When all else fails -- Supporters of Healthcare Reform Start Bus Tour (Aug 2009) Organizing for America, the national network of Obama supporters, is trying to rev up support for healthcare reform with a bus tour that kicks off tomorrow in Phoenix. The "Health Insurance Reform Now" bus will make 11 stops between tomorrow and when members of Congress return to Washington, hitting up Albuquerque, N.M., Denver, Raleigh, N.C., and Pittsburgh. (SITE NOTE: This is happening at the same time the AFP 9/12 Express is wending its way across America too. Perhaps one should be gratified that the Democrats are now down to copying the protest movement.)

The president's supporters seem to have been drowned out when it comes to healthcare reform, with activists on the right flocking to healthcare town halls around the country and getting a lot of attention for doing so. Conservatives already have a bus, too, the "Hands Off My Healthcare" bus, created by the conservative group Americans for Prosperity. It has toured the country for several weeks, this week stopping in Arkansas.

Organizing for America (OFA) is trying to get more attention and is calling for a "massive show of support" from voters interested in seeing healthcare reform get passed. The tour started on 28 Aug and was conveniently scheduled around the same time and down the street from Sen. John McCain's healthcare town hall meeting in Phoenix. (Source: US News.)

(SITE NOTE: We wonder if the anti-Healthcare protestors will be able to get the schedule of the bus tour (because it is sent out by email to select mailing lists) and get to "greet" the tour when it rolls into town. As mentioned before, there may be a tendency of the Union/ACORN to become violent when anti-Obamacare protestors "crash" their party and hope the Healthcare protestors notify the media FIRST that they fear attacks -- because this will deter any planned retribution. Currently the Obamacare supporters are circulating rumors that gun-toting Healthcare protestors will endanger the elderly Healthcare supporters at the bus tour stops -- though it is easy to see that it is Obamacare propaganda.

Another initiative by MoveOn.org is to start "thousands" of candlelight vigils throughout America. This may be effective as Healthcare protestors showing up would instantly be targeted with bad press. The bad part of candlelight vigils is that unless large crowds show up, it ends up only for internal publicity and the media will not bother covering it. Though MoveOn.org claims to have 4.2 million members, the turnout at Healthcare Town Halls has been minimal-to-nonexistent. It is not generating support for Obamacare.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA ADDRESSES SCHOOL CHILDREN (NATIONWIDE) -- or -- KEEP YOUR KIDS HOME FROM SCHOOL DAY (NATIONWIDE): -- Monday, September 7, 2009 -- UPDATE: 31 Aug 2009 Obama will give the speech at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Va. The speech is scheduled to broadcast live at 12 noon EST on C-SPAN and at whitehouse.gov. == In the midst of a rancorous health care debate and a sustained period of declining poll numbers, President Obama is seeking help from an unexpected constituency -- America's schoolchildren. And they better pay attention to his request: They may get graded on the assignment. The White House announced Wednesday that the president plans to tape a presidential address to public schoolchildren around the country to air at noon Tuesday. Along with advanced word of the speech, the U.S. Department of Education last week distributed a "menu of classroom activities" to teachers that aims to turn the speech into one of Mr. Obama's teachable moments. Among the activities, the government suggests that students from pre-kindergarten to sixth grade "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president." The material includes a suggestion that teachers then collect the letters and redistribute them at a later time "to make students accountable to their goals." Another task, recommended for younger students immediately after listening to the speech, is to engage in a discussion about what "the President wants us to do." "Does the speech make you want to do anything?" is one suggested question for the discussion. "Are we able to do what the President is asking of us?" The packet of activities was sent out electronically with an Aug. 26 electronic letter from U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Mr. Duncan encourages school administrators to air the presidential broadcast, which was timed to coincide with the start of school for most of the country. The educational materials do not mention any political issue, and the speech is not expected to stray from a clear message encouraging children to excel. "The President will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning," Mr. Duncan said in his letter. Of the activities, Mr. Duncan added: "These are ideas developed by and for teachers to help engage students and stimulate discussion on the importance of education in their lives." (Source: Washington Times.) (SITE NOTE: Others differ as there are clear statements of "helping the President." The guide for pre-K through grade 6 suggests questions students think about during the speech, such as "What is the President trying to tell me? What is the President asking me to do?" The plan for grades 7-12 includes a "guided discussion," with suggested topics: "What resonated with you from President Obama's speech? What is President Obama inspiring you to do?")

UPDATE: 1 Sep 2009 Parents across the country are rebelling against plans by President Barack Obama to speak directly to their children through the classrooms of the nation's public schools without their presence, participation and approval. (Source: WND.) Michelle Malkin (here and here.) and other conservative columnists state they will keep their children home from school that day and encourage other mothers to do so also. The outrage is the President attempting to "brainwash" their children. Others expressed outrage that Obama is politicizing the classrooms. However, by-and-large school districts cite a letter from the U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and concluded that the speech does not appear to include any elements of political indoctrination or bias -- even though the presentation was going to state how the children could "help" the President. The movement to boycott classes for the day nationwide was starting to spread -- though school officials state that parents have the option of asking their children be excused from the broadcast for "relighious or moral ground." (Odessa and Kentucky.com.)

UPDATE: 2 Sep 2009 Michelle Malkin: The White House has re-written its activist talking points for teachers/administrators disseminated by the US Department of Education and removed the language about "helping the president." Whitewashing: It's the Obama way. What they can't whitewash is the radicalism of many of the White House Teaching Fellows responsible for drafting the material — or the radicalism of the educational mentors with whom Obama served, starting with Chicago Annenberg Challenge/Woods Fund/neighbor Bill "education is the motor-force of revolution" Ayers. (SITE NOTE: Parents should NOT expect much help from educators who are traditionally of a liberal bent. However, IF outcries are sufficient, the schools may back down on showing the broadcast. The most effective statement is simply keep the kids home from school on a "Obama flu sick out." )

VIDEO: "I Pledge to OBAMA" for Leftist agenda SHOWN IN SCHOOLS. Children at Eagle Bay Elementary School in Farmington were shown this short video called "I pledge" on Aug. 28, 2009.

UPDATE: 4 Sep 2009 President Obama's planned address to America's schoolchildren on Sept. 8 is generating a firestorm of controversy from concerned parents who think he should mind his own business and stay away from their children. It's easy to see why. According to an Aug. 26 letter from Education Secretary Arne Duncan to school principals, the president wants to "challenge students to work hard, set educational goals and take responsibility for their learning." He also will call for "shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible." If the speech was simply limited to this kind of feel-good rhetoric, it would be harmless enough. But there is more to this noontime event than simply interrupting lunch. The Obama administration has recommended a series of activities before, during and after the speech intended to drill home the president's messages. Given that the teachers' unions are some of Mr. Obama's most ardent supporters, we expect that the supporting activities will have the feel of pro-Obama pep rallies. In a move suggestive of the Pyongyang public school system, the U.S. Department of Education recommended that before the speech students collectively brainstorm questions like, "Why does President Obama want to speak with us today? How will he inspire us?" Classrooms are to be festooned with "notable quotes excerpted (and posted in large print on board) from President Obama's speeches about education," presumably alongside benevolent-looking images of the dear leader. One of our favorite notable quotes was from a Sept. 9, 2008, speech in which Mr. Obama said that his administration would reform education "without mortgaging our children's future on an even larger amount of debt." This is a particularly salient passage in light of the fact this president is recklessly running up the national debt to unsustainable heights that our children (and their children and grandchildren) will have to pay for the rest of their lives. Class, talk among yourselves. During the speech, students are to engage in a busy-work nightmare, writing down key concepts from the speech, trying to capture direct quotations, and afterward matching them up to key words "to increase retention and deepen their understanding of an important aspect of the speech." This is troubling in light of Mr. Obama's history of radical activism in schools.

This week, Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center revealed details of Mr. Obama's tenure as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in the 1990s, where he forged a close partnership with self-described small "c" communist Bill Ayers. Under Mr. Obama's leadership, the group funneled $100 million to left-wing activists to promote a radical political agenda under the guise of education reform. Radicals always have viewed children as wards of the state to be shaped into shock troops to advance their revolutionary agendas. It is an idea of ancient provenance. Plato said that "children must attend school, whether their parents like it or not; for they belong to the state more than to their parents." Every radical leader of the 20th century put indoctrinating children at the top of his agenda. So when someone with Mr. Obama's background reaches directly into every school in America, parents are rightly concerned. The planned speech reinforces the lurking creepiness factor around the cult of personality being erected for this president. The White House is billing the speech as "historic," and perhaps they even believe it. But there is no reason for this federal intrusion into family and community affairs. It's not the president's job to be a surrogate parent, teacher or principal for America's children. He would better serve our kids by not bankrupting the country they will inherit. (Source: Washington Times.)

It was pointed out that Obama's administration committed a major breach of protocol by Arne Duncan sending a letter directly to Principals -- bypassing Superintendents and school boards, (Source: Front Page.) (SITE NOTE: There was no outrage or comments from the School Boards and Superintendents nationwide on this issue. Most are simply deferring to schools on whether to show or not the broadcast.)

...NBC spoke with Katie Gordon, a spokeswoman for the Florida Republican Party, who said the party's "beef" is with the accompanying lesson plans. The guide for pre-K through grade 6 suggests questions students think about during the speech, such as "What is the President trying to tell me? What is the President asking me to do?" The plan for grades 7-12 includes a "guided discussion," with suggested topics: "What resonated with you from President Obama's speech? What is President Obama inspiring you to do?" The Cato Institute, a public-policy research foundation, issued a press release entitled "Hey Obama, Leave Those Kids Alone," criticizing the "troubling buzzwords" in the lesson plans: "It's one thing for a president to encourage all kids to work hard and stay in school – that's a reasonable use of the bully pulpit. It's another thing entirely, however, to have the U.S. Department of Education send detailed instructions to public schools nationwide on how to glorify the president and the presidency, and push them to drive social change." Across the blogosphere, comments covered the spectrum, from critical to supportive, and from one student, a little anger: "I sent my children to school to be educated NOT indoctrinated." — justamom "The fact that people want to keep their kids from hearing the President of the United States encourage them to do well in school shows a true level of ignorance." — Firefey "As an [sic] 9th grade student, I'd like to say that 1. I'm not sure why everyone is so scared that we'll all be brainwashed by the President ... 2. My school is one that is not allowing us to watch the speech, and quite frankly, I'm pissed." — Willbw (Source: Yahoo News.)



UPDATE: 5 Sep 2009 More and more districts were opting for the "opt out" option such as in Colorado and Texas. Some schools stated that they would not broadcast the President's message. Georgia stated that there is nothing in state or federal law that would require or prohibit a school from showing this speech to students and the decision lies completely with local school officials. In Desoto county MS a letter was sent out for parent approval for their children to hear the Obama speech. The school doesn't have cable, but teachers will show it over the internet. Under no circumstances will children be shown it though without parental ok. Donald Phillips, superintendent of California's Poway Unified School District, sent a letter to parents on 2 Sep announcing that the district "will not be encouraging" teachers to include the viewing of the president's speech as a part of a supplemental classroom learning activity. If teachers choose to do so, they must inform parents by Friday and give them an opportunity to opt-out of the Tuesday broadcast. However, in more conservative areas, the speech acceptance is muted and left up to individual schools. For example, in Dallas TX schools are, encouraged, not required, to air the speech. The Houston Independent School District has directed principals to give parents advance notice if they are planning lessons around Obama's speech. Parents may opt-out their children. Officials with Texas' Keller Independent School District said they will allow students to view the presidential address. However, a district notice states, "If parents do not want their student(s) to watch the broadcast, parents may dismiss their student(s) during that time and not be penalized." Additionally, the children will not be required to use the United States Education Department materials for suggested brainstorming assignments after the speech. Many Texas school districts are asking parents to contact principals if they do not wish for their children to view the speech while several schools have opted not to show the broadcast. In Utah, school districts are taking precautions ahead of the speech, according to KSL 5 News. Salt Lake City School District is advising schools to have teachers notify parents if they plan on airing the address in class, and then allowing an opt-out. Wisconsin school districts have been hearing from concerned parents, according to the Associated Press. Palm Beach County, Fla., public schools may not run the broadcastm but Broward County FL school district told parents that they can NOT opt out of watching the President. In Columbia, Mo., a district spokeswoman said kids won't be seeing the speech at all. (Source: WND.) Utah's Republican Gov. Gary Herbert supports President Barack Obama's plan to deliver a televised back-to-school speech to the nation's students on Tuesday, saying he sees "nothing but good coming out of this." The Superintendent of Tempe AZ stated, "I am not permitting parents to opt out students from viewing the President's message, since this is a purely educational event. Parents and interested individuals should access the White House website to learn more about the President's address." Orleans Parish School Board Superintendent Darryl Kilbert said Friday he's ordering teachers, staff and students to watch President Obama's address designated for schools on Sep. 8 -- and encouraged charter schools to do so also. Bozeman, Montana Public Schools Superintendent Kirk Miller said the president's address falls under the school's policies on guest speakers. That policy states that, "Unless the principal approves otherwise, the teacher will not allow non-class members to hear the speaker" -- so no parents in school. Districts in states including Texas, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, Wisconsin have decided not to show the speech to students. Others are still thinking it over or are letting parents have their kids opt out. Bottomline is that there is no uniformity even within each state. Most local school districts are not planning to broadcast President Barack Obama's speech to students Tuesday live in their classrooms. The typical approach is that of the Chester School District, which has opted to record the noon broadcast and make the recording available afterward to teachers who want to show it, rather than interrupt classes with a live showing. The Monroe-Woodbury School District is also recording the speech for potential viewing in kindergarten through eighth grade, while giving high school teachers the option of showing the speech live if it's pertinent to their courses. (SITE NOTE: This is a sensible approach that let's the teachers decide to use the tape or not, but only if it fits their teaching materials.)

HOWEVER, the big districts will be missing. Los Angeles public schools won't be in session on 8 Sep when President Obama delivers his speech to the nation's children. Neither will those in the Boston schools. Or the New York City public schools. Or those in Seattle, Buffalo or Eugene (Oregon). Obamatuerism for timing. Newt Gingrich came out in favor of the speech as "positive." (SITE NOTE: Funny note from one kid: She stated all the kids in her school hate him because he wanted to extend the school day. No adults remembered and had to look it up. It's true: Obama in Mar 2008 on extending school day. If other kids remember, this may be a tough crowd for Obama.)

On 3 Sep CNN's Roland Martin berated the critics of the accompanying lesson plan for President Obama's upcoming speech to school kids, calling them "insane parents." He later complimented Mr. Obama for the planned speech and made another insult: "I'm glad we have a president who's willing to speak to children, because maybe these same parents were acting like children." From the Obama side of the aisle, the right wing parents are simply "nuts." On NBC, Brian Williams declared Obama's "message will be about the importance of working hard and staying in school" and though "Presidents have done this type of thing before," those occurred, he rued, before "this hyper-partisan era of instant and vocal outrage immediately on both the right and the left." A new high-tech Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Racism. And parents too dumb to raise their children. That was how NBC sought to explain away opposition to Pres. Obama's planned speech to schoolchildren. John Harwood of MNSBC and the New York Times stated, "...But I gotta tell you, Amy [Robach], as somebody who's covered Washington for a long time, this is one of the most ridiculous controversies I've ever seen. So far as I can tell, the biggest danger to kids in this whole thing is that a lot of the parents complaining aren't smart enough to raise them very effectively. Because if you think that a president coming into your school, kids school, and saying work hard and stay in school is a danger to kids, you've got some problems." (SITE NOTE: Isn't it interesting that when Obama's people use the internet they are innovative, but when perfect the same techniques to use against the Obots, suddenly it is a "new high-tech right wing conspiracy.") As expected, FOX will NOT preempt its regular programming to broadcast the President's speech -- but it will be aired on Fox News in its entirety. The House minority leader Rep Boehner has asked networks to permit a GOP response after Obama's address.


One side: The Wingnuts Overreact


The Other Side: Conservatives worry about the Obama Making it Political

UPDATE: 6 Sep 2009 And what Obama plans to do on Sept. 8 with a planned speech directly to students in public schools across the United States may be illegal, according to Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel as well as dean of Liberty University School of Law. "Obama has pushed his political agenda to the extreme by forcing himself on America's children," ... Staver's critique cited 20 U.S.C. § 3403, which regards the Department of Education and states, "No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system." ... "Federal law expressly forbids the Secretary of Education or any officer from exercising 'any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system,'" the analysis said. (Source: WND.) (SITE NOTE: However, we did NOT read about anyone filing an injunction to stop the broadcast. Until then it is just "conservative noise"...regardless of all the precedents they state. Pundits in the Obama support side shrug this off as a political move. What we say is that if you feel strongly about this, keep your kids home. If you have concerns, but are unsure, send your kids to school. However, you need to monitor Obama's message VERY CAREFULLY and if he so much as puts in one "how can you help America?" and "campaign for volunteerism," slap your PRINCIPALS with a lawsuit. If Obama does make the speech political -- which we are certain he will -- the protestors nationwide should go immediately after the educators (School boards, principals, teachers) who allowed the message over their objections. Demand an explanation of how their assertion that an "educational event" was turned into a "political event." Then as a nationwide class action suit, attack the DOE (Arne Duncan) for violating the law that specifically states the DOE will NOT set the curriculum of the local schools -- and list the local school boards, schools and teachers as co-defendants.)

UPDATE: 7 Sep 2009 Hot Air published the transcript of Obama's rewritten speech to the children. The speech, included in its entirety below, turned out to be entirely innocuous. But by asking teachers to impress upon children the need to "help President Obama," they made it look blatantly political. Though I felt very queasy when Obama talks of his personal history because these statements skirt the truth, the speech did not seem to be political at all. His bit about his being educated by his mother at 4:30 in the morning because she "had to go to work" and they "didn't have the money to go to the school where "THE OTHER AMERICAN KIDS WENT" skirts the fact that the truth with "wordsmithing." It calls on kids to stay in school and study hard. EVERYONE NEEDS TO BACK OFF ON THIS SPEECH. They sanitized it -- and it is no longer objectionable as an ideological sermon. Now even the American Thinker states: "A perfectly fine, perfectly forgettable speech for young people." HOWEVER, WATCH THE SPEECH TO ENSURE HE DOES NOT DEVIATE FROM HIS PREPARED TEXT!!! (SITE NOTE: As it turned out, the speech was rather innocuous, but the DOE Recommended Grades 7-12 Menu of Classroom Activites sure as hell was political. CNSNews also noted this as well. )

VIDEO: Obama's Speech to Kids

UPDATE: 8 Sep 2009 The following is from the U.S. Education Department:

On September 8, 2009, President Barack Obama delivered a national address to the students of America. During this special address, the president spoke directly to the nation's children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school. The president challenged students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning.

The U.S. Department of Education invites students of all ages, teachers, and administrators to participate in this historic moment by watching the president's address, which is available above and on the White House Web site (http://www.whitehouse.gov/mediaresources/). We also encourage educators to use this moment to help students get focused and inspired to begin the new academic year. The Department of Education offers educators a menu of classroom activities—created by its teachers-in-residence, the Teaching Ambassador Fellows—to help engage students in the address and stimulate classroom discussions about the importance of education.

To learn more, please see the following:

Additional Frequently Asked Questions (September 4) Frequently Asked Questions (September 3)
Classroom Activities (Pre-K – 6) PDF (115K) | MS Word (119K)
Classroom Activities (7 – 12) PDF (170K) | MS Word (184K)

To further encourage student engagement, the U.S. Department of Education is launching the "I Am What I Learn" video contest. On September 8, we will invite students to respond to the president's challenge by creating videos, up to two minutes in length, describing the steps they will take to improve their education and the role education will play in fulfilling their dreams.

We invite all students age 13 and older to create and upload their videos to YouTube by October 8. Submissions can be in the form of video blogs, public service announcements (PSAs), music videos, or documentaries. Students are encouraged to have fun and be creative with this project! The general public will then vote on their favorites to determine the top 20 finalists. These 20 videos will be reviewed by a panel of judges including U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. The panel will choose three winners, each of whom will receive a $1,000 cash prize.

Starting this Friday, you can visit www.ed.gov/iamwhatilearn to find out more.

Additional Frequently Asked Questions (September 4)

Q: What is the speech about?

A: The goal of the speech and classroom activities is to challenge students to set goals, work hard and stay in school. This isn't a policy speech.

(SITE NOTE: The speech WAS political before Obama got caught and conservatives raised hell. It was neutered, but his real agenda is yet to come. This speech is a set up for his September 11 "Volunteerism" speech that is directly tied to the GIVE Act -- the boondoggle monstrosity that created Americorps in a new form with the FEMA scheme. BEWARE!!! -- In the Grade 7-12 DOE Classroom activities, it stated: Is President Obama inspiring you to do anything? Is he challenging you to do anything? What do you believe are the challenges of your generation? How can you be a part of addressing these challenges?" -- Next go to the News interviews with the kids and watch them parrot "inspire" and "challenge" as prompted by reporters questions -- YES, GO VOLUNTEERISM POLICY -- TO BE ANNOUNCED BY OBAMA ON 11 SEPTEMBER. This speech wasn't about "policy," but it sure was POLITICAL. The CNSNews had an article that agreed with our view. ))

Q: Who came up with the idea?

A: The White House and Department of Education collaborated

Q: Is it mandatory?

A: No. The Department is inviting schools to show the address. The choice is entirely up to schools and their communities.

Q: Who did the letter announcing the speech go to?

A: The e-mail went out on Aug. 25 to districts (all 14,000+) and schools (as many of the 100,000+ public and private as we could reach).
Q: Would the administration be willing to release the speech in advance of its delivery?

A: Yes. The speech will be released on Monday and delivered on Tuesday.

Q: Has any other President done something like this?

A: In 1991 President Bush addressed the nation's students on live television from an American history classroom at Deal Junior High, in Washington, D.C. (SITE NOTE: We agree it is the same. The trouble is the Democrats don't remember history and the Spanish Inquisition that THEY brought about. (American Thinker.) Ronald Regan also addressed the kids as well. HOWEVER, it only became so AFTER Obama was forced to rewrite his speech to take out all the political claptrap because he was called to task for it. Now there appears to be nothing wrong with the speech, BUT all the political claptrap was moved to the DOE "menu" for teachers to download.)

Q: How can I watch the speech?

A: You can watch it at 12pm ET on the WH website, on CSPAN or on the CSPAN website. It will also be available via satellite for schools. For more information you can visit www.ed.gov.

Q: If I miss the speech can I watch it later?

A: The speech will continue to be available on www.ed.gov and on http://www.whitehouse.gov/mediaresources/.

Frequently Asked Questions (September 3)


1. When will the president deliver his address?

President Obama will speak to the students of America at 12:00 p.m., ET on Tuesday, Sept. 8, 2009. (Note that this is a change from the time originally scheduled.)

2. How can I watch the president's address to students?

Viewers may watch the address via the Internet by visiting the White House Web site, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/live/, where the address will be streamed live.
C-SPAN, the cable public affairs network, will cover the president's speech live on its C-SPAN television channel and provide live streaming video online at C-SPAN.org. The speech also will be aired live on C-SPAN Radio (90.1 FM in Washington, D.C., and channel 132 on XM Satellite Radio).

White House television will make the address available via satellite for access by local broadcast outlets and school districts. The satellite feed will be live for testing and calibration beginning at 11am ET on September 8th using the following coordinates: Galaxy 28/Transponder 17, Slot C (9 MHz); Uplink Frequency 14344.5 Horizontal; Downlink Frequency 12044.5 Vertical

For updates related to the president's speech, please visit http://www.whitehouse.gov/mediaresources/ or www.ed.gov.

3. What is the duration of the president's address?

The president is scheduled to speak for 15 – 20 minutes. The U.S. Department of Education provides resources for educators who may choose to use the president's address as a teachable moment. Two menus of classroom activities, one for students in grades Pre-K – 6, and another for students in grades 7 – 12, may be found here:

Classroom Activities (Pre-K – 6)

PDF (115K) | MS Word (119K)

Classroom Activities (7 – 12)

PDF (170K) | MS Word (184K)

4. Does the White House Web site have the capacity to host all of the potential live viewers for this event?
The White House Web site is equipped with the appropriate amount of bandwidth to accommodate a large viewership.
5. Will the address be available in some form after the original broadcast date and time?

Downloadable video of the speech will be made available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/mediaresources/ as well as on www.ed.gov. C-SPAN.org will provide archived and "on-demand" viewing options.
6. Will the address include captioning for deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers?

The live address broadcast on C-SPAN will include captioning.

7. Is the "Get Schooled" television event in the evening on Sept. 8 hosted by the Viacom network and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation connected to the president's speech?

While the U.S. Department of Education is a partner in this effort, the president's noontime address is a separate event. Get Schooled is a five-year national platform developed by Viacom and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that connects, inspires, and mobilizes people to find effective solutions to education challenges. The initiative provides resources, information, and creative programming aimed at engaging a range of audiences in an effort to address America's education crisis. A television event, Get Schooled: You Have the Right, formally kicks off the "Get Schooled" initiative at 8:00 p.m., ET on Sept. 8. (SOURCE: Education.gov.)

Deconstructing the Speech

by Kurt Schlichter

A close reading of the President's speech to schoolchildren today reveals some notable things. As a trial lawyer, it's professionally interesting to see how he makes his case – and to see what case he is actually making. And as the father of a new kindergartner and a toddler, I'm interested in seeing how he goes about trying to influence our children – not because I'm paranoid about him influencing my kids but because I'd like to learn how to do it myself.

Let's start with some statistics. My computer counted 36 uses of the word "I" and 15 uses of the contraction "I'm" in 2,367 words. The subject is supposed to be "school," but that word only appears 25 times. So, the subject is the President.

The first two paragraphs seem innocuous, but they set the tone. There are a lot of contractions – 110 by my Dell's count. You use those to seem comfortable and informal, sort of like Matlock would. It assures the jury – I mean the kids – that you are not so different from them, that you're one of them. It's a good move – I do it. I'm just not sure the President should.

After some attempts at light bonding through feigned commiseration – "[S]ome of you are probably wishing it were still summer, and you could've stayed in bed just a little longer this morning." — he moves right into the meat of the speech – anecdotes from the life of Barack Obama.

Fair enough – it's not a bad story, but it gets distracting. When he discussed about how his mother gave him "American" lessons every morning at 4:30 a.m. in Indonesia, I wondered why he would bring that up when every "birther/Obama is a Muslim" nut out there would hop right on it. Of course, maybe he wants to spin up a controversy where he's in the right to drag the spotlight off his communist cop-killer-hugging "truther" ex-green jobs czar. If so, give him an "A" for spin strategy. And don't take the bait.

He also mentions that his mother would call him "buster" when he got out of line. I'm not sure kids today can relate. Most of the special little snowflakes listening to his speech are totally unfamiliar with the concept of parents asserting authority over them.

He then outlines the non-reflexive theme of his talk: "I'm here because I want to talk with you about your education and what's expected of all of you in this new school year." Objection! I'm unfamiliar with any provision of our Constitution enumerating setting expectations for our school kids among the responsibilities of the President.

He next moves right into another of his Top 5 rhetorical tricks – the "As I've said before …" gambit: "Now I've given a lot of speeches about education. And I've talked a lot about responsibility." With this, the President firmly establishes himself as 100% behind education and responsibility and in unwavering opposition to those who are against education and responsibility. I guess you know who you are.

He is also on record about "your parents' responsibility for making sure you stay on track, and get your homework done, and don't spend every waking hour in front of the TV or with that Xbox." Again, I have a problem with the premise that the President has anything at all to say about how I raise my kid. He also mentions how he has talked about the responsibilities of teachers and government. The speech does not contain the words "union," "charter" or "choice." I didn't bother looking for the word "voucher."

Then he gets to the kids' own responsibility. Fair enough – I'm all for putting the consequences of bad decisions (like not studying, skipping school and listening to hip hop) on the person making them. This is because it is the most economically efficient way to incentivize good behavior and because, as Judge Smails observed in Caddyshack, "The world needs ditch diggers too."

The President observes that everyone has at least one talent that makes them special, and gives an example. "Maybe you could be a good writer – maybe even good enough to write a book . . . ." Yeah, folks who have written books are awesome. Or maybe you could "come up with the next iPhone or a new medicine." That's less likely – the next iPhone will come from India after California's anti-business environment drove the inventor out of Silicon Valley. But we do need folks to invent new medicines and vaccines – otherwise there'll be no one left for the Democrat-supporting plaintiffs' bar to sue.

He then mentions that the kids might want to become "a member of our military" but accurately warns that "You're going to need a good education" to do so. That's true and great to hear from our commander-in-chief. Nice to see he isn't buying that "only dummies end up in Iraq" nonsense – our military is fanatical about education.

The President then suggests that education will give you "the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free." Whoa, Nellie! As a law school professor, the President knows that "critical thinking" actually embodies the exact opposite of the meanings of both words. It is, instead, code for a left-wing, rote indoctrination that is essentially a crash course in why America sucks. No thanks. But the next line does off-handedly mention that private enterprise might have some small contribution to make to our prosperity.

Then there's more on his own life experience, including: "There were times when I was lonely and felt like I didn't fit in." I know that feeling. I'm a conservative trial lawyer in Los Angeles.

Next comes the appeal to personal responsibility:

But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life – what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you've got going on at home – that's no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That's no excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. That's no excuse for not trying.

Wow, I could have written that. Of course, my politics are also congruent with that philosophy instead of completely at odds with it.

Next, he tells the inspiring stories – and they are inspiring – of three kids, Jazmin, Andoni and Shantell, who overcame the odds against their completing their education. This raises a question – does anyone name their kids things like Bill or Susie anymore? Just wondering.

Then he switches into cheerleader mode, talking about the importance of hard work and effort. This is good stuff – again, I just wish he governed like he believed it. He mentions Michael Jordan's quote "I have failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed." Hear that, Chrysler and GM?

So, in short, the message, beyond how interesting his own experiences were, is somewhat innocuous – work hard and do well in school. The sub-text, though, is a bit different. The President has no real business making this speech and injecting himself into my kids' lives. If he's going to talk about educational responsibilities, he might at least mention the teachers unions that have done so much to stifle reform and protect the incompetent (Yeah, I know the K-5 kids won't get it but the high school kids know the score). The part about "critical thinking" is just nonsense – the last thing the educrats want is thinking, much less thinking that critically assesses their weary leftist dogma.

Rhetorically, the speech is clearly designed to introduce the friendly face of the President's ideology to a future generation of voters. It strives for a false familiarity through vivid verbal images and casual manners of speech. But even without the positively creepy discussion guide's recommendation that kids write letters to the President pledging their help to fulfill his vision, the whole thing is just inappropriate. Thanks for the help with my kids, Mr. President, but no thanks – I think I've got it covered.

But at least we can all agree on the speech's last phrase – "God bless America." (Source: Big Hollywood.)

VIDEO: Sean Hannity interviews Rep Cantor

Sean Hannity talking with GOP Rep. Eric Cantor about President Obama's Health Care Speech to a Joint Session of Congress. Cantor said he was "taken aback by the partisan nature of the speech." He said Obama was throwing up a smokescreen with the attacks on opponents of his attempt to bring Government Health Care. He also said Obama overstated the idea that the economy is "back from the brink." Cantor said again he was "aghast" at the "hyperbole" used by Obama in the speech. In contrast to that, Cantor said "we need some adult leadership."

Obama cannot help but stretch the truth. An article in South Dakota Politics comments about his speech:

"During his speech, President Obama told two heartwrenching stories of medical patients who had had their health insurance unfairly ripped away from them with devastating consequences. The first is as follows:

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.

This is infuriating, if true. But is it? Unless Obama is talking about a case other than that of Otto Raddatz, whose sister Peggy testified before Congress on his behalf, then, no. It isn't. On June 16, 2009, CNN wrote this about the Raddatz case:

Peggy Raddatz testified on behalf of her brother, who was diagnosed with stage four non-Hodgkin's type lymphoma. In the midst of his chemotherapy treatment, his coverage was rescinded and he was not able to receive the stem cell transplant needed to save his life.

Raddatz's brother was told his coverage was canceled for failing to disclose that, unknown to him, a doctor had once noted in his file that a CT scan showed a small aneurysm and some insignificant gallstones.

But this is not where the story ends. Indeed, according to the CNN article:

Peggy Raddatz worked with the Illinois attorney general's office and eventually was able, after two appeals, to get her brother's coverage reinstated.

But if Otto Raddatz had had his coverage reinstated, why did his sister have to testify in his behalf? Did he die, as Obama said? Well, yes, he died - three years later. Was it because of the problem with his insurance? No. Peggy Raddatz asserted that his insurance had been "reinstated without any lapse." Furthermore, according to the hearing transcript:

The company relented and Otto received his stem cell transplant. He was able to live 3 more years before passing away earlier this year. So Obama's tale isn't exactly true. What about the other story? Here's how Obama tells it:

Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company cancelled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer had more than doubled in size. That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.

Interestingly enough, a case identical to this one appeared CNN article. I rather suspect that it is the one Obama is talking about. Here's what it says:

Robin Beaton found out last June she had an aggressive form of breast cancer and needed surgery -- immediately. Her insurance carrier precertified her for a double mastectomy and hospital stay. But three days before the operation, the insurance company called and told her they had red-flagged her chart and she would not be able to have her surgery.

The reason? In May 2008, Beaton had visited a dermatologist for acne. A word written on her chart was interpreted to mean precancerous, so the insurance company decided to launch an investigation into her medical history.

Well, that sounds pretty bad. But CNN also says the following:

Beaton had listed her weight incorrectly. She also didn't disclose medication she had taken for a pre-existing heart condition -- medicine she wasn't taking when she originally applied for coverage.

So was Beaton's insurance really just rescinded because she had acne? No. It was rescinded because it looked like she had failed to report precancerous acne and when the insurance company launched an investigation of her medical history; they found out that she hadn't reported information about a pre-existing heart condition. According to CNN, she hadn't been taking that medication when she applied for coverage. Perhaps that is why Beaton was able to, with help from her representative, have her care reinstated.

In any case, it is important to note that both patients had their problems resolved in the Status Quo. And in the Status Quo, if someone has a problem with their insurance company, they can go to the government for help. But let's say the government is your insurance company. What is your recourse if it wrongs you? Where does a patient go then?" (Source: South Dakota Politics.)

Then there's the problem of rising costs. We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages. It's why so many employers — especially small businesses — are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely. It's why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally — like our automakers — are at a huge disadvantage. And it's why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it — about $1000 per year that pays for somebody else's emergency room and charitable care. (SITE NOTE: The problem ALL agree on is that TORT REFORM is needed FIRST. However, Democrats are the largest recipients of political donations from TRIAL LAWYERS. Obama -- admit it that YOUR PARTY (AND A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF REPUBLICANS) are at the root of obstructing TRUE health care reform.)

Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.

These are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system. The question is how. (SITE NOTE: WHOA...if it is unsustainable now. How will it be under your plan? You still haven't come up with anyway to pay for it. Even the Congressional Budget Office says your numbers are screwed up. There is no way you can implement your health care plan withiout destroying America's economy. It is not stupid me that says this, but untold numbers of economists.)

There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.

I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch. And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months. During that time, we have seen Washington at its best and its worst. (SITE NOTE: Beware of Snake Oil Salesmen when they sound reasonable.)

We have seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform. Of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have completed their work, and the Senate Finance Committee announced today that it will move forward next week. That has never happened before.

Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses; hospitals, seniors' groups and even drug companies — many of whom opposed reform in the past. And there is agreement in this chamber on about 80 percent of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been. (SITE NOTE: BAM!!! ...BIG LIE. The AARP is in denial of his claims of their support. The "unprecedented" coalition includes the AMA who are only 18% of all doctors. If fact, the "unprecedented" numbers are AGAINST his health plan.)

But what we have also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government. Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and countercharges, confusion has reigned. (SITE NOTE: Obama blames the REPUBLICANS, but in truth it is WE, THE PEOPLE that has risen up against him. Since April the grassroots movement has grown and comprises Democrats, Independents and Republicans. DO NOT CHANGE THE FOCUS. The Republicans are not the problem. The American people are your problem.)

Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on health care. The plan I'm announcing tonight would meet three basic goals: (SITE NOTE: BULLSHIT!!! "Bipartisan" is the word you have used since you came into office to ram things down the American people's throats. WE, THE PEOPLE do not want "bipartisan" cooperation to pass YOUR plan. We want nothing to do with your plan. That is the bottomline. Our threat is real. Relent or retire. You do want you want to do -- and suffer the consequences in 2010. Arlen Specter is gone. Harry Reid will be gone. Listen...if you use your Democratic numbers as Nancy Pelosi stated she would do, your party may cease to exist in 2010 onward.)

It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don't. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. It's a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge — not just government and insurance companies, but employers and individuals. And it's a plan that incorporates ideas from Senators and Congressmen; from Democrats and Republicans — and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election.

Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan:

First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have. (SITE NOTE: BULLSHIT. It has been proven that hidden in the plans are the individuals will be forced to relinquish their plans if the plans change. As for Medicare, after the Obama plan steals $200 billion to pay for the health plan, Medicare Advantage will cease to exist.)

What this plan will do is to make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies — because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives. (SITE NOTE: BULLSHIT. Single payer = government FREE insurance. Only a fool cannot see that single payer kills the insurance company and then allows the government to jack up the rates. ENOUGH...I CAN'T TAKE ANYMORE OF THIS LYING SACK OF PUKE'S COMMENTS. Obama is a lying, sack of dog poop. He cannot be trusted. Go to National Health Plan for rebutting Obama's points one-by-one. He thinks that by saying the same lies over and over, people on the conservative side will believe him from brain-washing.)

That's what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan — more security and stability.

Now, if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange — a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it's time to give every American the same opportunity that we've given ourselves.

For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need. And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned. This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can't get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill. This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it's a good idea now, and we should embrace it.

Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those — particularly the young and healthy — who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers. The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for those people's expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek — especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions — just can't be achieved. (SITE NOTE: The point is that many of the uninsured CAN AFFORD insurance but opt not to -- NOT BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT. Obama calls this irresponsible behavior that costs all the rest of us money. HOW??? It is more so the uninsured illegal alien who by law cannot be turned away from the emergency room. Are they "irresponsible"???)

That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. Likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage, and 95 percent of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements. But we cannot have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees. Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part.

While there remain some significant details to be ironed out, I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance, an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance.

And I have no doubt that these reforms would greatly benefit Americans from all walks of life, as well as the economy as a whole. Still, given all the misinformation that's been spread over the past few months, I realize that many Americans have grown nervous about reform. So tonight I'd like to address some of the key controversies that are still out there.

Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false — the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.

VIDEO: Rep Wilson yells out "You Lie!"

Later Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who yelled out "you lie!' in the midst of President Obama's speech before a joint session of Congress, has called the White House to offer an apology to Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. But is it an apology for breaching decorum (shouting out at the President) or an apology for calling Obama a liar? As it turns out Wilson continues to disagree with the content of Obama's statement -- and apologized for breach of decorum. Vice President Joe Biden says the outburst during President Barack Obama's health-care speech Wednesday night "demeaned the institution." South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson shouted "You lie" after Obama said extending health care to all Americans would not mean insuring illegal immigrants. Appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America" Thursday, Biden said the incident made him "embarrassed for the chamber and a Congress I love." (Source: AP) What has been the fallout of Joe Wilson's outburst? $17,000 per hour in campaign contributions, give or take a thousand or so. He has raised $750,000 in less than 48 hours according to a national Republican fundraising committee. But wait... Wilson trails Democratic challenger Rob Miller 44-43 in a PPP survey conducted on 10-11 Sep. Last year Wilson defeated Miller 54-46. 62% of voters in SC-2 disapprove of Wilson's actions while just 29% think they were ok. By a 48-41 margin Republicans think what he did was fine, but independents are opposed to it by a 66/25 margin and Democrats are 84/10. He may not have benefitted all that much by his actions.

And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up — under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place. (SITE NOTE:: HELP!!! THIS MAN'S LIES ARE OUT OF CONTROL Perhaps not all plans had the abortion clauses in there, but most committee versions did. They were cleared because THEY WILL BE PUT BACK IN DURING THE RECONCILIATION BETWEEN SENATE AND HOUSE VERSIONS. DOES OBAMA BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE DON'T REMEMBER WHAT Rahm Emaniel, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi did behind locked doors during the Stimulus, Omnibus bill, etc. Leopards don't change their spots and skunks don't wash off their stink.)

My health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a "government takeover" of the entire health care system. As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare.

So let me set the record straight. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly — by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.

Insurance executives don't do this because they are bad people. They do it because it's profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill; they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."

Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. The insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear — it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers. It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.

It's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated — by the left, the right, or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end — and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have. (SITE NOTE: We have repeatedly heard that 83 percent of Americans favor the "public option." However, when the Obots are questioned as to the study or poll that came up with that number, there are only mumbles -- and then they repeat the number again. We have no idea how that number was formulated to appear in the Democratic "talking points" handed out by Organizing for America.)

For example, some have suggested that that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others propose a co-op or another nonprofit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.

Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to members of this chamber, and to the public — and that is how we pay for this plan. Here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize. Part of the reason I faced a trillion dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for — from the Iraq War to tax breaks for the wealthy. I will not make that same mistake with health care.

Second, we've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system — a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care doesn't make us healthier. That's not my judgment — it's the judgment of medical professionals across this country. And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid. (SITE NOTE: The savings eyed is $200 billion from Medicare. People like their Medicare -- but Obama wants to kill it because it is "waste.")

In fact, I want to speak directly to America's seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that's been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate.

More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years. That is how Medicare was born. And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next. That is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.

The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies — subsidies that do everything to pad their profits and nothing to improve your care. And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead. (SITE NOTE: Obama goes after the insurance companies, but leaves the pharmaceutical companies alone because he cut a deal with them. Seniors complain of their price gouging more than insurance companies. And what about TORT REFORM? God forbid that Obama offend the trial lawyers who support the Democratic political coffers. But the main objection remains that if the Government becomes the FREE insurer, it will drive insurance companies out of the market -- and that will allow the government to set whatever rates they want to charge. THEY WILL HAVE A MONOPOLY.)

These steps will ensure that you — America's seniors — get the benefits you've been promised. They will ensure that Medicare is there for future generations. And we can use some of the savings to fill the gap in coverage that forces too many seniors to pay thousands of dollars a year out of their own pocket for prescription drugs. That's what this plan will do for you. So don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut — especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past, and just this year supported a budget that would have essentially turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program. That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare.

Now, because Medicare is such a big part of the health care system, making the program more efficient can help usher in changes in the way we deliver health care that can reduce costs for everybody. We have long known that some places, like the Intermountain Healthcare in Utah or the Geisinger Health System in rural Pennsylvania, offer high-quality care at costs below average. The commission can help encourage the adoption of these common sense best practices by doctors and medical professionals throughout the system — everything from reducing hospital infection rates to encouraging better coordination between teams of doctors.

Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. Much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers. This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money — an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts. And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long-run.

Finally, many in this chamber — particularly on the Republican side of the aisle — have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care. I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know that the Bush Administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues. It's a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today. (SITE NOTE: BULL SHIT. It is the MAJORITY of doctors that are calling for Tort Reform. The ridiculous 2000 percent increase since the 1960s have driven many doctors out of private practice into HMOs where they can hide. To protect themselves, they order unnecessary tests -- just in case something goes wrong. The malpractice judgments are out of control.)

Add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years — less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration. Most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent — but spent badly — in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.

This is the plan I'm proposing. It's a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight — Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open. But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now. (SITE NOTE: So??? Rep Joe Wilson just "called him out" for misrepresenting the facts. But who is he going to fight? The Congressional Budget Office for their facts? Is it the WE, THE PEOPLE??? Is this a threat that he will ram his Health Care Plan through on the sheer majority votes of the Democrats? Michael Steele said, "Go ahead." It will spell the death of the Democrats in 2010. Public disapproval of President Barack Obama's handling of health care has leaped to 52 percent, according to Associated Press-GfK poll that underscores the country's glowering mood as the White House made a renewed pitch for an overhaul. Just 42 percent approve of the president's work on the high-profile health issue. The survey was released Wednesday before his nationally televised effort to persuade Congress and voters to back his drive to reshape the nation's $2.5 trillion-a-year medical system. (Source: Yahoo.))

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true. That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed — the ones who suffer silently, and the ones who shared their stories with us at town hall meetings, in e-mails, and in letters.

I received one of those letters a few days ago. It was from our beloved friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy. He had written it back in May, shortly after he was told that his illness was terminal. He asked that it be delivered upon his death. (SITE NOTE: AUGHHHH...Why didn't he drag Ted Kennedy's body in and prop it on a chair? He's preaching to liberals -- not the people who remember the drunk driving off the bridge leaving a young girl to drown; people from the Vietnam War; and the list goes on. He is not our hero -- he is yours.)

In it, he spoke about what a happy time his last months were, thanks to the love and support of family and friends, his wife, Vicki, and his children, who are here tonight . And he expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform — "that great unfinished business of our society," he called it — would finally pass. He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that "it concerns more than material things." ''What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."

I've thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days — the character of our country. One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government. And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and sometimes angry debate.

For some of Ted Kennedy's critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty. In their mind, his passion for universal health care was nothing more than a passion for big government.

But those of us who knew Teddy and worked with him here — people of both parties — know that what drove him was something more. His friend, Orrin Hatch, knows that. They worked together to provide children with health insurance. His friend John McCain knows that. They worked together on a Patient's Bill of Rights. His friend Chuck Grassley knows that. They worked together to provide health care to children with disabilities.

On issues like these, Ted Kennedy's passion was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience. It was the experience of having two children stricken with cancer. He never forgot the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick; and he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance; what it would be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent — there is something that could make you better, but I just can't afford it.

That large heartedness — that concern and regard for the plight of others — is not a partisan feeling. It is not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character. Our ability to stand in other people's shoes. A recognition that we are all in this together; that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand. A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.

This has always been the history of our progress. In 1933, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it. In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down. They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind. (SITE NOTE: Obama should NEVER be allowed to come near historical facts. They become fiction immediately.)

You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom; and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter — that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.

What was true then remains true today. I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road — to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term. (SITE NOTE: 57% of Americans think ALL Politicians are the same as Obama. Enough said. Obama, proceed at your own risk. Your choice is simple: Pass the bill if you have the numbers. That's the American way. But don't stink up the place with your "bipartisan" comments. If you do, you know what the polls say. Accept the consequences if you act.)

But that's not what the moment calls for. That's not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it's hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history's test.

Because that is who we are. That is our calling. That is our character. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. (Source: Stars and Stripes.)

In the hours following the President's address to a joint session of Congress CNN reported that the President had scored a 14% increase in his public polling on the issue. This seemingly miraculous narrative no doubt was generated to support the administration in it's last, still flailing efforts to attempt to jump start a repeatedly killed, choked, mangled, killed, dead, dead, dead version of the take over of a federally nationalized health care system. But it turns out CNN spiked the poll. Polling 45% Democrats and only 18% Republicans. The national population breaks down roughly 33% and 32% respectively. Even that being said, even with all the cheating in the polling sample thrown in, only 56% said they had a "very positive" reaction to his "most-important-speech-evah-to-be-given-in-the-history-of-the-world". And even with the slanted, cheating poll sample, that falls 12% short of the "very positive" number at his February joint session speech. So even when they cheat the sample, their shortfalls still don't measure up. That's both embarrassing AND sad! (Source: Town Hall: Kevin McCullough.)


Consider the severity of lies: Nancy Pelosi lied about knowing about CIA "enhanced interrogation techniques" and Rangel lied about millions in undeclared assets bringing him up on ethics charges, while Joe Wilson told the President he was a liar -- over a point that the President was hiding the truth. Only it was Joe Wilson that the Democrats officially rebuked in Congress.

Immediately there were rebuttals of Obama's speech. However, the main idea was for Obama to gain the advantage to refocus attention on his Health Care Plan -- and silence the protests. Instead, Obama simply gave a bunch of half-truths and a lot of outright lies that did nothing to refocus on his Health Care Plan. The following is an article from the Associated Press:

FACT CHECK: Obama uses iffy math on deficit pledge

President Barack Obama used only-in-Washington accounting Wednesday when he promised to overhaul the nation's health care system without adding "one dime" to the deficit. By conventional arithmetic, Democratic plans would drive up the deficit by billions of dollars. The president's speech to Congress contained a variety of oversimplifications and omissions in laying out what he wants to do about health insurance. A look at some of Obama's claims and how they square with the facts or the fuller story:

___ OBAMA: "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period." THE FACTS: Though there's no final plan yet, the White House and congressional Democrats already have shown they're ready to skirt the no-new-deficits pledge.

House Democrats offered a bill that the Congressional Budget Office said would add $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years. But Democrats and Obama administration officials claimed the bill actually was deficit-neutral. They said they simply didn't have to count $245 billion of it — the cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don't face big annual pay cuts.

Their reasoning was that they already had decided to exempt this "doc fix" from congressional rules that require new programs to be paid for. In other words, it doesn't have to be paid for because they decided it doesn't have to be paid for.

The administration also said that since Obama already had included the doctor payment in his 10-year budget proposal, it didn't have to be counted again. That aside, the long-term prognosis for costs of the health care legislation has not been good.

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf had this to say in July: "We do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."

___ OBAMA: "Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have."

THE FACTS: That's correct, as far as it goes. But neither can the plan guarantee that people can keep their current coverage. Employers sponsor coverage for most families, and they'd be free to change their health plans in ways that workers may not like, or drop insurance altogether. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the health care bill written by House Democrats and said that by 2016 some 3 million people who now have employer-based care would lose it because their employers would decide to stop offering it.

In the past Obama repeatedly said, "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period." Now he's stopping short of that unconditional guarantee by saying nothing in the plan "requires" any change.

___ OBAMA: "The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." One congressman, South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson, shouted "You lie!" from his seat in the House chamber when Obama made this assertion. Wilson later apologized.

THE FACTS: The facts back up Obama. The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, but wouldn't get tax subsidies to help them. Still, Republicans say there are not sufficient citizenship verification requirements to ensure illegal immigrants are excluded from benefits they are not due. (SITE NOTE: In the course of this debate, it has been firmly established that illegal aliens ARE treated in emergency rooms without any question as to their status. Many cannot afford the treatment and the hospitals simply pass the costs on to the other patients. Please tell me how they are going to prevent the EXISTING CONDITIONS WHERE ILLEGAL ALIENS CURRENTLY RECEIVE TREATMENT UNDER LAW. You can say all you want about it NOT being in the plan, but it is in fact a PRESENT reality.)

___ OBAMA: "Don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut. ... That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare." THE FACTS: Obama and congressional Democrats want to pay for their health care plans in part by reducing Medicare payments to providers by more than $500 billion over 10 years. The cuts would largely hit hospitals and Medicare Advantage, the part of the Medicare program operated through private insurance companies.

Although wasteful spending in Medicare is widely acknowledged, many experts believe some seniors almost certainly would see reduced benefits from the cuts. That's particularly true for the 25 percent of Medicare users covered through Medicare Advantage.

Supporters contend that providers could absorb the cuts by improving how they operate and wouldn't have to reduce benefits or pass along costs. But there's certainly no guarantee they wouldn't.

___ OBAMA: Requiring insurance companies to cover preventive care like mammograms and colonoscopies "makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives." THE FACTS: Studies have shown that much preventive care — particularly tests like the ones Obama mentions — actually costs money instead of saving it. That's because detecting acute diseases like breast cancer in their early stages involves testing many people who would never end up developing the disease. The costs of a large number of tests, even if they're relatively cheap, will outweigh the costs of caring for the minority of people who would have ended up getting sick without the testing.

The Congressional Budget Office wrote in August: "The evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall."

That doesn't mean preventive care doesn't make sense or save lives. It just doesn't save money.

___ OBAMA: "If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage."

THE FACTS: It's not just a matter of being able to get coverage. Most people would have to get coverage under the law, if his plan is adopted. In his speech, Obama endorsed mandatory coverage for individuals, an approach he did not embrace as a candidate.

He proposed during the campaign — as he does now — that larger businesses be required to offer insurance to workers or else pay into a fund. But he rejected the idea of requiring individuals to obtain insurance. He said people would get insurance without being forced to do so by the law, if coverage were made affordable. And he repeatedly criticized his Democratic primary rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for proposing to mandate coverage. "To force people to get health insurance, you've got to have a very harsh penalty," he said in a February 2008 debate.

Now, he says, "individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance." He proposes a hardship waiver, exempting from the requirement those who cannot afford coverage despite increased federal aid.

___ OBAMA: "There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage."

THE FACTS: Obama time and again has referred to the number of uninsured as 46 million, a figure based on year-old Census data. The new number is based on an analysis by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, which concluded that about two-thirds of Americans without insurance are poor or near poor. "These individuals are less likely to be offered employer-sponsored coverage or to be able to afford to purchase their own coverage," the report said. By using the new figure, Obama avoids criticism that he is including individuals, particularly healthy young people, who choose not to obtain health (Source: Yahoo: AP.)

Obama Fact Check - Repeats Same Old Lies

Many of his untruths are the same ones he has been telling for months. Was there anything new last night? Here's a list of the the repeat lies…

• Claims Obamacare won't add "one dime" to the deficit — He told the same lie on 7/22/9 (Scandal #482) and 8/3/9 (Scandal #526). Facts: ObamaCare Nightmare Transparency Lie # 3 7/22/9 Team Obama said the ObamaCare plan would not add to the huge budget deficit. Not true! Fox News: "House Democrats want to give doctors a $245 billion sweetener that helps ensure their critical support for a health care overhaul bill. Next up: Trying to explain how they could do it without breaking President Barack Obama's promise that health legislation won't increase the federal deficit. Obama reiterated the pledge in a "CBS Evening News" interview Tuesday, saying: "It's got to be deficit neutral. It can't add to our deficits." So what of the Congressional Budget Office's conclusion that the House bill does add to the deficit? Democrats and the Obama administration argue that the $245 billion included for doctors — the approximate 10-year cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don't face big annual pay cuts — does not have to be counted in the overall cost of the health care bill. Their only-in-Washington reasoning is that they already decided to exempt it from congressional "pay-as-you-go" rules that require new programs to be paid for. In other words, it doesn't have to be paid for because they decided it doesn't have to be paid for"!!!!! — Peter Orszag, Obama's liberal blogger turned budget director who used to care about budget deficits, says the deficit won't grow under the plan!!! From MicroSoft-NBC comes his outrageous claim: "White House Budget Director Peter Orszag, a former CBO director, insists that the health care effort "is deficit neutral over the first decade."
  
  
• Claims you can keep your plan and your doctor — FACTS: He changed his wording slightly now. He used to promise you can keep your plan and your doctor. Now he says "Nothing will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have." He knows he's playing word games here. From 8/11/9 (Scandal #557) Fishy Claim # 4 from Sen. Cornyn: "President Obama: "If You Like Your Current Plan, You Will Be Able To Keep It. Let Me Repeat That: If You Like Your Plan, You'll Be Able To Keep It." (President Obama, Remarks At The White House, Washington, D.C., 7/21/09) — AP Fact Check: "This Is A Pledge That's Beyond The President's Power To Keep." ("Fact Check: Obama's Words About Iran Get Tougher," The Associated Press, 6/23/09) –AP Fact Check: "Health Care Coverage For 160 Million People Is Provided By Employers, And Obama's Plan Leaves Companies Free To Change Their Health Plans In Ways That Workers May Not Like, Or To Drop Insurance Altogether. In addition, his health care plan is only that - an idea proposed by the administration - and is subject to reworking by Congress. A preliminary analysis by the Congressional Budget Office estimates that a Democratic plan being worked on in the Senate would force 10 million Americans to seek new coverage because their employers would no longer offer it." ("Fact Check: Obama's Words About Iran Get Tougher," The Associated Press, 6/23/09)
  
  
• Claims he won't cover illegals — Facts: From the Official Obama Administration Scandals List #477, comes the proof that Joe Wilson was correct. Obamacare will indeed cover illegal immigrants…ObamaCare Nightmare is a "Dream" for Illegal Aliens! 7/21/9 Obama will be providing free health care to illegal aliens and YOU will be paying for it! From The Obama File and Newsmax: "Democrats moved one step closer to giving free health insurance to the nation's estimated 12 million illegal aliens when they successfully defeated a Republican-backed amendment, offered by Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., that would have prevented illegal aliens from receiving government-subsidized health care under the proposed plan backed by House Democrats and President Barack Obama. The House Ways and Means Committee nixed the Heller amendment by a 26-to-15 vote along straight party lines." — AP points out today there are several versions of the plan floating around, so this one does depend on which version you look at. One plan "explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, but wouldn't get tax subsidies to help them. Still, Republicans say there are not sufficient citizenship verification requirements to ensure illegal immigrants are excluded from benefits they are not due."
  
  
• Claims Americans shouldn't pay attention to scary stories about benefit cuts — Facts: Scandal #497: "ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 15 7/22/9- The New York Times added some lies to our list. They report experts tell them "some of his points were debatable. - "For example, with the Obama-proposed new cost-control agency, the times notes: "Mr. Obama said: "It's not going to reduce Medicare benefits. What it's going to do is to change how those benefits are delivered so that they're more efficient."Hospitals say the cuts could indeed cut services in some rural areas and from teaching hospitals, which receive extra payments because of higher costs." — AP adds: "Obama and congressional Democrats want to pay for their health care plans in part by reducing Medicare payments to providers by more than $500 billion over 10 years. The cuts would largely hit hospitals and Medicare Advantage, the part of the Medicare program operated through private insurance companies."
  
  
• Claims Health care has been pushed "to the breaking point." — Facts: Scandal #473 "The ObamaCare Nightmare & the Big Health "Crisis" Lie! 7/20/9 A New Zogby Poll says there isn't any health care crisis! It's the Big Health Crisis Lie! Fully 84% of Americans are either satisfied or VERY satisfied with their health care coverage! So where is the crisis?! The nation's first socialist President has simply invented a "crisis" to help him push through "emergency" legislation that will allow the socialist-democrats to control a huge chunk of the economy and to take away more and more of your freedom and liberty!"
  
  
• Claims the "Healthcare problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close. Nothing else. Now, these are the facts." — FACTS: Scandal #485 "ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 3 7/22/9 Obama says the "biggest driving force behind the federal deficit is the skyrocketing costs of Medicare and Medicaid." Not True. Fox News reported on July 13th the real causes for Obama's huge deficit: "the huge deficit is caused by, "the huge sum the government has spent to combat the recession and financial crisis, combined with a sharp decline in tax revenues. Paying for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also is a major factor."
  
  
• Claims it is time to end the "partisan spectacle" — Facts: Scandal #502 "ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 20 7/22/9 The Associated Press & Yahoo! News: "OBAMA: "You haven't seen me out there blaming the Republicans." THE FACTS: Obama did so in his opening statement, saying, "I've heard that one Republican strategist told his party that even though they may want to compromise, it's better politics to 'go for the kill.' Another Republican senator said that defeating health reform is about 'breaking' me." — He is just as much a part of the partisanship as anyone else.
  
  
• Claims it won't fund abortions — Facts: Scandal #589 "Obama is "Fabricating" About Abortion Funding in the ObamaCare Nightmare! 8/21/9 CNS News reports: "President Barack Obama and Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Pro-Life Activities, have taken directly contradictory positions on whether the health-care bill in the U.S. Congress funds abortion. Cardinal Rigali says the bill does fund abortion and that those who say otherwise are pushing an "illusion." President Obama says the bill does not fund abortion and that those who say otherwise are guilty of a "fabrication." Who is right and who is wrong? Cardinal Rigali laid out his position in a carefully reasoned and detailed argument presented…to the U.S. House…Obama laid out his position in two terse sentences…on BlogTalkRadio yesterday…But even…the New York Times' explanation, the basic fact is impossible to ignore: The bill mandates that everyone getting federal subsidies to buy health insurance must have an opportunity to buy health insurance that covers abortion. Reported the Times: "…it says, in every part of the country, the government must ensure that there is at least one plan that covers abortion and at least one that does not." — So your taxpayer dollars will fund abortions. Obama is being dishonest to say otherwise."
  
  
• Claims we already have agreement on most things. — Facts: Congress laughed at Obama last night when he said only "a few details" still needed to be worked out. Scandal # 501: "ObamaCare Press Conference Lie # 19 7/22/9 The Associated Press & Yahoo! News: "OBAMA: "We already have rough agreement" on some aspects of what a health care overhaul should involve, and one is: "It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you're happy with it." THE FACTS: In House legislation, a commission appointed by the government would determine what is and isn't covered by insurance plans offered in a new purchasing pool, including a plan sponsored by the government. The bill also holds out the possibility that, over time, those standards could be imposed on all private insurance plans, not just the ones in the pool."

I'm certain I have missed a few. Will try to update through the day. (Source: Conservative American.)

VIDEO: Obama painting wall

National Day of Service: Is it Obama's Plan to Desecrate 9/11 --- OR IS IT JUST A PLOY TO DISTRACT ATTENTION OF MEDIA??? (Aug 2009) (GO TO ARTICLE.) National Day of Service was made possible by using the Obama and Democratic method of hiding legislation in the middle of other legislation -- and the stupidity of legislators who never read the legislation. This action to promulgate a "volunteer" force was hidden in the GIVE Act -- and what was sickening was that it was passed almost unanimously -- with the exception of 18 Republicans. At the time, some conservatives were screaming loudly about the FEMA Scheme to put in place Obama's "volunteer reserve corps" -- the forerunner to his civilian defense force. The Democrats succeeded in making these protests appear to be "wingnuts" denouncing the FEMA Scheme and the prelude to Obama's civilian defense corps. (SITE NOTE: On 1 Sep it was reported that President Barack Obama plans to observe the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks with a visit to the Pentagon White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Tuesday. But Obama has no plans to visit New York City on the eighth year since the World Trade Center was destroyed. "I believe he will go to the Pentagon that day, and go to the memorial there and speak after that," Gibbs said in his morning gaggle. "But we have not announced more details than that." Asked after the gaggle if the president has any plans to visit New York City for the occasion, a White House official told POLITICO he does not and that is unlikely to change. President George W. Bush marked the 9/11 anniversary with visits to lower Manhattan in 2002 and 2006. Last year, Obama and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), then Obama's rival for the presidency, both attended a memorial ceremony at the World Trade Center site as Bush dedicated a memorial at the Pentagon. -- We wonder if Obama's decision is based on the recent publicity of the fact that his Green czar Van Jones celebrated the day after 9/11 with a rally to honor the VICTIMS of the US imperialism across the world.)

This was a coldly calculated move that provides proof that ALL the Congressmen and Senators need to be closely scrutinized come the next election cycle. Again remember that ALL Senators and Congressmen voted for the GIVE ACT -- minus 18 Republicans. They are all to be held accountable. (SEE GIVE ACT and Obama's Civilian National Security Force/FEMA Scheme.)

The FEMA Scheme was first birthed in the Stimulus Package for immediate construction of six sites on military bases -- along with funding to handle national emergencies and disasters. The Homeland Security and FEMA are involved. "Training sessions" have already been held involving international groups. Moves are underway to attempt to shift the control of national guard military (when mobilized for disasters in other states) under the Defense Department, This has been loudly protested by the governors of the states because with states rights issues. Hidden in the educational reform GIVE Act, it provided the organizational structure, manning, funding, and recruitment of the target groups (underpriviledged, inner-city youths) -- and changed the name of the "camps" to "campuses."

The next step comes on Sept 11 when Obama announces the formations of his "volunteer corps." Michelle Obama has been a key mover in the appointment of heads to this organization. The announcement on 9/11 may be part of a calculated move -- along with the March for Healthcare on 9/12 to distract attention from the 9/12 March on Washington. These actions may backfire as it may provide impetus for face-to-face confrontations between the groups in Washington DC -- or as a side thought, this may be exactly what Obama wants to create the appearance of a national emergency.

But a great point was raised by Radio Vice online. He stated: "I've been reading about the planned Sept. 11 National Day of Service. I certainly do not have an issue with service, but if my memory serves right – and it does today – we already have a national day of service… Martin Luther King Day. There has been a bit of a kerfuffle about Democrats selecting Sept. 11 as a national day of service. The event – with more at Serve.gov – been discussed over at Hot Air, Atlas Shrugs and Gateway Pundit, but I'm wondering what this development means for the Martin Luther King national day of volunteer service?"

From the MLKDay.gov Web site (yes, with the .gov domain)…

In 1994 Congress passed the King Holiday and Service Act, designating the King Holiday as a national day of volunteer service. Instead of a day off from work or school, Congress asked Americans of all backgrounds and ages to celebrate Dr. King's legacy by turning community concerns into citizen action. The King Day of Service brings together people who might not ordinarily meet, breaks down barriers that have divided us in the past, leads to better understanding and ongoing relationships, and is an opportunity to recruit new volunteers for your ongoing work. Participation in the King Day of Service has grown steadily over the past decade, with hundreds of thousands of Americans each year engaging in projects such as tutoring and mentoring children, painting schools and senior centers, delivering meals, building homes, and reflecting on Dr. King's life and teachings. Many of the projects started on King Day continue to engage volunteers beyond the holiday and impact the community year-round.

Although the scope of the event grows every year, many people still are not aware of the service component of the holiday. By encouraging the participation of as many organizations as possible, we hope to make next year's King Day of Service the biggest and best ever, engaging more people in service that honors Dr. King's life and teachings.

(SITE NOTE: We theorize that Obama was betting on the Swine Flu outbreaks to rise in August and peak in September, but we have only seen a doubling of deaths in the 21 Aug 2009 CDC report and NO indications of the onset of the dire warnings at this point. We theorize that Obama was planning on the Swine Flu derailing any protests as it did the Cinco de May (May 5) Hispanic protests for immigration at the peak of the initial swine flu outbreak. The peak may come later in the flu season and states are making preparations.)

OBAMA 9/11 CEREMONY AT WHITE HOUSE AND SPEAKS AT PENTAGON -- Obama held a ceremony in the front of the White House to pay their respects to the memory of the victims of the 9/11 bombing. A lone Marine bugler played the anthem and taps as the Obamas and crowd held their hands over their hearts. This is the ceremony started by George Bush and Dick Cheney on the anniversary of 9/11. VP Biden was sent to the "Ground Zero" ceremony in NY. (SITE NOTE: Whenever Obama places his hand over his heart, we are reminded of him during the campaign when he REFUSED to do so though Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton did. Now when he does it, we doubt his sincerity. In looking at the assembled crowd at the White House, it looks like a hastily assembled group of White House service staff (gardeners, waiters, kitchen staff). It is almost as though someone forgot this detail -- or thought the Pentagon speech would substitute for the 9/11 victims. Obama was to lay a wreath to the 9/11 DoD victims of the Pentagon bombing -- not the NY victims.)



On his first 9/11 anniversary as president, Barack Obama urged Americans to come together in service just as they united after the terrorist attacks eight years ago. "We can summon once more that ordinary goodness of America, to serve our communities, to strengthen our country and to better our world," Obama said at a memorial at the Pentagon. Obama on Thursday declared the anniversary of the attacks a national day of remembrance and service. (Source: AP.) (SITE NOTE: As to his words at the Pentagon, they sounded empty. Tone of speech on pointed to rememberance for victims and soldiers -- not vengeance for the evil done or sacrifices made. Surprisingly tepid response on a rainy day. Joined by Sec Robert Gates and Admiral Mullens. The responses from the families of the victims of 9/11 and the families of soldiers who died in the War Against Terrorism are still to be heard.)

VIDEO: Obama's speech at Pentagon

Obama's Plan to Desecrate 9/11 (Aug 2009)

The Obama White House is behind a cynical, coldly calculated political effort to erase the meaning of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks from the American psyche and convert Sept. 11 into a day of leftist celebration and statist idolatry.

This effort to reshape the American psyche has nothing to do with healing the nation and everything to do with easing the nation along in the ongoing radical transformation of America that President Obama promised during last year's election campaign. The president signed into law a measure in April that designated Sept. 11 as a National Day of Service, but it's not likely many lawmakers thought this meant that day was going to be turned into a celebration of ethanol, carbon emission controls, and radical community organizing.

The administration's plans were outlined in an Aug. 11 White House-sponsored teleconference call run by Obama ally Lennox Yearwood, president of the Hip Hop Caucus, and Liv Havstad, the group's senior vice president of strategic partnerships and programs.

Yearwood, who uses the honorific "Reverend" before his name, has been in the news in recent years, usually for getting arrested. After Democrats took back Congress, the rowdy activist was handcuffed outside a congressional hearing in September 2007 when Gen. David Petraeus was to testify. Yearwood told the "Democracy Now" radio program that he wanted to attend the hearing to hear Petraeus give his report. "I knew that when officers lie, soldiers die," he said. On the Aug. 11 call, Yearwood and other leaders kept saying repeatedly that they wanted 9/11 to be used for something "positive," "forward-leaning," and "productive," said a source with knowledge of the teleconference.

The plan is to turn a "day of fear" that helps Republicans into a day of activism called the National Day of Service that helps the left. In other words, nihilistic liberals are planning to drain 9/11 of all meaning.

"They think it needs to be taken back from the right," said the source. "They're taking that day and they're breaking it because it gives Republicans an advantage. To them, that day is a fearful day."

A coalition including the unsavory left-wing pressure group Color of Change and about 60 far-left, environmentalist, labor, and corporate shakedown groups participated in the call. Groups on the call included: ACORN, AFL-CIO, Apollo Alliance, Community Action Partnership, Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, 80 Million Strong for Young American Jobs, Friends of the Earth, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, Mobilize.org, National Black Police Association, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, National Council of Negro Women, National Wildlife Federation, RainbowPUSH Coalition, Urban League, and Young Democrats of America. Color of Change is the extremist racial grievance group that isn't happy that TV's Glenn Beck did several news packages on Van Jones, the self-described "communist" and "rowdy black nationalist" who became the president's green jobs czar after jumping on the environmentalist bandwagon. The White House may be behind a push to destroy Beck by convincing advertisers to stop buying time on his show. Jones was also on the board of the Apollo Alliance, a hard-left environmentalist group that is now running large chunks of the Obama administration. The group has acknowledged that it dictated parts of the February stimulus bill to Congress.

With the help of the Obama administration, the coalition is launching a public relations campaign under the radar of the mainstream media -- which remains almost uniformly terrified of criticizing the nation's first black president -- to try to change 9/11 from a day of reflection and remembrance to a day of activism, food banks, and community gardens.

"The organizing term is to 'go dark.' You don't tell the press, don't tell people you think will tell the press," said the source.

Of course, the annual commemoration of the 2001 terrorist attacks belongs to the entire nation, but President Obama and the activist left don't see it that way. They view the nationwide remembrance of the murder of 3,000 Americans by Islamic totalitarians as an obstacle to winning over the hearts and minds of the American people.

"When you criticize them, they are prepared to say, 'Did you want 9/11 to be another day of selling mattresses, like Presidents Day?" the source said. "They are truly trying to change the American mindset."

They view Sept. 11 as a "Republican" day because it focuses the public on supposedly "Republican" issues like patriotism, national security, and terrorism. According to liberals, 9/11 was long ago hijacked by Republicans and their enablers and unfairly used to bludgeon helpless Democrats at election time. (Source; Spectator: Matthew Vadum.) (SITE NOTE: Atlas Shrugs (Pamela Geller) stated: "On August 7, I alerted Atlas readers to Obama's 911 proclamation of his mandatory civilian service on 911, his private army -- the "Civilian Community Service Corps" on 9.11. ... 911, what should be a somber day of mourning and reflection (on how the hell we got here), will be a day when Obama - in a celebratory mode - makes his big announcement. The whole thing is depraved. It's like telling a brutally raped victim that it was the best sex she ever had. Shame on the left. Shame on them." Michelle Malkin said: "Makes perfect sense coming from a president who believes that the root of 9/11 jihadi stems "from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers." The provision turning 9/11 into a "National Day of Service" was lodged in the massive national service expansion bill – GIVE/SERVE — signed into law this spring. Reminder: Only 14 Republicans in the Senate voted against the bill.)

---

A 9/11 Day of Service to honor whom, the fallen or President Obama? (Sep 2009) Was this what family members at MyGoodDeed.org envisioned for a 9/11 Day of Service? Did they hope President Barack Obama's classless energy czar, a self-describe "communist" named Van Jones, would co-opt their efforts after his group held an anti-America "vigil" on September 12, 2001 and summarized their event this way?

"That night, STORM and the other movement leaders expressed sadness and anger at the deaths of innocent working class people. We were angry, first and foremost, with the U.S. government, whose worldwide aggression had engendered such hate across the globe that working class people were not safe at home. We honored those who had lost their lives in the attack — and those who would surely lose their lives in subsequent U.S. attacks overseas."

Did the families envision Lennox Yearwood Jr. as the conference-call coordinator of the White House's support for their efforts after he called our invasion of Iraq "immoral" and clearly agrees with Van Jones that America brought 9/11 on itself?

"That is why the peace movement cannot only stand for harmony abroad. A cease-fire in Iraq will not end the bloodshed of the war that I live out every day. I cannot in good conscious focus on one injustice and neglect her domestic sister. But the solution goes hand in hand. We can cease the bombing of Afghanistan at the same time we clean up the streets of Los Angeles."

Did they hope to see 9/11 promoted on MyObama dot com as a day to make two phone calls in support of national health care to "fight back against our own Right-wing domestic terrorists, [those] whipped into a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network?" Or were 9/11 family members remembering when all — less a radical few — rushed in with help without stopping to ask how their 2,976 loved ones voted in the last election? (SITE NOTE: See 2 Phone Calls on 9/11 -- Illinois! (Health Care Organizing Event) for Obamacare promo letter.)
.
On September 11 and the days that followed, America rushed to Ground Zero with all it had, sent whatever it could to those crawling on the burning piles in New York, at the Pentagon, and just outside of Shanksville, mourned with us, and gently lifted all our families up from our knees. We remember and so does America. If a 9/11 Day of Service is about recapturing that spirit, I'm all in and will defend the effort against all comers. Yet if this White House is using our fallen hero to gain a political edge as we debate domestic issues and if it continues to be led by revolutionaries like Van Jones and Lennox Yearwood Jr. on behalf of the Obama administration, count me out. (Source: 9-11 Families for a Safe and Strong America Blog: Tim Sumner.)

An amazing thing happened on Wednesday, April 15th, Tax Day, when nearly a million people took hours off from their workdays – many sacrificing pay cuts and even the threat of being fired – to attend thousands of Tea Parties across America. What motivated this huge number of Republicans, Conservatives, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, and even apolitical people to come out in mid-week with placards aplenty and passion unprecedented? It was to tell President Obama that they rejected and resented just about everything he and his radical-left Congress have foisted on our nation during his 90-plus days in office. These include:

• A frontal assault on free-market capitalism
• Zero transparency and accountability for the billions already doled out – where has it gone?
• Rising unemployment
• Trillions of dollars of debt for us and our children and grandchildren
• Infringement of freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including free speech, gun ownership, freedom of religion, et al.
• Obsequious overtures to the world’s biggest despots, all of them America’s sworn enemies.
• Passage of H.R. 1388, or the “domestic security force” that eerily mimics Hitler’s brown shirts, or, as Obama stated: “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
• Aggressive moves to nationalize the press, resurrect the “Fairness Doctrine,” and give the president the legal authority to shut down the Internet in the “interest of national security.”
• A cap-and-trade tax that will effectively kill commerce
• Full-speed-ahead on destroying the coal industry
• Ceding the resolution of legal issues to the cesspool-of-corruption known as the United Nations and transnational courts
• Steps to obliterate the “conscience clause” that allows doctors, nurses and pharmacists the right not to participate in the infanticide procedure known as abortion
• Unforgiveable insults to our military by calling them potential “domestic terrorists.” Other “terrorists” listed in the Department of Homeland Security report were anyone opposed to abortion, anyone in favor of immigration enforcement, pro-Second-Amendment lobbies, and anyone protesting big government.
• A vile insult to Catholics when the White House insisted on having Christ’s name covered by black plywood when the president spoke at Georgetown U. – why was he invited?
• A despicable insult to Jews when career anti-Semite Charles Freeman – President of the MEPC Arab lobby and a board member of the American Iranian Council – was appointed head of the National Intelligence Council, but ultimately stepped down, confirming in his own words his animus toward Israel.
• Declaring carbon dioxide an environmental pollutant… another scheme to impose draconian and business-murdering taxes on Americans, while at the same time refusing to drill for oil and build nuclear facilities, all in the name of the colossal hoax known as man-made global warming. Let’s hear it for windmills!
• The coming manipulation of the U.S. census by community-organizers from ACORN – under investigation in more than 12 states for voter-registration fraud – which received $5-billion of tax-payer’s money in Obama’s “stimulus” package
• An utter failure to intercede in a timely fashion to save Captain Richard Phillips from the Muslim Somali terrorists in the Maersk Alabama incident …

But top Republican strategists and many party observers also worry about the impact that the most extreme protesters might have on the party's image, including those who carry swastika signs or obsess over the veracity of Obama's Hawaiian birth.

Mark McKinnon, a former adviser to Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and other Republicans, said there is an "opportunity for Republicans" to tap into legitimate fears about an overreaching federal government. But he said that "right-wing nutballs are aligning themselves with these movements" and are dominating media coverage.

"It's bad for Republicans because in the absence of any real leadership, the freaks fill the void and define the party," McKinnon said.

The appearances underscore the increasing efforts by conservative Republicans to embrace the anti-Obama protests, even as others remain uncomfortable with the more extreme elements that frequent such gatherings. Some protesters this year have loudly disrupted community meetings, brought guns to Obama events and likened the president to Adolf Hitler.

One blogger who writes regularly for Freedomworks, Ross Kaminsky of Boulder, Colo., compared Obama's Tuesday address to U.S. schoolchildren to the tactics of Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and other murderous dictators. "Totalitarians of all stripes put great emphasis on brainwashing the young, and Obama is no exception," he wrote on the group's Web site under the name "rossputin."

"It's hard to tell if this will help the Republican Party win," said Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.), who said he expects a primary challenge from a "tea party" activist. "What it's done is energize people. The question is what will happen with the energized people: Are we going to maintain an effective two-party system or are some of them going to split off?"

According to an August Washington Post-ABC News poll, 18 percent of respondents said they were "angry" about health-care reform efforts. But of that group, only 35 percent had a great deal or good amount of confidence in Republicans in Congress to make the right decisions for the country's future; only four in 10 said they considered themselves strong Republicans.

(Source: Newsbusters.)

---

Protestor on National Mall (12 Sep 2009)

9/12 MARCH ON D.C.: MEDIA BIAS IN FULL BLOOM (Sep 2009) The mainstream media has long asserted that there is no such thing as a “liberal bias” when it comes to their coverage. This is an absurd statement. It is every bit as absurd as the Fox News Channel’s “Fair and Balanced” slogan. Let’s get real. All media is biased. Front page news for today is another example of this bias. Virtually no one is covering today’s planned conservative protest rally in D.C.

Today, in Washington D.C. thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, maybe more, angry, frustrated, mad-as-hell conservatives are gathering to rally against government waste, government intrusion into private lives, the current perceived move toward Socialism, over-taxation, you name it. Sounds like a pretty big deal right now, doesn’t it?

We’ve just witnessed an August where members of the U.S. Congress ran, literally ran, (Lloyd Doggett) through the parking lot at Town Hall meetings to escape the ire of their angry constituents. Then we saw the spin response from Dems; “Astro turf” movements, “paid for by GOP and ‘Others’”, and on and on.

The biased media chose their respective sides: Fox covered the town hall meetings from the bias of presenting these groups as every day citizens choosing to exercise their rights to free speech (as did this publication). Everyone else in the mainstream media, and I do mean everyone else, chose to read from the talking points memos issued by the DNC, the Obama administration, Reid and Pelosi.

Now those protests, those movements, are culminating in one more giant expression of free speech: a march upon Washington D.C. In addition to the march on D.C. there will be literally hundreds of rallies all over the U.S. today in small towns and big cities in virtually every state.

The “Tea Party Express”, a bus filled with protestors heading for the rally in D. C. left Sacramento, California some time ago and has been making its way across our great land. In so doing the “Tea Party Express” has made stops in big cities and small towns from California, to Texas to Vermont. Everywhere they stop they’re greeted by hundreds (in some cases) to thousands (in most cases) of protesters who support the movement.

Thus far, they’ve been accompanied by one lone TV news crew, that from Fox. Why?

This movement is a good thing in so far as Fox’s bias is concerned. So they cover it. This movement does not look good for liberals and their assertion that the Democrats are doing the “will of the people” and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, evil, etc…therefore no news crews from CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, no embedded reporters from the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. The big rally is today, however. Surely everyone if not for the sake of covering the news at least to maintain the façade of covering news, will now be on this. Right?

Let’s look at today’s major newspaper front page headlines (online version).

The New York Times : No mention of the rally. NONE.

The Washington Post: No mention of the rally. ZIP.

The Chicago Tribune: No mention of the rally. BUPKUS.

The Houston Chronicle: No mention of the rally. NADA

The Dallas Morning News: No mention of the rally. You getting the picture?

To be fair, the Washington Post did have one story – off the front page that was not so much about the rally as it was about an assertion that the GOP is “wary” of these protesters saying that while some in the GOP embrace this movement, “others remain uncomfortable with the more extreme elements that frequent such gatherings. Some protesters this year have loudly disrupted community meetings, brought guns to Obama events and likened the president to Adolf Hitler.”

The truth as to why many in the GOP are keeping away is because they've not been invited. The Tea Party movement purposefully won't work with many politicians since the overwhelming number of their members are as sick of the GOP as they are of the DNC. That's the truth and neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are going to tell you that.

So, again media bias is showing. Don’t cover the event Dear Washington Post, cover the scary elements that may or may not be present at the event. Make it appear that even the GOP (who every one believes organized the Tea parties) is even afraid of these wackos known as "the people".

Moving on to our esteemed 24/7 news channels, what do we find? Surely, they’re covering this big time event. They do have 24 hours of news to fill, right? A look at their websites this morning reveals the following:

CNN – No reports on the rally, except to link to the above mentioned Washington Post story. Same story. Same bias.

Fortunately, however CNN did have time and space to cover the following stories of national and, yes perhaps, worldwide impact:

“SNL Star Denies She Was Fired Over Weight” – I know I can sleep better tonight, thank you CNN.

“’Vampires’ Actresses Busted For Flashing” – WHEW! The streets are safe again. Yeah! Way to get to the real news CNN.

And the most important of all their headlines this morning:

“Early Release For Iraqi Shoe Thrower”

Good to know. A man who throws not one, but both his shoes at George W. Bush is being released early. If only Dems will be so kind to Representative Joe “You Lie” Wilson.

MSNBC – No mention of the rally.

Fox – come on. Fox covered it.

The first story on Fox was about a memo that Nancy “The Prime Minister” Pelosi issued to Dems saying to expect 2 million people for the D.C. rally today. Which, it is believed, was done in order to greatly exaggerate the number expected so that the Dems could call the rally a failure if less than 2 million show up. Read it HERE

The second story was called "Conservatives From Across The Country Arrive In Washington For Tea Party"

So am I wrong? Is all of this proof of bias on both sides or not? The New York Times did not write even one single word on the Van Jones scandal until the day “AFTER” he resigned. CNN did not devote one second of airtime to coverage of the story until the Friday before his resignation on Sunday. Bias?

How many times did we watch Cindy Sheehan and her “protesters” at George W. Bush events, or laying in wait for him outside his ranch in Crawford? Seriously, how many times did that story get covered? Here’s a fact. There were more members of the media at Cindy Sheehan’s gatherings than there were protesters. But because she was protesting Bush policies, and the War in Iraq, she got the coverage from the liberally biased mainstream media.

You may be saying, "Hold on, the Washington D.C. event hasn’t happened yet so maybe that’s why The New York Times, et al. aren’t mentioning it." Okay, it didn’t stop The New York Times in 1995 when they were happy to cover the Louis Farrakhan organized “Million Man March” or as it was officially entitled, “A Day of Atonement, Reconciliation and Responsibility” prior to the event. In fact, they ran a story eight days prior to the event. See it HERE

There is media bias. Fact. Only those who rationalize away this fact in order to support their own bias can deny this.

The media bias affects the news you receive. If you only watch CNN, NBC, etc., you’re going to miss a lot. If you only watch Fox, you’re going to miss a lot. Stop trusting the mainstream media to spoon feed you the news. Mainstream media is all about selling Ads. Nothing else.

Turn to the internet.

Use your own filter. If you’re a liberal, seek the liberal stuff – or just keep the TV on. If you’re a conservative, look for the conservative news on FreeRepublic.com, or here at The Cypress Times. We admit our bias. We display it in our Masthead: Christian. Conservative. Online. Daily News. We’re honest about it, as are most of the information and news sources you find on the internet. The main stream media has killed all journalistic integrity that ever existed, and any façade of its existence. So why not fess up? Call yourselves what you are. Admit your bias. Maybe then journalists wouldn’t be the only group in America who are almost as despised and untrustworthy as politicians. (Source: Cypress Times.)

VIDEO: Fox News took out a full page ad in the Washington Post on 19 Sep claiming ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN did not cover the March on Washington. Of course, this is NOT true. They did, though there was a lot of hostility toward these news network press from the protestors because of their anti-Tea Party views in the past -- and Fox News was just cashing in on the hype. This is CNNs rebuttal.

---

MEDIA BIAS, THE NEW SCARY SPIN AND THE 9.12 NUMBERS (Sep 2009) Yesterday I wrote that much of mainstream media was ignoring the fact that later in the day a massive march, or rally if you prefer, was planned in our nation’s capitol and discussed bias in the media (both liberal and conservative bias). Today, I want to look at the aftermath of that rally, who showed up, what the mainstream media had to say about it all and how the spin is developing from D.C. The new "spin" will be really scary.

First, let’s look at how many showed up. “Media” estimates range from 60,000 to 500,000 to around 2 million (yes, 2,000,000). Those estimates, the language employed, and the visuals chosen for use in reporting the rally and representing the people gathered, vary greatly based solely on bias.

For example From ABC Online: “Carrying signs depicting President Obama as Adolf Hitler and the Joker, and chanting slogans such as "'No big government" and 'Obamacare makes me sick,' approximately 60,000 to 70,000 people flooded Pennsylvania Ave, according to the Washington DC Fire Department.” At what point during the day this “60,000 to 70,000” estimate was given, is not stated, but if that’s the best the D.C. Fire Department can do with math…well, they should stick to putting out fires.

"DC Fire Department Report" Quote Regarding September 12 Event Misrepresents Agency Policy (Sep 2009) In reference to the September 12th Tea Party event held in Washington DC, quoting a "DC Fire Department Report", regardless of what any media reported, the size of the crowd of those who attended this event were never estimated by DC Fire & EMS. Any reports contrary to this are false. The DC Fire & EMS Department does not estimate crowd sizes. A Twitter posting estimating the crowd gathering at Lafayette Park only as "large, possibly as many as 60 thousand" stated that it was an early estimation of that specific area (Lafayette Park), not the number of participants in the event. (Source: Newsroom DC.)