Athena Lew's Journal

Rick Warren Slams Obama's Abortion Stance

2009-12-03T06:59:14Z

Sunday, November 29, 2009 6:16 PM

President Barack Obama’s stance on abortion amounts to ignoring an American holocaust, says Pastor Rick Warren, author of the best-selling "A Purpose Drive Life/"

Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Warren slammed Obama’s stance that abortions should be rare, suggesting that position essentially supports the idea that life begins at conception.

"We've had 46 million Americans who aren't here. Those who could be here since Roe v. Wade, who are not voting. I think that innocence is a holocaust. I really do," Warren said. "Now, I think that we have to get beyond the name calling and find common ground to work on these issues. Now, I don't understand the idea of it should be rare and less. Well, either you believe it's life or you don't.... why would you believe it should be rare?.. If a baby, a fetus is not a life, then why restrict it?"

Warren also said that he prayed for the president daily, and that Obama should tackle the economy before he pushes a healthcare overhaul. Abortion has been a central issue of the healthcare debate for pro-life conservatives, both Republicans and Democrats.

"This president came with a number of cards stacked against him. That's for sure. He entered the presidency with more on the plate than many of the previous presidents entered with," Warren said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I personally believe that the number one thing we need to do is get America back to work.....before healthcare or anything else, we need to get people back to work."

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Elections Show Conservative Revolution Is Upon Us

2009-11-06T16:57:29Z

Thursday, November 5, 2009 4:05 PM

By: Dick Armey

When we act like us we win, when we act like them we lose. Few things in politics are stranger than the bogus idea that conservatives can only win when we are Democrat-lite. The readers of Newsmax know this, and I thank you for inviting me to join your online community.

As conservatives, our hope is that the Republican Party asserts itself in defense of free market capitalism and individual freedom. That is why the results of last Tuesday’s election were so important, and possibly show that the next conservative revolution is upon us.

Conservative frustrations began with the failure of the Bush administration and Congress to restrain the growth of government. When the economy slumped in 2007, I'm sure you were just as shocked as I was to see Wall Street and irresponsible homeowners get bailed out with our hard-earned tax dollars.

If principles are of no use in a crisis, why have them in the first place? Politicians may disappoint us, but our policy commitments to personal and economic freedom never do.

The Obama administration and Nancy Pelosi have doubled down on the failed politics of the bailout and stimulus spending, and are now attempting to pass trillion dollar budget busting legislation by creating new healthcare and energy entitlements.

Conservative grass-roots responded by organizing the tea party movement, and now they are mobilizing to make a difference in the ballot box.

I endorsed and worked to help Doug Hoffman in New York. Many pundits believed his candidacy cost Republicans a seat. The fact of the matter is that the Republican Party lost this seat when they nominated a fundamentally flawed candidate that did not represent broad public concerns about runaway government spending.

Doug Hoffman came very close to winning despite all of the natural handicaps of a third party candidacy, and the Republican candidate went ahead and showed her true colors by endorsing the Democrat.

The lesson for Republicans? Run candidates that represent the common sense principles of lower taxes, less government, and more freedom.

This reminds me of another time when politics was put ahead of policy, when in 2004 the Republican establishment backed Sen. Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in the Republican Senate primary. Specter narrowly beat Toomey, but later decided to switch parties and become a Democrat.

I hope Republicans think seriously about this when fielding candidates in 2010. The grass-roots energy is on our side, as demonstrated today by the thousands of folks who came running at a moment’s notice to storm the halls of congress and let congress hear their opposition to Obmacare.

Independent voters, who only look at policy and do not have time for politics, are overwhelmingly concerned about pocketbook issues and broke for Republican gubernatorial candidates in New Jersey and Virginia.

The victories of Bob McDonnell in Virginia and Chris Christie in New Jersey demonstrate the winning conservative ‘big tent’ model for Republicans. When Republicans are committed to stopping the growth of government, they prosper.

History demonstrates this with Ronald Reagan’s victories and the electoral title wave of the Contract with America. In both instances the big tent was built around fiscal responsibility and energizing the conservative base while appealing to independent voters.

While talking heads are saying grass-roots conservatives are pushing the Republican Party to the far right, the reality is this movement is pushing the GOP to fiscal conservatism, the dead center of American politics.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Unemployment hits 10.2%

2009-11-06T16:42:47Z

The unemployment rate spiked to its highest level since 1983, much worse than expected as employers continue to trim jobs despite other signs of growth

By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: November 6, 2009: 10:25 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The nation's unemployment rate rose above 10% for the first time since 1983 in October, a much worse jump than expected as employers continued to trim jobs from payrolls.

The reading, reported by the government Friday, is a sign of the continued weakness in the labor market even though the economy grew in the third quarter following the longest and deepest downturn since the Great Depression.

The government reported that the unemployment rate spiked to 10.2%, up from 9.8% in September. It is the highest that this rate has been since April 1983. Economists had forecast an increase to 9.9%.

There was also a net loss of 190,000 jobs in October, according to the Labor Department, an improvement from a revised estimate of 219,000 job losses in September. However, economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast a loss of only 175,000 jobs in October. This was the 22nd straight month of job losses.

"The only good news is the number of layoffs are dropping off, but those who are laid off still aren't finding jobs," said David Wyss, chief economist with Standard & Poor's.

The jump in the unemployment rate was driven up by a large drop in the number of people who describe themselves as self-employed, as well as the number of teenagers who have jobs. The unemployment rate for teenagers in the labor force soared to 27.6%, up 1.8 percentage points and hitting a third straight record high.

Both teen workers and the self-employed are not captured very well in the government's separate survey of employers that is used to calculate the number of people on U.S. payrolls. That explains much of the disconnect between fewer job losses overall and the much worse unemployment rate.

The rise in unemployment was not spread evenly across the population. For those with college degrees, the unemployment rate fell to 4.7% from 4.9% in September, as the unemployment rate for those in management, professional, and related occupations slipped to 4.7% from 5.2%.

But the unemployment rate for production jobs, such as factory workers, jumped to 14.5% from 14.1%. The jobless rate for workers in construction, maintenance or natural resources industries such as mining rose to 15.5% from 14.3%.

0:00 /3:08Real unemployment really bad
"There's a real mismatch between the unemployed people out there compared to what job openings are available," said John Silvia, chief economist with Wells Fargo Securities. He said construction workers who lost a job when the housing bubble burst don't have the skills to compete for jobs in sectors that are hiring, such as health care and technology.

Government efforts to end job losses have had limited effects, although the Obama administration estimated last month that 640,000 jobs were created or saved by the federal stimulus package passed earlier this year. But that's modest compared to the 7.3 million jobs that have been lost since the start of 2008.

Christina Romer, chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, said the steady decline in monthly job losses since earlier this year is a hopeful sign for the economy.

But she acknowledged there's still significant pain for those looking for work. "Having the unemployment rate reach double-digits is a stark reminder of how much work remains to be done before American families see the job gains and reduced unemployment that they need and deserve," she said.

Friday's report comes one day after Congress voted overwhelmingly to extend unemployment benefits by up to 20 weeks. There are now a record 5.6 million people who have been unemployed for six months or longer, as the average time an unemployed person has been out of a job hit 26.9 weeks.

Prior to this report, most economists had believed that the unemployment rate would keep rising and that job losses would continue into next year. But the jump in unemployment in October took it to levels worse than what many previously had expected to be the peak.

According to a survey of top forecasters by the National Association of Business Economics last month, the consensus estimate among economists was that unemployment would hit a high of 10% in the final three months of this year and the first quarter of 2010.

The five economists with the most bearish forecasts had expected unemployment to rise to 10.2% in the fourth quarter of this year before hitting 10.5% in the first half of next year.

Wyss is one of those economists who had projected an unemployment rate of 10.5% in the middle of next year. He said Friday's report may force him to raise his worst case estimate.

"Some things aren't playing out the way I expected them to," he said. "There's just no good news in this report."

But others said they see some early signs of life for the labor market. Sung Won Sohn, economics professor at California State University Channel Islands, noted that the biggest increase in temporary employees in two years took place in October.

Employers typically bring in workers on a temporary basis before deciding to make more permanent hires. As such, he expects gains in payrolls by next spring.

"Despite the gloomy job picture, there are some encouraging signs," he said.

Why the Obama Administration Will Implode In Weeks

2009-09-13T04:55:33Z

Kevin McCullough
- FOXNews.com
- September 01, 2009

I was the first pundit to predict that Barack Obama would become president. Here's what I think we can expect from this administration in the next six to eight weeks.

Never has an administration had more political firepower at their disposal yet been set to so totally fail in the next six to eight weeks. It is nearly a foregone conclusion. It is nearly unavoidable. And it defies all logic given the sizable majority the administration has in both houses of Congress.

Since I was the first pundit to predict Obama's presidency (back in December 2006) it behooves me to tell you the course I believe the next few weeks will take. Just think, it was only a few months ago that the left looked unstoppable in bringing about their plan to radicalize, nationalize, and federalize America.

1. Health Care's Long and Painful Death

Barring the existing possibility that the Democrats cram a reform bill down the throats of actively protesting Americans through an ultra-partisan process that would shut out conservatives and Republicans from even being allowed to contribute to the discussion, health care reform is dead.

It actually died a good while back when the president decided to pivot and create a new issue that no one had been discussing--health insurance reform. The American people will want to know why we should spend $4 billion to cover everyone in America "efficiently," when we already do so with inefficiencies like people using the emergency room as their general practitioner for $2.5 billion.

Deep thinkers on the issue also want to know why the president hasn't entertained one item of tort reform-- protecting his friends, the trial lawyers-- yet is willing to claim that doctors are eager to lop off feet, tonsils, and other body parts just to make a buck.

2. Cap-and-Trade Will Be the Largest Tax Increase in American History

With the 2010 election cycle just around the corner, it won't be too long before the campaign ads are drafted. With cap-and-trade still sitting in legislative limbo (and the president's own adviser--Warren Buffet-- now opposing it openly in the media), with anti-tax Democrats, Republicans, and Independents coming to Washington on September 12, and with "Blue Dog" Democrats getting hammered by constituents during the August recess, the chance of an ultra-partisan "ram through" victory on the legislation would not be wise.

Cap-and-trade, if passed, will contribute to unemployment, Wall Street stop and starts, and ultimately reduced treasury revenues. It would serve as the single largest tax increase on the average American in all of American history.

Even President Obama admitted as much, predicting that electric bill prices, in his words, would, "skyrocket." Those that have looked at the specifics tell us that the average utility bill in America will go from $167 to $307 per month, per family.

3. Unemployment Will Remain

By now several Washington organizations, from left and right, and one of note consisting of both--the Congressional Budget Office, predict that unemployment will not shrink from the predicted "Obama high" of eight percent. Instead, nearly without fail, economists are predicting that unemployment will be at or over 10% for up to the next 24 months.-- That is a nearly 250% increase in the unemployment rate under Bush for nearly the duration of his two-term presidency. We did not see the unemployment climb this high during President Bush's entire two-term presidency.

If more people were working, higher taxes and possible new health care entitlements could be considered, but with at least ten percent of the population out of work, it is political suicide for Democrats to even think of it.

4. Obama's Integrity Has Been Tarnished in August

Not a great deal has been made of the whoppers that the president has been spewing while Congress has been away during the summer recess but it turns out that more people than I realized have also noticed the president wildly "exaggerating" in his talks on health care. For instance, the president confused the $500 physicians actually get to amputate a foot as opposed to the $50,000 that he claimed they got. He also showed an utter disregard for the reputation of those doctors he talks about, the "facts" he uses to make his argument, and is highly overly optimistic about the results of his policies. Long story short, at the beginning of the summer Americans mostly trusted him, his passion index was at +10, he heads into the fall at -14.

5. A $3 Trillion Dollar Budget

There was lots of new spending for this and it sure added up. And that brings me to number 6.

6. A Coming Middle Class Tax Hike

The Obama administration will hem and haw about hiking taxes. -- There will be an official, and arrogant, explanation given by Robert Gibbs from the podium in the White House briefing room about why they must to do this to be "good stewards" and to be a "responsible administration" that "pays as it goes."

But the truth is, in order to pay for everything the Obama administration has promised (and budgeted for), a tax hike is looming for small businesses and the working families that President Obama promised would never come.

And as an aside, the president was going to break that promise all along. Because the minute the Bush tax relief measures run out in 2010, middle class taxes would be going up in the Obama administration. That means that, fundamentally, that Obama's "not a single dime" pledge on the campaign trail was just hot air from start to finish.

Of course, the president, the Democrats, the left, and Congressional leadership could surprise me. They could show up in September and endorse the Coburn health care bill in the Senate and steal all the credit for it. They could show up next week and fight with all their might to not allow the tax rates to skyrocket in 2010. They could decide to scrap cap-and-trade and re-think the use of public money for a true job-based economic stimulus.

But I'm not holding my breath, and I'd advise you against it as well.

They've awakened the American worker, the American small-business owner, and the American voter.

All three of which are now wondering aloud, "What on earth have we done?"

Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "'Baldwin/McCullough Radio" now heard on 197 stations and columnist based in New York. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com. His second book "The Kind Of MAN Every Man SHOULD Be" is in stores now.

Census Bureau Severs Ties With ACORN

2009-09-12T21:53:39Z

Friday, September 11, 2009 6:40 PM

The Census Bureau on Friday severed its ties with ACORN, a community organization that has been hit with Republican accusations of voter-registration fraud.

"We do not come to this decision lightly," Census director Robert Groves wrote in a letter to ACORN, which was obtained by The Associated Press.

In splitting with ACORN, Groves sought to tamp down GOP concerns and negative publicity that the partnership will taint the 2010 head count.

"It is clear that ACORN's affiliation with the 2010 census promotion has caused sufficient concern in the general public, has indeed become a distraction from our mission, and may even become a discouragement to public cooperation, negatively impacting 2010 census efforts," Groves wrote.

Stephen Buckner, a census spokesman, confirmed the letter, but declined additional comment.

ACORN spokesman Scott Levenson did not immediately return a request for comment.

In recent months, Republicans have become increasingly critical of the census' ties with ACORN, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. The group, which advocates for poor people, conducted a massive voter registration effort last year and became a target of conservatives when some employees were accused of submitting false registration forms with names such as "Mickey Mouse."

ACORN has said only a handful of employees submitted false registration forms and did so in a bid to boost their pay.

Partly citing ACORN's role, Sens. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., and David Vitter, R-La., earlier this year blocked a full confirmation vote of Groves for several weeks. Rep. Michelle Bachman, R-Minn., also has been calling for a census boycott because of her concerns about whether the group would tamper with the high-stakes population count.

Up to now, the Census Bureau had defended ACORN's involvement, explaining it was one of 80,000 unpaid volunteer groups that the bureau hoped would be able to raise local awareness. But in his letter, Groves said it no longer had confidence that ACORN was effectively managing its partnership.

ACORN fired two employees who were seen on hidden-camera video giving tax advice to a man posing as a pimp and a woman who pretended to be a prostitute. Fox News Channel broadcast excerpts from the video on Thursday. On the video, a man and woman visiting ACORN's Baltimore office asked about buying a house and how to account on tax forms for the woman's income. An ACORN employee advised the woman to list her occupation as "performance artist."

In a statement, ACORN Maryland board member Margaret Williams said the video was an attempt to smear ACORN, and that undercover teams attempted similar setups in at least three other ACORN offices. Williams said no tax returns were filed and no assistance was provided.

© 2009 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Poll: Obama Healthcare Disapproval at 52%

2009-09-10T00:41:56Z

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 12:36 PM

WASHINGTON – Public disapproval of President Barack Obama's handling of health care has jumped to 52 percent, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll released hours before he makes his case for overhaul in a prime-time address to Congress.

With his health revamp moving slowly and unemployment edging ever higher, Obama's overall approval rating has also suffered a blow. The survey showed that 49 percent now disapprove of how he is handling his job as president, up from 42 percent who disapproved in July.

The grade people give Obama on health care also has worsened since July, when just 43 percent disapproved of his work on the issue.

The poll underscores how the president has struggled to win public support to reshape the nation's $2.5 trillion health care system and to put the brakes on a deep recession.

Forty-nine percent say they oppose the health overhaul plans being considered by Congress, compared to just 34 percent who favor them.

People are about evenly split over what lawmakers should do now on health care: About four in 10 say they should keep trying to pass a bill this year while about the same number say they should start over again.

Significantly, though, only about two in 10 say the health care system should be left as is.

There is a clear public desire for a bipartisan approach on the issue. Eight in 10 say it's important that any plan that passes Congress should have the support of both parties, while two-thirds want Obama and Democrats to try winning support from Republicans, who with few exceptions have opposed the Democratic drive.

Obama's marks are also poor on the economy, with 52 percent saying they disapprove of how he's handled that issue.

A similar number disapprove of his handling of taxes, some of which may rise to help finance his health overhaul. And 56 percent dislike his handling of the budget deficit, which has skyrocketed under the costs of the financial bailouts and a recession that has caused sinking federal revenues.

The survey of 1,001 adults with cell and landline telephones was conducted from Sept. 3-8. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

© 2009 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Actual Unemployment Rate Hits All-Time High of 16.8%

2009-09-10T00:36:35Z

As regular readers of The Ticker know, we like to hammer on the official U.S. unemployment rate versus the unofficial rate, which we believe to be a truer picture of joblessness in this country.

This morning, the Labor Department said the official number climbed from 9.4 percent in July to 9.7 percent in August.

But the unofficial number jumped from 16.3 percent to 16.8 percent.

The difference between the two rates is due to who's counted among the unemployed.

The official number is arrived at by combining a rotating monthly survey of 60,000 U.S. households performed by the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics with jobs data sent in by employers. According to this measure, you are marked as "unemployed" if you're jobless and you meet certain criteria, including whether you looked for work in the previous four weeks.

The unofficial number starts with the official rate and then adds in everyone else who should be working full time but is not, including those whose hours have been reduced from full time to part time, those who have become so discouraged they have given up looking for work and others who are "marginally attached to the labor force." Many economists believe this rate is a truer measure of the health of the economy.

Last month, we did some numbers-crunching and found that unemployed Americans are so discouraged about the prospect of finding a new job that they're checking out of the labor force at the highest and fastest rate in nearly 10 years. Further, the recession has forced more full-time workers into part-time slots than at any time over the past 15 years.

You can read our entire analysis by clicking here.

We know that unemployment has continued to rise for several months after past U.S. recessions have ended. Many economists and even the White House have said (hoped?) that the official number will top out around 10 percent. But even if that's the case, you should not expect it to suddenly start dropping back down as soon as it peaks. Good guesses say it could be a matter of years before the official unemployment rate gets back down to a figure we're more used to seeing, something in the 5 percent range.

As for the unofficially employed -- now numbering nearly twice the officially unemployed -- the wait could be longer.

-- Frank Ahrens
Sign up to get The Ticker on Twitter

By Frank Ahrens | September 4, 2009; 12:02 PM ET

Dick Morris on President Obama's Dwindling Power

2009-07-23T00:54:06Z

RUSH: Dick Morris has a piece that was posted yesterday at the TheHill.com, and Dick Morris is a big pollster. He lives and dies by polls. So keep that in mind as I share with you the details here of this piece. "Superficially, the United States appears to have a presidential system, but in fact it more and more resembles a parliamentary form of government. When a president loses the approval of the majority of the voters and polls reflect that his ratings have fallen substantially below 50 percent, he loses his power." This is a generic theory of Dick Morris. Stick with me on this. "In this context, polls are like parliamentary votes of no confidence in European systems. While the government does not fall if it loses in the polling, it limps on until either its ratings improve or it is voted out of office at the next election. Clinton was called 'irrelevant' after the congressional defeats of 1994," by me, by the way. I'm the one that called him irrelevant. He went on TV, (doing Clinton impression) "I'm relevant, I am still relevant. Watch this, I'm going to destroy your health care, ha-ha."

"Clinton was called 'irrelevant' after the congressional defeats of 1994, when his ratings hovered in the high 30s. Bush seemed almost out of power in the last years of his administration, when his approval dropped to the low 30s. Now Obama faces the loss of power that comes with dropping poll numbers. The two early symptoms of this creeping impotence are his inability to pass the union card-check legislation or to force action on healthcare before the August recess, once highly touted administration goals. As is usually the case, the apparent cause of these defeats -- the buildup of public disapproval of both bills -- is not what is really at work. Rather, it is the president’s obvious inability to improve the economy that is exacting the daily toll in his approval ratings evident in all of the surveys. Like the body counts that mounted in Iraq and drove Bush’s numbers ever downward, the rising unemployment numbers are stripping Obama of his popularity and power," because people are saying what has he done for us? What has he done for the country? Who is better off?

After six months of Obama's highly touted fix, the stimulus program, who is better off? It's so bad in California they're even going to do offshore drilling off the coast of Santa Barbara. That's how desperate they are for money. They are cutting health care in California. They are cutting state jobs. Nothing is working at the state level. In Texas it is, certain states. Obama's not doing anything for anybody. And now they're saying, "Well, we never intended it to work this year. It was always gonna work next year," the stimulus. They rescued the economy. If this is rescuing the economy, then all that's happened to us is we've been pulled out of the Titanic while it's already on the sea floor. We are drowning. We are drowning. "It is the president's obvious inability to improve the economy that is exacting the daily toll." He's not even trying to improve it, folks. That's the dirty little secret.

"Despite having 60 votes in the Senate, it is a serious question as to whether Obama will be able to get his controversial programs passed in the fall. The public mood is congealing against his healthcare proposals, and skepticism over the impact of cap-and-trade on American manufacturing is growing." It's ridiculous. (interruption) Why is what? Oh. Why is skepticism building? Why is the public mood congealing? Well, I answered this question yesterday. It is I and my brethren in talk radio. And you know what else? Mark Levin's book. I think it's sold over a million copies and it's still at the top of the list, and they still are trying to kill it when they review it. There is a pulse, there's a big heartbeat going on in this country. The mainstream media, State-Run Media, they have met their Waterloo. We can talk about Obama meeting his but the media have met theirs and it's Obama. They have sacrificed whatever integrity they had left, whatever character they had left, whatever professionalism they had left, it's gone. Their Waterloo is Obama. Obama is destroying them, too, along with our economy. It's just that they are in on destroying themselves.

MSNBC is running -- do you believe this? -- a countdown clock all day to an Obama press conference. Right now it's six hours and 46 minutes and some odd seconds. They've got a countdown clock! And they're talking about it on MSNBC today as, "Can he pull this out?" They're not talking about what a bomb, bad debacle of a mess the program is. They're not even reporting on the details of it. So that's why the public mood is congealing. We've got the Internet, we've got a great roster of bloggers, we have a great roster of talk show hosts, we got Levin's book, I mean there's all kinds of people responsible for this. But the people who are appointed the watchdogs and guardians have checked their professionalism at the door, and all they care about now is getting some private time with the president to talk about the kids.

"While voters are idealistically determined to cover the uninsured, they are more selfishly concerned about their own healthcare. And they are loath to trust the man who sold them on the stimulus package when he says that their care will be protected." Their jobs aren't protected. Their automobile companies aren't protected. Their dealerships are gone. And this guy, who has destroyed jobs, we're nearing double digits, says he's going to save and protect everybody's health care when he's going to end up taking it away from people. "More and more, they are asking the very simple question that Obama cannot answer: How is he going to cover 50 million new people without more doctors?" How is that going to happen? "The elderly are coming to understand that his plan effectively repeals the bedrock guarantee in Medicare that seniors can get whatever care they want for free. The opposition to healthcare changes is building so fast that Obama was forced to retreat from his August deadline. And it’s unlikely that he will be able to make a successful stand in September or October, when his ratings will likely be 10 points lower than they are today." That's Dick Morris, and I hope he's right. He makes a lot of sense in this piece. He really does.

Gallup Poll: Obama's Approval Plummets

2009-07-22T17:53:47Z

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 7:31 AM

A USA Today/Gallup Poll out Tuesday morning delivers some bad news for Barack Obama.

Here are the key finding of the national poll:

By 49%-47%, those surveyed disapprove of how he is handling the economy, a turnaround from his 55%-42% approval in May. The steepest drop came from conservative and moderate Democrats.

By 50%-44%, they disapprove of how he is handling healthcare policy.

A 59% majority say his proposals call for too much government spending, and 52% say they call for too much expansion of government power.

Expectations of the economy's turnaround are souring a bit. In February, the average prediction for a recovery was 4.1 years; now it's 5.5 years.

The USA Today/Gallup Poll is sure to undermine the President's position as he pushes for his ambitious universal healthcare plan.

"His ratings have certainly come back down to Earth in a very short time period," Republican pollster Whit Ayres told USA Today.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Experts: Obama's 'Public Option' Insurance Will Abandon 100 Million Citizens

2009-07-22T17:52:03Z

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:22 PM

By: David A. Patten

Up to 100 million people would lose their current healthcare plan within the next three years if Congress passes the "public option" health bill now making its way through Congress, policy experts tell Newsmax.

Defections on that scale would mean the death of the health-insurance sector within five years, a leading GOP congressman says.

These findings fly in the face of President Obama's assurances.

"Under our proposals," Obama told the American people during his July 18 weekly radio address, "if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance. Period, end of story."

Not so, according to a report released Monday by the Lewin Group, a nonpartisan Falls Church, Va., firm that provides consulting services to the healthcare industry. The D.C.-based Heritage Foundation sponsored the study.

The study concludes that, although the government won't actually order people to leave their private insurance plans, it will induce their employers to do so. The taxpayer subsidies in the public option will tilt the economic scales so much that employers and individuals will abandon the private insurance market by the millions, the Lewin Group study indicates.

Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., an orthopedic surgeon and senior ranking Republican on the Health subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee, tells Newsmax the imbalance will kill private health insurance as it currently exists in less than a decade.

"I don't see how it can go longer than somewhere between three and five years," Price tells Newsmax. "The phase-in makes it so that we'll see tens of millions go from private plans to the government-run plan within a year or two. And then five years is the drop dead date where everybody is forced off."

The mainstream media is beginning to question Obama's presumptions as well.

ABC senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper writes on his Political Punch blog that the president has admitted his statement is not literally true.

The government "might create circumstances" that would lead to a widespread change in policies, Tapper writes.

"I can't pass a law that says, 'I'm sorry, employers, you can never make changes to the healthcare plans that you provide your employees," Obama recently told ABC's Diane Sawyer. "What I can say is that the government is not going to force . . . your employers or you to join a government plan, for example."

Tapper reports that Obama later appeared to hedge on his promise during ABC News' healthcare forum, saying: "If you are happy with your plan, and if you are happy with your doctor, we don't want you to have to change."

Yet that is exactly what would happen to tens of millions of policyholders if Congress passes the current plans, Lewin Group and other experts say.

Obama has justified the public option as a means of policing private insurers, saying it "will keep them honest and help keep prices down."

The reality, critics say, is that Obama's proposal would go far beyond that, possibly even driving the private health-insurance sector out of business altogether, at a time when the economy already is closing in on 10 percent unemployment.

The Lewin Group appears to support Rep. Price's conclusion that public-option healthcare will bring radical changes to voters' health insurance coverage.

That consultant's analysis finds that the average monthly premium under the public option would be $179 less than the average private premium.

Lewin's analysts calculate that this would induce 83.4 million Americans and their employers to change plans. Because the employers usually make the decision, millions of those individuals would have little or no say in whether they would join the public-option plan.

Lewin concludes that 103.4 million Americans would sign up for the public plan, cutting the size of the private-insurance market just about in half. In three years, 48.4 percent fewer people would be covered by private insurance.

"The president simply isn't telling the truth," Price charges. "I don't know if that's because he hasn't read the bill, or he doesn't know what his cohorts up here on Capitol Hill have done to the legislation, but it's very, very clear."

He adds, "This will destroy the individual private insurance market in this nation. And if you talk to the folks who authored the plan, they admit it. They aren't trying to hide that at all. It's just the President who's trying to hide that."

One reason that healthcare policy experts cite for the profound impact the public-option would have on private insurers is "cost shifting."

Hospitals and physicians now defray the cost of the billions of dollars of free medical care they provide to uninsured people — known as "uncompensated care" — by increasing their fees to private health plans. As the number of people covered by private plans diminishes, fewer policyholders remain to absorb the cost of uncompensated care, which raises their premiums and results in an ever-narrowing base of privately insured.

"It’s a death spiral," Price tells Newsmax, "because as you take people out of personal insurance market then you are decreasing the number of individuals for whom risk is spread across. As you do so, the cost increases for each individual that remains in the private market. With the bill, you get to that point relatively quickly."

Advocates of the bill maintain, however, that by boosting the level of healthcare enrollment to about 95 percent of the populace, uncompensated care should diminish drastically. So far, the president's biggest hurdle comes from members of his own party, who are nervous about projected budget deficits and a surtax of up to 8 percent on the wealthy that would be used to reduce the plan's estimated budgetary impact of more than $1 trillion over the next decade.

"Congress needs to strive for a bill that's deficit-neutral over the long term, even beyond 10 years. All the bills so far have run deficits in the first 10 years, and would likely run massive deficits in following decades," senior Heritage analyst Brian Riedel tells Newsmax.

Riedel voices open skepticism about current projections for the plan's impact on the deficit: "The healthcare estimates are almost certainly underestimating the cost of health care. For starters, government healthcare programs almost always cost substantially more than is projected," he says.

"In this instance," Riedel adds, "many are assuming that the public plan will create all of these efficiencies that hold down costs, and I'm not sure that's going to happen. Additionally, there's always a chance that taxpayers are going to be asked to subsidize the public option, in order to give it a competitive advantage over private health care. That will raise the cost as well."

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Poll: Americans Say Country Heading in Wrong Direction Under Obama

2009-07-22T17:43:36Z

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 7:38 PM

That was fast. The hope and optimism that washed over the country in the opening months of Barack Obama's presidency are giving way to harsh realities.

An Associated Press-GfK Poll shows that a majority of Americans are back to thinking that the country is headed in the wrong direction after a fleeting period in which more thought it was on the right track.

Obama still has a solid 55 percent approval rating — better than Bill Clinton and about even with George W. Bush six months into their presidencies — but doubts are growing about whether he can succeed at some of the biggest items on his to-do list. And there is a growing sense that he is trying to tackle too much too soon.

The number of people who think Obama can improve the economy is down a sobering 19 percentage points from the euphoric days just before his inauguration. Ditto for expectations about creating jobs. Also down significantly: the share of people who think he can reduce the deficit, remove troops from Iraq and improve respect for the U.S. around the world, all slipping 15 points.

On overhauling healthcare, a signature issue for Obama, hopes for success are down a lesser 6 points.

Add it all up, and does it mean Obama has lost his mojo? Has yes-we-can morphed into maybe?

"I think it's just reality," said Sandy Smith, a 48-year-old public relations worker from Los Angeles. "He's not Superman, right?"

Indeed, it's not unusual for approval ratings to slide once presidents actually get to work. They're pulled down by things going on in the real world, by people who don't agree with the ways they're addressing problems, by criticism from political opponents.

In Obama's case, the problems he's confronting domestically and internationally are legion, and his ability to blame them on his predecessor is fading. Challenges still abound in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unemployment, at 7.6 percent in January, hit 9.5 percent in June and is expected to keep rising well into next year. Almost 4 percent of homeowners with mortgages are in foreclosure, and an additional 8 percent are at least a month behind on payments — the highest levels since the Great Depression.

The president is deep into the debate over how to overhaul the nation's healthcare system, and people are nervous about how their own insurance could be affected. Obama's critics are accusing him of conducting a risky "grand experiment" that will hurt the economy and could force millions to drop their current coverage.

It's all taking a toll on expectations. The number of people who think it's realistic to expect at least some noticeable improvement in the economy during Obama's first year in office dropped from 27 percent in January to 16 percent in the latest survey.

There's been slippage, as well, in how people view the president personally, although he's still well regarded. About two-thirds now think he understands the problems of ordinary Americans, down from 81 percent in January. Sixty-nine percent think he's a strong leader, off from 78 percent before the inauguration.

"He doesn't know enough about any of this," says Michelle Kelsey, a 37-year-old student in Breckenridge, Mo., who gives Obama a three for leadership on a 10-point scale. But then again, Kelsey says, "Nobody could have done better."

"I just feel like people haven't given him enough time. It's going to take longer for the economy to come around."

Obama isn't the only one feeling the drag. Approval of Congress — already low — has gotten lower, slipping 6 percentage points to 32 percent.

Overall, the number of people who think the country is going in the wrong direction hit 54 percent in the latest AP-GfK poll, up from 46 percent in June.

That's not necessarily surprising. In years past, the public has tended to be more pessimistic than optimistic about the country's future. Recent exceptions have been short-lived, at the start of the Iraq war, after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, after the capture of Saddam Hussein and late in the Clinton administration.

Perhaps most troubling for Obama may be where he is losing ground. His approval rating was down 9 points among Americans overall but 20 percent among independents. Similarly, the increase in those who think the country is headed in the wrong direction came mostly from independents and Democrats.

Dissatisfaction among independents grew disproportionately on Obama's handling of a range of issues, including the economy, taxes, unemployment, the environment and more.

Independents are "the ones to watch," said professor Robert Shapiro, a Columbia University expert on public opinion. "The Republicans were more pessimistic from the outset. The Democrats are going to be more resistant to negative information."

Overall, Obama still can feel good about a 55 percent approval rating, Shapiro said, but "the fact that it is on the downswing is something to be concerned about. That's going to affect how members of Congress, and in particular people in his own party, may respond to him."

The AP-GfK Poll, which GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media conducted July 16-20, involved phone interviews with 1,006 adults nationwide. The survey had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

© 2009 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

O'S BROKEN PROMISES

2009-07-21T02:36:12Z

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

July 17, 2009 --
PRESIDENT Obama promises that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our health-care system. That's untrue. The bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests.

Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time.

And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).

When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).

It's one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p. 57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of health care and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.

Nowhere does the legislation say how much health plans will cost, but a family of four is eligible for some government assistance until their household income reaches $88,000 (House bill, p. 137). If you earn more than that, you'll have to pay the cost no matter how high it goes.

The price tag for this legislation is a whopping $1.04 trillion to $1.6 trillion (Congressional Budget Office estimates). Half of the tab comes from tax increases on individuals earning $280,000 or more, and these new taxes will double in 2012 unless savings exceed predicted costs (House bill, p. 199). The rest of the cost is paid for by cutting seniors' health benefits under Medicare.

There's plenty of waste in Medicare, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates only 1 percent of the savings under the legislation will be from curbing waste, fraud and abuse. That means the rest will likely come from reducing what patients get.

One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really want government involved in such deeply personal issues?

Shockingly, only a portion of the money accumulated from slashing senior benefits and raising taxes goes to pay for covering the uninsured. The Senate bill allocates huge sums to "community transformation grants," home visits for expectant families, services for migrant workers -- and the creation of dozens of new government councils, programs and advisory boards slipped into the last 500 pages.

The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.

They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.

Congress should pursue less radical ways to cover the uninsured. We have too much to lose with this legislation.

Betsy McCaughey is founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York. betsy@hospitalinfection.org

Poll: Support for Obamacare Falls Below 50%

2009-07-20T21:31:35Z

Monday, July 20, 2009 3:42 PM

Public support for President Barack Obama's handling of healthcare reform, the pillar of his legislative agenda, has fallen below 50 percent for the first time, a Washington Post-ABC News poll released on Monday said.

Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress have run into stiff opposition this month as they try to pass legislation to restructure the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare industry through the creation of a government-run health insurance program.

Republicans and some fiscally conservative Democrats argue the plan, with an estimated cost of more than $1 trillion, could hurt small businesses, add to budget deficits and reduce the quality of medical care for many Americans.

Those concerns may be having an impact on the public, according to the poll, which showed 49 percent of respondents approving of Obama's stand on the issue compared to 57 percent in April.

Those saying they disapproved rose to 44 percent from 29 percent during the same period.

Obama and the White House have gone on the offensive to drum up support for the plan, which would compete with private insurers, provide cover to many of the 46 million uninsured and try to stem runaway medical costs.

With time running out to pass a bill in Congress this year, the battle is shaping up as a major test of Obama's presidency.

Delaying legislation until 2010, a congressional election year, could give Republicans and critics in the healthcare sector more time to galvanize opposition to the plan.

But Obama remains more trusted than Republicans in Congress to do a better job on healthcare reform, the poll showed, with 54 percent of respondents putting their faith in the U.S. leader versus 34 percent in favor of Republican lawmakers.

His overall approval rating also remains high at 59 percent despite some slippage in approval ratings for his handling of the economy, the federal budget deficit and other leading domestic issues, according to the poll.

It surveyed 1,001 adults randomly by telephone between July 15-18, 2009. The results from the full survey have a margin of error of plus/minus three percentage points.

© 2009 Reuters. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

Poll: 60 Percent Oppose Another Stimulus Plan

2009-07-08T01:19:08Z

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 12:40 PM
By: Jim Meyers

Amid calls for a new stimulus plan, a Rasmussen Reports poll reveals that only 27 percent of voters support another economic stimulus package this year, while 60 percent oppose it.

"Public opposition to a second stimulus plan is explained in part by the mixed feelings voters have about the first plan: 31 percent say it has helped the economy, and 30 percent say it has hurt," Rasmussen said.

In another survey, pollster Doug Schoen found that 56 percent of respondents are opposed to the notion that government should spend money to stimulate the national economy even if it means increasing the budget deficit. Only 37 percent support that position.

These polls show that voters are deeply concerned about higher budget deficits created by government stimulus, Politico observes.

But several unions, including the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union, plan to begin pressuring legislators for a jobs bill, saying the $787 billion stimulus package approved earlier this year wasn't large enough.

Calls for a new stimulus plan are being fueled by rising unemployment, which hit 9.5 percent in June, The Hill newspaper reported. Obama administration officials predicted in January that the unemployment rate would peak at 8 percent if a stimulus plan was passed.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., who voted against the stimulus package, said Republicans could work with Democrats on a new stimulus plan if it includes significant tax cuts, in particular cuts targeted at small businesses and their employees.

But Vice President Joe Biden said on Sunday that the current stimulus plan needs more time to work. He told ABC News: "We misread just how bad the economy was, but we are now only about 120 days into the recovery package."

Nevertheless, 68 percent of likely voters surveyed by Rasmussen believe that Congress and the president will try to pass another stimulus package this year, while only 20 percent believe they will not, and 12 percent are not sure.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Obama Tax Hike on the Way

2009-07-01T23:31:52Z

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:42 PM

By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size

President George H.W. Bush lost the presidency because he broke his 1988 campaign pledge: "Read my lips: no new taxes." Now President Obama is as blatantly poised to disregard his most fundamental campaign promise: "If you make less than $250,000 your taxes will not go up. Not one dime."

In our new book "Catastrophe," we write about the breadth of Obama's planned tax hikes and the heights to which he will drive taxes. To pay for his healthcare catastrophe, Obama will likely make all health insurance premiums, paid by employers, taxable to the employees.

So if your income is $50,000 and your employer pays $10,000 in health insurance premiums for you, your taxable income will be $60,000. In effect, this means that most taxpayers will have to pay more than a third of their incomes to the federal government.

And Obama's "cap-and-trade" legislation is the exact same as Al Gore's BTU tax which was the centerpiece of Clinton's 1993 tax program. Eventually, Clinton replaced it with a flat 5 cent gasoline tax. But the idea of taxing utility bills to drive down electricity use is as old as the Clinton administration. But Obama can't call it a tax because that would break his pledge. So he calls it cap and trade instead.

Finally, it is obvious that Obama will be unable to restore financial solvency to Social Security and Medicare without big hikes in the payroll tax, coming in 2011!

It is ultimately these tax increases which will drive Obama's congressional majority from office in the 2010 elections.

His stimulus package, raising the deficit damaged the recovery by raising interest rates. Now he will complete the catastrophe by raising taxes. Together, these tax hikes and interest rate increases will choke off any recovery the business cycle would naturally catalyze.

From now on, its Obama's recession.

© 2009 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Perez Hilton's Despicable Coverage of Michael Jackson's Death

2009-06-29T03:36:57Z

By Robert Paul Reyes

"Perez Hilton's coverage of Michael Jackson's death has brought the celebrity blogger more attention - but not because he broke any news.

The gossip hound is being slammed from all corners for dismissing the initial word on Thursday that Jackson had been rushed to the hospital, calling it a publicity stunt.

'Supposedly, the singer went into cardiac arrest ...' Hilton wrote in his blog, before stating, 'We are dubious!!'
'Either he's lying or making himself sick,' the blog continued. Then it urged those who had purchased tickets for Jackson's series of concerts in London to 'get your money back!'

The post included a picture of Jackson with the hand-scrawled headline: 'Heart attack or cold feet?'"

Perez Hilton needs controversy like a fly needs to feast on crap. Most folks first became aware of this drama queen when he asked Miss California Carrie Prejean her views on same-sex marriage. When the Prejean controversy was finally dying down, Perez provoked a physical altercation with Will i. am and his entourage.

Now the flamboyant gossip queen has really crossed the line with his despicable comments about the death of the King of Pop.

Perez Hilton is the last person in the world who should accuse anyone of manufacturing a publicity stunt. Everything about Hilton is a publicity stunt, from his strange moniker to his outrageous attire.

Speaking of his silly pseudonym, I wonder if Hilton is ashamed of his Cuban heritage. Why doesn't he use his real name: Mario Armando Lavandeira. I would never in million years consider changing my Hispanic surname "Reyes" to something more Anglo sounding.

I deplore egotists like Hilton who enjoy employing the Royal "we." Only the Queen of England and people with split personalities can get away with using the Royal "we". Sorry Lavandeira, but being an obnoxious queen doesn't entitle you to use the Royal "we."

During his life Michael Jackson was always surrounded by enablers and leeches who sucked the King of Pop dry. Now in death parasites like Perez are trying to make a name for themselves by condemning the King of Pop.

Robert Paul Reyes is a NewsBlaze writer on Politics, Pop Culture and Pointless Pontificating. Contact him by writing to NewsBlaze.

Barack Obama Seeks to Turn America into a Third World Country

2009-06-28T02:22:15Z

RUSH: "Obama, the African Colonial" This is by L.E. Ikenga. This is LE Ikenga. She is a first-generation American, and she absorbed the African culture from her parents. This is a special piece, and I'm going to read most of it to you here. It's at the AmericanThinker.com. "Had Americans been able to stop obsessing over the color of Barack Obama's skin and instead paid more attention to his cultural identity, maybe he would not be in the White House today. The key to understanding him lies with his identification with his father, and his adoption of a cultural and political mindset rooted in postcolonial Africa. Like many educated intellectuals in postcolonial Africa, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was enraged at the transformation of his native land by its colonial conqueror," the UK, and that means that Barack Obama, Jr. is likewise enraged and we see it in the way he frequently disrespects the UK.

"But instead of embracing the traditional values of his own tribal cultural past, he embraced an imported Western ideology, Marxism. I call such frustrated and angry modern Africans who embrace various foreign 'isms', instead of looking homeward for repair of societies that are broken, African Colonials. They are Africans who serve foreign ideas." May I translate this for you? This is L.E. Ikenga, a first-generation American, but she absorbed the African culture from her parents. The Brits go in and colonize Africa. Africans get enraged about it in trying to resist it, and then when the Brits leave, rather than trying to reform their country back to their own cultural roots, people like Barack Obama, Sr. turn to Marxism rather than their own roots to rebuild nations that were once colonized by the UK.

This is how we get Nigeria. This is how we get Mugabe and Zimbabwe (which used to be Rhodesia), and this is what Barack Obama, Sr. became: an African colonial. "Before I continue," she writes, "I need to say this: I am a first generation born West African-American woman whose parents emigrated to the US in the 1970's from the country now called Nigeria. I travel to Nigeria frequently. I see myself as both a proud American and as a proud Igbo ... Politically, I have always been conservative (though it took this past election for me to commit to this once and for all!); my conservative values come from my Igbo heritage and my place of birth. Of course, none of this qualifies me to say what I am about to -- but at the same time it does.

My friends, despite what CNN and the rest are telling you, Barack Obama is nothing more than an old school African Colonial who is on his way to turning this country into one of the developing nations that you learn about on the National Geographic Channel," meaning he wants to turn this into a Third World country. And when you look at cap and trade, when you look at the stimulus, when you look at the healthcare proposals he's got, I mean the only way to turn this into a Third World nation -- if that's possible, but the only way to try to do it, the only way to try to do this -- is to just attack the private sector and deplete it of its resources, of its money and capital, which is exactly what he's doing.

"Many conservative (East, West, South, North) African-Americans like myself -- those of us who know our history -- have seen this movie before. Here are two main reasons why many Americans allowed Obama to slip through the cracks despite all of his glaring inconsistencies: First, Obama has been living on American soil for most of his adult life. Therefore, he has been able to masquerade as one who understands and believes in American democratic ideals. But he does not. Barack Obama is intrinsically undemocratic and as his presidency plays out, this will become more obvious." Well, it's already obvious to us. All these czars that have no accountability to legislative forces? They are not approved by Congress like cabinet secretaries are. He's announced 13 or 14 czars. He's running the car companies. He's running the mortgage and banking business. He's done this without the process of Democratic legislation.

He's just declared it fiat, and his party is in power in the House so they're letting him do this. "Second, and most importantly," she writes, "too many Americans know very little about Africa. The one-size-fits-all understanding that many Americans (both black and white) continue to have of Africa might end up bringing dire consequences for this country. Contrary to the way it continues to be portrayed in mainstream Western culture, Africa is not a continent that can be solely defined by AIDS, ethnic rivalries, poverty and safaris. Africa, like any other continent, has an immense history defined by much diversity and complexity. Africa's long-standing relationship with Europe speaks especially to some of these complexities -- particularly the relationship that has existed between the two continents over the past two centuries. Europe's complete colonization of Africa during the nineteenth century, also known as the Scramble for Africa, produced many unfortunate consequences, the African colonial being one of them."

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I want to continue reading here from L.E. Ikenga: "Obama, the African Colonial," from the AmericanThinker.com: "The African colonial (AC) is a person who by means of their birth or lineage has a direct connection with Africa. However, unlike Africans like me, their worldviews have been largely shaped not by the indigenous beliefs of a specific African tribe but by the ideals of the European imperialism that overwhelmed and dominated Africa during the colonial period. AC's have no real regard for their specific African traditions or histories. AC's use aspects of their African culture as one would use pieces of costume jewelry: things of little or no value that can be thoughtlessly discarded when they become a negative distraction, or used on a whim to decorate oneself in order to seem exotic. (Hint: Obama's Muslim heritage)," is one of these examples.

"On the other hand, AC's strive to be the best at the culture that they inherited from Europe. Throughout the West, they are tops in their professions as lawyers, doctors, engineers, Ivy League professors and business moguls; this is all well and good. It's when they decide to engage us as politicians that things become messy and convoluted. The African colonial politician (ACP) feigns repulsion towards the hegemonic paradigms of Western civilization. But at the same time, he is completely enamored of the trappings of its aristocracy or elite culture." She's pegging Obama here, just pegging him. He's totally caught up in the trappings of aristocracy or elite culture, taking the plane up to New York, flying the kids over to Paris. This is the stuff about the job he loves, he's enamored of it.

"The ACP blames and caricatures whitey to no end for all that has gone wrong in the world. He convinces the masses that various forms of African socialism are the best way for redressing the problems that European colonialism motivated in Africa. However, as opposed to really being a hard-core African Leftist who actually believes in something, the ACP uses socialist themes as a way to disguise his true ambitions: a complete power grab whereby the 'will of the people' becomes completely irrelevant. Barack Obama is all of the above. The only difference is that he is here playing (colonial) African politics as usual. In his 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father -- an eloquent piece of political propaganda -- Obama styles himself as a misunderstood intellectual who is deeply affected by the sufferings of black people, especially in America and Africa. In the book, Obama clearly sees himself as an African, not as a black American. And to prove this, he goes on a quest to understand his Kenyan roots. He is extremely thoughtful of his deceased father's legacy; this provides the main clue for understanding Barack Obama.

"Here are a few examples of what the British did in order to create (in 1914) what is now called Nigeria and what Obama is doing to you: One: Convince the people that 'clinging' to any aspect of their cultural (tribal) identity or history is bad and regresses the process of 'unity.' Two: Confiscate the wealth and resources of the area that you govern by any means necessary in order to redistribute wealth. Three: Convince the masses that your upper-crust university education naturally puts you on an intellectual plane from which to understand everything even when you understand nothing." Pegs Obama to a T. "Four: Lie to the people and tell them that progress is being made even though things are clearly becoming worse." Pegs Obama to a T. This woman from Africa, first-generation American, identifying what an African colonial is: the despot leaders that take over these countries and how they do it. And she's defining Barack Obama. Lie to the people. Tell them that progress is being made even though things are clearly becoming worse.

"Five: Use every available media outlet to perpetuate the belief that you and your followers are the enlightened ones and that those who refuse to support you are just barbaric, uncivilized, ignorant curmudgeons." Well, that speaks for itself, too. She concludes: "America, don't be fooled. The Igbos were once made up of a confederacy of clans that ascribed to various forms of democratic government. They took their eyes off the ball and before they knew it, the British were upon them. Also, understand this: the African colonial who is given too much political power can only become one thing: a despot."

I share all this with you because she's nailed who the guy is. Americans look at Obama, first black president, and they go, "Oh we're shedding some of our guilt here. Look at how enlightened we are, what a great country we are," when in fact we've elected somebody who is more African in his roots than he is American. Loves his father who was a Marxist, and is behaving like an African colonial despot and you can see it in his healthcare legislation, the stimulus bill, taking over automobile companies, the czars that he has that are not accountable to anybody but him and now the climate bill. All of this is about nothing other than the acquisition of power and the ability to further regulate your privacy and behavior.

Rep. Shadegg: Obama Jeopardizing Health Care

2009-06-07T02:26:24Z

Friday, June 5, 2009 8:42 PM

Rep. John Shadegg tells Newsmax that proposals backed by President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress could "completely destroy" the American health care system.

The Arizona Republican also said the Obama administration is promoting "massive state involvement in the economy," which will be a "disaster."

Newsmax.TV's Kathleen Walter asked Shadegg if people in Arizona are concerned about illegal immigration and the dramatic rise in drug violence in his border state.

"People all over Arizona are deeply concerned about all crime related to illegal immigration," said Shadegg, who represents a Phoenix-area district.

"But having said that, the people in Arizona recognize that there is a role to be played by immigrants from south of our border in our economy. There are in fact jobs, for example in our agricultural industry and in other industries, that I think the majority of people in Arizona realize won't get done if there is no guest worker program, and no ability for someone from outside the country to come here and work . . .

"I personally support a guest worker program where people come but come lawfully, and supplement our economy. I don't support giving someone who got here illegally an automatic path to citizenship. I don't support an amnesty that says we are going to suddenly recognize all of them and let them become citizens. I've always argued for a middle ground on this issue."

Walter noted that Shadegg has introduced the Healthcare Choice Act and asked for his overall views on the issue.

"I really think the health care issue is the single most important issue facing the nation right now," the congressman declared.

"I notice that my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle have a very very extensive and shocking agenda, an agenda that will move us as a nation away from very fundamental principles.

"I think we have an administration that wants to restructure the government and its role with the citizens dramatically.

"I think the administration believes in a much larger role for the government, and I think it wants to recast America much along the lines of a European socialist [nation], with massive state involvement in the economy. I think that's a disaster...

"Americans need to understand that the reforms being proposed by Democrats in Washington and by President Obama on health care hold the potential to completely destroy what is great about the American health care system. And that is choice and individual control.

"I do not think that the American people want to go to a government-run, one-size-fits-all and the government rations care type of system . . .

"Actually, most of the countries that have a socialist form or a single-payer form of health care are moving away from that, having recognized that it's failed."

Walter asked Shadegg what he believes will be the outcome of the health care debate.

The outcome "depends on the willingness of the president and congressional Democrats to compromise," he said.

"Right now they're basically saying it's their way or the highway. They want to put in place a government plan, and that government plan will cause the private insurance market to wither and go away very very quickly.

"If they don't give up that demand, I don't see how we can come to a compromise."

Shadegg also said that Obama was "not strong enough" in talking about the dangers of radical Islam during his Thursday speech in Cairo. But he called the speech a "stunning step forward by an American president to reach out and open the door" to improved U.S.-Muslim relations.

And Shadegg called Obama's statement that no nation should decide what other nations should have nuclear weapons "fundamentally wrong."

Editor’s Note: To see the full John Shadegg interview, Go Here Now.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Obama's Leadership Rating Drops

2009-06-07T02:22:17Z

Saturday, June 6, 2009 11:51 AM

President Barack Obama's leadership rating has dropped to its lowest level ever, a new Rasmussen Reports poll has found.

In the survey, 51 percent of respondents rated Obama as a good or excellent leader. His rating was 55 percent in May.

Other results of the poll:

27 percent rated Obama a poor leader, up from 24 percent May. That's his highest disapproval rating ever.

58 percent of Democrats rate Obama as an excellent leader.

47% of Republicans rate Obama's leadership as poor.

Forty-three percent of independents rate Obama's leadership as either good or excellent.

32 percent rate Obama's leadership style as being too cooperative.

13percent say Obama is too confrontational.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Jobless Rate Hits 9.4 Percent in May

2009-06-06T00:10:02Z

Friday, June 5, 2009 8:55 AM

WASHINGTON -- With companies in no mood to hire, the unemployment rate jumped to 9.4 percent in May, the highest in more than 25 years. But the pace of layoffs eased, with employers cutting 345,000 jobs, the fewest since September.

The much smaller-than-expected reduction in payroll jobs, reported by the Labor Department on Friday, adds to evidence that the recession is loosening its hold on the country. It marked the fourth straight month that the pace of layoffs slowed.

Still, the increase in the nation's unemployment rate from 8.9 percent in April underscores the difficulties that America's 14.5 million unemployed are having in finding new jobs. Economists had expected the rate to hit 9.2 percent last month.

If laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have settled for part-time work are included, the unemployment rate would have been 16.4 percent in May, the highest on records dating to 1994.

Even with layoffs slowing, companies will be reluctant to hire until they feel certain that economic conditions are improving and that any recovery will last.

Since the recession began in December 2007, the economy has lost a net total of 6 million jobs.

As the recession - which is now the longest since World War II - bites into sales and profits, companies have turned to layoffs and other cost-cutting measures to survive the fallout. Those include holding down workers' hours and freezing or cutting pay.

The average work week in May fell to 33.1 hours, the lowest on records dating to 1964.

Job losses - while slower in May - were still widespread.

Construction companies cut 59,000 jobs, down from 108,000 in April. Factories cut 156,000, on top of 154,000 in the previous month. Retailers cut 17,500 positions, compared with 36,5000 in April. Financial activities cut 30,000, down from 45,000 in April. Even the government reduced employment - by 7,000 - after bulking up by 92,000 in March as it added workers for the 2010 Census.

Education, health care, leisure and hospitality were among the industries adding jobs in May.

Still, in another encouraging note, job losses in both March and April turned were less than previously thought. Employers cut 652,000 positions in March, versus 699,000 previously reported. They eliminated 504,000 jobs in April, less than the 539,000 initially estimated.

The deepest job cuts of the recession came in January when 741,000 jobs disappeared, the most since 1949.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke repeated his prediction this week that the recession will end this year, but again warned that any recovery will be gradual.

Many economists believe the jobless rate will hit 10 percent by the end of this year. Some think it could rise as high as 10.7 percent by the second quarter of next year before it starts to make a slow descent. The post-World War II high was 10.8 percent at the end of 1982.

The Fed says unemployment will remain elevated into 2011 given the expectation of tepid recovery. Economists say the job market may not get back to normal - meaning a 5 percent unemployment rate - until 2013. Economic recoveries after financial crises tend to be slower, economists say.

Evidence has been mounting that the recession is letting up, with fresh signs emerging earlier this week.

The number of people continuing to draw unemployment benefits dipped for the first time in 20 weeks, and first-time claims also fell. Manufacturing's slide is slowing. Builders are boosting spending on construction projects and a barometer of home sales firmed.

Although shoppers remain cautious according to sales results from major retailers, Bernanke and other economists are hopeful that consumers won't return to the deep hibernation seen at the end of last year.

That's when the recession hit with brutal force, causing the economy to contract at a 6.3 percent pace, the most in 25 years. Consumers cut their spending at the time by the most in nearly three decades. Economic activity shrank at a 5.7 percent pace in the first three months of this year, despite a rebound by consumers.

Many analysts believe the economy is shrinking at about a 2 percent pace in the current quarter, and that the economy could return to growth as soon as the third quarter. President Barack's Obama's stimulus package should help bolster the economy.

Ripple-effects from General Motors Corp.'s filing for bankruptcy protection - the fourth largest in U.S. history - could muddy the outlook, some analysts said. GM said earlier this week it will close nine factories and idle three others indefinitely as part of its restructuring. The closings, which will take place through the end of 2010, will cost up to 20,000 workers their jobs.

© 2009 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

The Abject Failure of Obamanomics

2009-06-05T07:15:08Z

Thursday, June 4, 2009 2:15 PM

By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size

The data is in for April. Obamanomics is failing terribly. Here's what happened:

1. Household personal income (inflation adjusted) rose, but every penny — and then some — went into savings or paying down debts. Consumer spending, on which Obama is betting to stimulate the economy, actually fell. None of the stimulus money was sent. None.

2. Meanwhile, to pay for this stimulus spending that didn't stimulate, Obama had to borrow so much money that long-term interest rates have almost doubled since he took office, forcing postponement of business expansion and hiring across the board.

What a record!

In April, personal household, inflation-adjusted income rose by $122 billion. Of that increase, one-third or $44 billion, came from the government's stimulus program. But while personal income was rising, household savings (which includes paying down credit card balances, mortgages, student loans, car loans, etc) rose by $132 billion — $10 billion more than the rise in income. So personal consumption dropped 0.1 percent.

The stimulus package was a total and complete failure.

As predicted, as happened with Bush's 2008 tax cut, as happened with the Japanese stimulus packages of the 90s, fearful consumers sat on their money and wouldn't spend it. Keynesian economics didn't work. Again.

But the debt sure piled up.

The deficit quadrupled and is sending interest rates soaring as the government elbows aside businesses and consumers at the loan window, all in a desperate effort to borrow enough money to spend enough money to stimulate the economy, which isn't happening.

As we describe in our new book (out June 23rd) "Catastrophe," Keynesian economics doesn't work. The theory for rational expectations has taken its place. Consumers are not idiots. They know that when their paycheck is fatter, either because of tax cuts or government spending, that it is not the beginning of nirvana but just a short-term, one-shot respite from hard times. They know the difference between standing in front on an electric fan and experiencing a windy day.

Barack Obama has fatally undermined our currency, our solvency, our financial stability, and, ultimately, our economy all to spend money that has had no economic effect!

Is Obama a failure? Not by his lights.

His goal was never to stimulate the economy. His goal was to expand government spending and he used the recession as an excuse to do so. And, by this standard, he is a raging success. With the stimulus spending, the government proportion of GDP will rise from about 35 percent to about 40 percent and with healthcare "reform," it will go soaring into the mid-40s, bringing us to parity with Germany en route to France!

But the results are in: None of Obama's spending is doing anything to help the economy.

Of course, the process of household savings, designed to pay down debt, is very healthy.

Economists call it de-leveraging. By the start of the recession, the debt American households owe had risen from 70 percent of their annual income in 1995 to 140 percent (excluding mortgages). Now it is on its way back down again. And, eventually, that will lead to a real recovery — if Obama doesn't wreck the currency and bring on mega-inflation before then (but he probably will).

© 2009 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

California Supreme Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban

2009-05-27T00:25:40Z

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 1:25 PM

The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.

The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

The court said the people have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.

"In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.

The announcement of the decision set off an outcry among a sea of demonstrators who had gathered in front of the San Francisco courthouse awaiting the ruling. Holding signs and many waving rainbow flags, they chanted "shame on you." Many people also held hands in a chain around an intersection in an act of protest.

Gay rights activists immediately promised to resume their fight, saying they would go back to voters as early as next year in a bid to repeal Proposition 8.

The split decision provided some relief for the 18,000 gay couples who married in the brief time same-sex marriage was legal last year but that wasn't enough to dull the anger over the ruling that banned gay marriage.

"It's not about whether we get to stay married. Our fight is far from over," said Jeannie Rizzo, 62, who was one of the lead plaintiffs along with her wife, Polly Cooper. "I have about 20 years left on this earth, and I'm going to continue to fight for equality every day."

The state Supreme Court had ruled last May that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to wed. Many same-sex couples had rushed to get married before the November vote on Proposition 8, fearing it could be passed. When it was, gay rights activists went back to the court arguing that the ban was improperly put to voters.

That was the issue justices decided Tuesday.

"After comparing this initiative measure to the many other constitutional changes that have been reviewed and evaluated in numerous prior decisions of this court, we conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision," the ruling said.

© 2009 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

The Angel from California

2009-05-13T03:12:43Z

Rising Unemployment Rate Undermines Obama's Goal to Create 3.5M Jobs

2009-05-09T22:20:21Z

The unemployment rate of 8.9 percent already exceeds assumptions made by President Obama's economic advisers when they pushed for a $787 billion stimulus package that they said would be critical in reviving the slumping economy.

President Obama has vowed to create 3.5 million jobs by 2010. But the latest unemployment report shows Obama will have his work cut out for him.

The economy lost another 539,000 jobs in April, bumping the unemployment rate up to 8.9 percent, the highest in 26 years, according to the Labor Department report released Friday.

That figure already exceeds assumptions made by Obama's economic advisers when they pushed for a $787 billion stimulus package -- a measure that they said would be critical in reviving the slumping economy.

To reach his 3.5 million-jobs goal, Obama needs at least 138.6 million people employed by next year, leaving him with a job deficit of nearly 6.2 million jobs, according to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

J.D. Foster, a senior fellow in economics at the Heritage Foundation, who performed the analysis, argues Obama's policies will only widen the gap.

"Unfortunately, the president's policies will more likely decrease employment than help to reach his target," he wrote in his analysis.

"Policies like higher tax rates on small businesses, sustained massive budget deficits, doubling the national debt (and the consequent upward pressure on interest rates) and the building threats of government meddling in companies are eroding the foundations of the economy today and for the future," he said.

The White House did not respond to an e-mail seeking an interview for this story.

In pushing to get his stimulus package passed in Congress, Obama's economic team said that without the federal spending jolt, the unemployment rate would hit 8.8 percent by the last fiscal quarter of 2010. With the package, his advisers argued, the unemployment rate would only reach 7 percent.

The advisers acknowledged, though, that there estimates could be off the mark.

"There is the obvious uncertainty that comes from modeling a hypothetical package rather than the final legislation passed by the Congress," they wrote in a memo. "Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode."

Obama has claimed that his stimulus package has already saved or created more than 150,000 jobs. But the U.S. economy has lost more than 2 million jobs since he took office, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, seeming to undercut Obama's claim.

But it's hard to tell exactly where Obama's record stands -- or where he thinks it stands -- because the White House has not yet announced how it intends to count jobs created by the stimulus bill. Obama's number is based on a job-counting formula that his economists have developed but have not made public.

Whatever the formula, economists who study job creation say it will require some creative math. That's because Obama has lumped "jobs saved" in with "jobs created." Even economists for organizations that stand to benefit from the stimulus concede it probably is impossible to estimate saved jobs because that would require calculating a hypothetical: how many people would have lost their jobs without the stimulus.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Dobson Slams Obama's Prayer-Day Absence

2009-05-08T23:04:31Z

Thursday, May 7, 2009 7:59 PM

For the first time in nearly two decades, the White House has declined to participate in the congressionally authorized National Day of Prayer beyond issuing the standard proclamation.

That decision led evangelical leader James Dobson, founder of the Focus on the Family organization, to say he was "disappointed." Christian leaders also say they were not invited to visit the president in the White House, as has occasionally happened in the past.

Dobson and others viewed the absence of White House involvement as an indication the Obama administration sought to downplay the National Day of Prayer's significance.

"I would just like this country to remember its foundation, to remember its heritage and honor it, especially on the day set aside by George Washington in the beginning for prayer in this country," Dobson told The Washington Post. "And I would hope that that would have occurred."

Rep. J. Randy Forbes, R-Va., also criticized the administration's decision not to participate.

"The National Day of Prayer is important for people all across the country and I think the president missed a wonderful opportunity," Forbes told the Post. "Not only did he not have any ceremony himself, he did not send any representatives from the White House to this event."

The National Day of Prayer has been held on the first Thursday of each May since the Reagan administration to recognize the importance of prayer in American life. It was first authorized by Congress in 1952.

President Obama did however sign a proclamation recognizing the National Day of Prayer, as presidents before him have done for over half a century.

"I call upon Americans to pray in thanksgiving for our freedoms and blessings and to ask for God's continued guidance, grace, and protection for this land that we love," stated the proclamation Obama signed.

The Obama administration may find itself in a tight corner politically, given that it has joined a coalition led by Republicans and Christian advocacy groups to fight a lawsuit filed in October by the anti-religious Freedom From Religion Foundation organization.

That group wants the day of prayer banned altogether as an unconstitutional establishment of religion. In March, the Obama administration asked a district court to dismiss the case.

The tradition that atheist groups want to end dates back to 1775, when the Continental Congress issued a call for "prayer in forming a new nation."

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

------------------------------------
It's such a shame that Obama lied to the nation by trying to pass himself off as a Christian in order to get votes. This only confirms that Obama is definitely not a Christian.