...............The 3 Taboos, Race, Religion, Politics

Bipartisanship— A House United or Divided?

2011-01-28T00:25:00.002-06:00

by LeNora Bowles on Thursday, January 27, 2011

In response to a question posed to me in regard to bipartisanship, and my perspective about the events unfolding in the house, I decided it best to pour my thoughts and the little I remember about the subject matter into this note. I do not profess to be an expert on any topic, frankly some experts frighten me, because of their tendency to remain closed minded about discussion that may go against their interest, belief or experiences. Neither do I profess to special interest, or hidden agendas to trade off for a bill, legislation, earmark, or pork barrel spending. Perhaps I am reminded daily that I do, or should have a voice in a democracy, (I use the word loosely), often tainted with special interest groups along party lines, which may lean in the direction of partisanship orbipartisanship.

It should not come as a surprise that President Obama has been very consistent in his call for bipartisanship—from the campaign trail to the oval office, he has emphasized national unity. Therefore, in the spirit of moving this country forward in a manner of building upon the solid foundation of what was once perceived as the “The land of opportunity,” bipartisanship presents a strong argument. However on the flip side of the coin, just as there are strengths in the concept surrounding a unified party, there exist weaknesses that crumble the foundation from which the framers of the constitution may have envisioned for this country. I suppose bipartisanship taunts special interest groups and mocks those who revel in partisanship. Detractors of bipartisanship have stated that the most successful and innovative government programs were conceived from partisan causes. One argument is that voters may become confused on the policies of their candidates, which is why some individuals strongly criticize bipartisanship, by stating that it only obscures differences between parties—thus creating somewhat of a dilemma when voting for the candidate of their choice. However, the strength of bipartisanship in any political arena is about finding common ground, in terms of achieving political goals.

The concept of bipartisanship leans more into the direction of compromise, in the context of opposing parties, or a two-party system, to bring about ways to achieve goals. Being a numbers person, (accounting professional), and author, I prefer to use the analogy of a system of checks and balances, likened to trying to balance the scales of democracy relative to opposing parties by reconciliation of common ground. Just as the spirit of bipartisanship is needed to bring about a more prosperous America in 2011 and going forward, “We the People” residing in a technological and competitive climate on a local and global scale, all hope for a premise palatable toward innovation and a more prosperous future.

A glance back in time teaches us that in the early 60’s the Senate was said to have rallied and or supported legislation by President Johnson, with a spirit of bipartisanship, and also during Reagan’s era in the early 80’s. Just as previous leaders of this country have called for bipartisanship, President Obama’s vision is to merely put aside matters of party lines, for the good of the country. Switching gears to the State of the Union Address on last evening, in listening to President Obama deliver his speech, it was evident to me that he was laying out his vision, while focusing on how to Rebuild American, in addition to bringing about a sense ‘prosperity.’ Although I flatter myself in thinking that I am the sole recipient of emails generated from the White House, I realize the extent of my ego can be tricky at times, specifically when I consider myself the only name listed on a mass email distribution. I say all of that to say this—in an email received from the desk of President Obama this week, via the Blackberry, the message read as follows—

“We must out-educate, out-compete, and out-innovate the rest of the world. We must deal with our deficit and reform our government, and it will only happen if we come together.”

As a caveat to the quote taken from the email, one has to come to terms with where he or she positions him or herself in the political arena of thought, action and innovation, otherwise the antagonism spawned by subscribing to the ideologies may create more confusion if not clear on the aspirations of the party before affixing the label. To my understanding, a democracy should thrive off the will of the people, and although bipartisanship may appeal to some, there are others who do not choose party lines, because of the notion of bipartisanship throwing a smoke screen of obscurity into the path of accomplishment, particularly during a crisis situation. It may be possible that democracy from their world view is dependent upon partisanship, whereby parties are transparent in their policies or ideals, and that the people living in a democracy in its most original or natural state are entitled to the freedoms of making conscious decisions with regard to government. The concept of democracy is derived from of the inventive minds of the Greeks as a political and philosophical thought. A walk back in time teaches us that Plato (the philosopher), would apply his concept toward democracy as a system of “rule by the governed or people,” although alternative systems were in place such as that of monarchy (rule by the individual), timocracy, (ruling class of property owners), and last but not least, somewhat reminiscent to this discussion, oligarchy (rule by a small elite class).

Fast-forward to 21st century. . .Although bipartisanship hinges on the balance of party lines, and possibly the thoughts of Americans on a local and global scale, I have to admit that I am somewhat torn on the dynamics involved in terms of bipartisanship. Whether one chooses to walk the path of the liberal or conservative, finding common ground, is more often than less debatable, bringing about the frown or grimace upon the face of those who have to decide upon a bill, resolution, or act, in which political parties may not be in agreement. In the wake of the tragic shooting in Tucson, a call for bipartisanship was heightened, as emotions tethered on just how vulnerable and forgiving a people are in a time of crisis, during which party lines are not as significant. My thoughts and prayers remain with Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and other victims of this senseless attack with the hopes of healing and unification among the American people.

In closing—as in anything or matters of political motivation, bipartisanship and partisanship have their pros and cons, and should not be approached with any preconceived notion of thinking that a house united, is a panacea for what ails this country. And yet, a house divided surely cannot withstand a shaky foundation. In the spirit of working toward a more competitive and stronger nation, “divided we stand, and divided we fall, surely has merit. The race to the top as Obama alluded to in his State of the Union address begins with you!

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” ~ Abraham Lincoln

By: LeNora Bowles

***Disclaimer: The views and opinions posted on this network, are those of the writer, and not necessarily the views and opinions of FB friends and family. ***

What is the Separation of Church and State?

2010-11-10T11:59:00.004-06:00

By Austin Cline

What is the separation of church and state? That is a very good question — the separation of church and state is perhaps one of the most misunderstood, misrepresented and maligned concepts in today’s political, legal and religious debates. Everyone has an opinion, but unfortunately, many of those opinions are woefully misinformed.

The separation of church and state is not only misunderstood, it is also exceedingly important. That is probably one of the few points on which everyone on all sides of the debate can readily agree upon — their reasons for agreeing may differ, but they do concur that the separation of church and state is one of the key constitutional principles in American history.

What Are "Church" and "State"?

Understanding the separation of church and state is complicated by the fact that we are using such a simplified phrase. There is, after all, no single “church.” There are many religious organizations in the United States taking different names — church, synagogue, temple, Kingdom Hall and more. There are also many corporate bodies that do not adopt such religious titles but which are nevertheless controlled by religious organizations — for example, Catholic hospitals.
Also, there is no single “state.” Instead, there are multiple levels of government at the federal, state, regional and local level. There is also a great variety of government organizations — commissions, departments, agencies and more. These can all have different levels of involvement and different relationships with the aforementioned religious organizations.

This is important because it underscores the fact that, in the “separation of church and state,” we cannot be talking about a single, literal church and a single, literal state. Those terms are metaphors, meant to point to something larger. The “church” should be construed as any organized religious body with its doctrines/dogmas and “state” should be construed as any governmental body, any government-run organization or any government-sponsored event.
Thus, a more accurate phrase than “separation of church and state” might be something like “separation of organized religion and civil authority,” because religious and civil authorities are not and should not be invested in the same people or organizations. In practice, this means that civil authority cannot dictate to or control organized religious bodies. The state cannot tell religious bodies what to preach, how to preach or when to preach. Civil authority must exercise a “hands off” approach, neither helping nor hindering religion.

Protecting Church and State

Separation of church and state is a two-way street. It isn’t just about restricting what the government can do with religion, but also what religious bodies can do with the government. Religious groups cannot dictate to or control the government. They cannot cause the government to adopt their particular doctrines as policy for everyone, they cannot cause the government to restrict other groups, etc.
The biggest threat to religious freedom is not the government — or at least, not the government acting alone. We very rarely have a situation where secular government officials act to repress any particular religion or religion in general. More common are private religious organizations acting through the government by having their own doctrines and beliefs codified into law or policy.

Thus, the separation of church and state ensures that private citizens, when acting in the role of some government official, cannot have any aspect of their private religious beliefs imposed upon others. School teachers cannot promote their religion to other people’s children. Local officials cannot require certain religious beliefs on the part of government employees. Government leaders cannot make members of other religions feel like they are unwanted or are second-class citizens by using their position to promote particular religious beliefs.

This requires moral self-restraint on government officials, and even to a degree on private citizens — a self-restraint which is necessary for a religiously pluralistic society to survive without descending into religious civil war. It ensures that the government remains the government of all citizens, not the government of one denomination or one religious tradition. It ensures that political divisions not be drawn along religious lines, with Protestants battling Catholics or Christians battling Muslims for “their share” of the public purse.

The separation of church and state a key constitutional liberty which protects the American public from tyranny. It protects all people from the religious tyranny of any one religious group or tradition and it protects all people from a government intent on tyrannizing some or any religious groups.

President Obama gives Bush & Republicans their due credit...

2010-08-31T21:44:00.003-05:00

The "surge" worked HURRAY!!! Tonight Obama gave Bush & the Reps. their credit due and claim...but wait a minute, we weren't supposed to be there in the 1st place? Anyway the lives it cost, 100,000 Iraqi civilians, over 4,400 Americans dead, over 1 million of our finest served in this horrible war, 10s of thousands Soldiers that are permanently disabled, 2 million displaced Christian refugees...and don't forget the $Trillion Dollar price tag added to the US deficit...Thank you Mr Bush & your Republican. click read more

The Rant, The Analysis

2010-08-25T03:14:00.001-05:00

The "N" Word

This most offensive of words in American speech, drenched in blood, dates back to the late 16th century,

Thoughts? Click Here to View the Presentation

An Open Letter To President Obama

2010-08-19T05:30:00.016-05:00

Mr. President you & the Democrats have accomplished much ground breaking achievements for the benefit of America....Flaunt Them!

Please don't let the Republicans get away with their smear machine by lying to the American people. Point out their flaws and misinformation. Point out that the only way they can get elected & re-elected is to use the old "Southern Strategy" that creates wedge issues as they seek to stay away from the real issues that concerns most Americans e.g. jobs and the economy...

Please no more throwing members of your administration & government under the bus simply because they make wild accusations like Mrs Sherrod & others but come to their defense. People respect a leader that stands up for his own.

GO ON THE OFFENSIVE, NO MORE DEFENSE! It's time to score some points with the American people. Use the same tactics they are using against you with one exception, "use the truth". Stick by your principles you believe in, principles that you instilled in the hearts & minds of those who supports you...DO NOT PLAY POLITICS WITH YOUR PRINCIPLES & DO NOT BACK TRACK!!! YOU MUST EARN THE RESPECT OF THE INDEPENDENTS THAT VOTED FOR YOU...

The GOP's strategy is to make you fail & put the burden of such failure on American families. We already had 8yrs of their failure. Americans can't handle another 4yrs of failure because of them. The GOP advocates failure simply to win elections, that is un-patriotic & very selfish!

Please do not continue to try appease the Radical Right, you've proven your point & Americans are watching...bipartisanship it's not going to happen, at least not for now.

Republicans are not interested in bipartisanship unless it serves their own selfish motives...those on the Radical Right, the GOP, did not vote for you anyway and never will. Do not loose the votes of the Americans that did vote for you. You owe it to us!

Point out the specific problems with the party of NO's & THE DO NOTHING attitude but only to obstruct progress that negatively effects lives of us who live on main street...

Point Out their polarization of race. First they alienate & attacked African Americans. Then it's the Hispanics and now American Muslims...

Point Out how they want to change the US Constitution & take away our inalienable rights.

Point Out their "Southern Strategy" and what it means. Point Out how they declared war on millions of the unemployed Americans and the Poor by voting against extended unemployment benefits as well as jobs.

Point Out how they delayed the much needed assistance to our American HEROES who are now sick & destitute, the first responders.

Help Americans to Remember...

Point Out how they drove our economy into the ground two wars one a $TRILLION DOLLAR WAR that we were tricked into by the Republicans without providing a way to pay for those wars and excluded their expense out of the budget....

But above all Point Out The Thousands of American & Iraqi lives that were lost because of that war!

Point Out how they voted against one of the biggest tax breaks in American history directed to the middle class instead of the upper 2%.

Point Out how they voted against supporting & funding our troops.

POINT OUT the fact they have a lack of solutions but only ideology which they themselves don't live up to, except to prolong the suffering of the American people...

POINT THEM OUT, GET LOUD WITH IT & CALL THEM OUT BY NAME!!!

You said yourself that "politics" is something you do well. & it's time to take the gloves off!

The Republicans have no solutions, no plans but POINT OUT YOURS!

I commend you on the great job you are doing governing as you walked into office facing 2 wars & the the worse economy since the "Great Depression" left over by the party of do nothing complicated with Republican obstructions.

May the Lord Jesus Christ Richly Bless you, your family and America!

Glenn Burgess SR

NOW IS THE TIME WE COME TOGETHER

2010-06-24T00:32:00.000-05:00

Now Is The Time To Come Together
The words of "President Obama"

Here are the "Real" Issues

We are in a war on 2 fronts!
   1.8yr War in Iraq
   2. 8yr War in Afghanistan

   3." To Big to Fail" corporations on Wall Street
   4. Record deficit left by the previous Administration

   5. Worst economic downturn since the "Great Depression"
   6. American "Health Care Crisis"

   7. High unemployment In 2009, the Detroit metro area experienced the highest unemployment rate   of the 50   largest metros—15.1%

Oh, don't forget the current Gulf Cost oil spill crisis!

At the hands of an already is a "multi billion dollar" profit earning Corporation, ignoring safety warnings. Why? Because it will slow down production??? looks like that production became a HUGE LIABILITY .for years to come.

The ultimate cost was the 11 souls lost in the initial explosion

" It's hard being a President" Now Days!

The Point is that it doesn't matter who is President, rather it was a Republican OR Democrat in the "White House" These problems will not go poof- and go away in a day, nor 2yrs or More!

Let me ask you...If it took 8 long years to get into this mess, would'nt it be logical to think that it may take more than 1 OR 2yrs? Maybe even 4-8yrs to get out?

These are Deep Seeded Problems!

I Do Not Blindly Trust Our "Gov" and the Office of The President. I am sometimes ashamed of the ruthless behavior & the in-fighting on both sides and the lack of cooperation for the good for the people of the people.

I have observed however, that on the so called "right" attack every step, ever action, every policy, every position this President makes on the issues. They even attack before he tackles the problems. They even see into the future and criticize decisions that he do not even know about. may make and make stuff up! Therefore painting the President as some type of screw up (I can personally relate). It seems to me that the right is hell bent effort on every little and large move that this President makes to paint him as a screw up!

I recall the Haiti earthquake upon where thousands of human beings perished. Upon learning of the tragedy that thousands were killed, I knew somehow that somehow, someway, the so called "right" would politize and play the spin, blame game to somehow to blame this tragedy on Obama as respondsibe for an act of God!

There is a"by any means necessary" climate fostered in Washington to make this President fail, just to regain power on the Hill. But what the supporters of their party fail to realise is that when the President fail, the people pay the high price & suffer by that failure, while the radio shock jocks and tv rodeo clowns are the ones making millions of dollars while they are riding & laughing all the way to the bank on yours and mine's backs.

My point is than no one screws up all of the time even GW.

When this perception of disrespect along with misinformation exist, those who supports President Obama, the so called "Left" has no other choice to not admit their mistakes because all the "bull manure" slung. This also prevents the "Right" to come to the table and do what's best for America for fear their constituents will vote them out of office as traitors to their party.

Both sides seem to have the lack of testosterone to do what's best for the country. The "Right" and their supporters has been very disrespectful to the "Office" of the President. I never have seen in my lifetime, this low level of disrespect to the office in my lifetim It is true that the Dems has thrown rocks @ at Bush and has been disrespectful to him from time to time but not all of the time...There is a culture disrespect that has brought GOP down to new lows against the office of the President, that seems to make it ok to flame the office of the Office. For example McCrystal's open comments even though he himself claims to had voted for the President.

The issue is not about the "Man" in office but the real issue is the respect due to
"The OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"

It is way past time for Americans to realize that they themselves, including supporters of both parties, are being hoodwinked!!!
Get rid of the "Anger" You may feel that your anger is justified, but however we need clear heads and clear minds.to solve our mutual problems, especially the Gulf situation & after I watch the documentary "Gasland" how polluted our drinking water across the Country. "We" need to focus on "issues" that concerns most Americans . It has come to the point you need to fact check & educate ourselves. Then we can. put the issues into perspective.

We the people must realize that in a capitalistic system it's all about the Bottom line $$$ and Wall Street's needs & don't forget "to big to fail" corporations needs comes also 1st! Before the needs, well being and even the lives of Americans, that means "US".

Until "we" understand that big business along with the manipulation of media &amp by these large corporations, ultimately "Big Gov" is controlled by the big guys. They will continue to turn ordinary folks against on each other while these "hustlers" of large corporations have consensual sex in our backside and when they finish, they get us to "do it" to ourselves by voting their puppets in over & over again.

We need to get past labels and ideology such as Democrats on the "Left and Republicans on the "Right" and even the new label of so called "Independents". Realize we all want the best for our families & fellow man, that we are Americans & Place our Faith in GOD & work together!

A country divided against it's self cannot stand.

Obama Will Triumph - So Will America

2010-03-31T23:45:00.094-05:00

The Following Is An Email I Received- Very thought provoking.

Hello,

This was sent to me and I really read it that is not the norm for me but I am so surprise at how the people have been acting about our president. It really amaze me that people with high college degrees thought that this man would be able to solve our problems by walking in a door. Never in my life have I really by so interested in politics at all as I have since this man walk in the door and have incur all the last president problems and the mind set of the people of him really cleaning it up quickly! So as I read this I had to laugh cause this is kinda how I feel. Please read this and pass it if

you like but please send me back what you think on it? now I am sending to republicans and democrats.

By Frank Schaeffer

Before he’d served even one year, President Obama lost the support of the easily distracted left and engendered the white hot rage of the hate-filled right. But some of us, from all walks of life and ideological backgrounds -- including this white, straight, 57-year-old, former religious right wing agitator, now progressive writer and (given my background as the son of a famous evangelical leader), this unlikely Obama supporter -- are sticking with our President. Why?

Because he is succeeding.

We faithful Obama supporters still trust our initial impression of him as a great, good and uniquely qualified man to lead us.

Obama’s steady supporters will be proved right. Obama’s critics will be remembered as easily panicked and prematurely discouraged at best and shriveled hate mongers at worst.

The Context of the Obama Presidency

Not since the days of the rise of fascism in Europe, the Second World War and the Depression has any president faced more adversity. Not since the Civil War has any president led a more bitterly divided country. Not since the introduction of racial integration, has any president faced a more consistently short-sighted and willfully ignorant opposition – from both the right and left.

As the President’s poll numbers have fallen, so has his support from some on the left that were hailing him as a Messiah not long ago; all those lefty websites and commentators that were falling all over themselves on behalf of our first black president during the 2008 election.

The left’s lack of faith has become a self-fulfilling “prophecy”--
snipe at the President and then watch the poll numbers fall and then pretend you didn’t have anything to do with it!

Here is what Obama faced when he took office-- none of which was his fault:

# An ideologically divided country to the point that America was really two countries

# Two wars; one that was mishandled from the start, the other that was unnecessary and immoral

# The worst economic crisis since the depression

# America’s standing in the world at the lowest point in history

# A country that had been misled into accepting the use of torture of prisoners of war

# A health care system in free fall

# An educational system in free fall

# A global environmental crisis of history-altering proportions (about which the Bush administration and the Republicans had done nothing)

# An impasse between culture warriors from the right and left

# A huge financial deficit inherited from the terminally irresponsible Bush administration...

And those were only some of the problems sitting on the President’s desk!

“Help” from the Right?

What did the Republicans and the religious right, libertarians and half-baked conspiracy theorists -- that is what the Republicans were reduced to by the time Obama took office -- do to “help” our new president (and our country) succeed? They claimed that he wasn’t a real American, didn’t have an American birth certificate, wasn’t born here, was secretly a Muslim, was white-hating "racist", was secretly a communist, was actually the Anti-Christ, (!) and was a reincarnation of Hitler and wanted “death panels” to kill the elderly!

They not-so-subtly called for his assassination through the
not-so-subtle use of vile signs held at their rallies and even a
bumper sticker quoting Psalm 109:8.

They organized “tea parties” to sound off against imagined insults and all government in general and gathered to howl at the moon.

They were led by insurance industry lobbyists and deranged (but well financed) “commentators” from Glenn Beck to Rush Limbaugh.

The utterly discredited Roman Catholic bishops teamed up with the utterly discredited evangelical leaders to denounce a president who was trying to actually do something about the poor, the environment, to diminish the number of abortions through compassionate programs to help women and to care for the sick! And in Congress the Republican leadership only knew one word: “No!”

In other words, the reactionary white, rube, uneducated, crazy American far right,combined with the educated but obtuse neoconservative war mongers, religious right shills for big business, libertarian Fed Reserve-hating gold bug, gun-loving crazies, child-molesting acquiescent “bishops”, frontier loons and evangelical gay-hating flakes found one thing to briefly unite them: their desire to stop an uppity black man from succeeding at all costs!

“Help” from the Left?

What did the left do to help their newly elected president? Some of them excoriated the President because they disagreed with the bad choices he was being forced to make regarding a war in Afghanistan
that he’d inherited from the worst president in modern history!

Others stood up and bravely proclaimed that the President’s economic policies had “failed” before the President even instituted them!

Others said that since all gay rights battles had not been fully won within virtually minutes of the President taking office, they’d been “betrayed”! (Never mind that Obama’s vocal support to the gay community is stronger than any other president’s has been. Never mind that he signed a new hate crimes law!)

Those that had stood in transfixed legions weeping with beatific emotion on election night turned into an angry mob saying how "disappointed" they were that they’d not all immediately been translated to heaven the moment Obama stepped into the White House!

Where was the “change”? Contrary to their expectations they were still mere mortals!

And the legion of young new supporters was too busy texting to pay attention for longer than a nanosecond…“Governing”?! What the hell does that word, uh, like mean?”

The President’s critics, left and right, all had one thing in common:

Impatience laced with little-to-no sense of history
(let alone reality) thrown in for good measure.

Then of course there were the white, snide know-it-all commentators/talking heads who just couldn’t imagine that maybe, just maybe they weren’t as smart as they thought they were and certainly not as smart as their president. He hadn’t consulted them, had he?

So he must be wrong!

The Obama critics' ideological ideas defined their idea of reality rather than reality defining their ideas—say, about what is possible in one year in office after the hand that the President had been dealt by fate, or to be exact by the American idiot nation that voted Bush into office…twice!

Meanwhile back in the reality-based community – in just 12 short months -- President Obama:

# Continued to draw down the misbegotten war in Iraq
(But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

# Thoughtfully and decisively picked the best of several bad choices regarding the war in Afghanistan
(But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

# Gave a major precedent-setting speech supporting gay rights (But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

# Restored America ’s image around the globe
(But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

# Banned torture of American prisoners
(But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

# Stopped the free fall of the American economy
(But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

# Put the USA squarely back in the bilateral international community (But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

# Put the USA squarely into the middle of the international effort to halt global warming (But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

# Stood up for educational reform (But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

# Won a Nobel peace prize (But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

# Moved the trial of terrorists back into the American judicial system of checks and balances (But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

# Did what had to be done to start the slow, torturous and almost impossible process of health care reform that 7 presidents had failed to even begin (But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

# Responded to hatred from the right and left with measured good humor and patience (But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

# Stopped the free fall of job losses
(But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

# Showed immense personal courage in the face of an armed and dangerous far right opposition that included the sort of disgusting people that show up at public meetings carrying loaded weapons and carrying Timothy McVeigh-inspired signs about the “blood of tyrants” needing to “water the tree of liberty”… (But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

# Showed that he could not only make the tough military choices but explain and defend them brilliantly

(But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

Other than those "disappointing" accomplishments -- IN ONE YEAR --President Obama “failed”! Other than that he didn’t “live up to expectations”!

Who actually has failed...

...are the Americans that can’t see the beginning of a miracle of national rebirth right under their jaded noses. Who failed are the smart ass ideologues of the left and right who began rooting for this President to fail so that they could be proved right in their dire and morbid predictions. Who failed are the movers and shakers behind our obscenely dumb news cycles that have turned “news” into just more stupid entertainment for an entertainment-besotted infantile country.

Here’s the good news: President Obama is succeeding without the help of his lefty “supporters” or hate-filled Republican detractors!

The Future Looks Good

After Obama has served two full terms, (and he will), after his wisdom in moving deliberately and cautiously with great subtlety on all fronts -- with a canny and calculating eye to the possible succeeds, (it will), after the economy is booming and new industries are burgeoning, (they will be), after the doomsayers are all proved not just wrong but silly: let the record show that not all Americans were panicked into thinking the sky was falling.

Just because we didn’t get everything we wanted in the first short and fraught year Obama was in office, not all of us gave up. Some of us stayed the course. And we will be proved right.

PS. if you agree that Obama is shaping up to be a great president, please pass this on and hang in there! Pass it on anyway to ensure that his “report card” gets the attention it deserves.

Frank Schaeffer is a writer and author of “Patience With God – Faith

For People Who Don’t Like Religion (Or Atheism).”

President Obama's Speech - "The New Strategy"

2009-12-06T05:40:00.005-06:00

By LeNora Bowels December 2, 2009 at 9:14am

After watching President Obama's speech I wanted to respond to this question

on last evening, but thought it best that I ponder further over my response. My

knee-jerk reaction was filled with much emotion surrounding President

Obama’s speech in terms of increasing stability within Afghanistan. I walked

away from the speech with many questions, although an excellent orator, the

President's, speech created somewhat of a premise for me to ask within my own asking...

“How do you fight an enemy who’s not afraid to die?” Is the objective to “win’ this war, or ‘to end the war?” As the words flowing from the lips of President Obama “we must end the war,” weighed heavy on my mind, I could not initially grasp the concept, neither did I have any alternatives. Perhaps because of thinking that U.S. troops currently within Afghanistan, face this so-called ghost of insurgence daily. Further, many of the troops already occupying Afghanistan (approximately 65,000 troops) do not know the lay of the land, which creates somewhat of a handicap for them, lending itself to having to rely more on Afghan allies. From my standpoint, the surge of 30,000 troops, speaks to higher numbers, yet, the numbers in terms of the Taliban/Al-Qaida, (insurgence) speaks to possibilities of higher casualties within the ranks, which saddens me.

The deployment next year in the fastest pace possible is clear to me; however, I question the pull-out within the 18 month window, in terms of how the pull-out will systematically flow. Further, issues surrounding insurgence in terms of the Taliban, and all of the ramifications surrounding the reasons why more troops are needed in Afghanistan i.e. the dismantling of Al-Qaida within 18 months is in my opine giving the enemy far too much information. As I think more about the strategy, my thinking is those insurgences will more than likely press harder against U.S. troops already occupying Afghanistan, which may require U.S. troops having to be deployed sooner. Now these are just my opinions, no expert opinion, or 'fact' just what I meditated over on last evening, as I had to research and write a paper on the Taliban a year ago!

In hindsight, I recall the Bush administration and hearing the term “shock and awe!” the mantra was that our U.S. troops will go in and come out within a few months, however, a few months culminated into a continuum of warring factions. On a realistic level, “is it truly possible to deploy 30,000 U.S. forces ‘to go in and come out’ within the span of 18 months?” How does this happen, or how would this be strategically done when faced with daily insurgence, in other words, a time-frame against a Jihad could be infinite! Again, I ask one of the most perplexing questions I have come across, “How do you fight an enemy, who is not afraid to die!” A holy war as many of the Afghan people look upon as martyrdom.

Disclaimer: These are my thoughts and not necessarily the views and opinions of friends in my network! I would appreciate feedback, as I appreciate hearing your perspectives.

LeNora : - )

Look for LeNora on facebook!

Health Care Reform, Are You For It OR Against It? Why?

2009-11-09T02:10:00.002-06:00

Too many Americans can't get the affordable care they need when they fall ill. The number of uninsured Americans are growing, premiums are skyrocketing, and more people are being denied coverage every day. A moral imperative by any measure. Health insurance premiums has double over the past eight years. More than half of all bankruptcies are due to extraordinary high medical bills. Co pays and deductibles are on the steady increase. Many folks that are taking life saving prescription drugs are having to make a financial decision and choose rather to feed their family or purchase medicine. Often they cut in half their medications, against their doctor's advice in order to make dollars stretch.

What you need to know about health care reform

By Elizabeth Cohen
CNN Senior Medical Correspondent

(CNN) -- Five years from now, there's an excellent chance you won't have the same health insurance you have (or don't have) right now. That's because members of Congress are gearing up to reform the U.S. health care system, and unlike in 1993 when then-first lady Hillary Clinton tried her hand at changing the medical system, this time the important players -- doctors, insurance companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers -- seem to be on board. You heard a lot about health care reform this week, and you'll be hearing even more in the months to come. It's an incredibly confusing, complex issue, so in this week's Empowered Patient, we break it down for you with 10 frequently asked questions about health care reform.

Overhauling health care is key to U.S. economic stability, President Obama tells doctors Monday.

1. Why is health care reform such a hot issue right now?
Fewer and fewer Americans have health insurance, and therefore cannot afford good medical care. Nearly 46 million Americans have no insurance, and 25 million more are underinsured. One major reason for this crisis is that many employers have stopped offering insurance to employees because of the high cost. In the United States, total health care spending was $2.4 trillion in 2007 -- or $7,900 per person -- according to an analysis published in the journal Health Affairs. The United States spends 52 percent more per person than the next most costly nation, Norway, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. There's little debate that health care reform is necessary -- President Obama, Republican and Democratic members of Congress, the American Medical Association and America's Health Insurance Plans, which represents the insurance industry, all have agreed the system needs to be changed, although they disagree on how to do it.

2. So let's start with Obama. What are his plans for revamping the system?
A central point of the president's plan is to create a government-sponsored health insurance program that would be an option for all Americans, similar to how Medicare is now an option for Americans over age 65. He has also said he'd "like to see" prohibitions against insurers discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, and incentives for people to use preventive services and wellness plans.

3. How does the president plan to pay for this?
Obama said he's already identified "hundreds of billions of dollars" worth of savings in the federal budget that could help finance health care reform, such as rooting out waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid. He's also proposed reducing tax deductions for high-income Americans.

4. What do the Republicans think of Obama's plan?
In particular, they don't like the idea of having a government-sponsored health insurance program for all Americans. They fear employers would opt for the government-run insurance over private insurance because the government option would most likely be less expensive, but Republicans say it would also be lower quality.

5. Since they don't like Obama's ideas, how would Republicans like to reform health care?
Republicans think Obama's plan is costly and will make health insurance more expensive, not less. In a plan outlined this week, House Republicans proposed individual tax breaks for buying health insurance and "pools" of states and small business to get lower-cost health care plans. They also proposed increasing incentives for people to build health savings accounts, allowing dependent children to stay on parents' policies until age 25 and encouraging employers to reward employees for improved health.

6. I'm happy with the insurance I receive from my employer. What would health care reform mean for me?
If you receive high-quality health insurance from your employer, Obama said, his plan won't change that, and you can still keep your insurance and your doctors. Republicans, however, said that if Obama gets his way, there's a good chance your employer will stop buying the private insurance you have now and instead opt for the less-expensive government plan.

7. I have a pre-existing condition and can't get health insurance. Will health care reform help me?
You have a terrible problem and you're in good company. Millions of people who don't get insurance through their employer try to get insurance on their own and are turned down because they have a pre-existing condition. Obama said at the Green Bay town hall meeting that under his reforms, no insurance plan "would be able to deny coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions," but he didn't explain how he would force insurance companies to insure people with pre-existing health problems. Similarly, Boehner wrote on his blog that "quality health coverage must exist for every American, regardless of pre-existing health conditions," but did not explain how he would pay to insure people with pre-existing conditions.

8. How do doctors feel about health care reform?
The American Medical Association said while it believes in health care reform, "the AMA does not believe that creating a public health insurance option ... is the best way to expand health insurance coverage." The AMA has told members of Congress that doctors fear a new government-sponsored health insurance program would reimburse them at Medicare rates. "Medicare reimbursement rates have not kept pace with the cost of practice," AMA President Dr. Nancy Nielsen told CNN earlier this week. "Our Medicare rates are back at 2001 rates, and the reality is, that's not where our rent is, that's not where the electricity is. The system for paying doctors is a broken system, and everybody acknowledges it." Other doctors' groups, however, support the idea. The American Academy of Family Physicians, the National Physicians Alliance and other groups put out a statement of support this week for Obama's plan. "Having the choice of a public health insurance plan will help make health care more affordable for patients, foster greater competition in the insurance market and guarantee that quality, affordable coverage will be there for our patients no matter what happens," they wrote in a joint statement..

9. Obama has mentioned high health care costs in McAllen, Texas, several times. What's up with that?
According to research conducted at the Dartmouth Institute, the average per person health costs for McAllen are sky-high compared with costs in other cities. In McAllen, the average Medicare beneficiary spends $15,758 per year, while the average Medicare patient in LaCrosse, Wisconsin, spends $6,412 per year. Another comparison: The cost in Miami, Florida, is $18,170, compared with $7,478 in Portland, Oregon. Dartmouth researchers believe doctors in high-priced cities tend to refer to specialists more and are more likely to put patients in the hospital rather than handling their problems on an outpatient basis.

10. How do health care costs in the U.S. compare with costs in other countries?
In the United States, every person spends on average $6,714 for health care. That's significantly higher than in the United Kingdom, where $2,760 per person is spent; or in France, where the cost is $3,449 per person; or in Canada, where medical costs are $3,678 per person, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. While some would argue that medical care is better in the United States than in these other countries, others would say the opposite is true. For example, the United States ranks 50th in life expectancy, and 180th infant mortality (meaning 179 countries have higher infant mortality rates such as Angola and Turkey and 43 countries have lower infant mortality rates such as France and Sweden) according to the CIA World Factbook.

From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser

Nearly six in ten Americans want Congress to continue working on health care reform bills that have been passed through various committees, according to a new CNN poll.

Washington (CNN) - Nearly six in ten Americans want Congress to continue working on health care reform bills that have been passed through various committees, according to a new national poll.

Full results (pdf)
Fifty-nine percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey say lawmakers should continue working on the legislation, a rise of 6 points since August. But only a quarter say those bills should be passed pretty much as is, with a third suggesting that Congress should make major changes. The poll also indicates that one in four say lawmakers should start from scratch and 15 percent want Congress to stop all work on health care reform.

The survey's release Friday morning comes one day before the full House of Representatives is expected to hold a floor vote on the Democrats health care reform bill.

"Most of the Democrats interviewed support some form of heath care reform, but the divisions within congressional Democrats are reflected in the party nationwide," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Forty percent of the Democratic rank and file want Congress to approve the proposals that have passed through committee with only minor changes. But an equal number of Democrats nationwide want Congress to make major changes to those proposals before approving them."
According to the poll, 45 percent support President Barack Obama's proposals to reform health care, with 53 percent opposed to his plans. This is the first time since the president's early September prime time address a joint session of Congress on health care that a majority of people questioned in a CNN survey oppose Obama's proposals.

"Six in ten independents say they oppose Obama's health care proposals," says Holland. "That's a nine point increase since October."

The House bill that faces a probable Saturday vote contains a version of the public option, an insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private insurance companies. According to the poll, 55 percent support the public option, with 44 percent opposed.

Rising health care costs could be a factor in support for Congress to take action.
"The appetite for some version of health care reform may be explained by the fact that 55 percent of Americans with health insurance say that their insurance company has raised rates, deductibles or co-payments within the past year," says Holland.

No House Republicans are expected to vote Saturday for the Democrats health care bill.
"With any health care bill likely to face near-unanimous opposition from the GOP, only one in three Americans say that the Republicans in Congress are doing enough to cooperate with Barack Obama. Is Obama doing enough to reach out to Republicans? Half say yes; half say no," adds Holland.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted October 30-November 1, with 1,018 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
CNN poll • Congress • Health care

Sources: Poloci, Dems Lock Up 218
By PATRICK O'CONNOR & JOHN BRESNAHAN & JONATHAN ALLEN | 11/7/09 8:14 PM

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took to the House floor about 6:30 p.m. to say, 'Today we will pass the Affordable Health Care for America Act … We will make history. We will also make progress for America's working families.' Photo: AP Hours before an expected vote on a sweeping health care bill, House Democrats believe they've secured the 218 votes they need to approve the bill, several party insiders said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took to the House floor about 6:30 p.m. to say, “Today we will pass the Affordable Health Care for America Act… We will make history. We will also make progress for America's working families."

In response to a question about whether the bill would pass when she brought it up, Pelosi told reporters Saturday night, "That is our expectation."

Thirty-two Democrats have publicly declared their opposition to the bill, giving party leaders the narrowest possible margin to push the bill across the finish line. But numerous sources said Democrats believe they do have the votes after a day of intense lobbying of wavering Democrats.

Votes have a tendency to shift in the final hours before a controversial vote, but party leaders were expressing more genuine confidence as the sun set over the Capitol than they had exhibited all week. Word started spreading around 5 p.m. that leaders had the votes they needed to pass the $1.2 trillion bill.

Pelosi had all but predicted passage of a House health reform bill earlier Saturday, following an emotional appeal from President Barack Obama to fellow Democrats urging them to “answer the call of history” and vote yes.

But she and her top lieutenants earlier stopped short of saying they had the 218 votes needed for passage – signaling a day of vote-wrangling and arm-twisting that has stretched into Saturday night.

And Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami declined to comment. “We are not commenting on whip counts,” Elshami said.

The stakes for Obama and Pelosi are high – and Obama has made health care his signature legislative priority this year. But vulnerable Democrats’ concerns about of backing the $1.2 trillion measure increased after Tuesday’s Democratic election washout and Friday’s unemployment rate showed unemployment rising above 10 percent for the time in a generation.

Obama urged Democrats not to pass up the chance to make history.

“Now’s the time to finish the job,” Obama said in the Rose Garden, following a 30-minute closed-door meeting with the House Democratic caucus on Capitol Hill.

“I reminded them that opportunities like this come around maybe once in a generation,” Obama said. “This is their moment, this is our moment, to live up to the trust that the American people have placed in us — even when it's hard; especially when it's hard. This is our moment to deliver.”

In his last-minute appeal in the Cannon House Office Building, Obama steered clear of legislative details to focus on the historic impact of the vote, comparing this reform push to the establishment of Social Security and Medicare – and reminding Democrats that both were criticized by those who predicted they would eventually lead to the country's collapse.
Obama also reminded them that voting no on the health care bill wouldn’t insulate them from Republican attacks anyway.

“Are we going to stop now, or push forward?” Obama asked.

“Push forward,” a dozen or so Democrats shouted back.

Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) said he thought Obama may have shifted some undecided Democrats into the "yes" column. "I think there were a number of folks in there moved by what [Obama] said, no question about it," Crowley said.

Health Care Reform Passes House!

The Deception Behind "The Obama Deception" 詐欺

2009-10-18T03:32:00.033-05:00

MAGNA EST VERITAS, ET PREVALEBIT - "Truth is mighty, and it shall prevail."

Alex Jones & Jason Bermas are the producers of the "Obama Deception" (and also run a conspiracy website called infowars.com) video floating around on the internet and dvd depicting the President of the US as a member of the Illuminati and throw George Bush under the bus as a member as well. The paranoia that this video brings is the reason that we see this humongus backlash against the 1st African American President of the United States...My question is where was all this furor under George Bush, who was voted in 2 times by many that are now attacking Obama? So I researched the answers for myself and here are my findings.

"Hardfire" debates Jason Bermas regarding his 911 conspiracy video "Loose Change" and his position.VERY EYE OPENING Watch>>

The original film was edited and re-released as "Loose Change": 2nd Edition, and then subsequently edited a third time for the 2nd Edition Recut, each time to tighten the focus on certain key areas and to correct some inaccurate claims and remove copyrighted material. Loose Change: Final Cut, deemed "the third and final release of this documentary series"^[2] was released on DVD and Web-streaming format on November 11, 2007.^[3] Despite the title, however, a new version of the film, Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup was released on September 22, 2009.^[4]

Journalists,^[5]^[6]^[7] researchers,^[8]^[9] as well as scientists and engineers^[10] have spoken out against the film's claims about the September 11 attacks. From Wikipedia

The Obama Deception Debunked Part I

This is written by a conservative who voted for John McCain
Since this movie was pushed by 9-11 Truth Groups at tea parties on Wednesday, and now is being advertised on both Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck's radio programs I thought I would discuss the film.
Read More

View The Alex Jones Deception
This guy is full of paranoia, but you be the judge.

Note: On the eve of the new yr 2000 (y2k]. The man that so many misguided people take for gospel on his info wars website and the "The Obama Deception" did a classic Orson Wells "World of The Worlds" radio show literally sending thousands of his listeners into panic. He stated that the New World Order was coming to full fruition. But don't take my word for it, listen for yourself.

Jones’s roots are very much on the far right. He represents an old strain of American conservatism--isolationist, anti-Wall Street, paranoid about elite conspiracies--that last flowered during the John Birch Society’s heyday. He began his radio broadcasting career in 1996, in his early twenties, with the Austin-based show "The Final Edition," which promulgated all sorts of black-helicopter theories about Bill Clinton. Steeped in the rhetoric of the militia movement, he’s long been a champion of Randy Weaver, the white supremacist whose wife and son were killed in 1992 by federal agents at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. (He’s asserted that the people behind Ruby Ridge and Waco were also behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombings--"Clinton’s Reichstag.")

Unlike most Clinton-haters, Jones (who didn’t respond to interview requests) hated George W. Bush just as much. To him, both Democrats and Republicans are puppets of the same set of rapacious moneymen who have hatched the New World Order conspiracy. So, when the World Trade Center was attacked again in 2001, Jones didn’t hesitate to blame the government for what he saw as an atrocity perpetrated by the global elites in their drive to enslave the world’s population.

But, since Obama’s election, the ridicule has died down. On March 15, Jones released a documentary called The Obama Deception, which has been widely advertised in conservative media and viewed more than four million times on YouTube. The Obama Deception is basically a more detailed version of the dystopian scenario promoted night after night on Beck. Arguing that Obama is the front man for an oligarchy working to create a planetary totalitarian state, it is like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion stripped of any reference to Jews.
Three days after The Obama Deception was released, the online Fox News show "Freedom Watch"--hosted by the network’s senior judicial analyst, Andrew Napolitano--did a joint broadcast with Jones. "I am so happy because we’re doing something different right now," Napolitano announced at the start of his March 18 program. "We are simulcasting with the one, the only, the great Alex Jones on Alex Jones radio!"

Until recently, Jones’s search for mainstream allies has been less than fruitful. During the Bush years, when the conservative movement acknowledged Jones at all, it was to mock and revile him. In March 2006, Sean Hannity ridiculed Charlie Sheen for spinning September 11 conspiracy theories on Jones’s show. In May 2007, Michelle Malkin argued that Ron Paul’s associations with Jones and the 9/11 Truth movement should disqualify him from participating in GOP primary debates. Last year, Bill O’Reilly ran outtakes from Jones’s interview with fellow Truther Willie Nelson on a segment about "the dumbest things that have been said in the past three months."Source Truther Consequences

More on the disinformation of Alex Jones - The Obama Deception, Debunked Click here

Black helicopter alert! Conservative media suggest Obama supporting one-world government! Continue>>

Alex Jones publishes fake interview of President Obama with ...Alex Jones, the controversial talk radio host and operator of conspiracy websites like Infowars.com and Prisonplanet.com , sparked outrage today by ...And yet his cult followers still stand behind this deceiver!

Here is an email that I received from a dear Facebook friend and my reply:

October 17 at 11:37pm

JFK Secret Society Speech on you tube. Please watch it.They killed him and because he would not go along with them and they shot Reagan too, but he lived and conformed to what they wanted. Daddy Bush in it all. There is a pic of Bush then CIA at the book depository.Please watch it.Baby Bush W did go to Bible study 2 years and so called learned about what Christians believed. Some say he ws born again ,some think it was a act. Only God knows.

Lucy, thank you very much. I have never heard this speech. I will include my thoughts regarding this speech on my up coming blog.

I listened to 2 edited versions of the Presidents speech and 1 unedited version. The 1st edited version made me think. The 2nd version seem to be sensationalized.

The 3rd unedited version opened my eyes. Go listen to the unedited version of the Kennedy speech at the Kennedy library online.

The edited version of the late President's speech is a horrible manipulation of the truth. Kennedy was referring to the closed society of the USSR and Cuba and the conspiracy of spreading communism at the height of the "Cold War" which eventually led into the Cuban missile crisis. These people are trying to make you afraid by lying to you.

I have included the link directly to his speech online at the Kennedy Library.
I have included President Kennedy's unedited speech

You are a very sweet soul and I honestly feel that the truth is what you seek and desire.
And so do I. For that reason I will do my best to keep an open mind as I seek the truth but we are only human.

Good Bless You and Your Family,
Glenn SR

Note: As I did my initial internet search for info wars debunked on google and on youtube. This organization as arranged that their "Obama Deception Video" to appear. I also tried the deception behind the Obama deception and the initial description would read something like the fraud exposed to the Obama Deception. But once I enter into the website it turns out to be a plug for their movie, "The Obama Deception" These folks has clearly gone through the expense and work to rig the search engines with false results, anticipating someone like myself, wanting to evaluate opposing views to do an honest research on their organization and their deceptive movie.

Final thoughts. Obiviously Alex Jones and infowars.com, "The Obama Deception" Cannot be taken as facts but as fables. It is my conclusion Jones & Bermas makes a living hyping up conspiracy theories. It's all about the money. Click here and see for yourself.

Top Ten Obama Conspiracy Predictions for 2009

Update: On what sources does the speaker base his facts? Is there something in it for him - a higher stock price, an advertising fee, or someone else's gratitude? Or is he simply biased because of the people he knows, the company he works for, or the attitudes he picked up at home?

Continue>>

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15

White House Escalates War of Words With FAUX (FOX) News!

2009-10-13T02:04:00.056-05:00

Is Fox News "Fair & Balance"
You Be The Judge!

Update 10/21/09: Fox News suspicious of Chamber defections, but network cheered AARP membership losses

October 21, 2009 9:03 am ET — 28 Comments

Obama takes aim at Fox News

Posted: June 17th, 2009 12:34 PM ET

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

Obama says Fox News is 'entirely devoted' to attacking his administration.

(CNN) – Brushing off suggestions Tuesday the media is not critical enough of his administration, President Obama couldn't help but take aim at one cable news channel in particular.
"It's very hard for me to swallow that one," Obama told CNBC when asked whether he thinks the media is too easy on him. "First of all, I've got one television station entirely devoted to attacking my administration."
The interviewer quickly assumed Obama was referring to Fox News, a suggestion the president didn't disagree with.
"Well, that's a pretty big megaphone," he said. "And you'd be hard-pressed, if you watched the entire day, to find a positive story about me on that front."
"We welcome people who are asking us some, you know, tough questions," he continued. "And I think that I've been probably as accessible as any president in the first six months–press conferences, taking questions from reporters, being held accountable, being transparent about what it is that we're trying to do. I think that, actually, the reason that people have been generally positive about what we've tried to do is they feel as if I'm available and willing to answer questions, and we haven't been trying to hide them all. "
Obama struck a similar tone on the matter last month in his appearance before the White House Correspondents Dinner, during which he joked to the crowd, "Most of you covered me; all of you voted for me, apologies to the Fox table."

When he goes on Fox, he understands he's not going on it really as a news network at this point, he's going on to debate the opposition.

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn slammed Fox News in an interview on CNN with Howie Kurtz this morning, saying that Fox News "is more a wing of the Republican Party" than an objective news organization.

"The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party," Dunn said.
This follows up on Dunn's comment to Time earlier this week that Fox News is "opinion journalism masquerading as news." And as we've reported before, the White House and Fox News don't have the warmest relationship to start with.

But this morning, Dunn seems to have taken the White House's criticism of Fox News to the next level. For instance, she said that when President Obama talks to Fox News, he approaches it differently than other cable networks.

Fox News Boycott

Selective Memories of Bill O’Reilly and Brit Hume

Posted: 13 Oct 2009 04:25 PM PDT

White House communications director Anita Dunn called Fox News “a wing of the Republican Party.” Apparently, in reponse to this, Bill O’Reilly and Brit Hume desperately tried to convince their audience of something else…

O’REILLY: Now you and I came up in the old school, where we were taught as a reporter you should be skeptical of everybody. I mean, that’s your job as a reporter.

HUME: Right.

O’REILLY: To be skeptical, skeptical of the Democrats, skeptical of the Republicans. It doesn’t really matter. And I have to say that when President Bush was in trouble in Iraq, this network and this program and your program, as well, routinely, routinely hammered President Bush on Iraq.

HUME: Well, we certainly — we were very faithful about covering all the bad news that came out of Iraq.

O’REILLY: Absolutely.

If by “hammered” O’Reilly means promoted the falsehoods that convinced 80% of those who relied on Fox News of why we went to war with Iraq, then sure. When other networks reported on violence, O’Reilly said it was “because they want to embarrass the Bush administration” and that reporting on daily bombings had “little news value.” Source; Fox News Boycott

Update Fox News suspicious of Chamber defections, but network cheered AARP membership losses

October 21, 2009 9:03 am ET

Following reports that the White House has sidestepped the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to meet directly with CEOs about health care reform and that the Chamber believes the White House has encouraged defections of its members because of its positions on health care reform and other issues, Fox News figures and guests have asserted as fact that the Obama administration has urged these defections and have denounced the alleged White House strategy as, in the words of Charles Krauthammer, "Chicago-level politics." However, when reporting in August that 60,000 members had left AARP since July 1 because of AARP's support for health care reform, Fox News cheered the defections as being the result of, in Sean Hannity's words, AARP's "love affair" with President Obama and repeatedly hosted AARP defectors, who often fearmongered about the effects of health care reform on seniors.

Continue Reading>>

Update White House advisers say Fox News is not news

By ANN SANNER, Associated Press Writer Ann Sanner, Associated Press Writer – Sun Oct 18, 2:34 pm ET

WASHINGTON – White House advisers pledged on Sunday to book administration officials on Fox News despite claims by the president's inner circle that the cable network is a GOP mouthpiece whose programming "is geared toward making money."
Read more>>

Update:
Morris' dubious poll numbers: claims Fox viewers are White House "base" in effort to defend his employer
During the October 19 edition of Hannity, Fox News political analyst Dick Morris, in an effort to defend his network against criticism from the White House, claimed that Fox News' audience is the White House's "political base." However, polling indicates that Fox News viewers favored both John McCain and George W. Bush by nearly 10 to 1, and more than three times as many Republicans as Democrats consider Fox News to be their main source of news; polling also indicates that Fox News viewers are routinely more misinformed than consumers of other outlets on issues such as health care and Iraq. Read More

Keep an eye out for our next post!

Continue >>

Republicans, listen up, "Keep on acting a fool over the Olympics, Nobel Peace Prize, If You Want...

2009-10-11T22:16:00.013-05:00

In the meantime, the President's polling numbers are going up!

Conservatives and Republicans cheering that the United States of America lost the Olympic bid was epic FAILURE, on your part. Who in their right mind goes against their own country? That bitterness surely is not sitting well in the heart land.

Conservatives and Republicans whining and having a hissy fit over President Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize does not bode well for you, either. Mr. Obama did not campaign for this award, had no idea that he would get this award, but to react like the sun and moon was falling from the sky, that behavior is a bit much. As Americans, we should be PROUD of our President receiving this monumental award. It has proven that the United States of America is moving in a new direction, away from the disastrous George W. Bush era. Your nastiness is not helping your party, one bit. Especially for the elusive independent voter, who thinks that your rhetoric is bat shit crazy!!!

in reference to: This Week With Barack Obama: Republicans, listen up, "Keep acting a fool over the Olympics, Nobel Peace Prize, if you want..." (view on Google Sidewiki)

Keep an eye out for our next post: "Is Fox News Fair & Balance?" Click here to Follow This Blog!

Lack of health insurance now more lethal

2009-10-09T13:26:00.011-05:00

"A study published online today estimates nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002."- Harvard study finds nearly 45,000 excess deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage | Physicians for a National Health Program (view on Google Sidewiki)

What would a Republican healthcare bill look like?

2009-10-08T20:27:00.009-05:00

Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell of Ky. gestures during a news conference on health care reform legislation on Oct. 2 in Washington.

(Evan Vucci/AP)

GOP’s healthcare vision: light on mandates

in reference to:

"What would a Republican healthcare bill look like?"

- What would a Republican healthcare bill look like? | csmonitor.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

AP Poll: Obama's job approval rises amid concerns

2009-10-06T22:05:00.003-05:00

I sure would had hated to have his job when he took office. Let's see, 2 wars at the cost of about $1 trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives), saddled the country with $43 billion a year in unfunded Medicare mandates and another $1.7 trillion in unfunded tax cuts for the rich ($2.5 trillion according to a new study by Citizens for Tax Justice ) — then followed with the prospect of economic collapse, the worse or even worser than the great depression.
in reference to:

"An Associated Press-GfK poll says 56 percent of those surveyed in the past week approve of Obama's job performance, up from 50 percent in September. It's the first time since he took office in January that his rating has gone up."
- AP Poll: Obama's job approval rises amid concerns - Yahoo! News (view on Google Sidewiki)

Top GOP Rep. Concedes Party Should Have Fixed Health Care While In Power

How Healthcare Reform Could Get You Hired

2009-10-06T17:11:00.004-05:00

In the debate over healthcare reform, references to outcomes mostly have to do with patients. But the impending overhaul of the health insurance system may lead to very different outcomes in employment
in reference to:

"In the debate over healthcare reform, references to outcomes mostly have to do with patients. But the impending overhaul of the health insurance system may lead to very different outcomes in employment"
- How Healthcare Reform Could Get You Hired - US News and World Report (view on Google Sidewiki)

Health Insurance Reform, Small Business

2009-10-05T00:41:00.006-05:00

STAND WITH DR DEAN

WHERE CONGRESS STANDS

in reference to:

Want to know where Congress stands on the public option?
It's time to get your senators on the record. Email four simple questions to your senators right now."
- Stand with Dr Dean (view on Google Sidewiki)

Poll Finds Majority Americans Support Health Insurance Reform

2009-10-04T07:03:00.004-05:00

65 PERCENT FAVOR THE PUBLIC OPTION

in reference to:

"September 25th, 2009 by Karina

A CBS/New York Times poll released today shows widespread support for reforming the health insurance system – including an overwhelming number of people who favor a public health insurance option and other components included in the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act:"
- The Gavel » Blog Archive » New Poll Finds Majority of Americans Support Health Insurance Reform (view on Google Sidewiki)

Health Overhaul Is Drawing Close to Floor Debate
READ MORE>

Newsmax Column Suggesting Military Coup Against Obama!

2009-10-01T03:50:00.000-05:00

I am an avid supporter of Health Care Reform, However the conservatives are showing off their true colors. Something is wrong America. Perhaps indeed the last days of Bible prophecy?

Click Here:This is the full text of John L. Perry's column on Newsmax which suggests that a military coup to "resolve the Obama problem" is becoming more possible and is not "unrealistic." Perry also writes that a coup, while not "ideal," may be preferable to "Obama's radical ideal" -- and would "restore and defend the Constitution." Newsmax has since removed the column from its website.

When does free speech become dangerous?

Statement by U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on the Threat of Right-Wing Extremism

Release Date: April 15, 2009
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010

The primary mission of this department is to prevent terrorist attacks on our nation. The document on right-wing extremism sent last week by this department’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis is one in an ongoing series of assessments to provide situational awareness to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on the phenomenon and trends of violent radicalization in the United States. I was briefed on the general topic, which is one that struck a nerve as someone personally involved in the Timothy McVeigh prosecution.

Let me be very clear: we monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States. We don’t have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence.
We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not – nor will we ever – monitor ideology or political beliefs. We take seriously our responsibility to protect the civil rights and liberties of the American people, including subjecting our activities to rigorous oversight from numerous internal and external sources.

I am aware of the letter from American Legion National Commander Rehbein, and my staff has already contacted him to set up a meeting next week once I return from travel. I will tell him face-to-face that we honor veterans at DHS and employ thousands across the department, up to and including the Deputy Secretary.

As the department responsible for protecting the homeland, DHS will continue to work with its state and local partners to prevent and protect against the potential threat to the United States associated with any rise in violent extremist activity.

###

This page was last reviewed/modified on April 15, 2009.

Read The DHS Report For Yourself Click Here

Beware of False & Misleading News!!!

2009-10-01T01:37:00.026-05:00

Reality Check: Trying to Turn a Point of Pride into a Moment of Shame

Posted by Jesse Lee
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2009

Last night Fox News continued its disregard for the facts in an attempt to smear the Administration's efforts to win the Olympics for the United States. In the past, hosting the Olympics has been a source of pride and unity for the country, but once again Fox News' Glenn Beck program has shown that nothing is worthy of respect if it can be used as part of a partisan attack to boost ratings

RHETORIC: BECK SAID VANCOUVER LOST $1 BILLION WHEN IT "HAD THE OLYMPICS." Glenn Beck said, "Vancouver lost, how much was it? they lost a billion dollars when they had the Olympics." [Transcript, Glenn Beck Show, 9/29/09]

REALITY: VANCOUVER'S OLYMPICS WILL NOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL 2010. Vancouver will host the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games from February 12 – 28, 2010 and March 12-21, 2010, respectively. [Vancouver2010.com, accessed 9/29/09

RHETORIC: VALERIE JARRETT "WAS LAST SEEN WITH THE NEA." Beck's guest, FOX News contributor Pat Caddell, said, "[Obama] is going to go [to Copenhagen] with Valerie Jarrett who was last seen with the NEA pumping up their use of, you know, money." [Transcript, Glenn Beck Show, 9/29/09]

REALITY: VALERIE JARRETT WAS NOT ON THE NEA CONFERENCE CALL. Valerie Jarrett was not a participant in the August 10, 2009 United We Serve/NEA conference call.

RHETORIC: CHICAGO IS CLOSING THE GOVERNMENT SEVERAL DAYS A WEEK BECAUSE THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO BE OPEN. Beck's guest Caddell said, "Chicago is closing the government several days a week because they cannot afford to be open. They are going to go and reward -- this is the biggest scandal." [Transcript, Glenn Beck Show, 9/29/09]

REALITY: CHICAGO HAS HAD ONE REDUCED-SERVICE DAY IN 2009, AND WILL HAVE TWO MORE ON THE FRIDAY AFTER THANKSGIVING AND ON CHRISTMAS EVE. On August 17, 2009, CBS Chicago reported, "If you planned to check out a library book, visit a city clinic or have your garbage picked up on Monday, you're out of luck. The City of Chicago is basically closed for business on Aug. 17, a reduced-service day in which most city employees are off without pay. City Hall, public libraries, health clinics and most city offices will be closed. Emergency service providers including police, firefighters and paramedics are working at full strength, but most services not directly related to public safety, including street sweeping, will not be provided. That also includes garbage pickup. Residents who receive regular collection on Mondays should expect trash to be picked up on Tuesday. Some other customers may experience a one-day delay as collectors catch up. As part of the 2009 budget, three reduced-service days were planned for 2009, days which are unpaid for all affected employees -- the Friday after Thanksgiving; Christmas Eve; and New Year's Eve. The City Council recently approved moving the reduced-service day planned for New Year's Eve to Monday. The 2009 budget anticipates saving $8.3 million due to the reduced-service days. In addition to reduced service days, all non-union employees were asked to take a series of furlough days and unpaid holidays, and most non-sworn union employees agreed to similar unpaid time off." [CBS Chicago, 8/17/09]

RHETORIC: VALERIE JARRETT WILL BENEFIT FINANCIALLY. Beck asked, "Is it possible that she is going to benefit if the Olympics come to Chicago?" Caddell responded, "Well, that’s the word. She has certainly had a lot of dealings going on in real estate." [Transcript, Glenn Beck Show, 9/29/09]

REALITY: UPON ENTERING GOVERNMENT, VALERIE JARRETT DIVESTED ALL HER REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT HOLDINGS EXCEPT FOR A SINGLE INVESTMENT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OLYMPIC BID.

Valerie Jarrett divested all her investment real estate holdings upon entering government except for a single real estate holding that she was unable to sell. This single real estate investment has been determined by White House Counsel and the independent Office of Government Ethics to present no conflict of interest in performing her duties as a White House advisor. It has nothing to do with the Olympic bid.

Networks ignore that Fox News repeatedly falsely reported ACORN employee killed her former husband

Kaelke stated that she had merely been attempting to "shock them as much as they were shocking me."

For example, in response to the set-up by the filmmakers in which they say they are trying get the young woman away from her abusive pimp, she responds that she was abused by her former husband as well (true) and that she shot and killed him (false). He is very much alive and living near Barstow, CA.

However, this is taken as the gospel truth, not just in the film itself, but also by several "news" personalities, indicating that no journalistic standards were applied to making the video or vetting it for broadcast.

Filmmakers reportedly turned away from ACORN's Philadelphia office, contradicting their claims. The CBS Evening News and World News did not report that ACORN has stated that the activists were turned away from other offices, or that ACORN filed a complaint with police about the filmmakers' conduct in Philadelphia. On the September 11 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, CNN correspondent Bill Tucker reported that ACORN "claims that the two activist filmmakers responsible for posting the videos tried the same thing" at several of their other offices "and failed." Tucker further reported: "ACORN gave CNN a copy of the police complaint filed against the filmmakers In Philadelphia. The filmmakers, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles are not commenting and Giles was a no-show for an agreed-to interview with CNN."

Indeed, in a newly released YouTube video, ACORN Housing Corp.'s Philadelphia office director Katherine Conway Russell stated that O'Keefe visited the office "last July" with "another woman." Russell stated that "[a]fter asking several general questions, [O'Keefe] began to veer off into suspicious territory." Russell said that O'Keefe eventually "asked about bringing girls from El Salvador and getting them papers, et cetera," but that "I told them that there was nothing we could do to help them, that I didn't know anything about what they were asking about." Russell also said that after she contacted another ACORN official and it became clear that O'Keefe "lied to get his appointment," they contacted the police. Russell's comments follow denials from O'Keefe and Giles that they had visited any ACORN office other than those for which they had posted video.

Beck and others repeat claim that White House Political Director Patrick Gaspard was once the political director for Bertha Lewis, chief organizer of ACORN. Read More>>

Glenn Beck Revealed, Crying on Cue!

Now Lets Take A Look At NewsMax.com

Newsmax
article claiming the Senator nodded during a July 22nd sermon while his
pastor made anti-white and anti-American statements.

NOT TRUE: Obama was flying to Florida and not in the state of Illinois that morning.

Over a year
ago, I received a email from Newsmax reported a rummor as fact:"
michelle obama recorded whitey comment, will soon be released." http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/newsmaxs_kessler_scrubs_refere.php
NEVER HAPPEN!

In a March 28 column
for NewsMax.com titled "Free Obama's White Grandmother," "Internet
journalist" Andy Martin wrote that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), whom he
called "one of the most racist politicians in America today," has
"locked the grandmother who actually raised him away in a closet,"
adding: "[T]he 'segregation' of Madelyn Dunham, Obama's white
grandmother, and only real grandmother, has to be one of the cruelest
and most mendacious political kidnappings this nation has ever seen."
Martin wrote that Dunham "is the 'Prisoner of Obama,' and of Obama's
racist myth that he is 'Black' and not 'Black and White.' "
A RACIST MYTH REPORTED AS NEWS!

On November 29, NewsMax published an article headlined "John McCain: Torture Worked on Me,"
which claimed that McCain's experiences as a victim of torture as he
has described them contradict his oft-repeated assertion that torture
fails to produce actionable intelligence:

SUMMARY: Rush
Limbaugh twice falsely claimed that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) had
"admitted that torture worked on him" during his five years as a
prisoner of war in North Vietnam.
THIS FALSE assertion originated in a NewsMax.com article and is not supported by McCain's version of events.
NewsMax published an incorrect story about Kerry giving the bird to a fellow Vietnam veteran (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/31/225546.shtml). They started that rumor where it was picked up by Drudge, FR and later Fox News before it was discredited.
DID NOT CHECK CREDIBILITY

O'Reilly on NewsMax.com: "a good website ... for conservative listeners"
On the November 11 edition of The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly,
host Bill O'Reilly decried the impact that false information on the
Internet had on the presidential election. In addition to touting his
own website, he promoted NewsMax.com, which he described as "a good website", I think, for conservative listeners." O'Reilly is a NewsMax.com-sponsored columnist; his column is published in NewsMax Magazine.
Media Matters for America has documented numerous examples of misinformation published on this "good website ... for conservative listeners":

On October 14,
NewsMax.com wrongly asserted that during the October 13 presidential
debate, Senator John Kerry "outed" Vice President Dick Cheney's
daughter as a lesbian.

On October 4,
subscribers to NewsMax.com's email-only "Insider Report" received an
article that baselessly claimed: "Democrats and their supporters may be
laying the groundwork for a massive effort to 'steal' the election come
Election Day."

On August 13,
NewsMax.com falsely claimed that as lieutenant governor of
Massachusetts, "Kerry authored an executive order that said the state
of Massachusetts would refuse to take part in any civil defense efforts
in response to a nuclear attack on America."

On July 7,
NewsMax.com helped the Republican National Committee spread an
unsourced anecdote that smeared Senator John Edwards (D-NC) as
inexperienced. The NewsMax.com article claimed that "Edwards has so
little foreign policy experience that he reportedly couldn't identify
the name Yitzhak Rabin as belonging to the late Israeli prime
minister." NewsMax.com credited radio host Rush Limbaugh with
"unearth[ing]" this report.

On May 31,
NewsMax.com published the unfounded rumor that during Memorial Day
ceremonies at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Kerry "flipped off" Ted
Sampley, a Vietnam veteran and leader of Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry. Limbaugh spread this rumor on June 1 and The Washington Times reported it on June 2.

On October 24, NewsMax.com falsely claimed that the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) had registered illegal alien and accused terrorist Nuradin Abdi to vote in Ohio.

On September 15, NewsMax.com distorted the words of Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, stating that she called her critics "scumbags."

In 1998, NewsMax.com published an article
claiming that then-President Bill Clinton had a "secret son" with a
Little Rock, Arkansas, prostitute. Other NewsMax.com articles on Bill
and Hillary Rodham Clinton include: "Arkansas' Murderous Ways,"
which alleged that Bill Clinton is the "product of an Arkansas
political machine that has long been corrupt and tied to organized
crime"; "Clinton-Connected Bribes, Break-ins, Beatings, Death Threats"; and "[Clinton Commerce Secretary] Ron Brown's Death: 'Blunt Force' ... or Bullet?

WorldNetDaily's Obama Birth Certificate Lies Numerous claims have been discredited, but WND pretends they never were,deceiving its readers and making a mockery of journalism.

By Terry Krepel

Posted 7/28/2009

Updated 8/10/2009
How craven is WorldNetDaily in its lies about Barack Obama? It's trying to cash in on them.
WND, the chief promoter of the Barack Obama birth certificate conspiracy, has an entire section of its online store dedicated to shilling various tsotchkes related to it -- yard signs, postcards, etc. It's even produced a video about the issue.
The problem is that so many of the claims WND has made about Obama and his
birth are highly misleading or outright lies, meaning that WND's
reporting on the birth certificate simply cannot be trusted.
(That video, by the way, features some of
the lead promoters of Obama falsehoods: Jerome Corsi, Orly Taitz, Alan
Keyes and Janet Porter.)

Earlier this year, ConWebWatch detailed
the numerous lies WND has told about Obama, including some regarding
the birth certificate. Below is a list of falsehoods WND has told on
the issue of Obama's birth.

The articles cited below are instances in which WND asserted or uncritically repeated others making the claim without telling the full story.

THE
LIE: Obama's "certification of live birth" does not prove he was born
in Hawaii because Hawaii allows people not born in Hawaii to obtain the
same form.

THE LIARS: Bob Unruh, June 18, July 3, July 9, July 13, July 16, July 24; Chelsea Schilling, July 14, July 15, July 20; Drew Zahn, July 2, July 19; Joe Kovacs and Jerome Corsi, July 7; unbylined, July 13, July 16; among numerous other instances.

THE TRUTH: This claim was debunked by none other than the Western Journalism Center, co-founded by WND editor and CEO Joseph Farah. The WJC stated in a July 21 post (emphasis added):

Under Act 182 H.B. NO. 3016-82,
state policies and procedures could accommodate even “children born out
of State” (this is the actual language of Act 182) with an original
birth certificate on record. But though Act 182 does provide children
born out of state with a birth certificate it does not provide them
with birth certificates that say that these children were born in
Hawaii or at a specific location in Hawaii. Consequently these
birth certificates cannot engender Certifications of Live Birth which
state that the subject was born in Honolulu, as the purported Obama
Certification of Live Birth does. So if the Obama Certification of
Live Birth was not forged, it could not have been engendered by an Act
182-authorized birth certificate for “children born out of state”.
And if it was forged, the false information on it was not based on
anything that could be on an Act-182 authorized birth certificate. So
Orly Taitz’ assertion that “Hawaii has statute 338 that allows
foreign-born children of Hawaiian residents to get Hawaiian birth
certificates” is irrelevant.

WND has offered no evidence
whatsoever that a person not born in Hawaii was able to obtain a Hawaii
"certification of live birth" stating that they were born in Hawaii.

THE LIE: Obama's mother was too young to have conferred citizenship by birth onto her son.

THE LIARS: Joseph Farah, June 15, June 17; Bob Unruh, July 3, July 4, July 9, July 9, July 11, July 13, July 16, July 20, July 24; Drew Zahn, July 19, July 24; Joe Kovacs, July 9, July 9, July 9, July 10, July 12, July 16; Chelsea Schilling, July 14; Jerome Corsi, July 12; Chelsea Schilling and Joe Kovacs, July 15; Joe Kovacs and Bob Unruh, July 13; Joe Kovacs and Jerome Corsi, July 7; unbylined, July 9, July 16, July 25; among numerous other instances.

THE TRUTH: The argument here is
that federal law at the time Obama was born was that a person could be
considered a "natural born citizen" if one parent was a was a citizen
who had lived at least 10 years in the U.S., including five years after
the age of 14. Stanley Ann Dunham was three months short of her 19th
birthday when Barack Obama was born, thus missing that timeframe. But
as the Tribune Co. Washington Bureau blog The Swamp reported
-- citing conservative-leaning legal blogger Eugene Volokh --
subsequent acts of Congress relaxed the requirement to five years in
the U.S., including just two years after the age of 14, meaning Dunham
could have been 16 and still qualified even if Obama was born in
another country. Further, Congress made the law retroactive to 1952,
doubly covering Obama.

The State Department, meanwhile, points out
that such a parental residency requirement is an issue if the child was
born abroad -- a situation that WND has not credibly demonstrated
applies to Obama

THE LIE: Obama was "at birth" a citizen of
Kenya and a subject of Great Britain -- not a U.S. citizen.
THE LIAR: Joseph Farah, June 15.
THE TRUTH: Farah cited Obama's "Fight the Smears" website (site is
currently offline) as evidence for this claim. The full excerpt from
Fight the Smears:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was
born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still
part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native,
Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was
governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed
the status of Obama Sr.‘s children Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his
U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan
citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982 Farah failed to mention that Obama
automatically lost his Kenyan citizenship when he turned 21, which
completely undermines his argument.
THE LIE: Obama's grandmother, Sarah Obama, said Obama was born in Kenya.
THE LIARS: In addition to previous references documented by ConWebWatch: Joseph Farah, July 15, July 23; Joe Kovacs and Jerome Corsi, July 7; Jerome Corsi, July 6; Joe Kovacs, June 10, June 10; Bob Unruh, June 15, July 9; Chelsea Schilling, June 9; Aaron Klein, May 3; Les Kinsolving, June 16; Pat Boone, June 27; unbylined, June 7, June 8, June 22, June 25, July 8.

THE TRUTH: Sarah Obama has made no such claim. According to David Wiegel at Slate
On Oct. 16 [2008], an Anabaptist minister named Ron McRae called Sarah
Hussein Obama, the president-elect's 86-year-old paternal
step-grandmother, at her home in Kenya. Two translators were on the
line when McRae asked if the elder Obama was "present" when the
president-elect was born. One of the translators says "yes." McRae
contacted Berg and gave him a partial transcript of the call with a
signed affidavit. He opted not to include the rest of the call, in
which he asks the question more directly—"Was he born in Mombassa?"—and
the translators, finally understanding him, tell him repeatedly that
the president-elect was born in Hawaii.If this lie has been so thoroughly debunked, why does WND persist in telling it?article,
WND claims to have "affidavits" by McRae and one of the translators,
Rev. Kweli Shuhubia, "an Anabaptist minister in Kenya, who is the
official Swahili translator for the annual Anabaptist
Conference in Kenya," making the claim. But those appear to fly in the
face of the full interview, as conducted by another translator, Vitalis
Akech Ogombe -- which McRae was present at. A transcript of that
segment of the conversation, as reported by Alex Koppelman of Apparently because, as Corsi detailed in a July 6 Salon

MCRAE:
When I come in December. I would like to come by the place, the
hospital, where he was born. Could you tell me where he was born? Was
he born in Mombasa
OGOMBE: No, Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America.

MCRAE: Whereabouts was he born? I thought he was born in Kenya.

OGOMBE: No, he was born in America, not in Mombasa.

MCRAE: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was going to go by and see where he was born.

OGOMBE: Hawaii. Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii. In the state of Hawaii, where his father was also learning, there. The state of Hawaii.

WND has never reported this part of the McRae interview on its website, nor has it ever mentioned Ogombe.

THE LIE: The birth certificate released by the Obama campaign is a forgery or otherwise not authentic.

THE LIARS: In addition to previous references documented by ConWebWatch: Bob Unruh, July 20; Pat Boone, June 27.

THE TRUTH: An August 23, 2008, WND article got it right: "A
separate WND investigation into Obama's birth certificate utilizing
forgery experts also found the document to be authentic.

Further, FactCheck.org reported
that it has "seen, touched, examined and photographed the original
birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements
from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the
document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. ... Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said."Unruh's
July 20 article cites the research of "Ron Polarik" in promoting the
claim that the certificate is a forgery, but doesn't mention that it's
a pseudonym (though Unruh has previously noted that fact) or that Polarik's research has been called into question

THE LIE:
Obama's visit to Pakistan in 1981 raises questions about whether he's
an American citizen because Americans could not visit Pakistan at that time.
THE LIARS: In addition to those previously identified by ConWebWatch: Aaron Klein, July 7; Bob Unruh, April 28, May 19, May 21, May 28, May 29, June 12, June 26; Joe Kovacs, June 10, June 10; Chelsea Schilling, June 9; Joseph Farah, June 3, June 6; unbylined, June 8, June 10.
THE TRUTH: As ConWebWatch previously detailed, contrary
to claims that Americans could not visit Pakistan in 1981 (and,
therefore, Obama must have visited via another country's passport), a
June 1981 New York Times article states that "Tourists can obtain a free, 30-day visa (necessary for Americans) at border crossings and airports," and an August 1981 State Department travel advisory explains how Americans can obtain visas for visiting Pakistan

THE LIE: Both
parents must be citizens in order for a child to be born a "natural
born citizen." Obama is disqualified because his father was a British
and Kenyan subject.

THE LIARS: Joseph Farah, June 16; Bob Unruh, July 11, July 20; Chelsea Schilling and Joe Kovacs, July 14, July 15; unbylined, June 7; flyer, July 24.

THE TRUTH: As Salon.com has detailed,
the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the question of what
"natural born citizen" means. However, the court ruled in 1898, in the
case U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, that a non-citizen's mere presence in the U.S. is enough to make their child, if born here, a natural-born citizen. WND has never told its readers about the Wong Kim Ark case.

Further, there is precedent for a president to have a non-citizen parent:
Chester A. Arthur, for one. WND has never told its readers about
Arthur's parentage, nor has it advocated overturning laws passed in the
Arthur administration, as various WND columnists have suggested should
be done if Obama is determined not to be a "natural born citizen."

WND finally admitted in an Aug. 10 article
by Drew Zahn that there are "arguments over just exactly what is a
'natural born' citizen" and that "a consensus on the correct definition
of 'natural born citizen' has eluded lawyers and scholars for more than
200 years." Zahn did not mention the Wong case.

While WND has proven itself to be a serial liar, it deserves credit for finally backing off one birth certificate-related lie.
In its enthusiasm to smear Obama, WND has ignored the fact, and Farah has actively denied, that it originally reported
about the birth certificate in August 2008 that a "WND investigation
into Obama's birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the
document to be authentic."But in a July 17 column
-- done as an letter to Rep. Jay Inslee, who had cited that WND article
in telling a constituent that Obama was, in fact, eligible to be
president -- Farah finally conceded the truth, admitting for the
first time to his readers: "Yes, it is true that I do not believe that
document to be a forgery and WND has reported that."On the other hand, Farah lied to Inslee in his letter: "Are you not aware that the only living person in the world claiming to be present at his birth swears it took place in Mombasa, Kenya?"And Farah wonders why he's not taken seriously as a journalist.(8/10/2009 Update: Added section on the claim that both parents must be citizens for a child to be a "natural born citizen."

WND Watch: fails to tell the truth about Berger Bergerhttp://www.democraticunderground.com

Edited on Wed Jan-19-05 11:09 AM by ck4829

The criminal investigation of former National Security Adviser Sandy

Berger – accused of pocketing highly classified terrorism documents

prior to the Sept. 11 Commission hearings – is now before a federal

grand jury, according to an *ANONYMOUS source* (my emphasis) with

knowledge of the probe."(Berger) has been interviewed several times by federal agents – FBI

and prosecutors," the source told the New York Post.

Department of Justice spokesman Mark Corallo did not return

WorldNetDaily's call requesting comment.

In October, a Justice spokesman told WND that a criminal

investigation was ongoing, but he would not provide details about its

nature or timing. The investigation began last spring when archives staffers ran a

sting operation after they reported seeing Berger sneak out

classified documents in his pants and socks.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42...

Using anonymous 'sources', eh? I guess WND is practically the same as

Weekly World News. The pants and socks thing is a lie, this is according to Media Matters for America.
Berger never said that he put the documents in his pants or his socks, and there is no
on-the-record substantiation of the charge that he did so. In fact, as Media Matters previously documented, Berger and his lawyer, Lanny Breuer, have said for the record that:

1) Berger inadvertently put several copies of classified documents
into a leather portfolio he was carrying; and 2) that Berger put
handwritten notes, which he had made while reviewing the documents,
in his jacket and in his pants pockets. Breuer was quoted in the July
21, 2004, New York Times as saying that while Berger had put his
handwritten notes in his jacket and pants pockets, "If there's a
suggestion that he's shoving things down his pants, that is categorically false and ridiculous."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200501130011

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnd_watch/message/4
Obama birth claim spreads despite evidence

By Steven Thomma

McClatchy Newspapers

Updated: Sunday, August 2, 2009 4:11 AM EDT

WASHINGTON -- The false allegation that President Barack Obama was born in another country is more than a fact-free smear.
Marked by accusations and backstabbing, it’s the story of how a small but intense movement
called "birthers" rose from a handful of people prone to seeing conspiracies, aided by the Internet, magnified without evidence by eager radio and cable TV hosts, and eventually ratified by a small group of Republican politicians working to keep the story alive on the floors of Congress and the campaign trails of the Midwest.
It’s a powerful storyabout what experts call political paranoia over a new face in a time of
anxiety and rapid change — the sort of viral message that can take hold
among a sliver of the populace that’s ready to believe that their new
president is a fraud, and just as ready to angrily dismiss anyone who
disagrees with them as part of the conspiracy

"He is NOT an American
citizen," yelled a woman at a town hall meeting in Delaware, angrily
confronting a congressman. "I don’t want this flag to change. I want my
country back."

When Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., responded that Obama is a citizen, she and others in the room jeered him "It’s a fascinating phenomenon," said Jerrold Post, director of the political psychology
program at George Washington University’s Elliott School of
International Affairs and author of the recent book "Political
Paranoia.""They are not searching for the truth. They are searching for anything that
confirms their fixed idea, their malevolent idea. ... It doesn’t soothe
people to tell them it’s not legitimate. That makes them angry."
Birthers charge that Obama hasn’t proved that he was born a U.S. citizen, and therefore
isn’t eligible to be president under the constitutional requirement
that the president be 35 years old, be a resident of the country for at
least 14 years, and be a natural-born citizen.
They also say that birth certificate posted on the Internet by Obama during his campaign
isn’t the original, and a forgery anyway.

The facts
First, the 2007 document isn’t a forgery. Independent experts from such groups as FactCheck.org at the University of Pennsylvania have examined it and said it’s real.
Second, it’s true thatthe 2007 document issued by the state of Hawaii, called a Certification
of Live Birth, isn’t a copy of the original 1961 document. The longer, original form would show more details, including the name of the doctor, according to copies of other 1961 birth certificates.
White House aides say only that Obama has produced his birth certificate. That’s true. It is
a birth certificate, issued by the state Health Department and
acceptable to prove citizenship to the federal government for purposes
of obtaining a passport. It’s also true that it isn’t the original birth certificate.
Regardless, Hawaiistate officials said again last week that they’ve examined the original
and affirmed that it shows that Obama was born there.
Also, the two Honolulu newspapers report that they carried brief announcements of the birth of
a boy to the Obamas in 1961. Said the Aug. 13 birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy, son, Aug. 4."
The Hawaii state Health Department says it supplied the lists of births for those
announcements. Announcements supplied by families were longer, more
personal and normally included the child’s name.
Many birthers, such as Pennsylvania attorney Phil Berg, allege that Obama was born in Kenya
and that his Kenyan grandmother is on tape saying that she was present
at his birth there.Yet the tape circulated on the Internet doesn’t actually say that — and the full tape actually contradicts it.On the tape, the woman
thought to be Sarah Obama is prodded by a Berg ally who’s a
self-described bishop from the U.S. to affirm that Obama was born in Kenya

"Was she present when he was born in Kenya?" Bishop Ron McRae asks in the taped phone call.
"She says yes she was. She was present when Obama was born," says the voice of translator

The tape ends abruptly.Despite Berg’s assertions, the response didn’t actually confirm a birth in
Kenya. Moreover, a longer version of the tape shows the elder Obama
decidedly denying a Kenyan birth immediately after the first tape was
cut off. "I would like to go by the place, the hospital where he was born. Can you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa?" McRae is heard asking.

"Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America," the translator says after talking to the woman. "I thought he was born in Kenya," McRae asks again."He was born in
America, not in Mombasa," says the response. Another response later
says, "Obama in Hawaii. Hawaii. She says he was born in Hawaii."
Still, the charge has spread despite no evidence that Obama was born in Kenya
and compelling evidence that he was born in Hawaii.

The players

A handful of people started spreading the story.

ANTHONY MARTIN:
Martin, a Chicagoan, is a legal gadfly who was among the first to file
a lawsuit demanding to see Obama’s birth certificate in Hawaii, which
was denied last year.
"I would like to claimthe role of ringmaster in this birth certificate circus," Martin said
last week on his Web site. "From the first day I began writing about
Barack Obama’s secret life five years ago, Obama has obstructed access
to the truth about himself. Obama’s sycophants in the media and
government have tried to protect him from the truth and the facts ofhis life."A frequent
and always unsuccessful candidate for office — he’s running this time for U.S. Senate in Illinois — Martin was the first to charge that Obama was a Muslim.

In an e-mail, he distanced himself from other birthers who claim that Obama was born in
Kenya. "I have continually expressed doubt about the Kenya theory," he
wrote. "I openly state that there is a not a shred of credible evidence
Obama was born in Kenya."
Martin has a history of inflammatory and often anti-Semitic comments. He once called a
Chicago judge a "crooked, slimy Jew who has a history of lying and
thieving common to members of his race." When he was preparing to run
for office in Connecticut, one of his campaign documents said that a
purpose of the campaign was to "exterminate Jew power." A court filing
in 1983 stated, "I am able to understand how the Holocaust took place,
and with every passing day feel less and less sorry that it did."
Asked about the anti-Semitic comments, Martin said they "took place over a quarter of a
century in a very vicious lawsuit in which names were called on all
sides."
ORLY TAITZ: An attorney and dentist from Orange County, Calif., she’s filed lawsuits
challenging Obama’s citizenship and has traveled the country to marshal
support for her drive to prove that Obama is not a citizen and should
not be president. Her Web site asks people to contribute money via a PayPal account
She filed one lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court; it was dismissed. She
filed another in Georgia on behalf of an Army Reserve officer who
wanted to take back his volunteer offer to serve in Afghanistan because
Obama was a foreigner and not really his commander in chief. The Army
excused the officer from going to Afghanistan, saying any volunteer
could back out. In an interview, Taitz
insisted that she has evidence that Obama was born in Kenya — but that
she won’t release it publicly until it’s authenticated.
She also said that she has records showing that Obama’s mother did not go to Hawaii after the
birth, but rather enrolled in the University of Washington three weeksafter it. She added that she has proof that Obama is using a false Social Security number from someone who was born in 1890.

Taitz said the burden of proof is not on her, but on Obama.
"I don’t need to prove anything," she said. "He’s the one that needs to provide proper
evidence that he is qualified to be president."
She once drove to a legal conference in Washington state to press Chief
Justice John G. Roberts to consider Obama’s citizenship; he declined to
comment on any possible case as security officers prepared to escort
her from the conference. She’s also met with Republican state lawmakers in Missouri. "She had a lot of documents there and has done a lot of traveling and spent a lot of money on the
legitimacy of his citizenship," said Missouri state Rep. Ed Emery, a Republican.
Taitz boasts on her personal blog each time a prominent Republican, such as a member of
Congress or Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele,
signs up as a "friend" on her Facebook account, although many public figures often sign off on such links routinely. "I am in total disbelief and greatly honored," she said in one post on her blog. "It
means that the leadership of the Republican Party understands the
importance of the issues and legal cases I brought forward.

Not so fast, said RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho. "Chairman
Steele has thousands of Facebook friends. Obviously it doesn’t mean he
endorses the agendas of all of them," she said. "Chairman Steele
believes this is an unnecessary distraction and that the president is a U.S. citizen."
PHILIP BERG: Berg, an attorney from Pennsylvania, has also has filed lawsuits unsuccessfully
challenging Obama’s citizenship and presidency.
"This has been a real sham," Berg said at one point to radio talk-show host Michael Savage.
Berg’s seen other conspiracies as well. In 2004, he filed a lawsuit against
then-President George W. Bush — not to mention every male Bush from two
generations — charging that the government secretly allowed the 2001 terrorist attacks to happen.

In detail, Berg’s suit alleged that the World Trade Center towers were destroyed from within
and that the Federal Emergency Management Agency maintained "a black-op
shadow government designed to replace the elected government of the
United States." (FEMA at the time was run by Michael Brown, later
infamous for his stewardship of the agency following Hurricane Katrina.)
Berg didn’t respond to requests to comment.
Once allies with Orly Taitz — the two appeared together in December at the National Press
Club — Berg has had a falling out with the Californian, who’s won more media attention.

"Orly Taitz, esquire, must be disbarred," Berg said in June as he filed a lawsuit against her.

"Orly has been grabbing the headlines but doing disservice to the millions who want
Obama to prove he is constitutionally eligible/qualified to be
president. ... Orly has only one case pending ... I have three lawsuits pending."

JEROME CORSI: A writer at the Web site WorldNetDaily, Corsi has said repeatedly through such
venues as the G. Gordon Liddy radio show that the birth certificate Obama’s campaign posted on its Web site was fake. "It’s a fake document," he said on Fox News. "I’m convinced it’s a forgery," he saidon Blogtalkradio.com.

Corsi was a co-author of "Unfit for Command," a book slamming 2004 Democratic
presidential nominee John Kerry, and the author of "Obama Nation," a book slamming Obama last year. The book’s opening lines credit theinfluence of Andy Martin.
Democrats weren’t his only targets. He’s said that Bush was secretly trying to surrender U.S.
sovereignty to a new North American Union that would govern Canada,
Mexico and the United States. "His secret agenda is to dissolve the
United States of America into the North American Union," he wrote at one point.

Many mainstream conservatives recoiled at the North American Union conspiracy theory.
Talk show host Michael Medved, for example, called it "paralyzing,
puerile paranoia." Corsi couldn’t be reached to comment.
Spreading the story
The Internet helped spread the story, through Web sites such as WorldNetDaily and dozens of
other conservative sites, often repeating charges without evidence or attribution beyond other like-minded Web sites."This is abetted by
changes in the structure of communications," said Michael Barkun, an
expert in conspiracy theories and a political science professor at the
Maxwell School at Syracuse University. "What once would have
been fringe ideas are spread very quickly and much more widely than
would have been the case even 10 years ago. ... Ideas that originate in
quite small subcultures can very quickly get mainstreamed." Once the story spread
on the Internet, several of the birthers have found a stage on talk
radio and cable TV. Lou Dobbs of CNN, for example, has said he thinks
the allegation is false, yet he continues having the birthers on.
Radio talker Rush Limbaugh has joked about it, saying, "Barack Obama has one thing in
common with God. You know what it is? God doesn’t have a birth certificate either." Sean Hannity
prominently featured Andy Martin on his Fox News program during the
2008 presidential campaign. Hannity also heavily promoted Corsi when Corsi’s anti-Obama book came out. Talk show host Liddy has repeatedly featured stories charging that the president was born in Kenya. Ultimately, the story has taken hold with some Republicans. Rep. Bill Posey,
R-Fla., introduced a bill in the House of Representatives that would
require a presidential candidate to produce a birth certificate
"together with such other documentation as may be necessary" to prove
natural-born citizenship. It would take effect in 2012, in time to force Obama to produce more documentation. Posey has nine co-sponsors so far, all Republicans. In the Senate, Sen.
James Inhofe, R-Okla., told the Tulsa World he didn’t think it was a
priority, but that he understood the birthers’ quest. "I don’t discourage them from going ahead and pursuing that," he said. There are signs that Republicans see political risk in encouraging the birthers.
Steele distanced himself from them on Thursday. Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, his party’s
leader in the House, said he has other priorities, and that he has no reason to believe the allegation.
Fox Reporter Contradicts Fox: DHS Report On Right Wing Was ‘Requested By The Bush Administration’

"YOU LIE"

2009-09-30T09:25:00.000-05:00

Where is all of this dissension coming from??? I have never seen so much display of contempt for a President. Ronald Reagan was the 1st election I voted in. Never have I seen such hate! The summer was terrible. What should had been a civil discussion concerning health care reform, it was more reminiscent of the lynch mob mentality of those who opposed civil rights during the 60's.

And all of this because of health care reform??? But wait a minute, did not the majority of voters, vote for Obama for change. 46 million Americans are without health insurance. Insurance premiums has doubled over the past 8yrs with the employer baring the brunt of most of the cost. But next yr, 2010 your employer plans to have you pick up more of your fair share. The average cost of family health coverage is over $13,000, if nothing is done, by 2019, the cost is projected to be approximately $30,000 per yr, per employee family! Only the rich would be able to afford health care. That kind of increase is far more than any tax increase levied to cover the cost of comprehensive coverage. Much more of an increase that will out pace any cost of living raise on most Americans jobs.

Thousands of fellow Americans are dying each year because they have been denied life saving procedures by the insurance companies getting in between decisions that should be made between the patient & their doctor. Many Americans are doing without & dying because they cannot purchase health ins. due to pre-existing conditions. Polls show that majority of Americans are not happy with the continuing increases of health ins and supports Obama's health reform plan. It was no secret during his campaigning that was an issue he planed to tackle once elected. He is keeping his word. Where is his support? You certainly could not see any at the town hall meetings. Or is all that noise, part of some conspiracy to cause the President to fail America?

People were bringing guns to town hall meetings where the President was to appear. A so called preacher is praying for the death of our President. Militias are on the rise once again. Obama is called a racist, socialist, communist. Accused of proposing "death panels" to euthanize seniors. Posters images depicting the President as an African Witch doctor, one poster states "Obamanomics, monkey see, monkey do". He is being accused of not being an American, folks want him to show them his birth certificate again & again. Parents don't want him to address the school kids, as if he is some kind of pedophile, Folks are screaming that they want their country back! Back from whom?

Where is all this unprecedented animosity coming from? Is it the Ditto heads of Rush Limbaugh with his comment that he wants Obama to fail. In a July broadcast, Rush Limbaugh voiced his outrage about food-safety advocates potentially "going after" Oreo cookies. Added the great wit: "Might have to put that off until Obama's out of office, but they'll eventually go after Oreos."
Glenn Beck: "Everything getting pushed through Congress -- including this health care bill -- is transforming America. And it's all driven by President Obama's thinking on one idea: reparations. ... He believes in all the 'universal' programs because they ‘disproportionately affect' people of color" (All of whom Obama knows personally, cause … you know … ). And don't forget Beck's comments "Obama has a deep seated hatred for white people."

But the evening the President's addressed the congress and Joe Wilson interrupting the President of The United States, by shouting "YOU LIE" in front of 10's of millions of Americans & viewers around the world. That did for me! I had enough of being PC by not calling what I see out by name. It was momentarily to much for me to bear. No longer would I turn the other cheek by not calling out what I perceived as Racism for fear of being called a reverse Racist by bigots while they do their dirty work.

I had to vent, so I joined Joe Wilson's fan page on facebook, this previously unknown congressman was considered by his sick and demented new followers a hero while he ask for donations to his reelection campaign. My comments on his facebook page is as follows:

Joe Wilson,

I guess the kind of comments I have seen over the last several months, the disrespect, the bigotry should be expected. Since the President is the 1st African American President in the history of the US. What I have seen would not have been done if the President was white. That's right!!! I PLAYED THE RACE CARD!!!

Never have I ever seen such down right idiotic, blatant lies, fear mongering, half truths, misinformation done to The President of the US. And you know it's true! You bigots are HYPOCRITES! I am ashamed of the behavior that I witnessed tonight, & also earlier this week when the President spoke to the kids. HYPOCRITES you are in everything you say, do and stand for.

Your actions speaks for yourselves against you. HYPOCRITES at the town hall fiascoes, and tonight FOR THE WHOLE WORLD TO SEE!!! You are the anti-Christ, the epitome of evil, vile, full of hate. Sick and reprobate, you have no conscious, you have no guidance from the Holy Spirit in your lives. You are tares amongst wheat who has no mercy for the sick except for your own selfish selves (lovers of yourselves). Vipers you are! You claim to be Christians but Christ never knew you! And you ARE being tested and judged.REPENT!

I will pray for you and your misguided followers revival.

Hence, this blog is born. It's time to talk about the issues that has polarized Americans. Your participation and comments are welcome. Check back soon, I'll tell you what kind of responses I received. Please click the "Follow" button on the upper right page so you will be able to get updates and comments.

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

The Word - Blackwashing

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

Michael Moore

Click on this link.Take a look at these pictures that are worth a thousand words. The difference between Bush protest and Obama protest

Hosting