?" She responded, "All I’ve talked about is in Islam as a religion. I have used verses from the Quran and stories from books of Hadith (Islamic interpretation books). Every thing is practiced in all Arab countries except for slavery. It is not practiced any more as it is not haram but it is condemned by the international society only. In Saudi Arabia they still consider Pilipino and Asian servants as (their right hand belongings, if you understand me). The more educated, far from Islam (liberal) citizens the more they tend not to follow the Islamic teachings. The more they are involved in Islamic believes the more they tend to practice these teachings and follow the path of their prophet."
Here now, is the testimony of Huda.
To all you young women wishing to meet a dark handsome Middle Eastern man
Want to force out the people who know how to do the job? That's what destroyed the financial strength of Harvard University. From Vanity Fair:
The fall of Harvard Management Company
• The longtime head of Harvard Management Company, Jack Meyer, quit to start his own hedge fund in 2005 after growing fed up with criticism over the eight-figure salaries some of his managers were pulling down and with persistent meddling from top Harvard officials. Two particular annoyances were Summers, who had been questioning Meyer’s investment strategies, and Robert Rubin, a member of the Harvard Corporation, who frowned on Meyer’s aggressive strategies and wound up on the “warpath” with Meyer, as one person put it.• When Meyer left, he took much of Harvard Management Company with him — including 30 portfolio managers and traders, as well as the chief risk officer, chief operating officer, and chief technology officer. The place became “like a Ferrari without the engine,” according to a portfolio manager who arrived after Meyer left. This angered Rubin, according to someone who knows him well: “In Rubin’s opinion, Meyer crippled the institution.”
Now Obama wants to inflict precisely this kind of destruction on the very companies he pretended he wanted to save with the bailouts.
The Obama administration is set to dictate incomes to Americans at companies who foolishly believed that accepting government bailouts didn't give the government the right to dictate to them what they could and could not do with their lives. From the NY Times:
Responding to the growing furor over the paychecks of executives at companies that received billions of dollars in the government’s financial rescue, the Obama administration will order the companies that received the most aid to deeply slash the compensation to their highest paid executives, an official involved in the decision said on Wednesday.
Under the plan, which will be announced in the next few days by the Treasury Department, the seven companies that received the most assistance will have to cut the annual salaries of their 25 best-paid executives by an average of about 90 percent from last year. Their total compensation — including bonuses and retirement contributions — will drop, on average, by about 50 percent. The companies are Citigroup [C 4.42 -0.01 (-0.23%) ], Bank of America [BAC 16.51 -0.50 (-2.94%) ], American International Group [AIG 38.96 -1.47 (-3.64%) ], General Motors, Chrysler and the financing arms of the two automakers.
In March I posted:
Obama Wants to Turn the U.S. Into a Government-Managed “Planned Economy”
Obama is proving that some of the change he wants is to replace our market-driven economy, with one in which business decisions are made by the government and forced by law on we, the people. He wants greatly increased government control over health care, education, and energy......
Obama wants the government to control executive pay at all these financial firms. This kind of central planning of business decisions, controlled by the state, is called a "Planned Economy." From Wikipedia:
A planned economy or directed economy is an economic system in which the government or workers' councils manages the economy. It is an economic system in which the central government makes all decisions on the production and consumption of goods and services. Its most extensive form is referred to as a command economy, centrally planned economy, or command and control economy. In such economies, central economic planning by the state or government is so extensive that it controls all major sectors of the economy and formulates all decisions about their use and about the distribution of income. The planners decide what should be produced and direct enterprises to produce those goods. Planned economies are in contrast to unplanned economies, such as a market economy, where production, distribution, pricing, and investment decisions are made by the private owners of the factors of production based upon their own and their customers' interests rather than upon furthering some overarching macroeconomic plan.
Want to know what countries have, or have had, "planned economies"?
Important planned economies that existed in the past include the economy of the Soviet Union, which was for a time the world's second-largest economy[citation needed], China during its Great Leap Forward, and India, prior to its economic reforms in 1991, Afghanistan under the Soviet occupation and under the Taliban, and Iraq under Saddam Hussein from 1979 to 2003. ...Although most economies today are market economies or mixed economies (which are partially planned), planned economies exist in some countries such as Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, and Burma.
Yeah, baby! Let's turn the United States' economy into one like those of the Soviet Union, China, Afghanistan, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea!
Frankly, that's change that nobody can believe in.
But that's what Obama is going for.
And just to rub in that what he wants is absolute rulership rather than to serve the people, Obama is threatening to cut people's salaries by 50% to 90%
That means people losing their homes.
That's the kind of rulership Obama wants to have over all the people.
Fight it or lose your freedom.
We've been hearing a great deal from the Obama administration about saving Medical costs by cutting money spent on patients who are in the last two years of their life. From the Washington Post, June, 2009:
But it is the findings of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice that have generated the most excitement in the Obama administration, all the way up to the Oval Office. For more than a decade, the New Hampshire researchers have documented and mapped wide variations in the cost and types of care given to American seniors through the Medicare program, concluding that spending more on health care has not resulted in better health.
In the final two years of a patient's life, for example, they found that Medicare spent an average of $46,412 per beneficiary nationwide, with the typical patient spending 19.6 days in the hospital, including 5.1 in the intensive-care unit. Green Bay patients cost $33,334 with 14.1 days in the hospital and just 2.1 days in the ICU, while in Miami and Los Angeles, the average cost of care exceeded $71,000, and total hospitalization was about 28 days with 12 in the ICU.
Here's the dangerous fallacy of pursuing this argument: there are many cases in which people whose doctors expected they had little time left to live, went on to enjoy years of life, in which they were able to bring joy to their friends and loved ones.
One of my very good friends was told many years ago that he had at most a year or two left. He is still very much among us, a good father to his son, and contributing greatly through his work to many people's lives.
A quick Google search for "lived longer than doctors predicted" turns up numerous examples.
To sum up:
In many cases, possibly a majority of cases - particularly in cases of those who are elderly but not terminally ill - no one knows in advance when the last two years of anyone's life will be.
But Obama evidently seeks to have doctors make a decision about when the last two years of our lives have arrived, and then withhold medical care from that point forward, hastening an earlier death.
Here's the famous video of Obama, relevant to the subject:
Obama: "Maybe you're better off, not having the surgery, but taking the pain killer."
Do you want a doctor, very possibly acting in a way enforced by federal guidelnes written by bureaucrats in Washington, telling you when they must withhold medical care from your parents?
If that's not a death panel, it's too close to one for comfort.
So many doctors oppose Obamacare. Sample headlines:
70 percent of specialty doctors oppose health-care reform proposals
45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul
A.M.A. Opposes Government-Sponsored Health Plan - NYTimes.com
So of course, since under Obama the Dems try to destroy public debate, and care nothing about the will of the people, and care nothing about the opinions of the people who actually are experts in the subject, today we see the Dems trying to bribe doctors into supporting health care. From AP:
Senate Dems seek higher doctor payments
WASHINGTON — Maneuvering to boost prospects for sweeping health care legislation, Senate Democrats hope first to win quick approval for a bill that grants doctors a $247 billion increase in Medicare fees over a decade but raises federal deficits in the process, officials said Wednesday.
If that isn't bad enough, it's part of a huge deception the Dems are hoping to perpetrate. The Dems are planning to claim that the main health care bill won't add to deficits (don't be fooled: a huge new study reveals it places tremendous costs on all Americans) -- all the while, packing the deficit-increasing items into a separate bill:
By creating a two-bill approach, Democrats intend to claim the more comprehensive health care measure meets President Barack Obama's conditions — that it will neither add to deficits nor exceed $900 billion in costs over 10 years.
The corruption, the intention to rule the people by force instead of representing them as public servants, is ghastly. Obama cannot be trusted to lead. All the Dems need to be voted out of office, because they are presenting a danger to the freedoms this country is built on.
The health insurance industry criticized Obamacare, and immediately, in return, Democrats in Congress are actually threatening insurers with a legal change that would be harmful to them. This is a massive assault on free speech by the Democrats. They are actually attempting to use the power of the state to halt criticism of Obamacare.
Here are the specifics. From AP, two days ago:
Insurance companies aren't playing nice any more. Their dire message that health care legislation will drive up premiums for people who already have coverage comes as a warning shot at a crucial point in the debate, and threatens President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
Democrats and their allies scrambled on Monday to knock down a new industry-funded study forecasting that Senate legislation, over time, will add thousands of dollars to the cost of a typical policy. "Distorted and flawed," said White House spokeswoman Linda Douglass. "Fundamentally dishonest," said AARP's senior policy strategist, John Rother. "A hatchet job," said a spokesman for Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.
But the health insurance industry's top lobbyist in Washington stood her ground. In a call with reporters, Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, pointedly refused to rule out attack ads on TV featuring the study, though she said she believed the industry's concerns could be amicably addressed.
At the heart of the industry's complaint is a decision by lawmakers to weaken the requirement that millions more Americans get coverage. Since the legislation would ban insurance companies from denying coverage on account of poor health, many people will wait to sign up until they get sick, the industry says. And that will drive up costs for everybody else.
Insurers are now raising possibilities such as higher premiums for people who postpone getting coverage, or waiting periods for those who ignore a proposed government requirement to get insurance and later have a change of heart.
...The study projects that the legislation would add $1,700 a year to the cost of family coverage in 2013, when most of the major provisions of the Baucus bill would be in effect.
Premiums for a single person would go up by $600 more than would be the case without the legislation, it estimated.
In 10 years' time, premiums would be $4,000 higher for a family plan, and $1,500 more for individual coverage.
Today, the Democrats responded by abusing the power of the state to threaten the insurers with an attack. From Politico:
Democrats launch attack on insurer exemption
The long-simmering tension between insurers and congressional Democrats is erupting into open warfare, with lawmakers stepping up their push to revoke a key federal protection for the insurance industry.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday will call for an amendment to the health care reform bill that would remove the long-standing antitrust exemption for insurers, echoing a push by other Democrats to crack down on the industry.
The Government is supposed to defend free speech; to be public servants, not our masters, overlords, or rulers. Under Barrack Obama, the Democrats are presenting a literal threat to freedom of speech in this country. They all need to be voted out of office, because they are presenting a danger to the freedoms this country is built on.
Update 10-26-09
From Dick Morris:
The medical device industry had its day at the White House as did the insurance industry, the drug makers, the nurses, and the doctors. In turn, each group heard the White House request that they come up with voluntary cuts in their health care costs and support Obama's proposed changes in return for assurances that Congress would not impose deeper cuts (or, in the case of the doctors, that it would actually rescind cuts already scheduled under current statutes).
But, unlike all these other groups, the medical device industry refused the deal. This posture enraged the tyrants in the White House who vowed to punish the industry with cuts imposed by Congress. The result was a decision by the revenue-hungry Senate Finance Committee to extract billions in funds from the industry.
The legislation does not work like a sales or excise tax. Rather it follows the model of the punitive tobacco settlement imposed on cigarette companies in the 90s. It assesses an industry-wide payment which firms must make in proportion to their market share. It bars the them from passing along the cost of the assessment by charging more for certain basic products, but allows them to raise the price of others to raise the funds for the fee.
So, the result will be that virtually every piece of advanced surgical equipment will be subject to a price increase to meet the levy from Washington. No matter that these devices often make the difference between life and death and that, in effect, taxing them raises the cost of vital treatments. The vengeful White House will have its pound of flesh from the medical device industry for daring to be independent and to refuse to knuckle down to Administration pressure!
This tax, imposed in a spirit of haughty arrogance, falls on totally inappropriate objects. Valves, prosthetic limbs, pacemakers, hearing aids, and such are essential therapies that make life longer, better, and less painful. To tax them makes no sense. Except in the world of sharp elbows and interest group politics that grips this take-no-prisoners and show-no-mercy White House.
Obama uses the power of the state to oppose people's right to free speech, and our right to be free.
Before we get to Obama's offer of help to the Taliban, let's review who the Taliban are.
From Infoplease.com:
The Taliban's popularity with the Afghan people surprised the country's other warring factions. Many Afghans, weary of conflict and anarchy, were relieved to see corrupt and often brutal warlords replaced by the devout Taliban, who had some success in eliminating corruption, restoring peace, and allowing commerce to resume.
The Taliban, under the direction of Mullah Muhammad Omar, brought about this order through the institution of a very strict interpretation of Sharia, or Islamic law. Public executions and punishments (such as floggings) became regular events at Afghan soccer stadiums. Frivolous activities, like kite-flying, were outlawed. In order to root out "non-Islamic" influence, television, music, and the Internet were banned. Men were required to wear beards, and subjected to beatings if they didn't.
Most shocking to the West was the Taliban's treatment of women. When the Taliban took Kabul, they immediately forbade girls to go to school. Moreover, women were barred from working outside the home, precipitating a crisis in healthcare and education. Women were also prohibited from leaving their home without a male relative—those that did so risked being beaten, even shot, by officers of the "ministry for the protection of virtue and prevention of vice." A woman caught wearing fingernail polish may have had her fingertips chopped off. All this, according to the Taliban, was to safeguard women and their honor.
.....The Taliban allowed terrorist organizations to run training camps in their territory and, from 1994 to at least 2001, provided refuge for Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization. The relationship between the Taliban and bin Laden is close, even familial—bin Laden fought with the mujahideen, has financed the Taliban, and has reportedly married one of his daughters to Mullah Muhammad Omar.
The Taliban destroyed treasures of the world - the ancient statues of Buddha. From USA Today, 2001:
One of the Buddhas that have been destroyed. The two black figures in the center near the bottom are men who are sitting down.
In Afghanistan recently, supreme Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar issued an edict against un-Islamic graven images, which means all idolatrous images of humans and animals. As a result, the Taliban are destroying all ancient sculptures. Explosives, tanks, and anti-aircraft weapons blew apart two colossal images of the Buddha in Bamiyan Province, 230 kilometers (150 miles) from the capital of Kabul.
The reason we went into Afghanistan in the first place was because the Taliban, who were running Afghanistan, had aided Bin Laden, who had just killed 3,000 Americans on 9-11. From Wikipedia:
The War in Afghanistan, which began on October 7, 2001 as the U.S. military's Operation Enduring Freedom and the British military's Operation Herrick, was launched in response to the September 11 attacks.
The stated aim of the invasion was to find Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members and put them on trial, to destroy the whole organization of Al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban regime which supported and gave safe harbor to Al-Qaeda.
To sum up: The Taliban supported Al-Qaeda, and have a tight bond to Bin Laden - the enemies of America who killed 3,000 Americans on 9-11.
So now what's Obama proposing? Merely to take their side against the U.S. army and put them back into involvement with the political future of Afghanistan - when the entire mission of the U.S. army in going into Afghanistan, was to get rid of the Taliban.
Does that sound impossible? From FoxNews and AP:
WASHINGTON -- President Obama is inclined to send only as many more U.S. troops to Afghanistan as are needed to keep Al Qaeda at bay, a senior administration official said.
The official, in an interview with The Associated Press, also added that the president is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan's political future, reiterating what Obama said in March.
The assessment comes from an official who has been involved in the president's discussions with his war council about Afghanistan strategy.
Let's list the outrages:
How many different ways can Obama attack the interests of the American people before he utterly exposes himself as one who can no longer be trusted to lead?
If you live in New York and love Conservative comedy, don't miss Evan Sayet, live, October 7th and 8th.
"Who makes me laugh? Easy, Evan Sayet." -- Ann Coulter
Evan Sayet is bringing his highly acclaimed “Right to Laugh – A Night of Conservative Comedy” to New York City for two days only as part of the New York Underground Comedy Festival, October 7 and 8.
This is an all-conservative line-up that includes PJTV’s al Sonja Schmidt – a beautiful, black, female conservative (with all the stories that entails) as well as Ellen Karis, former Wall-Streeter turned family values comedienne and Fox News Channel favorite.
Even though the shows are being held in comedy clubs, this is NOT your typical comedy club experience! Evan’s Right to Laugh nights have been running in Los Angeles for over five years, garnering a following that includes famous radio talk show hosts, best selling conservative authors, Republican television, movie and even rock stars (yep, they exist!), as well as leading political activists and elected officials.
“Evan has crossed that line from ‘funny’ to important” - Michael Barone
Evan has become the go-to guy for political comedy at high end Republican/conservative events like CPAC and David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend. In fact, David describes Evan as “Simply the best political comedian working in America today.”
Tickets for the shows are just twenty dollars and are available online (highly recommended) as well as at the respective box offices.
Seats for The Oct. 7th show – at the world famous Comic Strip Live on 81st Street and Second Avenue at 8:30 can be purchased here: https://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/84639
Seats for the Oct. 8th show – at the beautiful Broadway Comedy Club on 53rd St. between 8th and 9th here: https://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/84709.
If you love to laugh but you’ve stopped going to comedy clubs because you don’t care to have your values attacked by shallow and angry Leftists, this is your night to return!
“Evan is one of my favorite cultural commentators” -- Tammy Bruce
“At last I can delight in a show that is genuinely funny” -- Larry Elder
"Evan Sayet explodes pernicious stereotypes with refreshing humor that is simultaneously thought-provoking and hilarious..." -- Michael Medved
Congratulations - per the LA Times, you are now helping to finance a new car company, Fisker Automotive Inc.:
Plug-in hybrid maker Fisker Automotive gets $529 million from Obama administration
The loan will go toward development and production of its Karma plug-in hybrid sedan and development of Project Nina, its next-generation plug-in.In its latest bid to help finance the car of tomorrow, the Obama administration said it would lend more than $500 million to Irvine-based Fisker Automotive Inc. to develop a pair of plug-in hybrids.
This isn't GM or Chrysler, where the government could argue that it would be wrong to let such large institutions fail. This is a relatively unknown car company, that the Obama admin thought you should invest in, while simultaneously denying you your fair share of profits, of the kind you would get if you had bought stock.
You should also be aware that it's not just a mere half-a-billion dollars that the Obama administration is forcing taxpayers to invest in this way. Not at all. In fact, this is just the tip of a $25 billion iceberg:
The loans, announced Tuesday, come from a $25-billion Department of Energy program to fund development of alternative vehicles. According to the administration, the funding will help create or save 5,000 jobs at Fisker and its suppliers.
It's not just Fisker you're now an investor in. There are many other companies your tax dollars have already been invested in as well:
The $528.7-million low-interest loan "is another critical step in making sure we are positioned to compete for the clean-energy jobs of the future," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said. Over the summer, the department lent $8 billion to a variety of other automakers and suppliers under the same program.
What clause of the Constitution provides the government with the authority to force Americans to invest in companies of the government's choosing, and to deny them the share of profits they would be entitled to had they invested as stockholders?
Click the image (or click here) to see Andrew Klavan's excellent 9-11 video, on PJTV.
This is a suitable day to remember the fight that we are in. Let's not forget the cause in which the 9-11 hijackers fought, when they killed 3000 civilians. Per the NY Times, documents used by the 9-11 hijackers state that they were following the instructions of the Koran:
3) Read al-Tawba and Anfal [traditional war chapters from the Qur'an] and reflect on their meanings and remember all of the things that God has promised for the martyrs.
From the USC Muslim Students' Association translation of the Koran, here is a passage from al-Tawba:
Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
And from same site, here are two passages from Anfal:
Thus (will it be said): "Taste ye then of the (punishment): for those who resist Allah, is the penalty of the Fire."
...So you did not slay them, but it was Allah Who slew them, and you did not smite when you smote (the enemy), but it was Allah Who smote, and that He might confer upon the believers a good gift from Himself; surely Allah is Hearing, Knowing.
According to the documents used by the 9-11 hijackers, they were following specific chapters in the Koran, which instructed them to kill non-Muslims.
Unbelievable - not to be missed - this undercover video expose of Acorn, on Andrew Breitbart's new site, BigGovernment.com, will fry your brain.
Here's a quick list of Obama's insults of those who disagree with him, from last night's healthcare speech.
Obama called opponents 'cynical, irresponsible liars':
"Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics."
"Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple."
"In fact, I want to speak directly to America’s seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that’s been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate."
Obama called opponents 'bickering game-players who make wild claims':
"Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed."
"And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have. But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now. "
Obama is following Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Alinsky's Rule #12:
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Obama is insulting those who disagree with him, and insults are by definition, the opposite of civil debate. He is doing this to attack civil debate because civil debate leads to people discovering the truth - the truth which will set you free - the truth which, if widely recognized, spells an end to his efforts to turn America into a totalitarian state.
Under Obama, the Democrats are the party that attacks civil debate.
This leaves a massive opportunity for the Republicans to accurately brand themselves as the party that welcomes civil debate, that loves civil debate, that invites civil debate from all sides, all parties, all races, creeds, and colors, because it leads to the truth, and brings us together, after the motto of the U.S. - "E Pluribus Unum": "Out of Many, One."
From the front page of yesterday's LA Times:
The caption reads, "President Obama waves to union members after a speech at the AFL-CIO's Labor Day picnic in Cincinnati. Obama said it was time for the healthcare debate to end and accused opponents of spreading lies and fear."
Under Obama, the Democrats are the party that attacks civil debate. Per yesterday's LA Times, Obama said "it was time for the healthcare debate to end" - explicitly demanding an end to the public debate on healthcare reform. And to further attack civil public debate, Obama insulted those who disagree with him, saying they are "spreading lies and fear."
Obama is following Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Alinsky's Rule #12:
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Obama is insulting those who disagree with him, and insults are by definition, the opposite of civil debate. He is doing this to attack civil debate because civil debate leads to people discovering the truth - the truth which will set you free - the truth which, if widely recognized, spells an end to his efforts to turn America into a totalitarian state.
This leaves a massive opportunity for the Republicans to accurately brand themselves as the party that welcomes civil debate, that loves civil debate, that invites civil debate from all sides, all parties, all races, creeds, and colors, because it leads to the truth, and brings us together, after the motto of the U.S. - "E Pluribus Unum": "Out of Many, One."
From commenter A.M. Whittaker:
Update 1-19-10 - from WFTV in Orlando, Florida: