Obama Asks Religious Leaders to Preach the Gospel of HC Reform

President Obama called on religious leaders Tuesday to help him sell health care reform. (File Photo: AP)

With approval ratings plummeting and support for the new health care law waning, the president is scrambling for ways to sell his health care overhaul. Possibly looking for a miracle, he's turning to church leaders who preach about such events to deliver one.

"Obama, alongside other top administration officials, beseeched thousands of faith-based and community organizations to preach the gospel on new insurance reforms, chiefly the Patients' Bill of Rights." That's how Politico describes a conference call that featured the president on Tuesday.

"Get out there and spread the word," the president encouraged religious leaders on the call. Politico reports that Obama also advised those listening to treat the new law as settled fact and use their perches of power to convey that message to congregants and friends.

"The debate in Washington is over," he said, and called on the leaders to be "important validators and trusted resources," regarding the law.

Despite reports and news that the new health care law is not fulfilling some of the promises Obama made regarding it, and that those within the president's own party are distancing themselves from it, he still sees the law as a monumental piece of legislation that is good for the country:

This is something that we'll be able to look back on, just like we do on Medicare and Social Security, as a cornerstone that improves the security of millions of Americans, at the same time lowers costs and gets control of costs, both at the government level, but also for families and businesses.

That's a sentiment that is not shared by all those in the president's own party. For example, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) who voted for the health care bill is now encouraging his state to seek ways to bypass some of its requirement.

Tuesday's conference call was organized by Health and Human Services Center for Faith-Based and Community Partnerships.

Recognizing the large task in front of the group, Joshua DuBois, director of the White House Office of Faith-based and Community Partnerships, outlined the task: "We've got work to do."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-asks-religious-leaders-to-preach-the-gospel-of-hc-reforms/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Why is the DOJ protecting the Black Panthers? New information raises more questions

RWB News: As November elections approach, new information has surfaced about the voter intimidation case against the Black Panthers (set aside by the DOJ). Included is testimony by a man who was beaten by King Samir, possibly with the same baton Samir was shown wielding in the youtube video. This court record of violence wasn't deemed important by Eric Holder & company–so as November approaches, the question America voters should be screaming from the rooftops is 'WHY?— Ann-Marie M from CA

As reported by Big Government.com

New Information Raises More Questions About DOJ and the Black Panthers

by Mike Roman

New information about the violent criminal history of the Philadelphia Black Panthers once again calls into question the Department of Justice handling of this racist hate group.

Records obtained from the Philadelphia Courts document arrests for assault, robbery, domestic violence, and drug dealing by King Samir and Jerry Jackson.

According to one of his victims, King Samir does more than intimidate voters with his baton.  He beat the man in the head with the same type weapon he was seen brandishing outside of a Philadelphia polling place in 2008.

The beating, in 1995, was so severe the man was hospitalized and appeared in court with staples still in his head.

From the court transcript:

Q: Tell the court what if anything the defendant did

A: He hit me with a cane.

Q: What did it have on it?

A: Two D batteries

Q: Where were the batteries?

A: Wrapped around on top of the cane

Q: Is that the part he hit you with?

A: Yes.

Q: To what part of your body?

A: The back of the head, and I got hit in the jaw with a bottle.

Q: I notice you have three staples in your head, is this from getting hit in the head with the cane?

A: Yes

Samir (whose real name is Maruse Heath) plead guilty to simple assault and was sentenced to 2 years probation.

How could DOJ overlook this when they dismissed the charges against the Black Panthers? The Department's trial team surely would have introduced evidence of the fact that Samir had beaten people senseless with the same type of weapon he used at the polls in 2008.  Surely this was evidence that he was a true intimidating force.

In 1998, Samir broke into the home of his ex-girlfriend and beat and terrorized her.  From her graphicstatement to the Police:

I said I am calling the police and I dialed 911. I was giving the operator my information, that's when he punched me in the face and told me to put the f*cking phone down. I dropped the phone. I picked up a paint pole to protect myself. He knocked the pole away from me. He grabbed my hair and dragged me to the stairs. He put me in a chin lock to stop me from screaming. I bit his fingers…  He told Vera "I am going to kill this b*tch." He grabbed my hair and pulled it out when I tried to get away. I ran to the front door and the cops were there.

Samir was charged with Burglary, Aggravated Assault, and Terroristic Threats.  The charges were dismissed because his victim failed to appear at the trial.

Jerry Jackson's first encounter with Police was in 1978 when he and another man stabbed and robbed a victim in Philadelphia. Jackson was convicted and sentenced for Robbery and Criminal Conspiracy, both first-degree felonies.  Jackson has also been arrested and served time for dealing drugs in the same neighborhood where he serves as a Democratic Precinct Committeeman.

Since becoming infamous for intimidating voters, Jackson and Samir have taken to posting photos of themselves posing with handguns. See here, here, here, and here.   A felony firearm charge can be brought against a convicted felon who is found in possession of a firearm, regardless of the intended or actual use of the weapon. Certainly DOJ must be aware of these photos.  Why haven't they pursued charges under 18 U.S.C. 922 against Jerry Jackson?  Is he getting a pass on gun charges too?

This scandal is far from over.

Original Article:  http://biggovernment.com/mroman/2010/09/22/new-information-raises-more-questions-about-doj-and-the-black-panthers/

swenbwr

http://redwhitebluenews.com/?p=2886

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Gateway Pundit

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/09/it-begins-top-dem-official-calls-tea-party-fckers-video/<br><div style="color:rgb(60%,60%,60%)">Sent with <a href=

Why Bob Woodward's New Book Should Scare the Hell Out of All Americans

Last night I read the front-page Washington Post story on Bob Woodward's new book, Obama's Wars. Frankly the article gave me nightmares. The revelations about  Obama's naive views on terrorism and his lack of commitment to the Afghan war confirmed many of the worst fears about our President and the War on Terror. But his desire to place politics before victory was surprising.

The book details how Obama is not trying to win the war as much as he was desperately trying to placate his progressive base, regardless of the safety of American citizens. At one point the POTUS tells Woodward directly

 Woodward's book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said: "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger."

Holy Cow!! Tell that to the families of the terrorist attack's victims.

During a daily intelligence briefing in May 2009, Mr. Blair [former Director of Intelligence] warned the president that radicals with American and European passports were being trained in Pakistan to attack their homelands. Mr. Emanuel afterward chastised him, saying, "You're just trying to put this on us so it's not your fault." Mr. Blair also skirmished with Mr. Brennan about a report on the failed airliner terrorist attack on Dec. 25. Mr. Obama later forced Mr. Blair out.

Obama's Wars,  covers last fall's agonizingly slow Afghanistan strategy review last fall, Obama was more interested in mapping out an exit plan than winning the war. The book makes it clear that the U.S. military has been asked to achieve its goals in Afghanistan without the level of troops they requested and in an unrealistic time frame.

According to Woodward's meeting-by-meeting, memo-by-memo account of the 2009 Afghan strategy review, the president avoided talk of victory as he described his objectives.

The book reports that the recommendations of the Military were dismissed. 

 Along with Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan at the time, they kept pushing for their 40,000-troop option as part of a broad counterinsurgency plan along the lines of what Petraeus had developed for Iraq. The president is quoted as telling Mullen, Petraeus and Gates: "In 2010, we will not be having a conversation about how to do more. I will not want to hear, 'We're doing fine, Mr. President, but we'd be better if we just do more.' We're not going to be having a conversation about how to change [the mission] . . . unless we're talking about how to draw down faster than anticipated in 2011.

The New York Times story on the book gives the reason for the President's desire not to commit to the war, and how the President asked the SCHMOTUS to argue against the Military's plan.

The president concluded from the start that "I have two years with the public on this" and pressed advisers for ways to avoid a big escalation, the book says. "I want an exit strategy," he implored at one meeting. Privately, he told Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to push his alternative strategy opposing a big troop buildup in meetings, and while Mr. Obama ultimately rejected it, he set a withdrawal timetable because, "I can't lose the whole Democratic Party."

Forget everything else you may read about this book, about the infighting and name-calling going on in the administration, that happens in every administration, you need to remember just one thing.  Instead of caring how to win the war in Afghanistan, and how to protect the homeland, the first priority of this President was to appease his party. That is not how you protect people.

The same President who was (and still is) willing to spend much of the last year and half going around the country to sell a health care bill to the public, much of whom will  hurt rather than helped from the legislation, is not willing to spend any time trying to sell the public on an Afghanistan plan that will protect them at home.

By ignoring the needs of the Military Obama is sacrificing crucial U.S. national security interests and leaving the American people more vulnerable to future terrorist attacks. An early exit from Afghanistan would shore up al-Qaeda and like-minded terrorists and once again provide them with a safe-haven from which to conduct their deadly attacks against the U.S. and other nations. But none of that is the priority of this President, only support from is party is important.  And that is a frightening situation.

Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/NWlS/~3/2zpOV9VUdCM/why-bob-woodwards-new-book-should-scare.html

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

What You Need to Know About Tomorrow’s New Health Regulations

Tomorrow, the six month anniversary of the new health care law, a litany of mandated health insurance changes go into effect. Thanks to CNNMoney.com, here's what you need to know:

If you get insurance through your boss: Many people who are insured through work won't notice immediate changes to their health plans until their health plans renew, which is tied to companies' open enrollment periods. Health plans offered through large employers usually get renewed on January 1.

But the mandates could kick in sooner for health plans sold to new entities or individuals after September 23.

Here are some key changes coming into effect:

• Coverage expansion for adult dependents until age 26. Employers will have to provide coverage for dependents of workers who don't have access to other employer-based health care coverage 'till age 26. Some states already mandate this coverage until age 28 or 29.

• Children no longer denied coverage for pre-existing conditions: Insurance plans can't deny coverage due to a pre-existing condition to children under age 19. For adults, the same provision goes into effect in 2014.

• Prohibit insurers from rescinding coverage: It's illegal for insurers to drop a customer when they become sick or search for an error on a customer's insurance application and then deny payment for service when the person gets sick.

• Free Preventive Care: All new plans must cover certain preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies without charging a deductible, co-pay or coinsurance. If individuals keep their existing plans or if a group plan doesn't make major changes, the provisions won't kick in until the plans get changed.

• No lifetime limits on coverage: Insurers no longer can impose lifetime dollar limits on essential benefits, like hospital stays or expensive treatments.

• Unrestricted doctor choice: Plans must allow pediatricians and obstetrician/gynecologists to get primary care physician status. This eliminates the requirement for patients to get prior-authorization from their insurer or a doctor's referral to see a pediatrician or OB/GYN.

• Level charges for emergency services: Insurers must remove prior authorizations for ER services. Also, insurers can't charge higher co-payments or co-insurance for out-of-network ER providers.

• Patient-friendly appeals process: Insurers will have to establish new internal and external appeals processes for claims. This means that while a claim is under appeal, your insurer has to continue to pay your claims, and continue paying for subsequent treatment, until the matter is resolved.

Small business impact: The changes that kick in on Sept. 23 also apply to small businesses with 50 employees or more that already offered insurance coverage prior to reform.

Companies that didn't offer coverage pre-reform and have no more than 25 workers will be given incentives such as tax credits and grants to encourage them to offer insurance coverage, said Dorothy Miraglia, director of benefits with AlphaStaff, a firm that manages employee benefits programs for small businesses.

If you buy insurance yourself: For consumers who buy health insurance directly from insurers, some of the same key changes go into effect this month.

Most importantly, insurers can't drop you when you get sick or because you made a mistake on your coverage application. Insurers also can't set annual or lifetime limits.

If you have children under age 26, you can insure them if your policy allows for dependent coverage. Individual plans can't deny or exclude coverage to any child under age 19 for pre-existing conditions.

If you're a senior citizen: If you have Medicare prescription drug coverage and are affected by the donut hole, this year you will get a one-time tax-free $250 rebate to help pay for prescriptions.

The prescription drug coverage gap that develops when Medicare stops paying for drug coverage and patients can't afford to pay for drugs out-of-pocket is called the "donut hole."

In 2011, if high prescription drug costs put you in the donut hole, you'll get a 50% discount on covered brand-name drugs while you're in the donut hole.

Also in 2011, Medicare will cover certain preventive services without charging you Medicare Part B (coverage for doctors' services, outpatient care, home health services) coinsurance or deductible.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/what-you-need-to-know-about-tomorrows-new-health-regulations/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Two Men Charged in Violent Racist Beating of White Teen (Video)

The two men robbed the teen, burnt him, beat him, pi$$ed on him and whipped him with this own belt for four hours.

Photo shows Shane McClellan after the assault. (KOMO News)
The attackers screamed while they beat the white boy, "This is for enslaving our people."

White Boy Beaten Because of Slavery

The Seattle Times reported:

Two men who were questioned and released by Seattle police after a West Seattle teen was beaten in a racially charged attack have been charged in connection with the May 25 assault. One of the men was arrested Tuesday evening.

DNA recently linked Ahmed Mohamed and Jonathan Baquiring to the attack in which a 16-year-old boy was robbed, taunted with racial insults, burned with a lit cigarette and punched repeatedly. Mohamed, 22, and Baquiring, 21, each were charged Monday with first-degree robbery and malicious harassment, the state's hate-crime statute.

Baquiring was booked into the Seattle Correctional Facility just after 6 p.m. Tuesday, according to the King County Jail Booking Register. His bail is set at $500,000.

Seattle police are still searching for Mohamed.

King County Deputy Prosecutor Samantha Kanner will also seek to have Mohamed held on $500,000 bail once he is arrested, according to charging papers.

The victim, Shane McClellan, said he was walking home around 2 a.m. when two men, whom he described as black and Filipino, asked him for a light.

He said the two men then robbed him and beat him for four hours, whipping him with his own belt while saying things like, "How do you like it, white boy?" and "This is for enslaving our people," according to the police report.

McClellan, who is white, said the two men also poured Four Loko energy beer on him, burned him with a cigarette and urinated on him, police said.

Don't expect this story to make the nightly news. It doesn't fit their narrative.

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/09/two-men-charged-in-violent-racist-attack-on-white-teen/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

theblogprof: Student of history Obama FAIL: "Mexicans" Were Here "Long Before the United States Was an Idea"

http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2010/09/student-of-history-obama-fail-mexicans.html<br><div style="color:rgb(60%,60%,60%)">Sent with <a

Biased AP headline of the day: "Republicans block bill to lift military gay ban"

The repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" went down in flames yesterday, falling 4 votes of the 60 required in the Senate to advance the measure to a vote. Same with the DREAM act that has become known as "amnesty lite." Here's the thing though, the vote for cloture only garnered 56 votes. Democrats control 59 seats. So how does the AP claim it was Republicans that blocked the measure? They did just that, even though 3 Democrats voted with Republicans: Republicans block bill to lift military gay ban

Senate Republicans have blocked an effort to repeal the law banning gays from serving openly in the military.

The partisan vote was a defeat for gay rights groups who saw the provision in a defense authorization bill as their last chance any time soon to overturn the law known as "don't ask, don't tell."

The only thing partisan was that all the yea votes were Democrats. The opposition to the repeal of DADT and the DREAM act was in fact Bipartisan with Blanch Lincoln, Mark Pryor and Harry Reid voting nea with all the Republicans. The nea votes of the 3 Democrats are totally missing from the AP piece written by Anne Flaherty. How is this just Republicans blocking the measure again?

UPDATE: Bob on DADT:

http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2010/09/biased-ap-headline-of-day-republicans.html

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Obama: "We can absorb a terrorist attack," wants to surrender Afghanistan war

Obama's complete quote in the headline is "

"We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger."

That's one heck of a bombshell quote, but is consistent with the left's insistence that America overreacted to 911. It's just another indicator of what most of us already know - Obama and leftists in general don't care about protecting this country from terrorists attacks. As twisted as it may sound at first, they truly do believe that McDonalds is a bigger danger than terrorists. Recall that leftist hero Michael Moore specifically pointed out on air that the McDonalds at Ground Zero killed more people than the 911 hijackers:

They would rather wage a war on cupcakes than a war on terror.  The quote in the headline came from The Washington Post: Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan war. And as the saying goes, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Excerpts from Woodwards book paint Obama as what most of us know him to be - a big, sloppy, wet vagina (More proof that Obama is the first female President). The man literally is dictating the waving of the white flag in Afghanistan and refuses to even mention the word 'victory.' Check out how the WaPo piece begins:

President Obama urgently looked for a way out of the war in Afghanistan last year, repeatedly pressing his top military advisers for an exit plan that they never gave him, according to secret meeting notes and documents cited in a new book by journalist Bob Woodward.

Frustrated with his military commanders for consistently offering only options that required significantly more troops, Obama finally crafted his own strategy, dictating a classified six-page "terms sheet" that sought to limit U.S. involvement, Woodward reports in "Obama's Wars," to be released on Monday.

According to Woodward's meeting-by-meeting, memo-by-memo account of the 2009 Afghan strategy review, the president avoided talk of victory as he described his objectives.

Well of course! That's what weenies do! Run away, run away! And check this Obama quote out:

"Everything we're doing has to be focused on how we're going to get to the point where we can reduce our footprint. It's in our national security interest. There cannot be any wiggle room."

In other words, WE are the problem, not the terrorists. In Obama's point of view, and that of leftists in general, our fighting the war is creating or saving terrorists. Which - you know - is why they preemptively attacked us on 911, and the US Cole, and the first WTC attack, knowing that we would at some future date go to war in places that they set up their terror training camps. Further in the WaPo article, it is revealed that National security adviser James L. Jones refers to Obama's political aides as "the Mafia," that General Petraeus felt shut out by the regime and calls David Axelrod "a complete spin doctor" (uh - which he IS, so nothing new there), the damning quote in my headline, and this quote again in reference to Afghanistan:

The president is quoted as telling Mullen, Petraeus and Gates: "In 2010, we will not be having a conversation about how to do more. I will not want to hear, 'We're doing fine, Mr. President, but we'd be better if we just do more.' We're not going to be having a conversation about how to change [the mission] . . . unless we're talking about how to draw down faster than anticipated in 2011."

The mission, in Obama's mind, is fleeing the country in surrender, not victory. God help us...

UPDATE: More from memeorandum

http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2010/09/obama-we-can-absorb-terrorist-attack.html

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Gateway Pundit

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/09/obama-says-u-s-can-absorb-terror-attacks/<br><div style="color:rgb(60%,60%,60%)">Sent with <a href="http://itunes.apple.com/app/mobilerss-pro-google-rss-news/id325594202?mt=8" style="text-decoration:underline;color:rgb(60%,60%,60%)">MobileRSS for iPhone</a></div>

Sent from my iPhone