Hey Chris, I have no time right now but got this in an email,did a small search and seems to be a valid AP story? Getting dates from 11/09-12/09. Here is a small portion if you wish to look into it further and validate:(Bruce will not like it)
Very Quietly Obama's Citizenship Case Reaches Supreme Court
Submitted by sjidaho on Sun, 11/15/2009 - 20:26 in Current Events
AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has Released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College . Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.
We all knew Dick Cheney would have something to say about Obama’s handling of the Underpants Bomber. Today we hear an earful:
From Politico:
"As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war. “He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency – social transformation—the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war." I think Cheney has touched on the key thing why Obama is getting fried for his response to the Underpants Bomber. It is Obama’s actions leading up to the Underpants Bomber that gives the perception that Obama is weak on terror.
Many are trying to draw the comparison of how people reacted to Bush and the Shoe Bomber vs. Obama and the Underpants Bomber. Perception is the key. The Shoe Bomber incident happened shortly after 9-11. The Bush administration was still doing a gazillion things to get new security in place. Bush was still putting TSA together too. Even though it took Bush 6 days to speak to the American people about the Shoe Bomber, there was no crazy statements or missteps from Bush underlings prior to his speaking. America had a perception that things were under control and that everything humanly possible was being done to thwart terrorism.
Compare and contrast Obama today. The Underpants Bomber comes on the heels of Ft. Hood, where there was great reluctance to even mention terrorism and Nidal Hassan in the same sentence. Furthermore, Obama has spent a year undoing many of the security measures that Bush put in place (attempting to close Gitmo, sending Uygers to paradise, investigating the CIA, etc). But most damaging for Obama was having to come out after Janet Napolitano made a complete fool of herself. To make matters worse, Obama allowed the image of himself being interrupted from his fancy Hawaiian vacation (Bush was vacationing quietly at Camp David) to take hold in the minds of Americans.
If Obama wants to regain control of the situation, then he is going to have to take some bold steps to appear like he takes terrorism seriously. I would start by kicking Napolitano to the curb. The last thing you want is the impression that your administration is comprised of incompetent boobs. Next, halt the closing of Gitmo. Everyone knows there are tons of terrorists there from the new terror hot spot Yemen. Finally start briefing the public regularly as to what you are doing to get to the bottom of the situation. Inform the public what actions you are taking to make sure this never happens again.
A leading health economist says everybody is missing the two worst aspects of the Democrats' healthcare reform bill.
Dr. John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis says Congress and President Obama are about to nationalize health insurance in the U.S. for the first time in American history and make it illegal for anyone to pay a "real price" for health insurance anywhere in the country.
"The insurance companies will be turned into public utilities -- and going forward, they will not be able to solve the critical problems of cost and quality and access to care, which are very real and which need solutions," notes Goodman. "So they'll just be taken out of the mix, and they'll just be shuffling money mainly, and that's too bad because these are problems that need to get solved."
Goodman favors consumer-driven healthcare, where people control more of their own healthcare dollars.
"I think there's a tremendous opportunity to do this with chronic patients -- the diabetics, the asthmatics. We've done it in Medicaid. We know it works, and that will not be able to happen going forward," he explains. "They will not be able to carve out areas and say, 'We'll let the patient manage the money.' Basically everybody in America is going to have to have the same healthcare plan."
According to the health economist, that insurance will be "unoriginal, non-innovative, and...will not solve problems."
This is for that A$$HOLE Bruce "Epic" FAILk, who claims that tort reform wouldn't decrease the cost of health care. Looks to me like it will cut $54 billion from the deficit, and this is WITHOUT BS tricks like the Hypocrats are using, such as claiming to cut out Medicare in one bill and then adding the "cuts" back in in another bill. Now if the Hypocrats don't have it in their 3,000 page monstrosity it is just further proof that they are in the pockets of trial lawyers. As if we didn't know how dirty they were already ...
CBO Affirms Savings From Malpractice Reform December 30, 2009 http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2009/12/cbo_affirms_savings_from_malpr.html
When the Congressional Budget Office figured that limits on medical malpractice could reduce the federal budget deficit by $54 billion over the next decade, plenty of folks weren't satisfied with the analysis.
Iowa Rep. Bruce Braley, a Democrat who once headed his home state's trial lawyers association, asked CBO to show a few more steps in its math work. The CBO obliged in an 8-page letter on Tuesday.
The big question boils down to how a 2008 estimate of $5 billion in deficit-reduction from malpractice reform over a decade swelled to $54 billion less than a year later.
CBO goes on at length about its estimates. But the big jump boils down to four main reasons:
Bigger savings on malpractice costs (insurance, settlements, etc.); Decline in defensive medicine; Increased federal revenue as taxable wages rise; and Medicare would save even more money than other insurance programs. If you've read this far and are hungry for more detail, plow through the letter (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10872/12-29-Tort_Reform-Braley.pdf) for the nitty-gritty.
good one John. that Feilk is a real idiot. i'm glad to not see those progressive idiots on this blog anymore. they ruin this blog when they are on it. Chris you should ban all those liberal al queda from your blog.
Right on anonymous. Anyway, how can the libertards even answer all of the stupidity that is coming out of Congress and the Presidency?!?! I mean, it is so ridiculous and inane, like THIS article, where Obummer's plan is to have farmers turn farmland back into wilderness, raising food prices for the rest of us (just like government subsidies that, that's right, pay farmers to NOT grow crops to artificially raise prices on the rest of us ... that pay the taxes that go to farmers to not grow crops ..... ):
Big Government to Reduce Farms to Wilderness by Van Helsing at December 30, 2009
Anyone wondering just what the point of modern liberalism might be need look no farther than a recent story on the government spending your money to turn farms into forests:
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has ordered his staff to revise a computerized forecasting model that showed that climate legislation supported by President Obama would make planting trees more lucrative than producing food.
The latest Agriculture Department economic-impact study of the climate bill, which passed the House this summer, found that the legislation would profit farmers in the long term. But those profits would come mostly from higher crop prices as a result of the legislation's incentives to plant more forests and thus reduce the amount of land devoted to food-producing agriculture.
According to the economic model used by the department and the Environmental Protection Agency, the legislation would give landowners incentives to convert up to 59 million acres of farmland into forests over the next 40 years.
Even Milksac has noticed that the consequences of letting farmland go back to wilderness won't be pretty.
Mr. Vilsack, in a little-noticed statement issued with the report earlier this month, said the department's forecasts "have caused considerable concern" among farmers and ranchers.
"If landowners plant trees to the extent the model suggests, this would be disruptive to agriculture in some regions of the country," he said.
Ya think? But no worries, Milksac ordered the model to be tweaked so that we can all pretend everything will be fine.
The last time the country went this crazy, FDR was paying farmers not to plant crops while people went hungry. Now we're paying farmers to stop existing, like we all ought to do for the good of the polar bears.
Patriots want to roll back government. Liberals want to roll back the human race.
I tried to post on Feilks blog a month ago and he wouldn't post it. Chris lets everything fly and I like that. Most of these bloggers edit eveything that is critical of them. But look at his numbers and then look at Chris'. John you should have your own blog.
People chant anti-American slogans and burn an effigy of U.S. President Barack Obama... (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul) More Latest NewsLawyers: Sheens want to reconcile despite arrestQuestions and answers about full-body scannersYemeni forces raid al-Qaida hideout, clashes eruptCops: Man kills dog, streaks, pours coffee on headAP-GfK Poll: 2009 was bad for America, AmericansMore Latest NewsKABUL (AP) — A suicide bomber detonated his explosive vest at a military base in eastern Afghanistan on Wednesday, killing eight American civilians, U.S. officials said. The explosion occurred at Forward Operating Base Chapman in Khost province near the Afghan border with Pakistan.
U.S. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly confirmed that eight Americans died in the attack.
"We mourn the loss of life in this attack, and are withholding further details pending notification of next of kin," he said.
A senior State Department official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity that all of the victims are civilians. However, that could include military contractors and U.S. intelligence officials.
In Kabul, a spokesman for the international coalition force in Kabul said no U.S. or NATO troops were killed in the afternoon explosion at Chapman, one of dozens of forward operating bases that support reconstruction efforts and other civilian operations across the nation.
An attacker wearing a suicide vest caused the explosion, according to a senior U.S. official in Washington. Another senior U.S. official in Washington said there were conflicting reports on the number of casualties, but that others were injured in the attack. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because not all details about the incident had been confirmed.
Wazir Pacha, a police spokesman in Khost province, said local people reported hearing a blast on the base where an explosion in January killed an Afghan civilian and wounded four others. Soon afterward, two helicopters landed, a police officer in Khost said.
Separately on Wednesday, NATO questioned Afghan reports that international troops killed 10 civilians, including schoolchildren, in a weekend attack that prompted hundreds of angry Afghan protesters to burn an effigy of U.S. President Barack Obama and chant "death" to America.
The head of an investigative team appointed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai told the Associated Press by telephone that eight students between the ages of 12 and 14 were among the dead discovered in a village house in a remote section of Kunar province in eastern Afghanistan. NATO said in a statement released late Wednesday night that while there was no direct evidence to substantiate the claims, the international force had requested and welcomed a joint investigation to reach an "impartial and accurate determination" of what happened in the attack.
Does anyone believe that The Trillion Dollar Health Care President — as in, all he can do is spend and print a trillion dollars — cares one wit about the war on terror?
This is the same Trillion-Dollar-all-I-care-about-is-health-care-President who strains mightily to ever use the word terror, or the phrase war on terror.
His Homeland Secretary went a whole hearing with out using the word terror, but prefers the term a “man-caused disaster.”
This is the same President and White House who refused to term the Fort Hood attacks by a deranged Muslim terror — and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to any where near that point only because of an email trail by the shooter to radical clerics and websites.
I’ll bet the only reason that President Obama waited three days to make his statement about the system’s failure is that the White House took a poll which showed the Trillion Dollar Health Care President being pummeled.
So, let’s get straight what happened. (Our own little review.) First, the woman who refuses to acknowledge or use the word terror is in charge of, well, protecting us from terror. Great start. This is logical if you want to cram down (a la health care) people’s throats the message that we are not at war — even if we are.
Did you know the I’m-in-charge-of-security-but-can’t-use-the-word-terror-Secretary said there is “no indication of a larger plot?.”
Hey Chris, I have no time right now but got this in an email,did a small search and seems to be a valid AP story? Getting dates from 11/09-12/09. Here is a small portion if you wish to look into it further and validate:(Bruce will not like it)
ReplyDeleteVery Quietly Obama's Citizenship Case Reaches Supreme Court
Submitted by sjidaho on Sun, 11/15/2009 - 20:26
in Current Events
AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's
qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of
Information" has Released copies of President Obama's college transcripts
from Occidental College . Released today, the transcript indicates that
Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign
student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was
released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit
brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.
READ MORE @:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/114841
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis story is false according to snopes.
ReplyDeleteWe all knew Dick Cheney would have something to say about Obama’s handling of the Underpants Bomber. Today we hear an earful:
ReplyDeleteFrom Politico:
"As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.
“He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency – social transformation—the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war."
I think Cheney has touched on the key thing why Obama is getting fried for his response to the Underpants Bomber. It is Obama’s actions leading up to the Underpants Bomber that gives the perception that Obama is weak on terror.
Many are trying to draw the comparison of how people reacted to Bush and the Shoe Bomber vs. Obama and the Underpants Bomber. Perception is the key. The Shoe Bomber incident happened shortly after 9-11. The Bush administration was still doing a gazillion things to get new security in place. Bush was still putting TSA together too. Even though it took Bush 6 days to speak to the American people about the Shoe Bomber, there was no crazy statements or missteps from Bush underlings prior to his speaking. America had a perception that things were under control and that everything humanly possible was being done to thwart terrorism.
Compare and contrast Obama today. The Underpants Bomber comes on the heels of Ft. Hood, where there was great reluctance to even mention terrorism and Nidal Hassan in the same sentence. Furthermore, Obama has spent a year undoing many of the security measures that Bush put in place (attempting to close Gitmo, sending Uygers to paradise, investigating the CIA, etc). But most damaging for Obama was having to come out after Janet Napolitano made a complete fool of herself. To make matters worse, Obama allowed the image of himself being interrupted from his fancy Hawaiian vacation (Bush was vacationing quietly at Camp David) to take hold in the minds of Americans.
If Obama wants to regain control of the situation, then he is going to have to take some bold steps to appear like he takes terrorism seriously. I would start by kicking Napolitano to the curb. The last thing you want is the impression that your administration is comprised of incompetent boobs. Next, halt the closing of Gitmo. Everyone knows there are tons of terrorists there from the new terror hot spot Yemen. Finally start briefing the public regularly as to what you are doing to get to the bottom of the situation. Inform the public what actions you are taking to make sure this never happens again.
A leading health economist says everybody is missing the two worst aspects of the Democrats' healthcare reform bill.
ReplyDeleteDr. John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis says Congress and President Obama are about to nationalize health insurance in the U.S. for the first time in American history and make it illegal for anyone to pay a "real price" for health insurance anywhere in the country.
"The insurance companies will be turned into public utilities -- and going forward, they will not be able to solve the critical problems of cost and quality and access to care, which are very real and which need solutions," notes Goodman. "So they'll just be taken out of the mix, and they'll just be shuffling money mainly, and that's too bad because these are problems that need to get solved."
Goodman favors consumer-driven healthcare, where people control more of their own healthcare dollars.
"I think there's a tremendous opportunity to do this with chronic patients -- the diabetics, the asthmatics. We've done it in Medicaid. We know it works, and that will not be able to happen going forward," he explains. "They will not be able to carve out areas and say, 'We'll let the patient manage the money.' Basically everybody in America is going to have to have the same healthcare plan."
According to the health economist, that insurance will be "unoriginal, non-innovative, and...will not solve problems."
This is for that A$$HOLE Bruce "Epic" FAILk, who claims that tort reform wouldn't decrease the cost of health care. Looks to me like it will cut $54 billion from the deficit, and this is WITHOUT BS tricks like the Hypocrats are using, such as claiming to cut out Medicare in one bill and then adding the "cuts" back in in another bill. Now if the Hypocrats don't have it in their 3,000 page monstrosity it is just further proof that they are in the pockets of trial lawyers. As if we didn't know how dirty they were already ...
ReplyDeleteCBO Affirms Savings From Malpractice Reform
December 30, 2009
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2009/12/cbo_affirms_savings_from_malpr.html
When the Congressional Budget Office figured that limits on medical malpractice could reduce the federal budget deficit by $54 billion over the next decade, plenty of folks weren't satisfied with the analysis.
Iowa Rep. Bruce Braley, a Democrat who once headed his home state's trial lawyers association, asked CBO to show a few more steps in its math work. The CBO obliged in an 8-page letter on Tuesday.
The big question boils down to how a 2008 estimate of $5 billion in deficit-reduction from malpractice reform over a decade swelled to $54 billion less than a year later.
CBO goes on at length about its estimates. But the big jump boils down to four main reasons:
Bigger savings on malpractice costs (insurance, settlements, etc.);
Decline in defensive medicine;
Increased federal revenue as taxable wages rise; and
Medicare would save even more money than other insurance programs.
If you've read this far and are hungry for more detail, plow through the letter (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10872/12-29-Tort_Reform-Braley.pdf) for the nitty-gritty.
good one John. that Feilk is a real idiot. i'm glad to not see those progressive idiots on this blog anymore. they ruin this blog when they are on it. Chris you should ban all those liberal al queda from your blog.
ReplyDeleteRight on anonymous. Anyway, how can the libertards even answer all of the stupidity that is coming out of Congress and the Presidency?!?! I mean, it is so ridiculous and inane, like THIS article, where Obummer's plan is to have farmers turn farmland back into wilderness, raising food prices for the rest of us (just like government subsidies that, that's right, pay farmers to NOT grow crops to artificially raise prices on the rest of us ... that pay the taxes that go to farmers to not grow crops ..... ):
ReplyDeleteBig Government to Reduce Farms to Wilderness
by Van Helsing at December 30, 2009
Anyone wondering just what the point of modern liberalism might be need look no farther than a recent story on the government spending your money to turn farms into forests:
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has ordered his staff to revise a computerized forecasting model that showed that climate legislation supported by President Obama would make planting trees more lucrative than producing food.
The latest Agriculture Department economic-impact study of the climate bill, which passed the House this summer, found that the legislation would profit farmers in the long term. But those profits would come mostly from higher crop prices as a result of the legislation's incentives to plant more forests and thus reduce the amount of land devoted to food-producing agriculture.
According to the economic model used by the department and the Environmental Protection Agency, the legislation would give landowners incentives to convert up to 59 million acres of farmland into forests over the next 40 years.
Even Milksac has noticed that the consequences of letting farmland go back to wilderness won't be pretty.
Mr. Vilsack, in a little-noticed statement issued with the report earlier this month, said the department's forecasts "have caused considerable concern" among farmers and ranchers.
"If landowners plant trees to the extent the model suggests, this would be disruptive to agriculture in some regions of the country," he said.
Ya think? But no worries, Milksac ordered the model to be tweaked so that we can all pretend everything will be fine.
The last time the country went this crazy, FDR was paying farmers not to plant crops while people went hungry. Now we're paying farmers to stop existing, like we all ought to do for the good of the polar bears.
Patriots want to roll back government. Liberals want to roll back the human race.
I tried to post on Feilks blog a month ago and he wouldn't post it. Chris lets everything fly and I like that. Most of these bloggers edit eveything that is critical of them. But look at his numbers and then look at Chris'. John you should have your own blog.
ReplyDeletePeople chant anti-American slogans and burn an effigy of U.S. President Barack Obama... (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul)
ReplyDeleteMore Latest NewsLawyers: Sheens want to reconcile despite arrestQuestions and answers about full-body scannersYemeni forces raid al-Qaida hideout, clashes eruptCops: Man kills dog, streaks, pours coffee on headAP-GfK Poll: 2009 was bad for America, AmericansMore Latest NewsKABUL (AP) — A suicide bomber detonated his explosive vest at a military base in eastern Afghanistan on Wednesday, killing eight American civilians, U.S. officials said. The explosion occurred at Forward Operating Base Chapman in Khost province near the Afghan border with Pakistan.
U.S. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly confirmed that eight Americans died in the attack.
"We mourn the loss of life in this attack, and are withholding further details pending notification of next of kin," he said.
A senior State Department official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity that all of the victims are civilians. However, that could include military contractors and U.S. intelligence officials.
In Kabul, a spokesman for the international coalition force in Kabul said no U.S. or NATO troops were killed in the afternoon explosion at Chapman, one of dozens of forward operating bases that support reconstruction efforts and other civilian operations across the nation.
An attacker wearing a suicide vest caused the explosion, according to a senior U.S. official in Washington. Another senior U.S. official in Washington said there were conflicting reports on the number of casualties, but that others were injured in the attack. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because not all details about the incident had been confirmed.
Wazir Pacha, a police spokesman in Khost province, said local people reported hearing a blast on the base where an explosion in January killed an Afghan civilian and wounded four others. Soon afterward, two helicopters landed, a police officer in Khost said.
Separately on Wednesday, NATO questioned Afghan reports that international troops killed 10 civilians, including schoolchildren, in a weekend attack that prompted hundreds of angry Afghan protesters to burn an effigy of U.S. President Barack Obama and chant "death" to America.
The head of an investigative team appointed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai told the Associated Press by telephone that eight students between the ages of 12 and 14 were among the dead discovered in a village house in a remote section of Kunar province in eastern Afghanistan. NATO said in a statement released late Wednesday night that while there was no direct evidence to substantiate the claims, the international force had requested and welcomed a joint investigation to reach an "impartial and accurate determination" of what happened in the attack.
www.redstate.com
ReplyDeleteArticle: "The Obama Administration Gives INTERPOL More Favorable Immunities Than American Law Enforcement Agencies"
Does anyone believe that The Trillion Dollar Health Care President — as in, all he can do is spend and print a trillion dollars — cares one wit about the war on terror?
ReplyDeleteThis is the same Trillion-Dollar-all-I-care-about-is-health-care-President who strains mightily to ever use the word terror, or the phrase war on terror.
His Homeland Secretary went a whole hearing with out using the word terror, but prefers the term a “man-caused disaster.”
This is the same President and White House who refused to term the Fort Hood attacks by a deranged Muslim terror — and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to any where near that point only because of an email trail by the shooter to radical clerics and websites.
I’ll bet the only reason that President Obama waited three days to make his statement about the system’s failure is that the White House took a poll which showed the Trillion Dollar Health Care President being pummeled.
So, let’s get straight what happened. (Our own little review.) First, the woman who refuses to acknowledge or use the word terror is in charge of, well, protecting us from terror. Great start. This is logical if you want to cram down (a la health care) people’s throats the message that we are not at war — even if we are.
Did you know the I’m-in-charge-of-security-but-can’t-use-the-word-terror-Secretary said there is “no indication of a larger plot?.”
Obviously, she lied. She knew better.