whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
President Obama has irked close allies in Congress by declaring he has the right to ignore legislation on constitutional grounds after having criticized George W. Bush for doing the same.
Four senior House Democrats on Tuesday said they were "surprised" and "chagrined" by Obama's declaration in June that he doesn't have to comply with provisions in a war spending bill that puts conditions on aid provided to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
In a signing statement accompanying the $106 billion bill, Obama said he wouldn't allow the legislation to interfere with his authority as president to conduct foreign policy and negotiate with other governments.
Earlier in his six-month-old administration, Obama issued a similar statement regarding provisions in a $410 billion omnibus spending bill. He also included qualifying remarks when signing legislation that established commissions to govern public lands in New York, investigate the financial crisis and celebrate Ronald Reagan's birthday.
"During the previous administration, all of us were critical of (Bush's) assertion that he could pick and choose which aspects of congressional statutes he was required to enforce," the Democrats wrote in their letter to Obama. "We were therefore chagrined to see you appear to express a similar attitude."
The letter was signed by Reps. David Obey of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, as well as Reps. Nita Lowey and Gregory Meeks, both of New York, who chair subcommittees on those panels.
Obama needs Obey and Frank in particular to push through Congress key pieces of his agenda, including health care and financial oversight reform.
The White House said Tuesday the administration plans to implement the provisions of the bill and suggested that Obama's signing statement was aimed more at defending the president's executive powers than skirting the law.
"The president has also already made it clear that he will not ignore statutory obligations on the basis of policy disagreements and will reserve signing statements for legislation that raises clearly identified constitutional concerns," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a statement.
Bush issued a record number of signing statements while in office as he sparred with Democrats on such big issues as the war in Iraq.
Democrats, including Obama, sharply criticized Bush as overstepping his bounds as president. In March, Obama ordered a review of Bush's guidelines for implementing legislation.
"There is no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be abused," Obama wrote in a memo to the heads of executive departments and agencies.
At the same time, however, Obama did not rule out issuing any signing statements, which have been used for centuries. Rather, he ordered his administration to work with Congress to inform lawmakers about concerns over legality before legislation ever reaches his desk. He also pledged to use caution and restraint when writing his own signing statements, and said he would rely on Justice Department guidance when doing so.
Two days after issuing the memo, Obama issued his first signing statement after receiving a $410 billion omnibus spending bill. He said the bill would "unduly interfere" with his authority by directing him how to proceed, or not to, in negotiations and discussions with international organizations and foreign governments.
Obey and the other House lawmakers said this week that Obama's signing statement on the war bill will make it tougher in the future to persuade other lawmakers to support the World Bank and IMF.
If Congress can't place conditions on the money, "it will make it virtually impossible to provide further allocations for these institutions," they wrote.
Add to the File: Barack Obama's closing statement from the third presidential debate, October 15, 2008:
I'm absolutely convinced we can do it. I would ask for your vote, and I promise you that if you give me the extraordinary honor of serving as your president, I will work every single day, tirelessly, on your behalf and on the behalf of the future of our children.
And today, from USA Today, the headline: "It's official: Obamas to vacation on Martha's Vineyard next month."
Los Angeles Times: White House declines to disclose visits by health industry executives
Citing an argument used by the Bush administration, the Secret Service rejects a request from a watchdog group to list those who have visited the White House to discuss the healthcare overhaul. As a candidate, President Obama vowed that in devising a healthcare bill he would invite in TV cameras — specifically C-SPAN — so that Americans could have a window into negotiations that normally play out behind closed doors.
Having promised transparency, the administration should be willing to disclose who it is consulting in shaping healthcare policy, said an attorney for the citizens' group.
I seem to recall when Barack Obama promised the most open and transparent administration ever. Since his inauguration, Obama has fired one IG for daring to oppose a sweetheart settlement with a political ally, allowed another to get dumped by the agency she oversaw, and now have publicly feuded with Barofsky. Earlier, they tried to limit his authority by claiming that Barofsky didn’t work independently of Treasury, which got a stern letter from Senator Charles Grassley. It looks as though the White House has declared war on transparency, and especially the IGs who exist to provide it.
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's treasury secretary said Sunday he cannot rule out higher taxes to help tame an exploding budget deficit, and his chief economic adviser would not dismiss raising them on middle-class Americans as part of a health care overhaul.
"There is a lot that can happen over time," Summers said, adding that the administration believes "it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what."
During his presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." But the simple reality remains that his ambitious overhaul of how Americans receive health care — promised without increasing the federal deficit — must be paid for.
"If we want an economy that's going to grow in the future, people have to understand we have to bring those deficits down. And it's going to be difficult, hard for us to do. And the path to that is through health care reform," Geithner said. "We're not at the point yet where we're going to make a judgment about what it's going to take."
Two of President Barack Obama's economic heavyweights said middle-class taxes might have to go up to pare budget deficits or to pay for the proposed overhaul of the nation's health care system.
The tough talk from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers on Sunday capped a week that brought rare good news for the economy: The worst recession in the United States since World War II could be on the verge of ending. Even so, officials appeared willing to extend unemployment benefits.
Geithner and Summers both sidestepped questions on Obama's intentions about taxes. Geithner said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to reduce the federal deficit; Summers said Obama's proposed health care overhaul needs funding from somewhere.
"There is a lot that can happen over time," Summers said, adding that the administration believes "it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what."
During his presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly pledged "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." But the simple reality remains that his ambitious overhaul of how Americans receive health care — promised without increasing the federal deficit — must be paid for.
"If we want an economy that's going to grow in the future, people have to understand we have to bring those deficits down. And it's going to be difficult, hard for us to do. And the path to that is through health care reform," Geithner said. "We're not at the point yet where we're going to make a judgment about what it's going to take."
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Two of President Barack Obama's economic heavyweights said middle-class taxes might have to go up to pare budget deficits or to pay for the proposed overhaul of the nation's health care system.
The tough talk from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers on Sunday capped a week that brought rare good news for the economy: The worst recession in the United States since World War II could be on the verge of ending. Even so, officials appeared willing to extend unemployment benefits.
Geithner and Summers both sidestepped questions on Obama's intentions about taxes. Geithner said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to reduce the federal deficit; Summers said Obama's proposed health care overhaul needs funding from somewhere.
"There is a lot that can happen over time," Summers said, adding that the administration believes "it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what."
During his presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly pledged "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." But the simple reality remains that his ambitious overhaul of how Americans receive health care — promised without increasing the federal deficit — must be paid for.
"If we want an economy that's going to grow in the future, people have to understand we have to bring those deficits down. And it's going to be difficult, hard for us to do. And the path to that is through health care reform," Geithner said. "We're not at the point yet where we're going to make a judgment about what it's going to take."
That would be good news for the GOP if that occurred however saying it might happen isn't the same thing as it happening.
No, because now the White House is having to cover for two of it's people, one being the big money expert, and trying to douse the fire that their comments have created. Plain and simple, these guys let slip the reality of Obama's drive for health care and have the public losing even more confidence in his vision.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
The Heritage Group has put together this devastating 17-second video exposing Obama's lie misstatement from yesterday that he never advocated a single-payer health care system:
We are witnessing one of the more rapid turnabouts in recent American political history. President Obama’s popularity has plummeted to 50 percent and lower in some polls, while the public expresses even less confidence in the Democratic-led Congress and the direction of the country at large. Yet, just eight months ago, liberals were talking in Rovian style about a new generation to come of progressive politics — and the end of both the Republican party and the legacy of Reaganism itself. Barack Obama was to be the new FDR and his radical agenda an even better New Deal.
What happened, other than the usual hubris of the party in power?
First, voters had legitimate worries about health care, global warming, immigration, energy, and inefficient government. But it turns out that they are more anxious about the new radical remedies than the old nagging problems. They wanted federal support for wind and solar, but not at the expense of neglecting new sources of gas, oil, coal, and nuclear power. They were worried about high-cost health care, the uninsured, redundant procedures, and tort reform, but not ready for socialized medicine. They wanted better government, not bigger, DMV-style government. There is a growing realization that Obama enticed voters last summer with the flashy lure of discontent. But now that they are hooked, he is reeling them in to an entirely different — and, for many a frightening — agenda. Nothing is worse for a president than a growing belief among the public that it has been had.
Second, Americans were at first merely scared about the growing collective debt. But by June they became outraged that Obama has quadrupled the annual deficit in proposing all sorts of new federal programs at a time when most finally had acknowledged that the U.S. has lived beyond its means for years. They elected Obama, in part, out of anger at George W. Bush for multi-billion dollar shortfalls — and yet as a remedy for that red ink got Obama’s novel multi-trillion-dollar deficits.
Third, many voters really believed in the “no more red/blue state America” healing rhetoric. Instead, polls show they got the most polarizing president in recent history — both in his radical programs and in the manner in which he has demonized the opposition to ram them through without bipartisan support. “Punch back harder” has replaced “Yes, we can.”
Fourth, Americans wanted a new brand — youthful, postracial, mesmerizing abroad. At first they got that, too. But after eight months, their president has proven not so postracial, but instead hyper-racially conscious. Compare the Holder “cowards” outburst, the Sotomayor riff on innate racial and gender judicial superiority, and the president’s Cambridge police comments. All that sounds more like Jesse Jackson than Martin Luther King Jr. Demagogues, not healers, trash their predecessors at the beginning of every speech. When a once-eloquent president now goes off teleprompter, the question is not whether he will say something that is either untruthful or silly, but simply how many times he might do so at one outing. Some once worried that George W. Bush could not articulate our goals in Iraq; far more now sense that Obama is even less able to outline his own health-care reform.
Fifth, even skeptics are surprised at the partisan cynicism. A year ago, Democratic leaders such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama praised organizing, dissidents, and protest. Today they have become near-Nixonian in demonizing popular resistance to their collectivized health-care plans as mob-like, inauthentic, scripted, Nazi-like, and un-American. There are still ex-lobbyists in the government. High officials still cheat on their taxes. Hacks in the Congress still profit from their office. The public is sensing not only that Obama has failed to run the most ethically clean government, as promised, but indeed that he is not running as ethically clean a government as the predecessor whom he so assiduously ridiculed.
Sixth, there is a growing fear that Obamism is becoming cult-like and Orwellian. Almost on script, Hollywood ceased all its Rendition/Redacted–style films. Iraq — once the new Vietnam — is out of the news. Afghanistan is “problematic,” not a “blunder.” Tribunals, renditions, the Patriot Act, and Predators are no longer proof of a Seven Days in May coup, but legitimate tools to keep us safe. Words change meanings as acts of terror become “man-caused disasters.” Hunting down jihadists is really an “overseas contingency operation.” Media sycophants do not merely parrot Obama, but now proclaim him a “god.” New York Times columnists who once assured us that Bush’s dastardly behavior was proof of American pathology now sound like Pravda apologists in explaining the “real” Obama is not what he is beginning to seem like.
Seventh, the Obama cabinet is sounding downright uncouth and boorish. The tax-challenged Treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, unleashed a profanity-laced diatribe against bank regulators. Hillary Clinton’s recent outburst in the Congo, captured on YouTube, was something out of Days of Our Lives. Joe Biden cannot speak extemporaneously without causing an incident with the Russians or misleading the public about swine flu. Attorney General Holder sounds like a tired scold, only to be overshadowed by the president’s off-the-cuff cuts about the Special Olympics, Las Vegas, and the Cambridge police. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs makes Scott McClellan sound like a Cicero by comparison.
Eighth, we were all appalled by Wall Street greed and the notion that an individual could take $100 million rather than one or two million as a bonus. But the Obama remedy for that obscenity was to conflate Goldman Sachs or AIG with the family orthodontist or local asphalt contractor whose 80-hour weeks might result in an annual $250,000 income. Worse still, the public impression is that while small entrepreneurs may pay up to 65 percent of their income in new state and federal income taxes, payroll taxes, and surcharges, those on Wall Street have been bailed out and have cut various deals with upscale liberals in government.
Ninth, Democratic populism turned out to be largely aristocratic elitism. Obama spends more money on himself than did Bush. The liberal Congress has a strange fondness for pricy private jets. Those environmentalists and racialists who lecture us about our ecological and ethical shortcomings prefer Martha’s Vineyard and country estates to Dayton and Bakersfield. Offering left-wing populist sermonizing for others while enjoying the high life oneself is never a winning combination.
Tenth, Americans no longer believe this is our moment when the seas stop rising and the planet ceases warming. Instead, there is a growing hopelessness that despite all the new proposed income taxes, payroll taxes, and surtaxes, the deficit will skyrocket, not shrink. There is foreboding that while apologies abroad are nice in the short term, they will soon earn a reckoning. And while the productive classes pay more of their income, and while government grows and entitlement expands, there is a sense that what follows will not be thanks for either taxes paid or benefits received, but even more anger that neither is enough and that much more is owed.
Obama’s popularity might rebound with a natural upturn in the economy, continued low energy prices, and good will for our first multiracial president. But then again, it could get even worse if the recovery turns into stagflation, gas prices soar, and the identity-politics lectures amplify. The next six months should be interesting.
A sleepy Montana checkpoint along the Canadian border that sees about three travelers a day will get $15 million under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan. A government priority list ranked the project as marginal, but two powerful Democratic senators persuaded the administration to make it happen.
Despite Obama's promises that the stimulus plan would be transparent and free of politics, the government is handing out $720 million for border upgrades under a process that is both secretive and susceptible to political influence. This allowed low-priority projects such as the checkpoint in Whitetail, Mont., to skip ahead of more pressing concerns, according to documents revealed to The Associated Press.
A House oversight committee has added the checkpoint projects to its investigation into how the stimulus money is being spent. The top Republican on that committee, California's Rep. Darrell Issa, sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Wednesday, questioning why some projects leapfrogged others.
It wasn't supposed to be that way. In 2004, Congress ordered Homeland Security to create a list, updated annually, of the most important repairs at checkpoints nationwide. But the Obama administration continued a Bush administration practice of considering other, more subjective factors when deciding which projects get money.
The results:
• A border station in Napolitano's home state of Arizona is getting $199 million, five times more than any other border station. The busy Nogales checkpoint has required repairs for years but was not rated among the neediest projects on the master list reviewed by the AP. Napolitano credited her lobbying as Arizona governor for getting the project near the front of the line for funding under the Bush administration. All it needed was money, which the stimulus provided.
• A checkpoint in Laredo, Texas, which serves more than 55,000 travelers and 4,200 trucks a day, is rated among the government's highest priorities but was passed over for stimulus money.
• The Westhope, N.D., checkpoint, which serves about 73 people a day and is among the lowest-priority projects, is set to get nearly $15 million for renovations.
The Whitetail project, which involves building a border station the size and cost of a Hollywood mansion, benefited from two key allies, Montana Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester. Both pressed Napolitano to finance projects in their state. Tester's office boasted of that effort in an April news release, crediting Baucus and his seat at the head of the "powerful Senate Finance Committee."
Customs officials would not discuss that claim. Asked to explain Whitetail's windfall, they provided a one-page fact sheet that contains no information about Whitetail's needs and is almost identical to the fact sheet for every other Montana project.
It's hardly a recent phenomenon for politicians to use their influence to steer money to their home states. Yet Obama said the stimulus would be different. He banned "earmarks," which lawmakers routinely slip into bills to pay for pet projects, and he told agencies to "develop transparent, merit-based selection criteria" for spending.
Customs and Border Protection, the Homeland Security agency overseeing border projects, allowed the AP to review the list but will not make it public or explain its justifications for deviating from it.
Releasing that information would allow the public to see whether less important projects are getting money. The Transportation Department, for instance, recently was criticized by its internal watchdog for not following its standards when handing out money for 50 airport construction projects. Now the full $1.1 billion airport construction program is under scrutiny.
Without the lists, the public and members of Congress don't know when the administration bumps a project ahead of others ranked more important.
Customs officials said they wouldn't release the master list because it was just a starting point and subject to misunderstanding. They acknowledged there's no way for the public to know whether they are cherry-picking projects.
"There's a certain level of trust here," said Robert Jacksta, a deputy customs commissioner.
Some discrepancies between the stimulus plan and the priority list can be attributed to Congress, which set aside separate pools of money for large and small border stations. That guaranteed that a few small, probably lower-rated projects would be chosen ahead of bigger, higher-priority projects. But it doesn't explain all the discrepancies, because even within the two pools, Homeland Security sometimes reached way down on the list when selecting projects.
Many of the nation's 163 border checkpoints, known as land ports, are more than 40 years old and in need of upgrade and repairs. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, those needs became more pressing and complex as officials beefed up border security. There is far more work to be done than money to complete it.
To prioritize, officials score each project on traffic volume, security vulnerability, construction needs and other factors. The resulting list represents "an objective and fair method for prioritizing projects," officials wrote in a 2005 summary.
That's the process the Obama administration described in a news release announcing $720 million in stimulus money for borders. But it didn't say that officials can choose projects out of order for many reasons.
Trent Frazier, who oversees the border projects, said the list Congress required is more like a meal plan. The administration can decide when to eat each dish, as long as everything eventually gets eaten.
Explaining why one project might get pushed ahead, Frazier said, "You just really liked pizza and you wanted to accelerate it."
In the case of the stimulus, officials said the Nogales, Ariz., project was construction-ready, a requirement of the recovery law. Officials also consider the economy, which means if the government expects local businesses to close and border traffic to decrease, it can delay paying for that project.
In one instance, officials said they reached deep into the list to provide $39 million for repairs in Van Buren, Maine, because flooding made the facility a safety hazard. In another, they are spending $30 million in Blaine, Wash., a lower-rated project that is unusual because it includes covering the costs of a state road project. With the 2010 Olympics coming to nearby Vancouver, Canada, officials worried the border would be strained without the project.
Officials said they could similarly justify every decision they've made. They would not provide those justifications to the AP. Frazier said the department would answer questions on a case-by-case basis, working through Congress to explain decisions to the public.
But even some in Congress say they aren't getting answers. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, said he has yet to hear a good explanation about why highly ranked projects such as Laredo were snubbed.
More than $116 billion in freight passed through Laredo last year, according to the Transportation Department. It is one of the busiest border stations in the country. Unemployment in the metropolitan area is 9.4 percent.
"For the sake of fairness, if you have a list, there's some sort of expectation that you're going to follow that list," Cuellar said.
Tester, who said he pressed the Obama administration to get money for Montana projects, said border crossings in his state had been unfairly ignored.
"The northern border tends to be forgotten, and it shouldn't be," Tester told the Great Falls Tribune after announcing $77 million for Montana posts in the stimulus.
Whitetail, Mont., an unincorporated town with a population of 71, saw only about $63,000 in freight cross its border last year. County unemployment is an enviable 4 percent.
"I think, absolutely, it's going to create jobs and build the infrastructure," Tester said.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
President Obama took a bike ride with his family today in Aquinnah, on Martha’s Vineyard. The First Family cruised along Lobsterville Beach on a gorgeous sunny day but there was one glaring omission in an otherwise picture perfect tableau – the president was not wearing a bike helmet.
White House spokesman Bill Burton said he did not know why the president was not wearing a helmet because he generally does.
“He supports the wearing of bicycle helmets,” Burton said.
But Cheney reserved his strongest criticism for Holder's decision Monday to appoint a prosecutor and open a criminal investigation into alleged abuses by CIA agents who interrogated terrorists during the administration of former President George W. Bush. The former vice president accused Obama of breaking a promise not to prosecute the agents.
"We had the president of the United States, President Obama, tell us a few months ago there wouldn't be any investigation like this, that there would not be any look back at CIA personnel who were carrying out the policies of the prior administration," Cheney said. "Now they get a little heat from the left wing of the Democratic Party, and they're reversing course on that."
In January, just days before he took office, Obama assured CIA agents they need not worry about prosecution.
"We need to look forward, as opposed to looking backwards," the president-elect said. "At the CIA you've got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don't want them to suddenly feel like they've got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering up."
In April, after disclosing classified documents that detailed the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques, Obama said: "This is a time for reflection, not retribution."
"Nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past," the president added. "For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it's appropriate for them to be prosecuted."
At the time, Holder added: "It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department."
In his interview with FOX News, Cheney disputed the administration's assertion last week that the decision to go after the CIA agents was made by Holder, not Obama.
"If you look at the Constitution, the president of the United States is the chief law enforcement officer in the land," Cheney said. "The attorney general's a statutory officer. He's a member of the Cabinet. The president's the one who bears this responsibility."
Cheney said it was disingenuous of Obama "to say, 'Gee, I didn't have anything to do with it,' especially after he sat in the Oval Office and said this wouldn't happen. Then Holder decides he's going to do it. So now he's backed off and is claiming he's not responsible.
"I just think he's trying to duck the responsibility for what's going on here," Cheney concluded. "And I think it's wrong."
Cheney pointed out that the Justice Department already investigated all the cases in question during the Bush administration and decided to prosecute only one contractor, who received a jail sentence.
"The matter's been dealt with the way you would expect it to be dealt with by professionals," Cheney said. "Now we've got a political appointee coming back, and supposedly without the approval of the president, going to do a complete review, or another complete investigation, possible prosecution of CIA personnel."
He added: "A review is never going to be final anymore now. We can have somebody, some future administration, come along 10 years from now, 15 years from now, and go back and rehash all of these decisions by an earlier administration.
Cheney vigorously defended the CIA.
"In the intelligence arena, we ask those people to do some very difficult things, sometimes, that put their own lives at risk," he said. "They do so at the direction of the president. In this case, we had specific legal authority from the Justice Department. And if they are now going to be subject to being investigated and prosecuted by the next administration, nobody's going to sign up for those kinds of missions.
"It's a very, very devastating, I think, effect that it has on morale inside the intelligence community."
the only solution is for Obama to fire Holder. Obama fired the Air Force One flyover guy for authorizing the picture taking expedition. this is way more serious.
of course that assumes this is unauthorized, which it isnt.
As he laid out details of his plan, Obama backed a health insurance mandate, saying Americans should be required to get health insurance just as they are required to get auto insurance -- it was an idea he opposed during the presidential campaign.
"Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part," the president said.
two lies in one, this is impressive even for Obama. first he said he wouldn't support mandatory insurance as a candidate and he said he wouldn't increase taxes on the middle class. this is essentially a insurance tax.
There is a huge fallacy in the everyone is forced to get auto insurance, they arent. people can show that they have enough assests to cover any damages, or they could in fact not own a vehicle, many many people live in cities and do not own a vehicle. the man is a compulsive liar.
The part where he said he was going to force me to choke down the public option infuriated me the most.
When I am no longer on military coverage, I will not opt for anymore insurance as I am an invincible. If they try to force coverage on me, I will do something very rash. Very rash indeed.
That's right. Put it all out on the internet just like the other crazies. That way the media can talk about all the warnings your posted online before finally snapping.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
I love the way during his speech before Congress, in one last thrust to try and sell Obamacare, he wrapped up by whipping out the corpse of Ted Kennedy one last time, and that we should all do it for Ted and fulfill his dream.
The Kennedys, any of them, can pay healthcare costs out of pocket, and it's ridiculous for them to use Kennedy's example of caring for his son. There was never any struggle to pay for his son's bill, because he could pay the bill, whatever it was, out of his own pocket.
And then meanwhile, Obama and the other Dems want to sign a bill that gives the American public far inferior coverage to what members of the Senate and Congress have, superior health coverage they fail to give up, refusing to accept the same coverage they want to condemn the rest of us to.
I disagree with Pariah's comment that Obama should be shot.
1) Obama is not the head of the beast, only the figurehead. Others in the shadows are pulling Obama's strings. He has neither the experience or the political skill to be orchestrating this bold power-grab, with barely a year in the Senate before he announced his candidacy, and no doubt pre-occupied with his campaign long before the announcement. He was hand-picked as a PC figurehead, and hard-sold to a reluctant public. (Proven by the fact that Obama's campaign was out-spending McCain's by at least 4-to-1, and Obama still only won by a narrow majority.)
2) If Obama dies, those in the shadows are even more empowered. At best, we end up with Biden or Pelosi.
And most importantly: 3)Violence on Obama is exactly what the crazy-left (and those pulling their puppet-strings) want: an excuse to do a complete lockdown on all dissenting thought, and the justification to make mass arrests and consolidate power. In the model of Hitler consolidating power after burning of the Reichstag.
I agree that Obama is dangerous to our nation's economy, national security and very sovereignty as long as he is in office. And I pray we can survive till 2012. But I draw inspiration from how much resistance and backlash Obama has raised, so early on.
If this healthcare bill passes in any form whatsoever, it is a beach-head for a single-payer system, and its passage will be used to get that Trojan Horse in the door, up and running, and eventually expanded to smother out private insurance over "10, 15, maybe 20 years...", providing healthcare to young Democrat voters (i.e., illegals) while depriving the largest block of Republican voters of coverage to hasten their deaths and declining numbers (i.e., retired voters).
Barney Frank and the President himself have said so repeatedly over the years, on videotape no less. Liberals have absolutely no margin to try to deny this obvious truth. The chasm is visible, between what the Democrats say, and what they actually do.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
