Obama's lies exposed again.

Let me get this straight. Saturday, Obama says the House bill, as written, meets all his qualifications. One of those qualifications he's been making is that the bill did not fund abortions.

Saturday night, the Stupak Amendment passes. This amendment bans abortion funding from the House bill that Obama claimed already had none.

In response to the Stupak Amendment, abortion rights advocates are livid:

Abortion rights advocates called the measure the biggest setback to women's reproductive rights in decades.

So Obama promises a bill that has no tax money for abortion. Obama claims the House bill meets that promise. An amendment is passed which removes abortion from the bill. Abortion advocates denounce the amendment for setting back women's reproductive rights.

Is there any wonder why a majority of Americans no longer trust President Obama to tell us the truth about health care? Obama lies with such audacity that Bill Clinton is a piker in comparison. Obama's promises about ANYTHING cannot be trusted -- he is constantly taking back his promises, be it on Afghanistan, taxing the middle class, missle defense, closing Guantanamo -- you name it, Obama has lied about it.


BTW: Currently, many insurance policies offer abortion. Perversely, because the democrats are taking over our health care, many more people will need government subsidies to afford the higher costs of insurance, so many people will lose abortion coverage, since they now have it in a private coverage, but with Obamacare they won't be able to afford their premiums, they'll have to take government subsidies, and therefore will be unable to get abortion coverage.

The government has no business screwing around with, or funding, the nation's medical insurance. If the government would keep it's nose out of our affairs, we wouldn't have to pass abortion funding bans, because government wouldn't be funding anything to begin with.

And as much as I loathe abortion (killing babies just doesn't appeal to me like it does to Nancy Pelosi), I really would like ALL of us to not have tax dollars pay for our health insurance.

Democrat's Health "Reform" - Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

The Washington Times re-iterates a fundamental goal of the Democrats in the "health care reform" bill: "Young Adults Could Face Sharp Rise":

Young adults, a group that helped elect President Obama last fall, could have the highest costs to bear but the most to gain under the health care overhaul proposals in Congress.

The reform bills require insurance companies to reduce the disparities between what they charge the young and the old, with potential to dramatically raise prices for young adults.

Young people don't need health insurance as it exists today. They mostly just need catastrophic coverage, to cover for the really unexpected event like a car accident, a heart attack, or some other rare medical problem.

But state insurance regulations often force policies to cover all sorts of things that young people don't care about -- like a single male having to pay extra to cover Erectile Disfunction, Birth Control pills, abortion and gynecological services, and long-term nursing care.

This is why so many people are uninsured -- the kids just don't see a benefit worth the cost:

Young adults have often been overlooked in the battle to extend health insurance coverage to all Americans. They have the highest rate of uninsured status of all age groups, either because they can't afford it on fresh-from-college salaries or they hope that their age will save them from high-cost medical care. A 2008 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that young adults, ages 19 to 29, make up 29 percent of the uninsured population in the United States.

But at least the insurance companies are allowed to sell the over-blown policies to the young people at a cost less than that for people who will actually USE their services.

Americans understand the principle. If you are a young driver, you pay more for car insurance because you will tend to have more accidents. Life Insurance costs more as you get older, or if you have a history of heart disease, or are a smoker, because you will likely die sooner. Homeowners insurance gives you discounts if you have smoke detectors, better locks, and a fire hydrant nearby, because your house is less likely to burn completely.

But medical insurance is already skewed, mostly by employer-based programs. Because while many companies DO charge more for their older employees, it is generally based on salary, and isn't nearly enough of a difference to reflect the actual costs. That's because it isn't offered as a cost-effective insurance, but as an EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.

Now, the democrats want to force the same thing on ALL MEDICAL INSURANCE.:

"Allowing insurers to charge older Americans vastly higher premiums simply because of their age is discrimination, pure and simple," Mr. Kerry said. "Insurers must compete based on price, value and customer satisfaction, not by avoiding Americans based on their age or health."

But in true socialist government form, the democrats insist that charging young people a lot more for their insurance won't be a problem -- Because they will get taxpayer-funded subsidies:

But proponents say that much of the new costs young people would face would likely be picked up by tax subsidies that are being designed to help low- and middle-income people buy coverage.

The current plans call for subsidies to be available to individuals and families with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level. This year, that level is $10,830 for an individual and $22,050 for a family of four.

If this wasn't going to increase the deficit, the end result instead would be that government regulation would drive up costs for everybody, but force insurers to take less money from old people and more money from young people, while old people had to simultaneously pay more taxes so that the government could take the money and give it to young people so they could pay for the higher insurance costs.

The key being that this has nothing to do with health care, and EVERYTHING to do with having 85% of the people in this country dependent on the government giving them money. Because once everybody needs the government to survive, the Democrats will have all the power they crave to tell people what to do, like forcing them to by unncessary medical insurance.

McDonnell gets two endorsements

The one is a positive endorsement from the Manassas News/Messenger.

The second endorsement is that the Washington Post endorsed Creigh Deeds. Since the WP endorsement is based solely on the willingness to raise taxes, that's one endorsement McDonnell neither could get, or would want.

The Post tries to also make their endorsement about McDonnell's "thesis". But their hypocrisy on that point makes their argument for Deeds worse -- just three months ago the WP said the opposite things about McDonnell, based on his record, from what they say now.

Since the WP has been writing for the past month for the sole purpose of providing quotes for Creigh Deeds to use in his advertisements, there really was no question they would endorse the man they endorsed in the Democratic primary -- in for a penny, in for a pound.

More on the endorsements later.

Health Care Reform -- Bribes and Punishment

All you need to know about the corruption of Washington DC, and the danger of allowing the Federal Government to meddle in our private affairs, can be found in a Washington Post article (Sunday, October 18, 2009), mockingly headlined "Medical Device Makers Court Unlikely Allies". I say "mockingly" because the facts reveal something more of a shotgun wedding born out of spitefulness, hatred, and anger rather than mutual respect:

But the two camps have come together to defend a powerful home-state industry in the political doghouse: medical device firms.

The companies, whose products range from $3,000 heart stents to $30,000 implantable defibrillators, refused to offer direct financial concessions earlier this year to help pay for health-care reform, unlike drugmakers, hospitals and other health- care players.

The move angered Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, who view the industry as a key contributor to soaring health-care costs, and led the panel to approve a $40 billion fee on device makers over the next 10 years.

So a private industry providing useful services to the people of our country was "asked" to "voluntarily" change what they charged for their product, and they rightly told the feds to stick to their constitutional authority.

And the democrats got ANGRY, because someone dared to stand up to their authority. And they decided to punish those who made them angry, by using the power of government to tax them, thus driving up the costs of the medical devices to the people who need them most.

And what will those taxes paid for by the citizens be used for? To pay off those other industries who bowed down to the democrats and did what they were told.

This article also reveals the inconvenient truth about rising health care costs. Our costs are going up not because things are getting more expensive, but because we have businesses offering NEW treatments and NEW hope for people with medical problems.

In the case of the medical device manufacturers, their devices are making people's lives better, and people are willing to pay money for the new treatments. Nobody is forcing anybody do pay for this, you could always pretend it was 10 years ago and the devices weren't available. But why wouldn't you pay money for something better? Well, the democrats don't think that makes any sense at all:

The industry's efforts are made more difficult by evidence that the push to sell pricey medical devices, from artificial joints to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines, has been a significant contributor to skyrocketing health-care costs in the United States. One manufacturer, New Jersey-based ReGen Biologics, has come under fire for aggressively lobbying the Food and Drug Administration to gain approval for a knee-surgery device.

It makes it sound like we don't need or want these devices. But another dirty little secret -- state governments force medical insurance plans to cover things like this, because of lobbying pressure, and then since it "doesn't cost anything", doctors will approve the devices.

But instead of actually reforming how we deliver health care, the democrats are pushing more regulation, more distortion of the costs. They don't care that medical devices may be unnecessary -- instead they are going to TAX them, which means the government will be MORE LIKELY to include these devices in health insurance requirements, because the government will need the tax dollars.

Steven Nissen, chief of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, called device makers "a Wild, Wild West" industry that uses aggressive marketing, including confidential payments to doctors, to drive up demand for its products. "Given the way they have encouraged overutilization, it makes sense that some of that should be given back to help bend the cost curve," he said.

Why not ban "confidential payments" to doctors? Because the suggestion that doctors are doing unncessary surgery against their patient wishes simply because they get bribes has already been shown to be false -- it's just a canard used to argue that there is a problem that needs to be fixed.

This is the democrat's message. You can't trust your doctors, they area on the take. You can't trust the companies that have made life-saving drugs for you, they just want to make money. You can't trust your insurance company, you can't trust your nurses, you can't trust the hospital.

But you CAN trust 58 democrats in the Senate to do what is right for you, because they would never act out of anger to punish their adversaries. Oh wait, they just did.

Creigh Deeds -- Tearing down Virginia's Universities.

Creigh Deeds, desperate to get liberals in Northern Virginia to vote for him, while not turning off the rest of Virginia, is running targeted ads attacking a solid Virginia University in Virginia Beach.

In the ad, Creigh Deeds claims that we should vote for Deeds rather than McDonnell because McDonnell attended Regent University, which Deeds derisively misnames.

Regent University is an accredited university which graduated over 1000 students last year, including many Virginia residents, all of whom must wonder what Creigh Deeds has against them, since Deeds is telling prospective employees that in Deeds' opinion, they shouldn't be hired.

Regent University (its undergraduate school and graduate schools) is accredited or certified by the following bodies:

Regent University is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to award associates, baccalaureate, masters, and doctorate degrees. Contact the Commission on Colleges at 1866 Southern Lane, Decatur, Georgia 30033-4097 or call 404.679.4500 for questions about the accreditation of Regent University.
Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) www.chea.org

The State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV)—certification of the Commonwealth of Virginia. www.schev.edu

The Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada (ATS), accredits the School of Divinity. The Commission on Accrediting of the Association of Theological Schools, 10 Summit Park Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15275. www.ats.edu

The American Bar Association (ABA), accredits the School of Law. The Accreditation Committee and the Council of the Section, 321 N. Clark St., Chicago, IL 60610. www.abanet.org

The American Psychological Association (APA), accredits the psychology programs of the School of Psychology & Counseling. Office of Program Consultation and Accreditation, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242. www.apa.org

The Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP), accredits the counseling programs of the School of Psychology & Counseling. 5999 Stevenson Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22304. www.cacrep.org

The Regent University School of Education's educational leadership and teacher preparation programs, which are designed to prepare competent, caring, and qualified professional educators is accredited by the Teacher Education Accreditation Council for a period of five years, from January 9, 2009 to January 9, 2014. This accreditation certifies that the educational leadership and teacher preparation programs have provided evidence that they adhere to TEAC's quality principles. Teacher Educational Accreditation Council, One Dupont Circle, Suite 320, Washington, DC, 20036, phone 202.466.7236. www.teac.org/

Apparently, Creigh Deeds thinks he knows more than these organizations, and believes that people who graduate from this Virginia University should be treated as 2nd-class citizens, held up to ridicule and mocking by political candidates who want to be Governor.

This is rediculous. How could we put a man into the Governorship who has so blatantly attacked thousands of our young men and women who worked so hard to earn college degrees from our own universities?

Creigh Deeds - Unfit for Duty

Does Creigh Deeds hate Virginia's universities?

How else would you explain Deeds telling his campaign to launch an attack on the graduates and leadership of an accredited Virginia University?

In a commercial that Deeds must pray is only seen by liberals in Northern Virginia, Deeds attacks McDonnell for attending Regent University in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Deeds then attacks McDonnell for serving on the board for the University for 7 years. Imagine any other candidate trying to attack someone for serving a Virginia institute of higher learning.

Here are the current list of trustees. I'm guessing none of them are going to vote for Deeds, after he essentially put them all down:

Mr. G. Conoly Phillips, Chairman
Bishop Wellington Boone
Dr. Benjamin S. Carson
Adm. Vernon E. Clark (USN Ret.)
Dr. Chauncey Crandell
Mrs. Roberta Eldred
Mr. Jim L. Funari
Mr. Joseph R. Gregory
Mrs. Roberta P. Hromas
Mr. Thomas J. Knox Jr.
Dr. Kay Peng Khoo
Mr. Michael D. Little
Mr. Howard W. Long
Mr. William L. Maynard
Mrs. Cheryl McLeskey
Mr. David V. Melilli
Mr. Lowell W. Morse
Mrs. Dede Robertson
Dr. M. G. Robertson
Mr. Timothy B. Robertson
Mr. Thomas M. Saltsgiver
Dr. Jay A. Sekulow
Mr. Daniel C. Sellers Jr.
Mr. Robert O. Snelling Sr.

Let's just look at one of these people that Creigh Deeds apparently thinks is unfit for duty because he's a trustee at Regent University -- Admiral Vernon Clark:

Admiral Clark served aboard the destroyers USS John W. Weeks (DD 701) and USS Gearing (DD 710). As a Lieutenant, he commanded USS Grand Rapids (PG 98). He subsequently commanded USS McCloy (FF 1038), USS Spruance (DD 963), the Atlantic Fleet's Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Center, Destroyer Squadron Seventeen, and Destroyer Squadron Five. After being selected for flag rank, Admiral Clark commanded Carl Vinson Battle Group/Cruiser Destroyer Group Three, Second Fleet, and United States Atlantic Fleet.

Let's skip ahead:

Admiral Clark has also served as the Deputy and Chief of Staff, United States Atlantic Fleet; the Director of Operations (J3) and subsequently Director, of the Joint Staff.
Admiral Clark became the 27th Chief of Naval Operations on July 21, 2000, relieving Admiral Jay L. Johnson. In 2001, Clark was considered to be on the "short list" of choices for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the eventual pick was Air Force Gen Richard Myers [1]

Wow, he was almost the Chairman of the JCOS, but Creigh Deeds thinks he's unfit for duty because he's a trustee at Regent University.

Admiral Clark's personal decorations include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (three awards), the Navy Distinguished Service Medal (two awards), the Legion of Merit (three awards), the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal (four awards), the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, and various service and campaign awards, including the Joint Meritorious Unit Award (two awards), Navy Unit Commendation, Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation, Battle Efficiency Award (two awards), National Defense Service Medal (three awards), Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Vietnam Service Medal (two campaigns), Southwest Asia Service Medal (one campaign), Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (six awards), and Navy and Marine Corps Overseas Service Ribbon

But forget all those awards and honors. Creigh Deeds says that Admiral Clark is unfit for duty, because he's a trustee at Regent University.

Since his retirement, Clark has been honored with the Eisenhower Award from the Business Executives of North America and the Distinguished Sea Service Award from the Naval Order of the United States. Clark was elected to the board of directors of Raytheon in December 2005 and the board of directors of SRI International in March 2007.[

Raytheon and SRI International think Admiral Clark's an OK guy, but they must be wrong, because Creigh Deeds says this man is unfit for duty.

But you know, maybe Creigh Deeds is the one who is unfit for duty.

Creigh Deeds has a plan for Tables

If you've been listening to Creigh Deeds on the campaign trail, you might think his economic recovery plan involves encouraging the manufacture of new tables for Virginia. After all, he plans to spend a lot of time around tables, putting things on tables, and discussing what's on the tables. And with all the people he wants to get together at tables, we're probably going to need some more tables.

Of course, tables tend to stay in one place, and people around tables tend to just talk a lot. To get traffic moving, we need more than table-talk.

In this WTOP interview, Deeds apparently mentioned tables over 14 times in 11 minutes:

Democrat Creigh Deeds says in a radio interview that offering detailed positions on transportation funding would kill chances of passing it if he's elected governor. "In an appearance Friday on WTOP's politics show, the state senator repeated his familiar mantra that ‘everything is on the table' for transportation funding, including new taxes."

The magic table is expected to solve all our transportation problems:

The only approach that's worked on transportation in the last thirty years is the approach employed by Governor Baliles in 1986 and that's the approach I'm gonna take. Everything to fix transportation is on the table. And I want to bring everybody to the table to bring ... to create that solution. And I'm gonna do it next year. Everything's on the table that has a nexus to transportation,

The Baliles approach Deeds mentions from 1986 was imposing a 17+ cent gas tax. Which I guess is why the gas tax is about the only idea Deeds specifically mentions as "on the table", and why Deeds says the Baliles' approach (raising gas taxes?) is the approach Deeds will take.

More table talk:

I'm going to be the next governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia and were going to have an open and honest discussion with Democrats and Republicans around the table and we're going to consider all the options because the bottom line is we cannot grow, we cannot prosper if we continue to sit in traffic.

Instead of sitting in traffic, we'll all be sitting around the table.

But I'm guessing that the people of Virginia want to move forward, they want to solve this problem and I've got the only real realistic solution to get it fixed and that's bringing everybody to the table, leaving everything on the table, except taking money away from education and having an honest discussion about transportation.

I wonder if there will be food at the table? And if there is, will we be able to take that off the table, or will we have to leave all the food spoiling on the table?

Mark, I said that everything is on the table when it comes ... that has a nexus to transportation. We've got a significant problem, we have to raise something in excess of a billion dollars.

I wonder how big a table you need to be able to put a billion dollars on it.

Mark, I have said that everything that has a nexus to transportation is on the table. If you look at the different approaches that have been taken by governors since Baliles to address transportation - they've all failed, and part of the reason they've failed is because they've identified, they started out with something very specific that has become polarizing.

Well, the last 8 years certainly they've failed, but I think that had more to do with the inability of the democratic governors to actually put together a plan, not because they couldn't find a table.

I think if we leave as much on the table as possible, that we bring as many people to the table as possible, we have more areas we can agree on. This is such an urgent issue that has to be addressed I think sooner rather than later - it has to be addressed next year, my first year as governor. I want the best chance for success and I think that leaving more things on the table will give us that opportunity.

I wonder if this will be an indoor or outdoor table. It apparently will have lots of stuff all over it, a billion dollars lying around, and be surrounded by as "many people" as we can possibly fit.

I think I've figured out the secret to this transportation plan. If we just get enough people around the table, it will get them off the roads so traffic will move better.

President Obama trashes President Obama's policy.

When the President cancelled America's missle defense shield designed to protect the eastern seaboard from long-range Iranian missle strikes, he was going against the advice of -- President Obama, who said in April:

So let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven.

Or, as we have said so many times before, EVERY PROMISE Obama makes comes with an expiration date.

MIchelle Obama REALLY wants to take over your health care.

Powerline's John Hindraker makes a great observation about Michelle Obama's foray into the Health Care debate:

Today Michelle Obama got into the act, proclaiming that the current health care system "crushes women":

Michelle Obama said women are being "crushed by the current structure of our health care" because they often are responsible for taking care of family illnesses, arranging checkups and monitoring follow-up care.

"Women are the ones to do it," she said to an audience of 140 people, including representatives from groups such as the Women's Chamber of Commerce and the National Council of Negro Women. "Mothers are the ones that do it. And many women find themselves doing the same thing for their spouses."

I really don't understand this. Under Obamacare, will someone other than mothers (or fathers) arrange checkups for their kids? Take care of family illnesses? Make sure the kids are taking their medicine and get follow-up care if they need it? Is there really anything like this in any of the Democrats' proposals? If mothers (and fathers) don't arrange their kids' checkups, who will? Someone else's mother or father, apparently. No doubt they'll care more and do a better job.

The Obama administration seems to be bringing a whole new meaning to the phrase "nanny state."

I have no idea what Michelle is really thinking. However, it seems that she finds it really burdensome to take care of her kids. I hadn't really thought that the drudgery of picking up the prescription for my son's ear infection was really a drawback of the American health care system, but apparently Michelle thinks taking care of her kids is just too onerous, and someone ought to fix that for her.

Seriously, this is exactly why nobody believes President Obama anymore on health care, or anything else. Trying to sell your plan by talking up it's good points, while lying about it's bad points -- that's just dishonest.

But making up an entire class of horrible things your health care plan does nothing about, and suggesting that you will make it all better, is shear desperation.

Next thing you know, Obamacare will be shortening your commute to work, and helping you pick up women at bars.

Meanwhile, be on the lookout for amendments in the Senate providing for government workers who will come to your house and check your child's temperature.

Why do Democrats support $500 billion in Medicare Waste/Fraud/Abuse?

MSNBC's First Read wonders why, if the President can so easily identify over $500 billion in Medicare waste, he hasn't done anything?:

Speaking of health care, how has Obama gone from touting $300 billion in Medicare waste/fraud/abuse savings in June as part of his plan to pay for health care to now claiming the White House has found $500-$600 billion in these savings. The fact is the president still hasn't release a detailed plan in general, let alone gotten into the "how to pay for" weeds when it comes to exactly how they found yet another $200 billion in cuts. This actually gets at the nut of the president's potential credibility problem: If there is so much money in waste/fraud/abuse in the Medicare system, then why do we continue to let it happen? Why are we waiting so long to deal with it? The average cynical voter is thinking, “Well, the president may be well meaning, but the bureaucracy that is the American government let this waste/fraud/abuse happen once, who is to say they won't let it happen again?”

I agree with that sentiment, but I also see this a bit differently.

Obama has claimed that there is over $500 billion being wasted in Medicare. In his speech last Wednesday, he said that he could eliminate this $500 billion in spending without taking a single treatment away from a single Medicare patient.

I think he was lying, which makes me a racist. But let's for the moment assume he was telling the truth. The government is throwing away $500 billion, Obama KNOWS it is happening, he KNOWS how to stop it from happening.

Why hasn't he stopped it already? Most waste/fraud/abuse is because of the law NOT being followed, in which case Obama should be able to stop this without congressional action. So why hasn't he done so? Some might argue it's because he needs to keep the idea as part of the health system takeover plan, but that's wrong. If he actually could show even 10% of that savings now, it would probably win him a dozen republican votes in the house, and a few in the senate.

So maybe it's because he needs a congressional vote. But I can guarantee you that Republicans in the house and senate would show up on a Sunday to vote for a bill that elimated $500 billion in useless spending. So, if Obama is telling the truth, and all we need is a bill, then it must be that the Democrats running congress WANT to waste $500 billion dollars in our medical system.

Of course, it's much easier to believe the most likely truth -- there are no "medicare savings" from waste/fraud/abuse crackdown. Obama might have some idea how to cut payments to doctors and PRETEND it won't hurt the people on Medicare, but it will. The Democrats don't really care if they pay for their bill, they just want to SAY they will pay for it.

But the sad fact is, in this case, deciding the democrats are liars is actually the less critical opinion to have; the alternative is that they just want to waste $500 billion dollars of taxpayer money.

Was "You Lie" Racist? Addressing the "racers".

In a discussion in a Washington Post community forum, EJ Dionne asks a question that deserves consideration:

I’m surprised that it so shocks my friend Ramesh that many Americans – and not just African-Americans -- are asking why it is that only when we have a black man as president has a member of Congress felt he could stand up and shout, “You lie!”

First, I should say Joe Wilson was wrong, entirely wrong, to shout this, or anything else, during the speech. In fact, if Wilson thought Obama was lying, he should have shouted "point of order", and asked the chair if Obama was breaking house rules by saying members of the house had lied about his plan.

Of course, Joe Wilson knew he was wrong, and he apologized immediately to the President.

Second, it is well-known that Democrat members of the house had accused Bush of lying, on the house floor, violating the same rule Wilson was accused of violating. I don't think the rule was why Wilson was wrong -- I think yelling "Preach it" would have been just as wrong.

Third, it is also well-known that Democrats actually booed the President during a state of the union speech -- an act that was certainly as damaging to the "decorum" of the house as shouting at the President. But the Republicans certainly knew that was wrong, and made a big deal of it at the time, even though they didn't have a vote to condemn the Democrats.

But what of the question? Nobody, even in 2005, actually shouted at the President during his SOTU. So why would Wilson do so here?

Well, here is the missing piece -- This is the first time in my memory that a President has requested a joint session of congress for the purpose of making a campaign speech attacking members of the other party, and lying about it. The State of the Union speeches are constitutionally required reports, and generally the Presidents have been well-mannered, giving their priorities but not calling members of the body liars.

The only non-SOTU speech I can think of was Bush's Sept 20, 2001 address to the nation, when he presented the nation's plan of action in response to the 9/11 attacks. There was nothing partisan in that speech for anybody to yell about.

So we don't have to invoke racism to explain this "unique" event -- the shout was an irrational, but not unpredictable, result of the already unique and undecorous use of the solemnety of a joint session of congress for a partisan political speech by a President falling in the polls and struggling to remain relevant.

The idea that Wilson would never have shouted at a President Biden is ludicrous. In fact, I would argue that the attacks on a President Biden, doing exactly what President Obama has done, would be much harsher -- precisely because Obama is black.

Years of invoking racism in our country have made everybody think twice before saying anything bad about a black person, especially in public. Even thrice-removed comments can cost you your job (see Trent Lott's offhand comment at Strom Thurmond's birthday party speaking kindly of his presidential run).

And look around you -- every person who has said anything in opposition to Obama's policies has been called racist. President Jimmy Carter is only the latest to say that if you don't want universal health care and the destruction of our economic system, you must be racist.

So, I guess I must be a racist, because I still love my country, and I think that what is best for my country, for ALL of us, is for Obama's plans to fail. Not because Obama is black, but IN SPITE of it.

AP finds multiple lies in Obama's speech

Call me shocked, but the AP was kind enough to point out some of the lies in Obama's speech. Rather than write my own post about this in depth, go look at this blog, which has a pretty good write-up: AP Fact-Checks the speech -- Obama was pretty much lying through his teeth

The AP's biggest focus was on this whopper:

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.

And their argument doesn't include the fact that every government plan costs multiple times what it is said to cost, or that the dems method of taxes to pay for the plan violates Obama's promise not to raise any taxes on 95% of america.

They also note that the house bill doesn't have any verification for illegals, and that Obama can't really promise that you will keep your health insurance because the bills in the house don't stop employers from dropping the insurance, and in fact will pretty much require it over time.

Obama's Problem: We don't trust him, or government

Obama made a speech last night. It was the same speech he's been making for months, full of promises, empty of specifics, laced with personal attacks on people who don't agree with him, and sprinkled throughout with lies.

But in the end, he failed to address the fundamental problem the American people have with his still non-existant "health care plan". Simply put, we do not trust Obama, we do not trust the Democrats, and mostly we do not trust government to do what they say, or accomplish the goals they specify.

Obama said this speech would include compromises with the Republicans. I saw two -- first, he "compromised" about how many americans are uninsured, because he stopped lying about it for one speech. Last month, Obama said 47 million americans were uninsured. Last night, it as 30 million. As one commentator put it, and I paraphrase, "at that rate if we do nothing we'll solve the problem by November".

The second was that he mentioned legal reform. Unfortunately, there is no legal reform in any of the bills being considered, so unless they are going to go re-write the whole thing, his promises otherwise are empty.

On most other points, he fell flat. He called his opponents liars, but then objected when someone called him a lie. He said we were lying about rationing end-of-life care, then acknowledged medical boards which would determine what care was "cost-effective". He said we were lying about illegals being covered, when there is no language in any bill that checks for legal status before giving away health insurance or health care (this is what prompted that "that's a lie" outburst -- it was a lie, but our country doesn't have a system where back-benchers yell during speeches. Better if he had yelled "That's not true", it would have conveyed the same point and not had the "lie" word, which is unacceptable when used by Republicans but fine when Obama says it in his speech).

Obama said we needed to stop the scare tactics, and then said people would die if we didn't pass his health care plan. He said he was trying to be bi-partisan, when he has not invited Republican leaders to the White House since april, and Nancy Pelosi refused to let any Republican amendments come to the floor for a vote.

Here is just one of Obama's outrageous lies, where he claims a man died because his insurance cut off his chemo treatment:

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.

Here, in contrast, is the sworn testimony of the man (Otto Radditz) sister, at a hearing in August:

After two appeals by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, Fortis Insurance Company finally overturned their original decision to rescind my brother’s coverage and he was reinstated without lapse. This is after weeks of constant phone calls between myself and the Attorney General’s Office and we were literally scrambling hour by hour to get this accomplished so that my brother wouldn’t lose his 3- to 4-week window of opportunity that he had prepared for and lose his opportunity to have the procedure.

There was no delay, he got the treatment, it just did not work. (Also, it wasn't Chemotherapy, it was a stem cell transplant, one of those non-embryonic ones that are already being used to save lives but are given the boot by the Obama administration so they push untested embryonic research).

But worst of all, he tried ot sell government interference in our health care as some sort of moral imperative, something we owed to our people. He tried to justify it by basically saying the American Ideals of self-reliance were outdated:

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.

Note how he deftly twists the human imperative to care for one another, into the opposite -- a greedy desire to force others to pay taxes to care for others, using government, so that we the people don't have to be bothered by it.

That is the liberal mantra -- why help someone myself, when I can get the government to take my neighbor's money ot do it, while I get credit for being "compassionate" and my neighbor can be ridiculed for being "cold-hearted"?

Note also the communist belief expressed in the phrase "hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play" -- that is simply a translation of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs".

It was never Government's job to "reward" people with personal security from hardship simply because they were "hard-working" or "responsible" (Forget the more obvious fact that millions of the people who are already given free medical care, or will be by this government takeover of health care are neither hard-working nor "responsible"). The hard work is what rewards you, with money, and the responsibility rewards you when you spend the money on important things like your health care.

At it's core, government-forced health insurance is proposed because people are supposedly IRRESPONSIBLE. We are too stupid to buy insurance, so the government will make us do it for our own good.

The idea that government knows best is NOT an American idea.