The President''s Weekly Address: Reining in Budget Deficits

From the White House blog:

The President pledges to rein the deficit, citing three specific steps to this end. He praises the Senate for restoring the pay-as-you-go law, discusses his proposal for a freeze in discretionary spending, and calls for a bipartisan Fiscal Commission to hammer out further concrete deficit reduction proposals.

None of these measures will take place right away. They are set up for next year and with the economic news looking better all the time it makes sense to start thinking about reducing the deficit. I am sure, if something happens between now and then, it will change.

That's one HUGE difference between this president and the former occupant.. Once that log made a decision he stuck with it.. no matter how disastrous it was. However Pres. Obama has already shown he will change his mind and the direction he is taking if he feels it was a bad decision.

The President Enters the Lions Den

President Obama entered the lions den today. He went to the Republican Retreat and met with them face to face and had a confrontation. He called them out for their lies about the Recovery Plan, the Health Care Reform and for not voting on things they had supported and asked for.

All in all it was a great day for the President. He made them look like the fools and idiots they are. Here is a video of his address to them before they started the q and a session.



It is about 20 minutes long and is very good.

Next is the q and a session and it is quite a bit longer. When asked later, the members of the Party of No, stated they wished they had closed it to cameras because they felt they came off looking badly. Well....DUH....lol

The President was in top form and in his element, refuting their lies and setting the record straight in every way he could.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As I stated in my post yesterday, this President will not stop reaching out to these idiots... This is how our government is supposed to work.

Sick and Tired of the Infighting

I promised a new post last week… well here it is. It has taken me a while because I had to formulate it in my mind and in my heart before I could write it.

I have really been hurt and angry over some of the stuff I have seen and read. Oh the stuff from Jane Hamsher and some of the so called rabid left I have long come to expect. It is from so many of you, who have decided now that the President is a failure, he needs to fire his staff, you can’t support him unless he does this or that. He needs to be primaried in 2012, it just goes on and on.

Then the President does something you like and it is all roses again… You know that is what I have always heard called “Fair Weather Fans”.

It just seems you can’t make up your mind whether you like him or not. Now I am not saying you have to be his cheerleader constantly. But to call for a primary against him today, then praise him tomorrow. That is just a little over the top. No wonder the Republicans are getting such a foot hold with people.

When the Democrats can’t stand together, and stand behind our President, why would the Republican’s want to support him? Why would the Independent’s support him?

Just one of the things I saw everyone having a hissy fit over was the President’s proposal of a spending freeze. Everyone on the left was up in arms over this, without even knowing what he was fully considering. No one had read it, no one knew the details, they just knew it was a bad deal and so they attacked.

First it doesn’t take effect for another year. Second, it is very strictly targeted and will be just as he promised in the campaign, a scalpel, not a hatchet. It is not so much a freeze as a reorganization of the budget. He is going to take out programs that don’t work and waste money, and then use that money that is saved for programs that need it. That makes sense to me… How anyone can’t see this as a good thing doesn’t understand how budgets work.

Matt Osborne, at OsborneInk did a wonderful piece on this. Here is some of what he said about it and how everyone is reacting.

But perhaps this “move to the right” isn’t what it seems? Obama froze administration salaries, which doesn’t add up to much but certainly has the right optics. Noting that details are still unknown and the freeze will not affect health care reform or a second stimulus, Oliver Willis makes a strong argument that the oh noes are premature:
I don’t personally like the framing of these issues in one that favors conservatives, that is a fight versus government spending. Not at all, and in an ideal situation a Democratic president should laugh at the idea, knowing that everyone with common sense understands the long term value of government investment in the American economy and social safety net.
We do not live in this ideal world. We live in a world where, as I noted above, the people across the spectrum hold contradictory ideas within their own minds about what constitutes rational public policy. If some are concerned with spending, it seems the least harmful way to do this is to have a bone thrown their way that will actually lower *some* spending without harming the president’s domestic agenda.
Is it less perfect than a pony? Sure. Would President Jed Bartlett do it? Probably not, but real life isn’t a pitch-perfect Aaron Sorkin script and a fade out after 60 minutes of plot.
Put another way, I’d suggest that this is more of the same nuanced empiricism that makes lefties scream about “unclear” Afghanistan withdrawal dates and the public option. I’m willing to lay odds the whole thing will be forgotten a year from now — in fact, if the Senate passes a public option through reconciliation no one will be talking about this the next week.

Frank Schaeffer weighed in on this entire thing with his anger too, and I have to say he took you all to task much more than I did. But he was my inspiration. Here is Mr. Schaeffer's entire post.. It is almost a letter to you all... I would hope you read it and take it to heart.. Of course I believe some of you are suffering from the same syndrome as Limpballs has... Anticardiocitis... No heart.. That almost has to be what it is.. because you are the only opinion that matters and you can't see anything except what you write and you don't care what anyone else points out they are wrong and YOU are correct.

Anti-Obama Lefty Perfectionists Killed Us In MA
By Frank Schaeffer

Congratulations to the Left of the progressive movement and the Democratic Party: You just shot us all in the foot. You contributed to the Democratic loss in Massachusetts.

I’m a former Republican who ran from that hate-filled movement years ago. I am a heartfelt Obama supporter. And I am also and Independent Massachusetts voter.

I blame the ideological purist Left who have worked so hard to undermine the Obama presidency for the MA debacle. You set the stage.

The Left of the progressive movement couldn’t wait patiently for change. They wanted everything Now! They couldn’t ever see a glass half full and the possibility of improvement on the health care reform bill; it had to be prefect Now!

Gay rights moving ahead slowly weren’t fast enough! The fact that our president inherited the mess that landed on his desk didn’t move his Lefty critics to root for him, pray for him, and wait for him: No! It was “You’ve failed!” You’ve sold out to the banks! We're still at war! And all this only after less than 12 months in office!

Well, you got what you paid for. By giving aid and comfort to the extreme right – “See even his own supporters don’t trust him!” – You have emboldened the nuts. You also have sapped drip-by-drip the enthusiasm of Obama’s actual grass roots supporters (like me) who are not part of the "progressive elite".

You of the Obama-hating Left (yes I used that word -- hating) are both short-sighted and unrealistic.

Well, thanks ya’ll! See you in no-health care, no-gay rights, eternal-dumb-wars Sarah Palin’s America.

Now, I believe he told us how he really felt.. But he is correct.. If we keep this up.. We are opening up the door for all the Palin's, and the Republican's to get back in power.. Already according to the polls, people seem to want the Republican's to take the Congress back... Is this what YOU WANT? Keep up the good work.. That's what is going to happen.

I can’t remember this kind of wishy-washy attitude about a President before. Even when Bill Clinton was confronted with Monica, then impeached, people stood behind him. They supported him. No one, and I mean no one, was fighting and shouting he should do this and do that, he should fire this one or fire that one, he should step down.. Well except Republican’s. But NOT DEMOCRAT’S. The Democrat’s stood with him, oh there were some who didn’t… but the people… common people rallied around Bill Clinton.. Why are we not rallying around Pres. Obama?

No other President has ever.. Let me repeat that… NO OTHER PRESIDENT has ever faced the problems that Pres. Obama has faced this first year. NONE. Everyone he inherited from his predecessor. From 2 wars, both mismanaged, to a terrible recession, the worst since the great depression, to rising unemployment, which is being corrected by the actions of this President.

Pres. Obama has done more for this country in the first year, than most have done in 4 or 8 years. Yet no one gives him credit for it. He has brought us back from the brink of disaster, he has slowed unemployment by 10%, from 700,000 + a month to way less than that. Yes, we still have lots of people out of work, but it is much better than it was. He is honoring the agreement made to bring all the troops home from Iraq, in fact the Marines are leaving now, and all combat troops are to be out by the end of August. He has followed through on his planned escalation of the war in Afghanistan, much to the dismay of some of you, who wanted him to pull out of there. However he did say he was going to do just this.

Plus the list of accomplishments legislatively he has gotten done… all with little to NO Republican support, is very good. He has had a VERY GOOD 1st YEAR.

The President's Weekly Address: President Obama Addresses This Week's Supreme Court Decision

From the White House Blog:

In this week’s address, President Barack Obama addresses the Supreme Court decision to further empower corporations to use their financial clout to directly influence elections and vows that "as long as I'm your President, I'll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you."

I can't add much to this. I think most of you have already spoken on this. I do have some things I want to say later on, but those are for a different post. I have been writing it since Tuesday night.

The only thing I can add is once again to say, this is what happens when we allow the Republican's to control things and appoint Supreme Court Justice's. What did we expect to happen? Since en masse they have praised this it is to be expected they would like it, and the Conservative Justice's were the ones who overturned it, why were we surprised?

I am just glad we have a President who is able to cut through the bull shit and tell it like it is. Everyone should be thankful he is there.

Geithner Gets a Bad Rap in the AIG Scandal

I found an interesting article in Time Magazine this week. Ever since Tim Geithner has been appointed Treasury Secretary there seems to have been a concentrated effort to get him out.

From the Republican's in the Senate voting against him and painting him as a tax cheat when it has been pointed out he made a simple mistake that others have made, to big names on the left such as Arianna Huffington saying he is just too much a Wall Street person.

However, nothing has stuck so far. President Obama has come out time after time and said he is sticking with him and he is standing behind him. Very few people in the media have stood up and said he is the man for the job, or have even tried to defend him in any way.

Now finally here is someone who is trying to defend him and say he is the man for the job. But, first lets look at some of Tim's history. Since there seems to be some confusion.

We will go toWikipedia:

Geithner worked for Kissinger Associates in Washington for three years and then joined the International Affairs division of the U.S. Treasury Department in 1988. He went on to serve as an attaché at the Embassy of the United States in Tokyo. He was deputy assistant secretary for international monetary and financial policy (1995–1996), senior deputy assistant secretary for international affairs (1996-1997), assistant secretary for international affairs (1997–1998).

He was Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs (1998–2001) under Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers. Summers was his mentor, but other sources call him a Rubin protégé

In 2002 he left the Treasury to join the Council on Foreign Relations as a Senior Fellow in the International Economics department. He was director of the Policy Development and Review Department (2001-2003) at the International Monetary Fund.

In October 2003 at age 42, he was named president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York His salary in 2007 was $398,200 Once at the New York Fed, he became Vice Chairman of the Federal Open Market Committee component. In 2006, he also became a member of the Washington-based financial advisory body, the Group of Thirty. In May 2007 he worked to reduce the capital required to run a bank. In November he rejected Sanford Weill's offer to take over as Citigroup's chief executive.

In March 2008, he arranged the rescue and sale of Bear Stearns.; In the same year, he played a supporting role to Hank Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, in the decision to bail out AIG just two days after deciding not to rescue Lehman Brothers from bankruptcy. According to some observers, Geithner severely damaged the U.S. economy As a Treasury official, he helped manage multiple international crises of the 1990s. in Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand.

On November 24, 2008, then-President-elect Barack Obama announced his intention to nominate Geithner to be Treasury Secretary.

Now to the article in Time Magazine. You can read the entire article by clicking on the link here:

Geithner Gets a Bad Rap in the AIG Scandal but here are some high points:

The first thing Fed bashers should remember about the AIG bailout is the chaotic circumstances. The Fed barely knew how to spell AIG before the panic of September 2008; it didn't regulate insurance companies, and its leaders had no idea that a division of this particular insurance company had turned itself into a giant and overleveraged hedge fund, much less that AIG was entangled with other giant and overleveraged institutions through exotic financial gambles ultimately backed by sketchy mortgages. According to accounts of the crisis like David Wessel's In Fed We Trust and Andrew Ross Sorkin's Too Big to Fail, Geithner first discovered that AIG posed a potentially catastrophic risk to the global economy just as he and the rest of the Fed were frantically trying to persuade Bank of America to take over Merrill Lynch while searching for a buyer for Lehman Brothers in order to prevent the largest bankruptcy in the history of the planet. It's not easy to improvise a bailout for a company you knew nothing about the day before while the world is going to hell.

Very true, we were told it was near to the end of the world by Paulson and Bernanke and Bush. Remember? As far as we knew the world was about to crash around our ears... and why not, we have been living under the rule of GOPers for almost 30 years, with Reaganomics holding sway over our economic situation. I am sure he did what he thought was best at the time. He had rules to follow and did what he could to keep the economy from crashing. We have to remember that.

Lehman collapsed on Sept. 15, triggering a freefall in the markets and a cascade of margin calls that required AIG to put up tens of billions of dollars it didn't have. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, Geithner and then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson quickly realized that a default by AIG — which not only sold insurance to 30 million Americans and 100,000 companies but suddenly owed big bucks to many of the world's largest financial institutions — would trigger bank runs around the world. The failure of Lehman had shocked the system; the failure of a dozen more huge financial firms would have crippled it. So on Sept. 16, the AIG bailout began.

It wasn't pretty. The creditors for AIG's bad bets — including Goldman Sachs and several large foreign banks — were paid in full. Critics have blasted the government for failing to impose haircuts, essentially providing a backdoor bailout for those banks in the name of AIG, but nobody has explained how or with what authority anyone could have invalidated AIG's contracts with all those far-flung institutions on the fly, or why that wouldn't have worsened the panic. Perhaps the public officials should have devised some way to limit the future bonuses AIG would pay its executives, but it's understandable that they weren't thinking about a few million dollars in theoretical perks when trillions of actual dollars and the entire financial system were at stake.

Again, very valid points the author is making. It wasn't pretty, and with the entire country's not to mention the world's economy at stake no one, let alone, Tim Geithner was thinking about any bonuses, or anyone having the guts to pay them out in just a few short months.

The second and most important thing to remember about the AIG bailout and the rest of the extraordinary government interventions during the crisis is that they worked. For all the populist fury about taxpayer giveaways for Wall Street, they did quell the panic. And they did so at a price that seemed exorbitant at the time but now looks like relative peanuts. Research by the Cleveland Fed has documented that financial crises usually end up costing national governments at least 5% to 10% of their GDP in payouts; the tab to the Treasury for this panic will be well under 1% of GDP. In fact, the Fed is about to return a record $45 billion in profits to the Treasury because the vast majority of its emergency loans have been paid back with interest. Meanwhile, the wildly unpopular $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) is on track to cost only about $100 billion, including the giveaways for automakers, and the Obama Administration has proposed a bank tax that would bring that figure to zero.

Once again, I think this is pretty obvious and why this should have to be pointed out. is beyond me. But for some reason people have to be shown the obvious. I posted about the tax Pres. Obama is wanting put on the bankers, and along with that is other bills pending to help regulate Wall Street even more. WE THE PEOPLE, need to bear some responsibility for this mess too, and we have a responsibility to make sure these bills pass and get enacted so that this doesn't happen again.

The outrage that has been blasted at the decision makers who made the best of a horrible situation ought to be directed at the compulsive gamblers who created that situation — and channeled into fixing the regulatory system that allowed it to develop. AIG was a financial behemoth and should have been subject to federal financial oversight, including strict limits on leverage and strong capital requirements. The shadowy derivatives market that AIG was using as its casino also desperately needs adult supervision. Many of AIG's complex securities were based on subprime mortgages issued by unregulated brokers who had no incentive to seek creditworthy borrowers, but ratings agencies with equally strong conflicts of interest deemed the securities completely safe. And once the government had to come to the rescue, it had no emergency mechanism to wind down failed firms in an orderly fashion and impose haircuts on bondholders and other counterparties without imperiling the entire system.

In fact, the House of Representatives — with strong support from Geithner and the Obama Administration — has passed a financial-reform bill designed to address all those problems. It aims to provide stronger consumer protection, ensure that all financial firms and complex financial instruments are subject to strict oversight, and create a "resolution authority" so that no firm will be too big to fail during a crisis. And it received a grand total of zero votes from the House Republicans who are trying to fan the flames of the latest Geithner pseudo scandal. The Senate is trying to hash out a bipartisan bill, but for now the system in place is the system that failed. If that sounds outrageous to you, don't blame the firefighters who put out the last fire. Demand some real fireproofing.

So, again it is time we step up and demand that Congress do their job and enact these regulations and pass the reforms needed to regulate Wall Street and keep this from happening again. In the mean time, can we cut Geithner some slack? At least he is trying to put the fire out and it looks like he has done a pretty good job. At least we aren't falling off the cliff any more.

Part 3 of 3, First TV Interview of Dr. King

Part 3 of the interview with Martin Luther King, from 1957 on the PBS show, Open Mind. Yes, they called it Open Mind. This show was called "New Negro" and they talked exclusively to Dr. King about how African American's could fit into the world and into the US. Quite interesting and provocative interview.. or grilling almost.

Part 2 of 3, First TV Interview of Dr. Martin Luther King

Here is Part 2 of the interview from the PBS Program, The Open Mind, called "the New Negro". Way to Tick someone off before you even start talking.

Part 1 of 3, First TV Interview of Dr. Martin Luther King

These are said to be the first Television Interviews Dr. Martin Luther King ever did. They were done in 1957. It is in 3 parts and I will post them separately. They are scratchy, but remember they are getting a little old...lol

Still they are very good. All together they are about 30 minutes long. Here is part one of the "New Negro" That's what they called him and all African Americans then. The name of the program on PBS is "Open Mind". Yes, you read that correctly. I hope you enjoy these.. They are very enlightening and very interesting.

Honoring Dr. Martin Luther King and his Legacy

Last year I posted this on the anniversary of Dr. King's birth. It is as relevant today as it was then. I am putting it up again in hopes more people will see it and will realize how far we have come and yet, how far we still have to go.

I also have a few more videos to post to honor Dr. King. I hope you will take the time to listen and hear his words. Here is the post from last year.


On August 28, 1963 Martin Luther King delivered the "I have a Dream" speech. Finally part of the dream is about to be realized. Every year we have made progress toward reaching the end of that dream. I don't believe we have yet reached total equality. We have come a long way, yet there are those who still would keep the African American down.

We take the time today to honor Dr. King on this his birthday. I am posting the video of his speech here, and on the page you can click through to here is the text and pictures of the march to the Lincoln Memorial, and other links to pages that will give you more information. It is worth a few minutes to look at it and see the wisdom this man had.

There are still those who scoff, still those who mock him, still those who use racial epithets, that's why I say his dream is not fully realized. We still have a ways to go.

In the election we saw something of that, in the numbers of people who wouldn't or didn't admit they were voting for PE Obama and then went to the voting booths and voted for him. Not because they were racist, but because they were afraid to admit they were voting for a black man for fear of someone they knew making fun of them.

So, yes we have a ways to go.


Here is the link to American Rhetoric: Martin Luther King, I Have A Dream

Here is a link to the "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" which was written April 16, 1963. It was thought by some of his followers that he had lost his mind when they got this. Later they realized how profound his words really were.

Here is the video:


I in no way mean to take away from this day of celebration, but to honor it by adding this wonderful video by Dave Stewart. This is his revision which he did to bring in PE Obama as the partial fulfilling of Dr. King's dream. Enjoy this musical tribute to Dr. King and the historic inauguration of PE Obama.

President Obama Speaks at Vermont Ave. Baptist Church

This morning Pres. Obama spoke at the Vermont Avenue Baptist Church in Washington D.C. He spoke about Martin Luther King and his legacy. He spoke about his first year in office and he briefly touched on Haiti. It was a very moving speech as only he can give and it touched many I am sure. I know it touched me. If you missed it, here it is:

President's Weekly Address: Getting Our Money Back from Wall Street

From the White House blog:

As the President continues to work on immediate job creation, he discusses his proposal for a new fee on the largest financial institutions to ensure that every cent of taxpayer assistance gets paid back. Saying that, "we're not going to let Wall Street take the money and run," he then to discusses the ongoing push to make sure banks can never put our economy at risk again.

The President lays out again his rules of the road for the banks. Now comes the hard part, getting it past the House and the Senate. That's your next assignment, calling and writing your Congress Critter to let them know this must be passed.

If we don't stand up to them this will happen again. With this and the other reforms that have been introduced in Congress that we should be pushing to get passed maybe we can make sure we don't head down this road again.

Another thing it will help with, it will prove that the GOPers are the ones standing in the way of helping the common people, "main street" if you will and not Wall Street. That is hugely important to the re-election and election of Democrats for a while. No, they aren't the only ones. There are some DemWits who have taken money and who support the greedy bankers, but the number is greater on the right side of the aisle. Some of these legislative moves will call them out, IF we continue the rallying cry and point out the hypocrisy of their ways.

You and I both know it is up to us, because the MSM, contrary to conservative belief is not Liberal, it is owned by Conservatives and is run by them. Yes, some of the people who are in the media are of the Liberal strain, but they are not who runs it and who calls the shots.

So, now is the time once again. After we get health care passed, and by the way... IF YOU KNOW SOMEONE IN MASSACHUSETTS, Call them and tell them to get out and vote Tuesday for Martha Coakley. Please. we need to start working on this. Of course there are other items that need to be worked on too.. but this one is very important to our future economic outlook.

Thanks everyone, remember by this President's actions, whether people want or like to admit it, we staved off a 2nd Depression. Yes, we need to get jobs moving again, but with the banks regulated and money getting out to businesses that will help with the jobs outlook too.

Rachel Maddow Agree's with Me! Don't I Feel Special.

Here is a segment from last nights Rachel Maddow show which back's up my post below. She uses the same article and has other things to back up the statement, plus uses some Charts to show how bad it has been and how good it is getting.

Watch:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Hope you enjoy this.. Not that I felt like I needed the backup... just that sometimes it is nice to have a little bit of someone behind you sometimes.

Pres. Obama Better than LBJ?

Once again I have to thank Bob @ BobCesca.com for pointing me in the direction of this story. I have been slack lately at checking out some of my favorite reading sites, such as CQ Politics and this is one story I missed. But Bob picked it up from another site and posted on it... so I thought I would elaborate on his post some.

I have been hearing from everyone how if Pres. Obama was "More like LBJ" he could get things done. In the comments just this week after his weekly address I think there were at least 2 or 3 references to that fact, mistaken though they are.

For one thing, as another commenter and I pointed out to them, LBJ had cooperative Republican's who actually voted for the legislation he was trying to get through, and for another, LBJ had been in Congress for a number of years and had been an arm twister and knew where the bodies were buried of a lot of members. No, I am not putting him down, I am just saying it was a different time and a different climate for LBJ.

Even so, it was still hard for him to get Medicare and Civil Rights legislation through Congress and the bills he got through, were not the bills we have now. They have been added to many times to make them what they are today.

That's the way all big Omnibus Legislation is done. That's the way this Health Care Bill is going to be. No, it isn't what we all wanted, no it isn't everything it maybe could be.. But the President, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have to work with the members they have to pass what they can.

Yelling that they are sell outs and demanding that the bill be killed if it doesn't have this or that.. not supporting them and talking about how bad they are is not the answer.

Harry Reid can only work with what he has. Blaming him for Traitor Joe, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and the others is not right. How would him trying to be more forceful with them have gained us anything? By him compromising his values, and in some cases ours, he has lost the support of his state, he has lost stature with progressives, BUT, he has gotten the Health Care Bill to a point it has never been before.

Not to mention, that Harry Reid has done some other things, maybe you aren't aware of.

This from CQPolitics:

President Obama set a new record last year for getting Congress to vote his way, clinching 96.7 percent of the votes on which he had clearly staked a position

That was a bit less than 4 percentage points higher than the previous record, set by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, according to an annual study by Congressional Quarterly.

Yes, you read that correctly. Pres. Obama has surpassed LBJ's accomplishments in his first year. With the help of the "sell out" Harry Reid.

Congressional Quarterly has compiled statistics on presidential support since 1953. Editors select the votes based on clear statements by the president or authorized spokesmen before the vote.

In all, Congress took 151 votes in which Obama had taken a position ahead of time.

His wins in his first year in office included votes for creating a massive economic stimulus package, bailing out the auto industry, allowing the Food and Drug Administration regulate tobacco and confirming Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

But they also included key moves toward overhauling the health care system, regulating financial services and reducing greenhouse gases which have not yet passed both chambers of Congress.

That unfinished work will be taken up in the second session, which begins Tuesday. Obama’s ultimate success will depend on how well his second year in office goes.

“If this Congress passes both health care reform and climate change legislation on top of the economic stuff, it will go down as a historic achievement,” says Rich Fleisher, a political science professor at Fordham University in New York City. “But unless they continue to manage the agenda in a way that is very, very careful, that could all fall apart.”

In the House, Obama won 68 votes and lost four.

Among the losses: a vote to disapprove further spending on a bank bailout and a July vote to pass a food safety overhaul. Both were temporary setbacks since Congress eventually ended up supporting the president’s position.

In the Senate, Obama won 78 votes and lost one.

The Republican win there came on an amendment which would have barred spending money to transfer detainees from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to the United States. In the end, the bill allowed the transfer under certain conditions.

To build this record, Obama relied heavily on Democratic majorities with only occasional support from the GOP. As in the health care overhaul, he also had to keep the entire Democratic caucus in the Senate in line.

Yeah, see that last line... "keep the entire Democratic caucus in the Senate in line" Whose job is that? Why that ineffectual sell out himself, Harry Reid. The man who can't lead, the man who has let everyone down. The man who has helped Pres. Obama get more legislation through the Senate than LBJ.

So, there you have it..... Pres. Obama is better than LBJ and Harry Reid is doing his job as the Leader in the Senate.. No matter if you like it or not.. He may seem like he isn't doing a job like you think. But there is much more behind the scenes you don't see.

Think about that, the next time you criticize the President for not being strong enough, and think about it the next time you say Harry Reid isn't doing a good job as Leader. I think they are both doing good. At least better than LBJ.

Some Good Sites About Health Care Reform

These sites are available to anyone and the first is from the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is Non-Partisan and has no agenda in this reform battle. It is a calculator to enable you to estimate what your insurance will cost after the reform bill is signed into law.

This is something everyone needs to look at and use.. If you have no insurance at this time, and have an income, it will tell you how you will benefit from the reforms we are about to have at your fingertips. You can choose either bill, the House version or the Senate version and compare the two.

You can access this calculator by clicking here.

As an example a family of 4, with an income of $80,000 a year, will pay about $9,241 a year. They will also receive a subsidy of $1,401. So the actual amount they will pay is $7,840. That is for the Senate version of the bill.

The House version for the same family, same income will still pay about $9,241 a year, but the subsidy they will receive will only be $236, so the actual amount they will pay is $9,005.

Now, which one do you think we should support? Remember the Senate bill is cheaper, yet has more subsidies in it for the lower incomes and helps more of the uninsured faster than the House bill does.

For the differences and the similarities in the bills.. There is a link on the same web site for that and you can access it here. It will open another page and allow you to print out a .pdf file so you can look at them side by side.

If you would rather just take a look at them on the web, without the pdf files, you can go to AARP and see the comparison on their web site. That site is always available but you realize they have supported the Health Care and if you quote them, some may say it is biased. But the charts are here.

Both of these are very good sites.. Even if there are changes in the final bill, and there most assuredly will be, this should show everyone how close the two bills are, and how much the final reform will help or will cost each of us who need insurance.

I am one of the lucky ones in this country.. I am covered. But there are millions who are not covered and need this. I have family who isn't. This is something they need desperately. We as a country need this also. It will help us all in the long run. As the President and others have pointed out more than once, it will bring down costs, bring down the deficit and help small and large businesses.

But the most important thing it will do is insure the uninsured. This is what matters more than anything. The people who are protesting the Senate bill, who are calling for it to be killed, who are asking that Sen. Sanders, Feingold, Franken and others stand up and vote against the final bill with the Republicans is just wrong. Not just wrong but in my opinion is immoral.

How can we sacrifice the needs of all these people who so desperately need this, just because they don't think it goes quite far enough.. Well sorry, I know some of you think compromises should never be made.. but it doesn't work that way. They are made every day, every time bills are written and laws are passed.

Do you really think when Social Security was written it was the exact way it is now? No it wasn't. FDR had to settle for a compromise and take what he could get, even with a greater majority than what Pres. Obama has now. Even with Republicans that voted FOR the bill, and a much more Liberal bunch than what Pres. Obama has to deal with.

Do you really think when the Civil Rights bill was written and passed it was the exact way it is now? Do you really think when the Medicare Bill was written and passed it was the exact way it is now. No, it wasn't. LBJ settled for a compromise. Even with Republican votes FOR the bill, and a much more Liberal bunch and a greater majority than Pres. Obama has to deal with, he still settled for much less than he wanted.

But those bills and those laws were good enough to build on. That's what we have NOW. Something to build on. Let's support this, pass this and then we can work on making it better.

We have to make sure we work hard to re-elect Democrats, strong Liberal, Progressive Democrats who will vote and write legislation that we want.. Get rid of the Traitor Joes, the Ben Nelson's, the Blanche Lincoln's and all the other DINO's that are in the Senate.. Then we can truly have the Senate to carry out what we want and not compromise... MAYBE.

The President's Weekly Address: Health Reform's Benefits in 2010

From the White House blog:

The President discusses the benefits of health reform that Americans will receive in the first year, and how reform will help build a new foundation for American families.

This is some of the most important parts of what he is saying that needs to be repeated I think, over and over... This is what starts no matter which bill is signed no matter what happens.. and it is important we see and understand these things.. This is REFORM!

But what every American should know is that once I sign health insurance reform into law, there are dozens of protections and benefits that will take effect this year.

Uninsured Americans with a pre-existing illness or condition will finally be able to purchase coverage they can afford.

Children with pre-existing conditions will no longer be refused coverage, and young adults will be able to stay on their parents’ policy until they’re 26 or 27 years old.

Small business owners who can’t afford to cover their employees will be immediately offered tax credits to purchase coverage.

Early retirees who receive coverage from their employers will see their coverage protected and their premiums go down.

Seniors who fall into the coverage gap known as the donut hole will receive discounts of up to 50 percent on their prescriptions as we begin to close that gap altogether.

And every patient’s choice of doctor will be protected, along with access to emergency care.

Here’s what else will happen within the first year. Insurance plans will be required to offer free preventive care to their customers – so that we can start catching preventable illnesses and diseases on the front end. They’ll no longer be allowed to impose restrictive annual limits on the amount of coverage you receive or lifetime limits on the amount of benefits you receive. They’ll be prohibited from dropping your coverage when you get sick and need it most. And there will be a new, independent appeals process for anyone who feels they were unfairly denied a claim by their insurance company.

In short, once I sign health insurance reform into law, doctors and patients will have more control over their health care decisions, and insurance company bureaucrats will have less. All told, these changes represent the most sweeping reforms and toughest restrictions on insurance companies that this country has ever known. That’s how we’ll make 2010 a healthier and more secure year for every American – for those who have health insurance, and those who don’t.

Those are just the things that go into effect this year.. as soon as they can be implemented after the President signs the bill into law. Why are these not good things?

It does almost everything we have stated we wanted. Lowers costs, insures the uninsured and covers the people with pre-existing conditions. I think this is a win win for us all. No it may not have everything, but it has the big parts of it.. and it is sure something that makes a HUGE step in the right direction to getting what everyone says they want.

So, lets support this, get it done and then move on to the next step. Can we all agree on that?

VicePres. Biden's Mother, Jean, Dies at 92

From an AP report:

WILMINGTON, Del. – Jean Biden, who raised her son Vice President Joe Biden to believe in what he called "America's creed ... everyone is your equal," died Friday after falling seriously ill in recent days. She was 92.

In a statement, the vice president said she died in Wilmington surrounded by her family and loved ones. She had suffered a broken hip in a fall in March 2009.

"Together with my father, her husband of 61 years who passed away in 2002, we learned the dignity of hard work and that you are defined by your sense of honor," he said in the statement. "Her strength, which was immeasurable, will live on in all of us."

Joe Biden Jr. was first elected to the Senate in 1972, shortly before his 30th birthday. His mother helped out by organizing coffee klatches — part of a family effort that also included Biden's father, sister and brothers.

"Those of you who have met my mom, you know she's fairly politically astute, and she still runs the show," the vice president quipped shortly after she fell last year.

"You think I'm joking? I'm not," he said.

The former Catherine Eugenia Finnegan was born July 7, 1917, in Scranton, Pa. In 1941, she married businessman Joseph Biden Sr., with whom she had four children. The couple moved from Scranton to Claymont, Del., in 1953, when their eldest son, Joe, was 10 years old.

According to Biden's 2007 autobiography, "Promises to Keep," his mother had some reservations about whether he should risk a promising career as a young lawyer to enter politics.

"You're not going to run for Senate and ruin your reputation, are you?" he recalled his mother asking.

"And once Mom was reassured that my future was safe, win or lose, she would do anything," Biden wrote.

Biden was elected vice president as Barack Obama's running mate. In his speech at the Democratic National Convention in August 2008, he paid tribute to his mother, who was in the audience.

"My mother's creed is the American creed: No one is better than you," he said. "Everyone is your equal, and everyone is equal to you. My parents taught us to live our faith, and to treasure our families. We learned the dignity of work, and we were told that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough."

Biden said he also learned honor and loyalty from his mother.

"When I got knocked down by guys bigger than me, and this is the God's truth, she sent me back out the street and told me, 'Bloody their nose so you can walk down the street the next day.' And that's what I did."

Raised in a family with a strong Irish Catholic tradition, Jean Biden leaned on her faith in comforting her eldest son after his wife and daughter were killed in a car crash in December 1972, the month after he was elected to the Senate. His two sons were seriously injured.

"After the accident, she told me, 'Joey, God sends no cross that you cannot bear,'" Biden recalled.

In his autobiography, Joe Biden recalled being mocked by a seventh-grade nun for his stuttering, an incident that sent his mother to his school in a fury, her children in tow.

"If you ever speak to my son like that again, I'll come back and rip that bonnet off your head. Do you understand me?" she told the nun.

Joe Biden also recalled how when his mother couldn't find a pair of cufflinks for him to wear to an eighth-grade dance, she fashioned a pair from nuts and bolts, which left him mortified.

"Now look, Joey, if anybody says anything to you about these nuts and bolts, you just look them right in the eye and say 'Don't you have a pair of these?'" she told him.

Jean Biden is survived by the vice president, daughter Valerie Biden Owens of Kennett Square, Pa., and sons James Brian Biden of Merion Station, Pa., and Francis W. Biden of Florida. She had 10 grandchildren and five great-grandchildren.

Details of services will be released in coming days, the vice president's office said.

Recovery Act Protecting Millions From Poverty

The other day Bob from BobCesca.com posted part of a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and it had some very interesting information.

First, let me remind everyone that the CBPP is a Non-partisan research and policy institute working on federal and state fiscal policies and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income Americans. So, like the Congressional Budget Office, (CBO) they do not have an agenda and it matters not which political party is in office.

There are charts and graphs at the site and the entire report can be accessed at their site.. I am just going to point out some highlights.. There are some very good things that need to be seen and read in this report. They need to be pointed out and I think should be shared with some of the wingnuts out there so they will shut up about the Recovery Act not doing anything good.

While the recession is expected to drive states’ poverty rates up for 2009, new analysis based on Census data shows that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) is keeping large numbers of Americans out of poverty in states across the country. In addition to boosting economic activity and preserving or creating jobs, the recovery act is softening the recession’s impact on poverty by directly lifting family incomes.

The Center’s analysis, which covers 36 states and the District of Columbia, examines the effect on poverty of seven ARRA provisions: the expansion of three tax credits for working families, two provisions that strengthen unemployment insurance assistance, a provision that boosts food stamp benefits, and a one-time payment for retirees, veterans, and people with disabilities.[1] Nationally, these provisions are keeping more than 6 million Americans out of poverty and reducing the severity of poverty for 33 million more. (These figures include both people whom ARRA has lifted out of poverty and people whom ARRA has kept from falling into poverty.)

These estimates are conservative. The seven provisions examined cover only about one-fourth of the recovery act’s total spending. The remainder of the act contains an array of provisions that also have an effect on poverty either through direct job creation or through increased spending (on areas such as education, health care, and housing) that leads to more consumer demand in the economy, which in turn preserves or creates jobs. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the legislation as a whole had increased employment by 600,000 to 1.6 million jobs as of September 2009 and is expected to boost employment by 900,000 to 2.3 million jobs by the fourth quarter of this year.[2]

Moreover, this analysis does not capture the full anti-poverty impact of the seven provisions it examines. It considers the provisions’ direct effects on the incomes of the families that receive added income or benefits as a result of these provisions, but not the provisions’ additional effects on the economy and private-sector employment. For example, increased jobless benefits or food stamps preserve private-sector jobs in a recession by enabling consumers to continue purchasing goods and services they otherwise could not have afforded. That additional spending, in turn, ripples through the economy, helping stores and companies to stay in business and avoid steeper layoffs and reductions in work hours, and thereby averts larger increases in poverty.

That is my emphasis.. I felt it needed to be seen and so I put it in bold.. I think that is the biggest part of this that needs to be told over and over. There is more..

Congress designed the recovery act to reach a wide spectrum of low-, moderate-, and middle-income Americans. Policymakers took care to include provisions that provide assistance to low-income families, not only because they stand the greatest risk of hardship during downturns but also because of evidence that they are the most likely to spend quickly whatever money they receive, thereby pumping more money back into the economy in a timely manner.

Our analysis considers seven of the act’s temporary provisions, totaling $205 billion over five years:

* a new Making Work Pay tax credit of up to $400 for workers ($800 for a couple) earning up to $95,000 ($190,000 for a couple);
* an expanded Child Tax Credit for lower-income working families with children;
* an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, including increased tax-credit benefits for a working family with three or more children and for married families to lessen the marriage penalty the EITC can otherwise impose;
* additional weeks of emergency unemployment compensation benefits (paid after a worker’s 26 weeks of regular state unemployment benefits expire);
* an additional $25 per week for unemployed workers to supplement their unemployment benefits;
* a $250 one-time payment to elderly people and people with disabilities who receive Social Security, SSI, or veterans’ benefits; and
* an increase in food stamp benefit levels.

The state-by-state findings presented here build on a Center analysis released in September 2009, which focused on figures for the nation as a whole as well as five large states. Details of the methods used here are described in the appendices of that report. [3]

In brief, the analysis uses Census data to examine how these policy changes will affect family income and poverty status by state. The estimates start with data collected in March 2004, March 2005, and March 2006 through the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey. Data for three years are combined to increase the reliability of the state-by-state estimates.

We make three adjustments to these Census data. First, we correct the tendency of Census and other surveys to undercount receipt of certain public benefits, using the data and methods for making such adjustments that are reflected in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ TRIM model. [4] Next, we adjust the data to approximate recent economic and demographic conditions in each state, including labor-market conditions and state population levels in April through June of 2009. Finally, we adjust the food stamp participation data to approximate actual food stamp participation levels by state in May 2009. For each family in the resulting data, we estimate the family’s 2009 income with and without the seven recovery act provisions.

The analysis considers a family to be kept out of poverty if its estimated income is below the poverty line without the recovery act provisions but above the poverty line with the provisions. We use a measure of poverty that adheres to National Academy of Sciences poverty measurement recommendations by including after-tax cash and non-cash income, while subtracting child care and work expenses and out-of-pocket medical expenditures.

We provide estimates for 36 states and the District of Columbia. For the remaining 14 states, our data are insufficient to show reliable results. [5] Given the uncertainty associated with using a sample of the population, we show a range of estimates for each state. This range can be substantial, particularly for states with the smallest survey samples. For example, estimates for Iowa range from 25,000 to 55,000 residents kept out of poverty, with our best estimate falling in the middle (40,000).

The end notes are important too..

End Notes:

[1] As explained below, data were insufficient to estimate the antipoverty impact in the remaining 14 states.

[2] Congressional Budget Office, "Estimated Impact of the American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output as of September 2009," November 2009; and letter from CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf to Senator Charles E. Grassley, March 2, 2009.

[3] See Arloc Sherman, “Stimulus Keeping 6 Million Americans Out of Poverty in 2009, Estimates Show,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, September 9, 2009 (appendices).

[4] Specifically, we correct the Census data for underreporting of food stamps, TANF, and SSI benefits using the data and methodologies to correct for underreporting that are used in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' TRIM model.

[5] For seven of these 14 states, we do not show results because of very small sample size. In addition, we checked to ensure that our predicted state-to-state distribution of ARRA benefits is generally consistent for each state with the actual distribution of benefits paid through October 30, 2009, as reported on the government website, www.recovery.gov. We do not show results for another seven states because we determined that the state's share of benefits in our model differed by more than 10 percent from the state’s actual share of the benefits (due to random sampling error, the inability of our model to fully capture some complex program interactions, or other reasons).

There are charts on the web site and other facts you can read, I didn't want to post the charts, some times they are hard to see when we post them.. so thought the link would be best..

Please take the time to look at this and feel free to link to it, post it, share it or whatever you would like to do.. This needs to be shared and told.. the media is not covering this.. they would rather talk about how bad it is.. not the good things.

I hope you see that while not all the news is good, there are at least some things in the ARRA that did benefit a lot of people. We have heard so many times, it wasn't big enough, it wasn't targeted enough, it was all pork.. so on and so on.. This shows it was good for the ones who needed it most. That's the bottom line.

10 Lessons for Tea Baggers, Hey Wing Nuts.. That Means YOU!

I posted this back on September 16, 2009, right after Glenn Beck's 9-12 project.. Sue @ Hellooooo Mr President has been having some discussions with some conservatives about some of these ideas and I thought maybe it was time to revive it. Hopefully they will read it and learn a little something.. and some of us might learn some things too.


Jon Perr who posts at Crooks and Liars and also at his own blog Perrspectives has this great piece up that gives a wonderful write up of all the things wrong with your protest. You really need to look at this and study it and learn something.

Now you have all been here and wanted a debate.. Here is your debate. Will you honestly, truthfully read this and debate with me and others about this? I really doubt you will. But I will be glad to do so.

You attack, you scream, you cry we just want to call you names, but when we try to really have a debate you are nowhere around.. so here is your chance.. Like I said no anonymous comments.. You have to have a name.. something anyway.. Now, read this..

Back in April, the Daily Show's Jon Stewart offered some sound advice for frothing at the mouth Tea Baggers, "I think you might be confusing tyranny with losing." Now five months after their Tax Day outburst, thousands of vein-popping Obama opponents descended Saturday on Washington for Tea Party II. But while Glenn Beck's furious followers alternately slandered the President as a "fascist," a "communist" and worse, they remained unencumbered by either the thought process - or the truth.

Now for the list of 10 things you need to remember and learn.. These are very important.

1. President Obama Cut Your Taxes
2. The Stimulus is Working
3. First Ronald Reagan Tripled the National Debt...
4. ...Then George W. Bush Doubled It Again
5. Republican States Have the Worst Health Care
6. Medicare is a Government Program
7. Barack Obama is Not a Muslim
8. Barack Obama was Born in the United States
9. 70,000 Does Not Equal 2,000,000
10. The Economy Almost Always Does Better Under Democrats

Each of those links will take you to a detailed explanation of the statement. In easy to read terms and back up to show you proof of the statments.. Also I want to help you with some other things besides what Jon has given there.

From one of my commenters here who was answering one of you who left an answer and then ran away with no other way of contacting you or debating you in anyway, I am going to quote MrBrink:

In 2007, Pearl Jam was censored by AT&T during their live webcast for saying: "...George Bush, leave this world alone" and "George Bush find yourself another home..."

Anti Bush speech was censored by the corporate media or people like the Dixie Chicks were threatened with death as an example of what happens when you criticize Republican presidents.

In respone to anonymous coward's comments:

The Bush family dynasty was built to a fair extent doing business with Nazi Germany and had to have their assests seized as a result.

President Obama has no such family history. There is no elitist "Obama family dynasty."

The Bush dynasty expounded upon Prescott's activities by G.H.W Bush's years as a CIA spook and his subsequent ties to the Carlyle Group engaging in international arms deals using his position as an American government official to enrich his private dealings blurring the line between public and private representation. In other words, when 41' was brokering deals for Carlyle, he was using what I like to call "America's integrity capital" as a bargaining chip in business negotitations.

Hitler rose to power through an odd parliamentary procedure after losing the popular vote handily.

Bush was appointed president through an unprecedented decision by the Supreme Court, after Bush lost the popular vote handily. Scalia and Cheney are, and have been, good friends and hunting buddies in an obvious conflict of interest to everyone but wingnuts.

Clinton left a surplus. To argue this is typical revisionist history. Clinton also upheld the successful policy of containment and no fly zones in the 90s. Information recently revealed that Saddam was bluffing and tried to communicate as much through intermediaries to offset the threat of increasing Iranian influence. A threat that Reagan and Bush41' compounded with a shady proxy war in the 80's.

I disagreed with sanctions responsible for the deaths of over 200,000 women and children and oil for food, but to claim Clinton's approach was more harmful than Bush's pre-emptive Shock and Awe campaign is idiocy.

We actually count the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget now. Bushco tried to hide the costs through emergency funding that was used for no-bid contracts and plastic wrapped billions unloaded off a flying warehouse on a Baghdad tarmac. Waste, fraud, abuse, and no accountability were Bushco norms.

Only republicans hypocritically complain about pork. That "pork" funds all kinds projects and does more good than harm in the grand scheme of things.

This is republicans holding democrats to a standard they ignored. Reagan took America from the world's foremost creditor nation to the world's foremost debtor nation. Bush's watch resulted in the near collapse of the global economy.

President Obama received more votes than any elected president in history.

That's a mandate. Deal with it.

And while you're dealing with it by calling the president a liar/communist/fascist/marxist and an illegal alien, remember that nobody is censoring your speech like they did with Pearl Jam and and all the "free speech zones," and nobody is threatening your lives.

And when Mark Kirk(R-IL) tells Chinese officials that President Obama's budget(a budget that cuts taxes for over 95% of tax-paying Americans)is "not to be believed", directly undermining American interests, he's practically a traitor.

And in case the wingnuts don't know. The president consults with MANY Capitalists and Philanthropists and independent thinkers in trying to clean up the Bush Republican pile of shit they so recklessly, perhaps methodically, left behind.

Conservative Republicans failed America over the past 30 years and did so without shame or apology using hypocrisy and false equivalency as tools of deciet and revisionist history.

Now, once again, there are facts, with back up and you provide none.. You throw things out and just run away with no way to debate, yet you charge that we here on the left are not open to debate.

I nor anyone here is saying that we have all the answers, nor do we believe that we are perfect as you seem to think we believe. We do not idealize our Presidents as you seem to have done with Reagan and even Bush to a certain extent. We know he has feet of clay, we don't agree with everything he has done, nor will we agree with everything he will always do.

We need at least a 2 party system in this country for it to survive. But it needs to be a healthy 2 party system and right now we don't really have a healthy second party. The republican party is sick.. it is infected with bigots and racists and idiots who are following the lead of idiots like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck who are getting pain millions of dollars to say outlandish and stupid things.

The more outlandish and the more stupid the better, it garners a wider audience. People watch and listen just to see what they will say next. You know it must be getting bad when even some of the other wing nuts are calling them to task.

When Alex Jones, wing nut of the nth degree tells Glenn Beck he is getting too far out there for him.. Beck is WAAAAY out there.. So come on people.. are you serious.. this is the guy you want to follow.

An excerpt of the letter to Beck from Jones:

During your Monday September 22 2008 TV broadcast, you expressed your vehement support for the bailout, stating, “The $700 billion dollars that you’re hearing about now is not only I believe necessary, it is also not nearly enough.” However, as soon as Bush left office and Obama picked up the baton and continued the same financial policy, you changed your tune and routinely attacked the bailout as an example of how socialism was taking over America.

The bailout was bad news for America under Bush just as it is under Obama, both were merely performing a transfer of wealth from America to offshore banks and giving the Federal Reserve total dictatorial control over the economy, but you only opposed it when Bush was out of office, proving that your opinions are not wedded to right or wrong, but to which puppet is in the White House.

A host of mainline conservative talking heads opposed the banker bailout, as did the majority of the American people, but you went on television and publicly supported it. This is irreconcilable with you being “a libertarian at heart” as you claim.

In addition, you aggressively attacked Ron Paul and his supporters during the election campaign when it looked like the Texan Congressman might have a real chance of winning the nomination. You implied that Ron Paul supporters were domestic terrorists and should be dealt with by the U.S. Army, but later tried to side with Ron Paul supporters when the infamous and discredited MIAC report echoed your own talking point that people who support Ron Paul were dangerous.

The smear came during a November 2007 show when you were still hosting on CNN. Yourself and ex-Marxist David Horowitz smeared Ron Paul supporters, libertarians and the anti-war left as terrorist sympathizers and inferred that the U.S. military should be used to silence them, parroting a talking point that traces back to a September 2006 White House directive. When asked about the issue, Ron Paul dismissed you as “pretty discourteous” and a “demagogue”.

You Glenn Beck have acted as a cheerleader for the wars of aggression launched since 9/11 and in addition called for Iran to be attacked, claiming that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is preparing a “second holocaust.” Once again, these political opinions stand completely contrary to libertarian principles, which follow the founding fathers’ view that an expansionist aggressive foreign policy is bad for America.

You have attacked Obama for unraveling the Bush war machine to give you left cover, when in fact Obama has done everything in his power to expand Bush’s wars, beefing the campaigns in Afghanistan and Pakistan while removing a token amount of troops from Iraq and replacing them with an even greater number of contractors.

By attacking Obama for being different to Bush, when in reality he offers not change whatsoever, you keep people locked in the left-right paradigm and ensure that instead of coming to the realization that the whole system is rigged, they will merely vote in another puppet for the new world order in 2012.

Glenn Beck – you are controlled opposition, you are there to co-opt and ensure the Tea Parties are under control and that they never focus on taking on the real power behind the American economy – the Federal Reserve.

Bearing in mind that you almost died not too long ago, wouldn’t you rather come to the end of your life, whether that be in one year or 30 years from now, knowing that you stood up for true liberty and freedom? Isn’t that more valuable than your $50 million dollars a year contract? When I was approached ten years ago and offered large sums of money every year to sell out and become what you are today – the new Rush Limbaugh – while accepting tight controls on what I could and could not discuss – I said no and I thank God every day that I made the right decision.

50 Million .. is that what they are paying this lying piece of garbage to cry on demand and convince you people of what he wants you to do .. hell for 50 million even I would .. no, no I wouldn't.. I still have principles.. and it is obvious this idiot has none.

But, did you read what this said.. he praised the bailouts.. before he was against them.. Folks you are being duped by the master here.. look at that again. I will put it in bold so you can see it very plainly. I want to repeat this part again.. Just so everyone can see this for sure..

During your Monday September 22 2008 TV broadcast, you expressed your vehement support for the bailout, stating, “The $700 billion dollars that you’re hearing about now is not only I believe necessary, it is also not nearly enough.” However, as soon as Bush left office and Obama picked up the baton and continued the same financial policy, you changed your tune and routinely attacked the bailout as an example of how socialism was taking over America.

Here is a clip put together by Jones of Beck's greatest hits...and his take on what Beck is saying.. I think he has him nailed.. and I believe you all had better open your eyes.



I really hate to quote Alex Jones, he is not my cup of tea, but he has a point and makes some very valid arguments here.

So, here is the challenge people, wingnuts, tea baggers, whatever you want to be called.. you want a debate.. lets debate.. just do it with facts and come armed with back up.. not with ad hominem attacks and no way to prove what you say.

Dems intend to bypass GOP on health compromise

From the AP I find this story tonight on Yahoo News.. Normally I don't use them as a source but this would make me very happy if it is true..

House and Senate Democrats intend to bypass traditional procedures when they negotiate a final compromise on health care legislation, officials said Monday, a move that will exclude Republican lawmakers and reduce their ability to delay or force politically troubling votes in both houses.

The unofficial timetable calls for final passage of the measure to remake the nation's health care system by the time President Barack Obama delivers his State of the Union address, probably in early February.

Democratic aides said the final compromise talks would essentially be a three-way negotiation involving top Democrats in the House and Senate and the White House, a structure that gives unusual latitude to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California.

These officials said there are no plans to appoint a formal House-Senate conference committee, the method Congress most often uses to reconcile differing bills. Under that customary format, a committee chairman is appointed to preside, and other senior lawmakers from both parties and houses participate in typically perfunctory public meetings while the meaningful negotiations occur behind closed doors.

In this case, the plan is to skip the formal meetings, reach an agreement, then have the two houses vote as quickly as possible. A 60-vote Senate majority would be required in advance of final passage.

You can read the entire story at the site above.. However that's the gist of it.. Basically, Harry and Nancy and some of the White House staff are getting together to write the final bill.. without the GOPers.. Finally they are putting a stop to the obstructionism.. Hip Hip Hooray!

The President's Weekly Address: The Fight Against Al Qaeda

From the White House Blog:

The President discusses the recent attempted act of terrorism on the Christmas day flight to Detroit, and his broader strategy to fight Al Qaeda.

We have to stand up and help the President in this. We need to be loud and long in our support of him against the attacks made as he tries to fix this problem.

The attacks on him are coming because he didn't wear a tie, he waited until he had all the facts before he spoke.. a whole 3 days, and because he was in "exotic Hawaii" which you know is barely even a state, and he should have come back to Washington immediately.

Never mind that all of those things pertain to Bush after Richard Reid, the so called Shoe Bomber tried to blow up an airplane. Well except Hawaii, and Bush, not only did not come back to Washington, he left Washington and went to Texas, after it happened. He also didn't speak for 6 days after the attack.. yes, that's right SIX days.. not 3, not 72 hours.. but 6, count them SIX days after the attack.

Sam Stein has a great write up of the entire set of events surrounding the Bush Shoe Bombing Debacle in the Huffington Post. He lays out the time line and talks about the lack of criticism from people then. And all of this was less than 4 months after September 11th.

But, I guess it is like the acronym we have all seen.. IOKIYAR, I think we all know what that means.. and if you don't.. just ask.. I will tell you..

So with Cheney coming out from his hiding place, and speaking out again, different Senators and Congress people trying to raise money off this, we have to stand firm and speak out against this.

Let people know they are wrong to criticize this President for his strong stand against the extremists who are trying to harm us all. This doesn't have anything to do with the war, this is against the people who are still determined to blow up airplanes, or do something else to harm Americans, right here on our soil. They are there, and we have to support our President as he does all he can to protect us.