Your opinion on the job that President Obama is doing so far (1 Viewer)

[Homer J Simpson]

Obama bypasses congress to appoint Harvard buddy to run Medicare and Medicade

WASHINGTON — President Obama will bypass Congress and appoint Dr. Donald M. Berwick, a health policy expert, to run Medicare and Medicaid, the White House said Tuesday.

Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, said that, far from trying to delay a confirmation hearing, Republicans had wanted a forum where Dr. Berwick could explain his views.

“This recess appointment proves the Obama administration did not have the support of a majority of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and sought to evade a hearing,” Mr. Roberts said.

But Ronald F. Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a liberal-leaning consumer group, welcomed the appointment, saying “it augurs well for the implementation of health care reform.”

One of Dr. Berwick’s first tasks will be to work with Congress to avert a 21 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors, scheduled to occur late this year.

Cue "Love Hurts"Edit to add: Most transparent government EVER

It's about f###ing time. He should use recess appointments for every single nominee being held up right now.

Until the Senate Republican dooshbags actually start behaving like adults, just bypass the whole friggin' mess.

 

[GrandpaRox]

Obama bypasses congress to appoint Harvard buddy to run Medicare and Medicade

WASHINGTON — President Obama will bypass Congress and appoint Dr. Donald M. Berwick, a health policy expert, to run Medicare and Medicaid, the White House said Tuesday.

Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, said that, far from trying to delay a confirmation hearing, Republicans had wanted a forum where Dr. Berwick could explain his views.

“This recess appointment proves the Obama administration did not have the support of a majority of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and sought to evade a hearing,” Mr. Roberts said.

But Ronald F. Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a liberal-leaning consumer group, welcomed the appointment, saying “it augurs well for the implementation of health care reform.”

One of Dr. Berwick’s first tasks will be to work with Congress to avert a 21 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors, scheduled to occur late this year.

Cue "Love Hurts"Edit to add: Most transparent government EVER

It's about f###ing time. He should use recess appointments for every single nominee being held up right now.

Until the Senate Republican dooshbags actually start behaving like adults, just bypass the whole friggin' mess.

Remember this sentiment when the other side is doing it.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Obama bypasses congress to appoint Harvard buddy to run Medicare and Medicade

WASHINGTON — President Obama will bypass Congress and appoint Dr. Donald M. Berwick, a health policy expert, to run Medicare and Medicaid, the White House said Tuesday.

Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, said that, far from trying to delay a confirmation hearing, Republicans had wanted a forum where Dr. Berwick could explain his views.

“This recess appointment proves the Obama administration did not have the support of a majority of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and sought to evade a hearing,” Mr. Roberts said.

But Ronald F. Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a liberal-leaning consumer group, welcomed the appointment, saying “it augurs well for the implementation of health care reform.”

One of Dr. Berwick’s first tasks will be to work with Congress to avert a 21 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors, scheduled to occur late this year.

Cue "Love Hurts"Edit to add: Most transparent government EVER

It's about f###ing time. He should use recess appointments for every single nominee being held up right now.

Until the Senate Republican dooshbags actually start behaving like adults, just bypass the whole friggin' mess.

Remember this sentiment when the other side is doing it.

The Republicans are setting records here, jeeves.

 

[Statorama]

Are overdue reports concealing Obamacare impact on Medicare?

Every year, the Annual Report of the Social Security Board of Trustees comes out between mid-April and mid-May. Now it's July, and there's no sign of this year's report. What is the Obama administration hiding?

The annual report includes detailed information about Social Security and its financing over the next 75 years, produced by the Office of the Actuary of the Social Security Administration.

The Congressional Budget Office reported last week in its Long Term Budget Outlook that Social Security was already running a deficit this year. According to last year's Social Security Trustees Report, that was not supposed to happen until 2015, with the trust fund to run out completely by 2037.

With the disastrous Obama economy, the great Social Security surplus that started in the Reagan administration is gone completely.

Every year, the federal government has been raiding the Social Security trust funds to take that annual surplus and spend it on the rest of the federal government's runaway spending, leaving the trust funds only with IOUs backed by nothing but politicians' promise to pay it back when it's needed. Now even that annual surplus is gone. How soon will the trust funds run out completely now?

President Obama keeps telling us a fairy tale that he saved us from another Great Depression. But he is actually leading us into another Depression.

The National Bureau of Economic Research scores the recession as officially starting in December 2007. Thirty-one months later, with unemployment still near 10% and the work force still declining, the NBER says it still cannot determine an official end to the recession.

The longest recession since World War II previously was 16 months, with the average being 10 months. By next month, it will be twice as long as the previous postwar record since the latest recession started. The markets echoed by many pundits are now suggesting a renewed double-dip downturn may be starting, with the comprehensive Obama tax rate increases next year poised to pour napalm on this developing bonfire.

How soon will the trust funds run out with this utter failure of 1930s-style Obamanomics?

The implications for Social Security aren't what the Obama administration is hiding by delaying the annual trustees reports. Those annual reports also include information regarding Medicare over the next 75 years. What the administration is trying to hide are sweeping draconian cuts to Medicare resulting from the ObamaCare legislation, which the annual report will document.

 

[Statorama]

The Republicans are setting records here, jeeves.

But that gets us in this viscious circle.At some point one of the parties has to stop trying to "top" the other in terms of dooshbaggery. Obviously Obama relishes being top doosh of all dooshes in the history of dooshdome. Hopefully the next Republican president turns down the tool meter and we finally get some semblence of legitimate government up there. Otherwise, he'll be voted out and we'll get the next Obama.

 

[beefcake]

The Republicans are setting records here, jeeves.

But that gets us in this viscious circle.At some point one of the parties has to stop trying to "top" the other in terms of dooshbaggery. Obviously Obama relishes being top doosh of all dooshes in the history of dooshdome. Hopefully the next Republican president turns down the tool meter and we finally get some semblence of legitimate government up there. Otherwise, he'll be voted out and we'll get the next Obama.

Politics doesnt work that way. It's more along the lines of, veto everything the other party does, thus making them look like liars about cleaning up Washington. Stump on the grounds that you will clean up Washington. Get elected. Throw contracts at your side/your cronies. Get the same done to you.It's less about being nice/cooperative and more about getting yourself elected for another 4-6 years and lining your pockets.

 

[Statorama]

The Republicans are setting records here, jeeves.

But that gets us in this viscious circle.At some point one of the parties has to stop trying to "top" the other in terms of dooshbaggery. Obviously Obama relishes being top doosh of all dooshes in the history of dooshdome. Hopefully the next Republican president turns down the tool meter and we finally get some semblence of legitimate government up there. Otherwise, he'll be voted out and we'll get the next Obama.

Politics doesnt work that way. It's more along the lines of, veto everything the other party does, thus making them look like liars about cleaning up Washington. Stump on the grounds that you will clean up Washington. Get elected. Throw contracts at your side/your cronies. Get the same done to you.It's less about being nice/cooperative and more about getting yourself elected for another 4-6 years and lining your pockets.

I know that's the way it's been, and is probably the single reason why I have so much hatred for Obama. I bought it. I bought his whole "most transparent government ever". I WANTED to belive. I wanted something I could hang my hat on and say, you know what, this guy is different. He really is trying to make the US a better place. Whoa boy was I wrong. His first Year and a half or so has just been a maelstrom of corruption, lies, and indifference toward what the people want. I have never been so saddened, so sickened, by any politician in my life. I'll accept my part of the blame. I was gullible. I thought he would be different, I really did (and in a good way).One day we'll get a Chris Christie type in the White House. Someone that will walk the walk and not just talk the talk. Until then, we can only fight for survival until the clock on Obama's tyrannical reign runs out.

 

[urbanhack]

The Republicans are setting records here, jeeves.

But that gets us in this viscious circle.At some point one of the parties has to stop trying to "top" the other in terms of dooshbaggery. Obviously Obama relishes being top doosh of all dooshes in the history of dooshdome. Hopefully the next Republican president turns down the tool meter and we finally get some semblence of legitimate government up there. Otherwise, he'll be voted out and we'll get the next Obama.

Politics doesnt work that way. It's more along the lines of, veto everything the other party does, thus making them look like liars about cleaning up Washington. Stump on the grounds that you will clean up Washington. Get elected. Throw contracts at your side/your cronies. Get the same done to you.It's less about being nice/cooperative and more about getting yourself elected for another 4-6 years and lining your pockets.

I know that's the way it's been, and is probably the single reason why I have so much hatred for Obama. I bought it. I bought his whole "most transparent government ever". I WANTED to belive. I wanted something I could hang my hat on and say, you know what, this guy is different. He really is trying to make the US a better place. Whoa boy was I wrong. His first Year and a half or so has just been a maelstrom of corruption, lies, and indifference toward what the people want. I have never been so saddened, so sickened, by any politician in my life. I'll accept my part of the blame. I was gullible. I thought he would be different, I really did (and in a good way).One day we'll get a Chris Christie type in the White House. Someone that will walk the walk and not just talk the talk. Until then, we can only fight for survival until the clock on Obama's tyrannical reign runs out.

great stuff as always.....

 

[Fennis]

I know that's the way it's been, and is probably the single reason why I have so much hatred for Obama. I bought it. I bought his whole "most transparent government ever". I WANTED to belive. I wanted something I could hang my hat on and say, you know what, this guy is different. He really is trying to make the US a better place. Whoa boy was I wrong. His first Year and a half or so has just been a maelstrom of corruption, lies, and indifference toward what the people want. I have never been so saddened, so sickened, by any politician in my life. I'll accept my part of the blame. I was gullible. I thought he would be different, I really did (and in a good way).One day we'll get a Chris Christie type in the White House. Someone that will walk the walk and not just talk the talk. Until then, we can only fight for survival until the clock on Obama's tyrannical reign runs out.

 

[flufhed]

I know that's the way it's been, and is probably the single reason why I have so much hatred for Obama. I bought it. I bought his whole "most transparent government ever". I WANTED to belive.

No way you expect us to believe this.

 

[Proud Communist]

...The Republicans are setting records here, jeeves.

So, it only offends you when it exceeds a certain number? Maybe X doesn't offend you, but X+Y does?I am trying to understand your position.

 

[Phurfur]

Obama bypasses congress to appoint Harvard buddy to run Medicare and Medicade

WASHINGTON — President Obama will bypass Congress and appoint Dr. Donald M. Berwick, a health policy expert, to run Medicare and Medicaid, the White House said Tuesday.

Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, said that, far from trying to delay a confirmation hearing, Republicans had wanted a forum where Dr. Berwick could explain his views.

“This recess appointment proves the Obama administration did not have the support of a majority of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and sought to evade a hearing,” Mr. Roberts said.

But Ronald F. Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a liberal-leaning consumer group, welcomed the appointment, saying “it augurs well for the implementation of health care reform.”

One of Dr. Berwick’s first tasks will be to work with Congress to avert a 21 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors, scheduled to occur late this year.

Cue "Love Hurts"Edit to add: Most transparent government EVER

It's about f###ing time. He should use recess appointments for every single nominee being held up right now.

Until the Senate Republican dooshbags actually start behaving like adults, just bypass the whole friggin' mess.

opps!Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) never scheduled a hearing to examine the nominee. Who do you think is playing games here?

Please provide a link to the Senate Republicans blocking this.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/healt...ruly-outrageous

 

[Soonerman]

Obama bypasses congress to appoint Harvard buddy to run Medicare and Medicade

WASHINGTON — President Obama will bypass Congress and appoint Dr. Donald M. Berwick, a health policy expert, to run Medicare and Medicaid, the White House said Tuesday.

Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, said that, far from trying to delay a confirmation hearing, Republicans had wanted a forum where Dr. Berwick could explain his views.

“This recess appointment proves the Obama administration did not have the support of a majority of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and sought to evade a hearing,” Mr. Roberts said.

But Ronald F. Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a liberal-leaning consumer group, welcomed the appointment, saying “it augurs well for the implementation of health care reform.”

One of Dr. Berwick’s first tasks will be to work with Congress to avert a 21 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors, scheduled to occur late this year.

Cue "Love Hurts"Edit to add: Most transparent government EVER

It's about f###ing time. He should use recess appointments for every single nominee being held up right now.

Until the Senate Republican dooshbags actually start behaving like adults, just bypass the whole friggin' mess.

opps!Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) never scheduled a hearing to examine the nominee. Who do you think is playing games here?

Please provide a link to the Senate Republicans blocking this.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/healt...ruly-outrageous

Exactly. The Republicans weren't stalling this guy. The Dems are the ones who didn't want to put him forward for a hearing.Obama waited over a year to nominate anyone to this post and no hearings were even scheduled, so what exactly were Republicans stalling?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

opps!

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) never scheduled a hearing to examine the nominee. Who do you think is playing games here?

Please provide a link to the Senate Republicans blocking this.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/healt...ruly-outrageous

Exactly. The Republicans weren't stalling this guy. The Dems are the ones who didn't want to put him forward for a hearing.Obama waited over a year to nominate anyone to this post and no hearings were even scheduled, so what exactly were Republicans stalling?

Oh, wow. So there was one appointment that was opposed by one Democrat. Color me distraught.

Of course they play games with this stuff, and they probably didn't want the riitarded slapfight that would have ensued with this guy. In a vacuum, I'd be extremely pissed about it...but considering all the completely innocuous appointments that have been unnecessarily delayed (and delayed and delayed) by the Senate minority, I can't really blame them.

And for the record, this instance does absolutely nothing to refute my earlier point.

And on the official White House blog spokeswoman Jen Psaki noted, "[A]t this time in 2002, President Bush had only 5 nominees pending on the floor. By contrast, President Obama has 77 nominees currently pending on the floor, 58 of whom have been waiting for over two weeks and 44 of those have been waiting more than a month."

Link to story after the March recess appointments

If you go to this White House site, you'll find a searchable, sortable list of all 820+ nominations and appointments made so far in the Administration; about 240 have not even come up for a Senate vote. ... On Thursday afternoon, just before its Memorial Day recess, the Senate had planned to consider about 80 of these nominations as a group. They all had been through financial and security vetting; they had been through committee consideration; they were headed for jobs that in many cases now stood vacant; they were ready to go. Sen. Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, moved for approval by unanimous consent, apparently believing that a deal to clear out the huge backlog had been struck. Sen. Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, begged to differ. He was still sore about the recess appointment of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. Therefore he wouldn't agree to the en-bloc vote.

Link to story from late May

It used to be rare that nominees would linger on the Senate’s list of pending confirmations for days, weeks and months. Most were approved within hours of being referred out of committee to the full Senate. But during much of the Obama administration, dozens of nominations have been stalled for long periods. On the eve of a June 23 hearing on abolishing secret holds, however, Republican leader Mitch McConnell agreed to allow the confirmation of 63 stalled nominees, clearing close to half the backlog. The nominations below are those who were not cleared.

Link to list of 69 appointments still being held up.

Is this kind of behavior good for anyone?

 

[Statorama]

IRS admits Democrats seriously underestimated enforcement costs of Obamacare

A warning that federal tax officials will need more congressional funding to administer the Democrats’ health reform law has rekindled the partisan debate over its cost effectiveness.

Senior Republicans have said for months that the new responsibilities required of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) under the legislation would saddle the agency with billions of dollars in additional costs — expenses not accounted for in the bill.

A Wednesday report from the National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA), an independent watchdog within the IRS, backed those claims, finding that the agency currently lacks the resources to take on the new duties. …

“Before ObamaCare passed, [Minority Leader John Boehner] and others warned that it would require an army of new IRS agents,” Boehner (R-Ohio) spokesman Michael Steel said in an email. “Democrats denied it. Now we know the truth.”

 

[Desert_Power]

opps!

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) never scheduled a hearing to examine the nominee. Who do you think is playing games here?

Please provide a link to the Senate Republicans blocking this.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/healt...ruly-outrageous

Exactly. The Republicans weren't stalling this guy. The Dems are the ones who didn't want to put him forward for a hearing.Obama waited over a year to nominate anyone to this post and no hearings were even scheduled, so what exactly were Republicans stalling?

Oh, wow. So there was one appointment that was opposed by one Democrat. Color me distraught.

Of course they play games with this stuff, and they probably didn't want the riitarded slapfight that would have ensued with this guy. In a vacuum, I'd be extremely pissed about it...but considering all the completely innocuous appointments that have been unnecessarily delayed (and delayed and delayed) by the Senate minority, I can't really blame them.

And for the record, this instance does absolutely nothing to refute my earlier point.

And on the official White House blog spokeswoman Jen Psaki noted, "[A]t this time in 2002, President Bush had only 5 nominees pending on the floor. By contrast, President Obama has 77 nominees currently pending on the floor, 58 of whom have been waiting for over two weeks and 44 of those have been waiting more than a month."

Link to story after the March recess appointments

If you go to this White House site, you'll find a searchable, sortable list of all 820+ nominations and appointments made so far in the Administration; about 240 have not even come up for a Senate vote. ... On Thursday afternoon, just before its Memorial Day recess, the Senate had planned to consider about 80 of these nominations as a group. They all had been through financial and security vetting; they had been through committee consideration; they were headed for jobs that in many cases now stood vacant; they were ready to go. Sen. Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, moved for approval by unanimous consent, apparently believing that a deal to clear out the huge backlog had been struck. Sen. Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, begged to differ. He was still sore about the recess appointment of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. Therefore he wouldn't agree to the en-bloc vote.

Link to story from late May

It used to be rare that nominees would linger on the Senate’s list of pending confirmations for days, weeks and months. Most were approved within hours of being referred out of committee to the full Senate. But during much of the Obama administration, dozens of nominations have been stalled for long periods. On the eve of a June 23 hearing on abolishing secret holds, however, Republican leader Mitch McConnell agreed to allow the confirmation of 63 stalled nominees, clearing close to half the backlog. The nominations below are those who were not cleared.

Link to list of 69 appointments still being held up.

Is this kind of behavior good for anyone?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/

Should Democrats have recess-appointed Donald Berwick?

Tevi Troy says that the problem with the administration's recess appointment for Don Berwick was not the appointment itself, or even the procedure used to enact it, but the timing of that procedure. In particular, it happened before Republicans had time to demonize and filibuster Berwick, rather than after. "If the Republicans had filibustered Dr. Berwick or held back the nomination after a hearing and after he had answered all of the Senate's written questions and President Obama had then recessed him," Troy says, "I know that I wouldn't have raised any objections."

I find myself a bit baffled by this argument. Republicans made quite clear that they were going to use Berwick as a way to attack the Affordable Care Act, taking a few quotations from his speech praising and critiquing the National Health Service and turning them into an argument that Berwick and Obama planned to bring British-style rationing to the United States. Mitch McConnell, previewing that strategy, had already called Berwick an "expert on rationing." The Republican Policy Committee pulled together an oppo memo, which said, in part, "The American people should have their eyes open to the ramifications of NICE-style rationing in the United States as part of Democrats’ brave new health care world."

In other words, it was pretty clear how this was going to go: Republicans were going to use Berwick and the NHS as a way to hammer Obama and the Affordable Care Act. Then, as has happened to so many bills and nominees, they were going to filibuster him. It is hard for me to even believe that anyone considers these predictions in doubt. As such, the choice for the administration was between recess-appointing Berwick now, before Republicans damaged and blocked him, or later. If they went with later, it's possible they'd have to find another nominee, as Berwick would've been damaged, and though Troy might not have criticized them for a recess appointment, others would have gone to town on them for appointing this rationing-friendly maniac who couldn't even survive a Senate hearing.

I don't like this state of affairs. As I keep saying, the procedural arms race set off by the endless filibuster is bad for both parties, and needs to be ended. But it does seem like the argument here is that Democrats should have acted in good faith even though Republicans seemed poised to act in bad faith, and even though there were real consequences both for Berwick and for the administration if Republicans crucified and then blocked him. And I'd just close this post by reminding people who we're talking about: As Thomas Scully, who ran CMS under George W. Bush, said, “[berwick] is universally regarded and a thoughtful guy who is not partisan.”

 

[Soonerman]

opps!

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) never scheduled a hearing to examine the nominee. Who do you think is playing games here?

Please provide a link to the Senate Republicans blocking this.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/healt...ruly-outrageous

Exactly. The Republicans weren't stalling this guy. The Dems are the ones who didn't want to put him forward for a hearing.Obama waited over a year to nominate anyone to this post and no hearings were even scheduled, so what exactly were Republicans stalling?

Oh, wow. So there was one appointment that was opposed by one Democrat. Color me distraught.

Of course they play games with this stuff, and they probably didn't want the riitarded slapfight that would have ensued with this guy. In a vacuum, I'd be extremely pissed about it...but considering all the completely innocuous appointments that have been unnecessarily delayed (and delayed and delayed) by the Senate minority, I can't really blame them.

And for the record, this instance does absolutely nothing to refute my earlier point.

And on the official White House blog spokeswoman Jen Psaki noted, "[A]t this time in 2002, President Bush had only 5 nominees pending on the floor. By contrast, President Obama has 77 nominees currently pending on the floor, 58 of whom have been waiting for over two weeks and 44 of those have been waiting more than a month."

Link to story after the March recess appointments

If you go to this White House site, you'll find a searchable, sortable list of all 820+ nominations and appointments made so far in the Administration; about 240 have not even come up for a Senate vote. ... On Thursday afternoon, just before its Memorial Day recess, the Senate had planned to consider about 80 of these nominations as a group. They all had been through financial and security vetting; they had been through committee consideration; they were headed for jobs that in many cases now stood vacant; they were ready to go. Sen. Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, moved for approval by unanimous consent, apparently believing that a deal to clear out the huge backlog had been struck. Sen. Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, begged to differ. He was still sore about the recess appointment of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. Therefore he wouldn't agree to the en-bloc vote.

Link to story from late May

It used to be rare that nominees would linger on the Senate’s list of pending confirmations for days, weeks and months. Most were approved within hours of being referred out of committee to the full Senate. But during much of the Obama administration, dozens of nominations have been stalled for long periods. On the eve of a June 23 hearing on abolishing secret holds, however, Republican leader Mitch McConnell agreed to allow the confirmation of 63 stalled nominees, clearing close to half the backlog. The nominations below are those who were not cleared.

Link to list of 69 appointments still being held up.

Is this kind of behavior good for anyone?

And nothing you posted refutes my point about Berwick.

 

[Statorama]

Obama caught lying again, this time about federally funded abortions

The champion of infantacide shows his true colors once again.

Obama Administration Approves First Direct Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Through New High-Risk Insurance Pools

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

By Susan Jones, Senior Editor

(CNSNews.com) - If you want proof that President Obama's Executive Order on taxpayer-funded abortion was a sham, look no further than Pennsylvania, says House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio).

Boehner and other Republicans point to reports that the Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state.

"The fact that the high-risk pool insurance program in Pennsylvania will use federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions is unconscionable," Boehner said in a statement on Tuesday.

“Just last month at the White House, I asked President Obama to provide the American people with a progress report on the implementation of his Executive Order, which purports to ban taxpayer-funding of abortions. Unfortunately, the President provided no information, and the American people are still waiting for answers."

President Obama pledged that under his health care plan “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”

In a May 13 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Boehner asked if her department has provided guidance to the states on how to implement the president’s Executive Order on abortion funding. Boehner also asked Sebelius if the new federal high-risk pools would exclude abortion coverage.

He says his questions remain unanswered.

"Millions of Americans care deeply about this aspect of the new law and its implementation, and no progress report is complete without detailed information about it,” Boehner wrote to Sebelius.

The conservative Family Research Council says the $160 million in taxpayer funds for Pennsylvania is the first known instance of direct federal funding of abortions through the new high-risk insurance pools.

The abortion funding for pool participants validates the arguments pro-life groups made throughout the health care debate – that taxpayer dollars will fund abortions, said Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the Family Research Council’s political action arm.

“For our efforts to remove the bill's abortion funding, we were called 'deceivers' by President Obama and 'liars' by his allies. Now we know who the true deceivers and liars really are,’ McClusky said.

"This action by the Obama Administration also exposes the worthlessness of President Obama's Executive Order that supposedly would prevent federal funding of abortion, but which both sides, including Planned Parenthood, agreed was unenforceable.

"While the American people deserve an apology from President Obama for his deception, we should only be satisfied when this Pennsylvania abortion funding is rescinded and the health care law repealed.

McClusky noted that the new health care law also includes $12.5 billion for community health centers, and $6 billion for co-ops, both of which can fund abortions. And some people will use tax credits to help them pay for plans that cover abortion.

Even before it’s fully implemented, the Democrats’ health care plan “is already being exposed as a high-taxing, poorly thought-out, and taxpayer-funding-of-abortion monstrosity,” McClusky said.

Republican leader Boehner says House Republicans would codify the Hyde amendment, thus prohibiting all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. Under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage would not receive federal funds.

 

[Statorama]

Obama breaking laws, up to his usual tricks

A federal law known as the Siljander Amendment makes it illegal for the U.S. government to lobby on abortion in other countries.

White House Spent $23M of Taxpayer Money to Back Kenyan Constitution That Legalizes Abortion, GOP Reps Say

Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey cited a report by USAID that estimated more than $23 million in U.S. taxpayer funds have been spent on the referendum on the proposed constitution, which would legalize abortion in the country for the first time.

A Republican lawmaker is accusing the White House of “unconscionable” and “illegal” acts for its role in Kenya's referendum on a new constitution, which would legalize abortion in the country for the first time.

Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey cited a report by the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, that estimated that more than $23 million in U.S. taxpayer funds have been spent on the referendum. Smith and other conservatives have complained that at least some of that money has been spent in support of the proposed constitution, possibly violating U.S. law.

“Under no circumstances should the U.S. government take sides,” Smith said at a news conference Wednesday. “Yet that is precisely what the Obama administration has done.”

The proposed constitution will curtail the vast powers of the Kenyan president, offering more balance among the different branches of government in an effort to bring order and stability to the political process of a nation often torn by tumultuous exchanges of power.

Vice President Biden told the Kenyan people in a recent speech, "Let me repeat, this is your decision, your decision alone. And the people of Kenya must make this choice -- a choice for Kenya by Kenyans."

Smith and other lawmakers have accused the Obama administration of offering incentives to Kenya to approve the controversial new constitution, promising that passage would “allow money to flow” into the nation's coffers. A federal law known as the Siljander Amendment makes it illegal for the U.S. government to lobby on abortion in other countries.

“We were unable to get any information prior to asking for those (USAID) reports,” Smith said. “There’s been no transparency in this process.”

Smith had been joined by Reps. Darrell Issa of California and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, both Republicans, in requesting the federal investigation into the administration's spending on the referendum.

“U.S. law is being violated with impunity,” Smith told FoxNews.com. “We shouldn’t be pushing for other the ‘yes’ or the ‘no’ camp, but instead, we’re bankrolling the ‘yes’ campaign.”

One group that has received almost $3 million from the U.S. government, Development Alternatives, openly supported “advocating for efforts to eventually legalize abortion in Kenya,” Smith said. Another group, The Committee of Experts on Constitutional Review in Kenya, changed the wording of the Kenyan constitution’s abortion clause to make abortion more widely accessible – and has received over $180,000 from the U.S.

Thanks to these findings, nine of the more than 200 organizations in Kenya that received money from the U.S. have been suspended from receiving assistance, the U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Katya Thomas in Nairobi told the AP Friday.

But the congressmen are asking for more. They want the White House to be held accountable for its role.

“If violations of the law have occurred, which on the face of it they have, the information must be brought before law enforcement,” Smith said. “Not even presidents are above the law.”

The federal probe also found that the Kenyan constitution was not actually written by Kenyans, but by “U.S.-funded NGOs, working in concert with Planned Parenthood,” Smith said.

According to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s website, Planned Parenthood supports the Kenyan groups that wrote the abortion clause – the Kenyan Federation of Women Lawyers and its parent organization the Kenyan Reproductive Health and Rights Alliance.

Planned Parenthood’s website states that it sought “to improve maternal health conditions in Kenya by securing reproductive health laws and policies that promote women's health,” its motivation for becoming involved in the constitutional revision process.

But some Kenyans think that the role of American organizations like Planned Parenthood in drafting the Kenyan constitution compromises Kenyan sovereignty and assaults its cultural heritage.

Theresa Okafor, CEO of Kenya’s Life League, said in a speech that the proposed constitution is “a conspiracy to strip Africa of its cherished values by international organizations like Planned Parenthood and the United Nations.”

“Africans regard every child as a blessing,” Okafor said. “Amidst biting poverty, the birth of a child is celebrated with pomp and pageantry. Children are treasures in Africa.”

Because abortion has never been an issue in Kenya until now, the country lacks an organized anti-abortion movement on the scale seen in the United States. But a number of church groups are mobilizing against the proposed constitution, as are some Kenyans who want to preserve the traditional culture of family values.

In March 2003, a group of young professionals formed the Life League, one of Kenya’s first pro-life organizations. In 2009, the Life League and 20 other Kenyan pro-life and pro-family groups united to form the Foundation for African Cultural Heritage – a heritage that they believe the abortion provision attacks.

 

[MongoL3]

Obama breaking laws, up to his usual tricks

A federal law known as the Siljander Amendment makes it illegal for the U.S. government to lobby on abortion in other countries.

White House Spent $23M of Taxpayer Money to Back Kenyan Constitution That Legalizes Abortion, GOP Reps Say

Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey cited a report by USAID that estimated more than $23 million in U.S. taxpayer funds have been spent on the referendum on the proposed constitution, which would legalize abortion in the country for the first time.

A Republican lawmaker is accusing the White House of “unconscionable” and “illegal” acts for its role in Kenya's referendum on a new constitution, which would legalize abortion in the country for the first time.

Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey cited a report by the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, that estimated that more than $23 million in U.S. taxpayer funds have been spent on the referendum. Smith and other conservatives have complained that at least some of that money has been spent in support of the proposed constitution, possibly violating U.S. law.

“Under no circumstances should the U.S. government take sides,” Smith said at a news conference Wednesday. “Yet that is precisely what the Obama administration has done.”

The proposed constitution will curtail the vast powers of the Kenyan president, offering more balance among the different branches of government in an effort to bring order and stability to the political process of a nation often torn by tumultuous exchanges of power.

Vice President Biden told the Kenyan people in a recent speech, "Let me repeat, this is your decision, your decision alone. And the people of Kenya must make this choice -- a choice for Kenya by Kenyans."

Smith and other lawmakers have accused the Obama administration of offering incentives to Kenya to approve the controversial new constitution, promising that passage would “allow money to flow” into the nation's coffers. A federal law known as the Siljander Amendment makes it illegal for the U.S. government to lobby on abortion in other countries.

“We were unable to get any information prior to asking for those (USAID) reports,” Smith said. “There’s been no transparency in this process.”

Smith had been joined by Reps. Darrell Issa of California and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, both Republicans, in requesting the federal investigation into the administration's spending on the referendum.

“U.S. law is being violated with impunity,” Smith told FoxNews.com. “We shouldn’t be pushing for other the ‘yes’ or the ‘no’ camp, but instead, we’re bankrolling the ‘yes’ campaign.”

One group that has received almost $3 million from the U.S. government, Development Alternatives, openly supported “advocating for efforts to eventually legalize abortion in Kenya,” Smith said. Another group, The Committee of Experts on Constitutional Review in Kenya, changed the wording of the Kenyan constitution’s abortion clause to make abortion more widely accessible – and has received over $180,000 from the U.S.

Thanks to these findings, nine of the more than 200 organizations in Kenya that received money from the U.S. have been suspended from receiving assistance, the U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Katya Thomas in Nairobi told the AP Friday.

But the congressmen are asking for more. They want the White House to be held accountable for its role.

“If violations of the law have occurred, which on the face of it they have, the information must be brought before law enforcement,” Smith said. “Not even presidents are above the law.”

The federal probe also found that the Kenyan constitution was not actually written by Kenyans, but by “U.S.-funded NGOs, working in concert with Planned Parenthood,” Smith said.

According to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s website, Planned Parenthood supports the Kenyan groups that wrote the abortion clause – the Kenyan Federation of Women Lawyers and its parent organization the Kenyan Reproductive Health and Rights Alliance.

Planned Parenthood’s website states that it sought “to improve maternal health conditions in Kenya by securing reproductive health laws and policies that promote women's health,” its motivation for becoming involved in the constitutional revision process.

But some Kenyans think that the role of American organizations like Planned Parenthood in drafting the Kenyan constitution compromises Kenyan sovereignty and assaults its cultural heritage.

Theresa Okafor, CEO of Kenya’s Life League, said in a speech that the proposed constitution is “a conspiracy to strip Africa of its cherished values by international organizations like Planned Parenthood and the United Nations.”

“Africans regard every child as a blessing,” Okafor said. “Amidst biting poverty, the birth of a child is celebrated with pomp and pageantry. Children are treasures in Africa.”

Because abortion has never been an issue in Kenya until now, the country lacks an organized anti-abortion movement on the scale seen in the United States. But a number of church groups are mobilizing against the proposed constitution, as are some Kenyans who want to preserve the traditional culture of family values.

In March 2003, a group of young professionals formed the Life League, one of Kenya’s first pro-life organizations. In 2009, the Life League and 20 other Kenyan pro-life and pro-family groups united to form the Foundation for African Cultural Heritage – a heritage that they believe the abortion provision attacks.

Just pathetic

 

[Statorama]

Just pathetic

Welcome aboard

 

[Josie Maran]

Obama breaking laws, up to his usual tricks

A federal law known as the Siljander Amendment makes it illegal for the U.S. government to lobby on abortion in other countries.

White House Spent $23M of Taxpayer Money to Back Kenyan Constitution That Legalizes Abortion, GOP Reps Say

Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey cited a report by USAID that estimated more than $23 million in U.S. taxpayer funds have been spent on the referendum on the proposed constitution, which would legalize abortion in the country for the first time.

A Republican lawmaker is accusing the White House of “unconscionable” and “illegal” acts for its role in Kenya's referendum on a new constitution, which would legalize abortion in the country for the first time.

Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey cited a report by the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, that estimated that more than $23 million in U.S. taxpayer funds have been spent on the referendum. Smith and other conservatives have complained that at least some of that money has been spent in support of the proposed constitution, possibly violating U.S. law.

“Under no circumstances should the U.S. government take sides,” Smith said at a news conference Wednesday. “Yet that is precisely what the Obama administration has done.”

The proposed constitution will curtail the vast powers of the Kenyan president, offering more balance among the different branches of government in an effort to bring order and stability to the political process of a nation often torn by tumultuous exchanges of power.

Vice President Biden told the Kenyan people in a recent speech, "Let me repeat, this is your decision, your decision alone. And the people of Kenya must make this choice -- a choice for Kenya by Kenyans."

Smith and other lawmakers have accused the Obama administration of offering incentives to Kenya to approve the controversial new constitution, promising that passage would “allow money to flow” into the nation's coffers. A federal law known as the Siljander Amendment makes it illegal for the U.S. government to lobby on abortion in other countries.

“We were unable to get any information prior to asking for those (USAID) reports,” Smith said. “There’s been no transparency in this process.”

Smith had been joined by Reps. Darrell Issa of California and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, both Republicans, in requesting the federal investigation into the administration's spending on the referendum.

“U.S. law is being violated with impunity,” Smith told FoxNews.com. “We shouldn’t be pushing for other the ‘yes’ or the ‘no’ camp, but instead, we’re bankrolling the ‘yes’ campaign.”

One group that has received almost $3 million from the U.S. government, Development Alternatives, openly supported “advocating for efforts to eventually legalize abortion in Kenya,” Smith said. Another group, The Committee of Experts on Constitutional Review in Kenya, changed the wording of the Kenyan constitution’s abortion clause to make abortion more widely accessible – and has received over $180,000 from the U.S.

Thanks to these findings, nine of the more than 200 organizations in Kenya that received money from the U.S. have been suspended from receiving assistance, the U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Katya Thomas in Nairobi told the AP Friday.

But the congressmen are asking for more. They want the White House to be held accountable for its role.

“If violations of the law have occurred, which on the face of it they have, the information must be brought before law enforcement,” Smith said. “Not even presidents are above the law.”

The federal probe also found that the Kenyan constitution was not actually written by Kenyans, but by “U.S.-funded NGOs, working in concert with Planned Parenthood,” Smith said.

According to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s website, Planned Parenthood supports the Kenyan groups that wrote the abortion clause – the Kenyan Federation of Women Lawyers and its parent organization the Kenyan Reproductive Health and Rights Alliance.

Planned Parenthood’s website states that it sought “to improve maternal health conditions in Kenya by securing reproductive health laws and policies that promote women's health,” its motivation for becoming involved in the constitutional revision process.

But some Kenyans think that the role of American organizations like Planned Parenthood in drafting the Kenyan constitution compromises Kenyan sovereignty and assaults its cultural heritage.

Theresa Okafor, CEO of Kenya’s Life League, said in a speech that the proposed constitution is “a conspiracy to strip Africa of its cherished values by international organizations like Planned Parenthood and the United Nations.”

“Africans regard every child as a blessing,” Okafor said. “Amidst biting poverty, the birth of a child is celebrated with pomp and pageantry. Children are treasures in Africa.”

Because abortion has never been an issue in Kenya until now, the country lacks an organized anti-abortion movement on the scale seen in the United States. But a number of church groups are mobilizing against the proposed constitution, as are some Kenyans who want to preserve the traditional culture of family values.

In March 2003, a group of young professionals formed the Life League, one of Kenya’s first pro-life organizations. In 2009, the Life League and 20 other Kenyan pro-life and pro-family groups united to form the Foundation for African Cultural Heritage – a heritage that they believe the abortion provision attacks.

Just pathetic

That's some lovely propaganda.

 

[Statorama]

Just a placeholder for the video of Obama saying he was "shocked and disappointed" that the Lockerbie bomber was released, then the articles where it's uncovered that he secretly was ok with it.

US backed Lockerbie Bomber release

THE US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be "far preferable" to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya.

Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.

The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer.

The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama's claim last week that all Americans were "surprised, disappointed and angry" to learn of Megrahi's release.

Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as "half-hearted" and a sign it would be accepted.

The US has tried to keep the letter secret, refusing to give permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the grounds it would prevent future "frank and open communications" with other governments.

 

[jamny]

Obama Criticized Over AIDS Funding

The head of the Global AIDS Alliance has sharply criticized President Obama, saying Mr. Obama has failed to meet his funding promises for HIV/AIDS.

Paul Zeitz says President Obama is not nearly as involved in the issue as his predecessors George Bush or Bill Clinton. The State Department’s Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator strongly rejects the charges, calling them inaccurate.

Zeitz says, “Unfortunately, the Obama administration has not kept its word in terms of the AIDS response, globally, and particularly in Africa. President Obama made commitments during the [presidential] campaign to increase spending on global AIDS that he has not matched with his action.”

Zeitz says he and others have been “dialoguing with the administration and encouraging them to review their policies. And we’re hopeful they may do that. But at this point they seem to be very much off track.”

Economic crisis

He rejects arguments that the global economic crisis should affect the amount of money allocated to HIV/AIDS.

“My view is that President Obama gave his word that he would provide a billion dollars per year of increased spending on global AIDS. He committed to doubling foreign aid, including aid to Africa. That’s about a $25 billion increase,” says Zeitz.

The Global AIDS Alliance head goes on to criticize Mr. Obama, saying, “He has no integrity because he’s not kept those promises because of the financial crisis being the excuse.”

Zeitz says Mr. Obama managed to come up with “a trillion dollars for the Wall Street bankers in about 30 days. We’re asking for a small amount of money compared to what he has been able to generate when he actually took the time to work on it.”

Zeitz says most of the discussions with the administration are lower level, unlike those with the Bush and Clinton administrations, which saw direct presidential involvement.

“President Bush himself and his inner circle were working on the [President’s] Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief [PEPFAR],” he says.

“[This] administration is focused on the three Ds – defense, diplomacy and development. And they’re just not implementing their development initiative hardly at all,” he says.

Administration response

A State Department spokesperson says, “First, in a very tight fiscal environment, President Obama requested increases for PEPFAR in both the fiscal year 2010 and 2011 budgets, and $63 billion over six years for the Global Health Initiative, of which PEPFAR is the cornerstone.”

The spokesperson adds, “Second, the administration has not only released a comprehensive document outlining the Global Health Initiative, with specific targets for preventing maternal-child HIV transmissions, but also a comprehensive PEPFAR five-year strategy.”

In addressing the levels of funding, the spokesperson says, “What matters is not dollars, but what we are doing to save lives and improve the quality of life of millions of people now suffering from preventable and treatable diseases… That is what presents the most promise to prevent HIV/AIDS transmissions, treat those living with HIV and other illnesses, and improve the health of millions.”

 

[Parrothead]

Just a placeholder for the video of Obama saying he was "shocked and disappointed" that the Lockerbie bomber was released, then the articles where it's uncovered that he secretly was ok with it.

US backed Lockerbie Bomber release

THE US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be "far preferable" to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya.

Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.

The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer.



The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama's claim last week that all Americans were "surprised, disappointed and angry" to learn of Megrahi's release.

Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as "half-hearted" and a sign it would be accepted.

The US has tried to keep the letter secret, refusing to give permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the grounds it would prevent future "frank and open communications" with other governments.

I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more attention..

 

[Fennis]

Just to bring a little more sanity to this thread:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105527

Did Jesus actually reveal name of the 'antichrist'?

Viral video makes Hebrew word connection to latest White House occupant

For centuries, many have wondered about the identity of a biblical leader who will do Satan the devil's bidding, trying to thwart the plans of Jesus Christ shortly before His prophesied return to Earth.

That character has come to be known as "the antichrist," even though the Bible never uses that word to describe any single person.

Now, after endless speculation suggesting Presidents John F. Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush could possibly be the End Times Bad Boy, there's a new viral video placing the current occupant of the White House into the club.

An American Christian has produced a brief film for YouTube that connects one statement by Jesus in the Gospel of Luke to President Barack Obama.

His 4-minute video focuses on the direct quote: "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." (Luke 10:18)

"When I started doing a little research, I found the Greek word for 'lightning' is 'astrape', and the Hebrew equivalent is 'Baraq,'" said YouTube contributor "ppsimmons," a self-described Christian with a theological education and many years in the ministry, who spoke to WND under condition of anonymity out of concern for members of his local church. "I thought that was fascinating."

As he continued looking into the rest of the words in the phrase, he focused on "heaven," and found that it can refer not just to God's dwelling place, but also "the heights" or "high places."

He then recalled Isaiah 14:14, where Lucifer, another name for Satan, is quoted as saying, "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."

"I wondered what the word 'heights' is," said ppsimmons, "and I looked it up in the dictionary, and it's 'Bamah.'"

Thus, on the video, the announcer notes, "If spoken by a Jewish rabbi today, influenced by the poetry of Isaiah, he would say these words in Hebrew ... 'I saw Satan as Baraq Ubamah.'"

"Gosh, was Jesus giving us a clue or was this just a freak coincidence?" thought the filmmaker at the time of his research.

Find out everything you always wanted to know about the devil but were too afraid to ask (plus hundreds of other amazing Bible facts) in the best-selling book that champions the absolute truth of Scripture, "Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You've Never Been Told" -- personally autographed!

"I want to emphasize I'm not ashamed of what I put there," he told WND. "I'm not proclaiming he is the antichrist, or that I'm some kind of a Hebrew expert, but the word associations are indisputable. The Hebrew word for lightning is 'Baraq' and the word for heights or high places is 'Bamah.'"

The movie has a prominent disclaimer stressing the film does not declare "BHO" [barack Hussein Obama] to be the antichrist, but is merely pointing out the Hebrew words and their "striking" correlations to Jesus' statement.

Obama is far from being the first public figure to have his identity tied to Bible prophecy. For instance, President Reagan was considered by some to be a potential merely because each of his names – Ronald Wilson Reagan – has six letters, prompting some to think of 666, the "number of the beast" in the Book of Revelation.

Modern books such as "Naming the Antichrist: The History of an American Obsession" and "Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil" have chronicled a wide variety of other suspects including Henry Kissinger, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Italy's Benito Mussolini, Juan Carlos of Spain, Israel's Moshe Dayan, Egypt's Anwar Sadat, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, Elvis Presley and ex-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, perhaps for his famous birthmark on his head that some thought could be "the mark" of the beast mentioned in Revelation.

When WND asked if people should take the video seriously or with a grain of salt, its producer said, "I take the middle road. I don't take it with a grain of salt, but I don't use the Bible like a Ouija board either. It's not like a magical crystal ball. Clear prophecy is one thing. Making word associations is another. Just look at it. I wouldn't take it super serious and say that's the proof we need. It's a little weird."

With the video posted now in several locations on YouTube and more than 75,000 total views, there has been plenty of reaction, with comments such as:

Anyone who knows multiple languages, which I do, and attempts to translate from one to the other knows that some meaning and inflection is lost in the translation. Here, we're translating three times: from Aramaic to Greek, and Greek to English, and English to Hebrew. A lot to be lost.

If I went through thousands and thousands of pieces of text about the devil (the whole bible!), I could find things to say [Fox News anchor] Glenn Beck is the antichrist.

It was Michael Jackson. No wait. It was George Bush. No wait. It was Paris Hilton! What the [expletive] is wrong with you people? Grow up. I bet you don't worship the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, too. Do you?

The Bible uses the word "antichrist" only four times, with one instance in the plural, in the following verses:

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. (1 John 2:18)

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22)

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (1 John 4:3)

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (2 John 1:7)

 

[Parrothead]

Just to bring a little more sanity to this thread:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105527

Did Jesus actually reveal name of the 'antichrist'?

Viral video makes Hebrew word connection to latest White House occupant

For centuries, many have wondered about the identity of a biblical leader who will do Satan the devil's bidding, trying to thwart the plans of Jesus Christ shortly before His prophesied return to Earth.

That character has come to be known as "the antichrist," even though the Bible never uses that word to describe any single person.

Now, after endless speculation suggesting Presidents John F. Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush could possibly be the End Times Bad Boy, there's a new viral video placing the current occupant of the White House into the club.

An American Christian has produced a brief film for YouTube that connects one statement by Jesus in the Gospel of Luke to President Barack Obama.

His 4-minute video focuses on the direct quote: "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." (Luke 10:18)

"When I started doing a little research, I found the Greek word for 'lightning' is 'astrape', and the Hebrew equivalent is 'Baraq,'" said YouTube contributor "ppsimmons," a self-described Christian with a theological education and many years in the ministry, who spoke to WND under condition of anonymity out of concern for members of his local church. "I thought that was fascinating."

As he continued looking into the rest of the words in the phrase, he focused on "heaven," and found that it can refer not just to God's dwelling place, but also "the heights" or "high places."

He then recalled Isaiah 14:14, where Lucifer, another name for Satan, is quoted as saying, "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."

"I wondered what the word 'heights' is," said ppsimmons, "and I looked it up in the dictionary, and it's 'Bamah.'"

Thus, on the video, the announcer notes, "If spoken by a Jewish rabbi today, influenced by the poetry of Isaiah, he would say these words in Hebrew ... 'I saw Satan as Baraq Ubamah.'"

"Gosh, was Jesus giving us a clue or was this just a freak coincidence?" thought the filmmaker at the time of his research.

Find out everything you always wanted to know about the devil but were too afraid to ask (plus hundreds of other amazing Bible facts) in the best-selling book that champions the absolute truth of Scripture, "Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You've Never Been Told" -- personally autographed!

"I want to emphasize I'm not ashamed of what I put there," he told WND. "I'm not proclaiming he is the antichrist, or that I'm some kind of a Hebrew expert, but the word associations are indisputable. The Hebrew word for lightning is 'Baraq' and the word for heights or high places is 'Bamah.'"

The movie has a prominent disclaimer stressing the film does not declare "BHO" [barack Hussein Obama] to be the antichrist, but is merely pointing out the Hebrew words and their "striking" correlations to Jesus' statement.

Obama is far from being the first public figure to have his identity tied to Bible prophecy. For instance, President Reagan was considered by some to be a potential merely because each of his names – Ronald Wilson Reagan – has six letters, prompting some to think of 666, the "number of the beast" in the Book of Revelation.

Modern books such as "Naming the Antichrist: The History of an American Obsession" and "Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil" have chronicled a wide variety of other suspects including Henry Kissinger, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Italy's Benito Mussolini, Juan Carlos of Spain, Israel's Moshe Dayan, Egypt's Anwar Sadat, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, Elvis Presley and ex-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, perhaps for his famous birthmark on his head that some thought could be "the mark" of the beast mentioned in Revelation.

When WND asked if people should take the video seriously or with a grain of salt, its producer said, "I take the middle road. I don't take it with a grain of salt, but I don't use the Bible like a Ouija board either. It's not like a magical crystal ball. Clear prophecy is one thing. Making word associations is another. Just look at it. I wouldn't take it super serious and say that's the proof we need. It's a little weird."

With the video posted now in several locations on YouTube and more than 75,000 total views, there has been plenty of reaction, with comments such as:

Anyone who knows multiple languages, which I do, and attempts to translate from one to the other knows that some meaning and inflection is lost in the translation. Here, we're translating three times: from Aramaic to Greek, and Greek to English, and English to Hebrew. A lot to be lost.

If I went through thousands and thousands of pieces of text about the devil (the whole bible!), I could find things to say [Fox News anchor] Glenn Beck is the antichrist.

It was Michael Jackson. No wait. It was George Bush. No wait. It was Paris Hilton! What the [expletive] is wrong with you people? Grow up. I bet you don't worship the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, too. Do you?

The Bible uses the word "antichrist" only four times, with one instance in the plural, in the following verses:

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. (1 John 2:18)

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22)

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (1 John 4:3)

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (2 John 1:7)

well, it was a good run

 

[Statorama]

71% of voters reject key provision of Obamacare

The majority of people are against Obamacare.

 

[Statorama]

$700,000 of taxpayer money used for pro-Obamacare advertising

He's using your money to tell you this is a good plan.

 

[H.K.]

$700,000 of taxpayer money used for pro-Obamacare advertising

He's using your money to tell you this is a good plan.

"Free check-ups"

So healthcare providers are doing this for no cost at all? That's awesome! As a taxpayer, I was worried I would be paying for them.

 

[ericttspikes]

71% of voters reject key provision of Obamacare

The majority of people are against Obamacare.

Polls are fun!Kaiser Health Tracking Poll — July 2010

The July Health Tracking Poll indicates overall public support for the health reform law is steady from June, while unfavorable views of the law have trended downward. Half the public (50%) now expresses a favorable view of the law, while 35 percent say they have an unfavorable opinion (down from 41% in June).



http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8084.cfm

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

71% of voters reject key provision of Obamacare

The majority of people are against Obamacare.

Polls are fun!Kaiser Health Tracking Poll — July 2010

The July Health Tracking Poll indicates overall public support for the health reform law is steady from June, while unfavorable views of the law have trended downward. Half the public (50%) now expresses a favorable view of the law, while 35 percent say they have an unfavorable opinion (down from 41% in June).



http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8084.cfm

I think the general rule is that everyone is for xxxxx Reform when it is just platform position where the individuals can fill in the blanks of what it means. Then as the ideas get hashed out in to real legislation all of the individual's ideals are dropped for one horrible compromise after another and support free falls. (No to mention the effect of opposition rhetoric.) Then the legislation becomes law and support slowly starts climbing again as it becomes the new normal.

 

[jon_mx]

71% of voters reject key provision of Obamacare

The majority of people are against Obamacare.

Polls are fun!Kaiser Health Tracking Poll — July 2010

The July Health Tracking Poll indicates overall public support for the health reform law is steady from June, while unfavorable views of the law have trended downward. Half the public (50%) now expresses a favorable view of the law, while 35 percent say they have an unfavorable opinion (down from 41% in June).



http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8084.cfm

What are other polls saying now....

Healthcare Insurance Bill Reform: Polls Show 59% Want Repeal

By Phillip Williams on August 3, 2010, 8:05 am Posted in Business News

The public opinion monitoring company known as “Rasmussen Reports” has released new polls that show that 59% of voters believe that the Health Care Reform Bill should be repealed. This announcement comes in a time of immense confusion with the new health care system, as well as how the slow cycle of changes will personally affect citizens’ choices of primary care doctors and health insurance plans. This is especially a concern for those who are currently covered under non-Medicaid and Medicare state insurance plans for the poor.

U.S. SENATE

Fox News Poll: Most Voters Unhappy with Health Care Law

By Dana Blanton

Published August 04, 2010 | FoxNews.com

Few American voters like the new health care law — and most want it changed or repealed.

In addition, according to a Fox News poll released Wednesday, almost twice as many voters think changes in the law "go too far" as think they "don't go far enough."

Nearly half of voters — 45 percent — think the changes go too far, while 25 percent think the changes don't go far enough. Some 16 percent think the law includes the right amount of change.

Just 15 percent of voters like the new health care law and think it should be implemented as is. Most don't like the law in its current form: 42 percent think it needs to be changed, and another 36 percent would repeal it all together.

Two-thirds of those who think the law goes too far think it should be repealed all together (66 percent). A similar number of those who think the law fails to go far enough think changes should be made to it (64 percent).

The national telephone poll was conducted for Fox News by Opinion Dynamics Corp. among 900 registered voters from July 27 to July 28. For the total sample, the poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Kaiser, all they do is poll about health care and somehow all their numbers are way different than everyone elses. Even back in March Kaiser was showing most people supported Obama care. Search Kaiser, every poll for the last year is spun favorably in favor of health care reform. It is not just an outlier, it has consistently been an outlier which probably means it is bias as heck. I hope the Democrats believe that BS, it will be very costly come November.

 

[Statorama]

Obama on verge of forgiving billions in mortgage debt

More taxpayer money to be thrown at people that made poor choices.

Main Street may be about to get its own gigantic bailout. Rumors are running wild from Washington to Wall Street that the Obama administration is about to order government-controlled lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to forgive a portion of the mortgage debt of millions of Americans who owe more than what their homes are worth. An estimated 15 million U.S. mortgages – one in five – are underwater with negative equity of some $800 billion. Recall that on Christmas Eve 2009, the Treasury Department waived a $400 billion limit on financial assistance to Fannie and Freddie, pledging unlimited help. The actual vehicle for the bailout could be the Bush-era Home Affordable Refinance Program, or HARP, a sister program to Obama’s loan modification effort. HARP was just extended through June 30, 2011.

The move, if it happens, would be a stunning political and economic bombshell less than 100 days before a midterm election in which Democrats are currently expected to suffer massive, if not historic losses. The key date to watch is August 17 when the Treasury Department holds a much-hyped meeting on the future of Fannie and Freddie. …

Democrats are in real danger of losing the House and almost losing the Senate. The mortgage Hail Mary would be a last-gasp effort to prevent this from happening and to save the Obama agenda. The political calculation is that the number of grateful Americans would be greater than those offended that they — and their children and their grandchildren — would be paying for someone else’s mortgage woes.

 

[Statorama]

Guess this lady wasn't too far off

 

[bg0546]

Guess this lady wasn't too far off

I think I know where you were going with this. Unfortunately, it results in

The URL contained a malformed video ID.

 

[Statorama]

Guess this lady wasn't too far off

I think I know where you were going with this. Unfortunately, it results in

The URL contained a malformed video ID.

Yeah, YouTube is blocked at work so I wasn't able to verify. It's the lady that says Obama is going to pay for her bills. I'll re-up it tonight from home.

 

[Statorama]

Just another day of Obama punishing success and rewarding failure.

 

[kface]

we are no longer a laughing stock and that's a step up

 

[steelcityman]

funny that so many dont think he is doing a good job, yet come 2012 he will win by even a bigger margin than 2008.

 

[adonis]

Just another day of Obama punishing success and rewarding failure.

I thought that was your job?

 

[Proud Communist]

we are no longer a laughing stock and that's a step up

Do you have anything scientific to back up your assertion?

 

[Statorama]

Just another day of Obama punishing success and rewarding failure.

I thought that was your job?

I'd be a far more effective leader than he is.

 

[bg0546]

Just another day of Obama punishing success and rewarding failure.

I thought that was your job?

I'd be a far more effective leader than he is.

So would my Cat.

 

[ericttspikes]

And will you hear any govt officials taking it back to Clinton right now? No, they feel they can just say "Bush's fault" to any damn thing they want right now and be justified to do whatever they feel right. This joke of a Treasury secretary asking Congress for rights that are so very unconstitutional is just the tip of the iceberg to the socialist hell this government is trying to lead us down, and the instead of giving any real reason, they just blame Bush and move on when they were EVERY bit as guilty for what happened.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-29-2010/blame

 

[Statorama]

Government Motors uses your tax dollars to donate to liberal campaigns

Every...Freaking....Day Obama does something like this.

When General Motors went through bankruptcy last year, it suspended its political donations. Now that it's owned by the U.S. government, it's donating to lawmakers' pet projects again.

The carmaker gave $41,000 to groups associated with lawmakers, the vast majority of it -- $36,000 -- to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, the company reported on a disclosure form last week. The CBC Foundation is a charity with 11 members of the Congressional Black Caucus on its board.

"We've always given to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation as far back as anyone can remember," said Greg Martin, GM spokesman. "Our commitment remains unabated, and we continue to be a proud supporter of their work to advance economic development in communities throughout the U.S."

According to its disclosure forms, the company did not give any money to honor lawmakers in 2009, the year of its bankruptcy filing. The U.S. government now has a 60 percent stake in the reformed company.

"By anyone's definition that was an extraordinary time for the company," Martin said. "We did suspend giving for that particular time."

GM's return to the business of donations remained small compared with the giving of some corporations. Overall, corporations and other entities that were registered to lobby Congress gave $10.7 million to honor politicians and military figures in the first six months of the year. That is down slightly from the $10.8 million spent in the last half of 2009. Donations were down 27 percent from the same period two years ago, but there were still 37 entities that gave at least six figures in the latest six-month period.

Defense contractors disclosed some of the biggest gifts. One of the top honorees was Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who was a guest at an April gala for the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors, a nonprofit group that provides counseling to friends and family who have lost loved ones in the military. BAE Systems donated $150,000 to the event, and defense contractor Science Applications International Corporation donated $100,000, according to disclosure forms. General Motors also gave $5,000 to honor Skelton.

General Motors has not reactivated its political action committee, which can give to election campaigns, according to the latest reports with the Federal Election Commission. The PAC contributions come from senior employees who give to support the company's political goals.

The CBC Foundation and affiliated entities took a big hit, raising $686,000 from January through June, compared with $1.4 million in the last half of 2009. Anheuser-Busch gave the largest contribution to the foundation this year, $150,000 in March.

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute raised about $1 million from companies in the six-month period, including $385,000 in two contributions from Wal-Mart.

Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), the Senate Appropriations Committee chairman, was honored at a gala for the Pacific Aviation Museum Pearl Harbor with a $250,000 donation from FedEx and $100,000 from Northrop Grumman. Science Applications International Corp. is also listed as a "presenting sponsor" on the museum's Web site but reported no contributions to the event. A spokeswoman did not return a request for comment.

Lockheed Martin donated $85,000 to the Dallas Military Ball, where Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, was a keynote speaker.

The drug industry was another big spender. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America gave $95,000, including $60,000 to the ALS Foundation to honor Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.). Pfizer spent $103,000, including a $25,000 contribution to honor Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) at the National Osteoporosis Foundation awards dinner.

AT&T disclosed giving $1 million to the George W. Bush Foundation, which is raising money for Bush's presidential library.

The Distilled Spirits Council spent $10,529 for a February reception on the first floor of the Capitol with the Congressional Bourbon Caucus, founded by Reps. John Yarmouth (D) and Brett Guthrie ® of Kentucky.

 

[Desert_Power]

Government Motors uses your tax dollars to donate to liberal campaigns

No, they don't. Your article doesn't match what your title says. You're slipping.

 

[Statorama]

Cause, meet effect.

Social Security to Start Running Annual Deficits Over Next Two Years

 

[adonis]

Cause, meet effect.

Social Security to Start Running Annual Deficits Over Next Two Years

If only we had seen this coming!

 

[Statorama]

Obamacare fails to define what constitutes a "benefit"

The political revolt against ObamaCare came to Missouri Tuesday, with voters casting ballots three to one against the plan in its first direct referendum. This is another resounding health-care rebuke to the White House and Democrats, not that overwhelming public opposition to this expansion of government power ever deterred them before.

Missouri's Proposition C annulled the "individual mandate" within state lines, or the requirement that everyone buy insurance or else pay a tax. Liberals are trying to wave off this embarrassment, but that is hard to do when the split was 71.1% in favor in a state John McCain won by a mere 0.1% margin. The anti-ObamaCare measure carried every county save St. Louis and Kansas City with 668,000 votes, yet just 578,000 Republicans cast a ballot in the concurrent primaries.

If the practical effects of this conflict between state and federal law are likely to be limited, more importantly, Missouri's vote revealed once again that the country is still aghast over President Obama's health-care presumption. Earlier this week, the Congressional Research Service reported that the new bureaucracy the bill created is so complex and indiscriminate that its size is "currently unknowable." Capitol Hill's independent policy arm added that among "the dozens of new governmental organizations or advisory bodies," it is "impossible to know how much influence they will ultimately have."

No wonder Missourians rebelled, as with voters in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia last year. There will be more such what-have-they-done ObamaCare moments. Wait until the public discovers the government is now literally determining what qualifies as "health care" in America.

That isn't a typo. ObamaCare mandates that insurers spend a certain percentage of premium dollars on benefits, but Democrats never got around to writing the fine print of what counts as a benefit. So a handful of regulators are now choosing among the tens of thousands of services that doctors, hospitals and insurers offer. Few other government decisions will do more to shape tomorrow's health market, or what's left of it.

This command-and-control mechanism is the bill's mandate for insurance "medical loss ratios" (MLR) of 85% for large employers and 80% for small businesses and individuals. The MLR is an accounting statistic that measures the share of premiums paid out in patient claims ("losses"). In the individual market, MLRs typically run between 65% and 75%, and Democrats like Jay Rockefeller and Al Franken think this is evidence of excessive profits, executive pay, marketing and other supposedly wasteful overhead.

The same mentality prevails in the Administration, so it may well adopt a narrow definition of medical expenses when it issues final regulations by early fall. The insurance industry is lobbying for a less rigid standard: It will be easier to run a business and turn a profit if more of the costs are considered truly medical in nature.

More notable is that people partial to ObamaCare but largely outside of politics are coming to understand the mess Congress has created. To wit, much of health care's intellectual energy is moving toward a concept called the "accountable care organization," which would replace today's fragmented delivery system of mostly solo practitioners with teams of doctors and hospitals working together. These integrated groups would manage and coordinate care, use more information technology and try to improve treatment quality for chronic disease and complex conditions.

Yet "it isn't easy to draw a bright line, or even a fuzzy line, between traditional health services and some of the more innovative coordinated models," says Mark McClellan of the Brookings Institution and a leading accountable care proponent. The new model would rely on many tools that aren't strictly medical, like, say, a checkup or a CT scan.

For example, how to classify a program to double-check doctors orders to avoid one of the unnecessary surgeries that kill some 12,000 people every year? Or counseling, calls, emails and other types of case management to make sure patients comply with their diabetes regimen? Or investments in electronic medical records? Obviously these programs aren't the same as an O.R. visit, but they still cost money, often a lot of it, and many insurance programs pay or are starting to pay for them.

The possibility that these will be written out of the MLR definition is feeding a growing unease about politics shaping medicine more than it already does. The California Association of Physician Groups, the largest U.S. accountable care trade group, recently protested that a narrow MLR ruling "would create a disincentive for plans to contract with our members and undercut the coordinated care model."

Health Integrated, a respected medical consulting firm, urged regulators "to avoid discouraging or inadvertently extinguishing the successful innovation that (so frequently) arises only from a plan's ability to try new ideas." Even North Dakota's Democratic Rep. Earl Pomeroy, who voted for the bill, argues that tight MLR regulation "could have a chilling effect on future innovative programs."

"The real question is the overall philosophical thrust, which will determine the long-term direction of health care," Mr. McClellan says of the coming definition. The regulatory debate is dominated by Senator Rockefeller and others on the left who are still angry they never got a public option and are trying to use MLR as a proxy for controlling the insurance industry. The irony is that the new health models they claim to favor may be collateral damage, even as insurers take the fall for the problems Congress created.

Another danger concerns the individual market, where a wave of destruction could be imminent. If the MLR definition is so arbitrary that health plans can't cover their claims and expenses, they'll simply withdraw that book of business. Mila Kofman, Maine's insurance superintendent and an ObamaCare supporter, warned that "the federal standard may disrupt our individual health insurance market" and is seeking an exemption. Her protest is all the more notable given that Maine's health regulations closely resemble those that are about to be imposed nationwide.

Ms. Kofman and others are right to worry. In the 1990s, an MLR crackdown in Washington state caused the individual market to collapse in 36 of 39 counties. Too bad for the people with coverage today who were promised they could keep it if they liked it.

This fight over medical loss ratios is an early taste of how a "government takeover" operates in practice. The state insurance commissioners advising the federal government—and who know something about the business—have already missed several deadlines because writing a uniform definition of medicine is "time consuming," while a wrong move would "destabilize the marketplace and significantly limit consumer choices."

We predicted that under ObamaCare politicians and technocrats would dominate medicine, and here they come. Without more Missouri-style revolts—or perhaps in spite of them—the rest of us will soon learn how competent they really are.