Back To Basics For Obama On Obamacare

He will be trying what got him elected.

Hey folks,

What got Obama elected? "Hope and Change." His ability to give a GREAT speech and say nothing at the same time. His ability to rev up a crowd and energize people into believing that he is standing up for them. His ability to make people believe in the "Dream."

During the Election, Obama showed us just how good he is at showmanship. He could and still can, get the masses to believe that he is sincere and that he cares about what he is saying. He makes people FEEL like they are part of the solution and that they are important to him.

The problem though, as is WELL documented, you need a playbook to keep up with what he says Why? Because it changes on a daily bases. It all depends on who he is talking to at the time. Just ask the Gay community. Just ask the anti-War crowd. Just ask the independents that took the chance and Voted for the guy. A growing number of people on all sides of the Political Spectrum are starting to doubt, not only if he was sincere, but if he can deliver on all the things he said. Some are even starting to see him for what he truly is.

But those that are pushing Obamacare, are HOPING that there is still a little magic left in the old Obama Speech giving ability. This time, to trick enough people into accepting Obamacare. To get enough people to believe that it is something that it is not.

According to the AP - Obama may get more specific about health overhaul By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer Charles Babington, Associated Press Writer – 47 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama has talked a lot about health care lately, but some allies say he has been too vague. Now he's thinking of throwing more details and personal weight into the debate, which polls indicate Republicans have been winning in recent weeks.

Faced with falling approval ratings and increasingly impatient with Senate negotiations, Obama is considering a speech in the next week or so in which he would be "more prescriptive" about what he feels Congress must include in a health bill, top adviser David Axelrod said Tuesday in an interview.

The speech might occur before the Sept. 15 deadline the White House gave Senate negotiators to seek a bipartisan bill, Axelrod said. He suggested that two key Republicans have not bargained in good faith.

Translation, those that they THOUGHT were bought off, are now starting to waver.

Congress reconvenes next Tuesday after an August recess in which critics of Obama's health proposals dominated many public forums.

Some Obama allies feel he gave too much leeway to Congress, where one bill has passed three House committees, another has passed a Senate committee and a third has been bogged down in protracted negotiations in the Senate Finance Committee.

Axelrod indicated that Obama would not offer new proposals but would be more specific about his top priorities.

"The ideas are all there on the table," Axelrod said. "Now we are in a new phase, and it's time to pull the strands of these together."

Translation again "We need to start to change the language to attempt to get you people out there to believe that it is NOT what it is. We will call it something else, and call certain provisions something else, to attempt to trick you into believing that it is NOT what those that read these things told you it is."

He said there is serious discussion in the White House of Obama "giving a speech that lays out in specific ways what he thinks" about the essential elements of a health care bill.

In other words, hope he can rev up the crowds and get them to accept it just because Obama delivers a great speech. Look for a personal story or two, Bush blaming, and him to attempt to make YOU feel important. You can be part of history, ETC.

Axelrod said it was possible that the speech could occur before a planned Sept. 15 Obama address on health care in Pittsburgh.

Obama has called for innovations such as a public health insurance plan to compete with private insurers, but he has not insisted on it. It was not clear Tuesday the degree to which he might press for various proposals in a new speech.

Obama also plans to meet with Democratic congressional leaders when lawmakers reconvene next week.

Axelrod condemned recent comments by two chief Senate Republican negotiators — Charles Grassley of Iowa and Mike Enzi of Wyoming — who have sharply criticized key elements of Democrats' health care plans even as they insisted that a workable bipartisan plan was possible.

Their remarks, Axelrod said, "were not exactly consistent with good-faith negotiations."

{Laughing} Because they told you the TRUTH. Remember, I told you about them. Proponent For Obamacare Now Opponent What they are upset about is this.

Delivering the Republicans' weekly radio and Internet address, Enzi said any health care legislation must lower medical costs for Americans without increasing deficits and the national debt.

"The bills introduced by congressional Democrats fail to meet these standards," he said.

He also said this.

"I heard a lot of frustration and anger as I traveled across my home state this last few weeks," said Enzi, who has been targeted by critics for seeking to negotiate on legislation. "People in Wyoming and across the country are anxious about what Washington has in mind. This is big. This is personal. This is one of the most important debates of our lifetime."

But that is not suppose to happen. The PEOPLE are suppose to just lay down and accept whatever Obama and Crew want to do. Back to the AP

In an August fundraising letter, Grassley asked people for "support in helping me defeat Obama-care." He said Democratic-drafted bills would be "a pathway to a government takeover of the health care system."

REALLY? Good.

Enzi, in a radio address Saturday, said Democratic proposals would restrict medical choices and make the country's "finances sicker without saving you money."

The two men are part of a six-senator, bipartisan negotiating team that also includes GOP Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. Hopes for a workable bipartisan plan have dimmed in recent weeks, and Axelrod's comments were the most dismissive yet from a White House official.

Dismissive, arrogant, whatever. Normal Liberal playbook.

Congress' August recess was brutal for Obama and his allies, as lawmakers faced raucous crowds denouncing Democrats' health proposals. When Congress comes back Tuesday, Democratic leaders hope to change the dynamic by holding quiet, closed-door sessions with nervous colleagues and arguing that far-reaching health care changes can be good politics as well as good policy.

{Laughing} Closed door, back room, deal cutting, meetings. "You will do this or else. Forget the people. WE can give you this or that. WE are in control, and YOU will know your role and Vote for this."

They also hope GOP-led opposition has peaked. But that's far from clear, and Republicans are eager to hand Obama his first major defeat.

IT'S NOT REPUBLICANS! I grow so tired of saying this. It is CLEAR, that MOST Americans, regardless of age, Race, Creed, or Political Affiliation, are AGAINST this. People from ALL walks of life are showing up for the Townhalls. Sorry guys, you can not demonize the Republicans on this one. NOBODY wants this. Well, accept for some brainwashed Sheeple and the Kooks.

A new CNN/Opinion Research poll found that 53 percent of Americans disapproved of Obama's handling of health care, while 44 percent approved. In March, far more people had approved than disapproved.

Liberal groups have held hundreds of events in a bid to show that a robust overhaul is more popular than August's news reports would suggest.

Staging shows will NOT change the FACTS.

The message lawmakers will hear when they return to Washington "will be very different than what they heard when August started," said Jacki Schechner of Health Care for America Now. One idea her group will stress, she said, is that the politically smart vote, even in toss-up districts, will support widespread changes meant to expand health insurance coverage and options.

Nervous Democratic lawmakers need to be told, "You got elected to do something," she said. "And you might get re-elected if you actually do something."

With Obamacare, YOU WON'T GET RE-ELECTED. They KNOW this. That is their problem.

Republicans approach Labor Day feeling upbeat about the ground they gained during the August recess. Some are confident that no amount of closed-door hand-holding of nervous Democratic lawmakers will reverse the momentum.

"After a disastrous month at home, the fact that Democrats' new health care strategy is to hide in Washington from the people who elected them to get health care passed shows what bad shape they're in," said Antonia Ferrier, spokeswoman for House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio.

ABSOLUTELY Right! Well said as well. Folks, do not let up. The LWL {Left Wing Loons} can threaten, promise, or SAY whatever they want to those on the Fence for Voting for Obamacare. However, it is STILL YOU that has the final say next Election on who stays and who goes.

Truthfully, I would not be all that surprised if they actually find a way to postpone this until AFTER the 2010 election to see what happens. If they do, and they stay in power, then this will all but be guaranteed to pass no matter what the feelings on the matter are at that time. We must stop this for good. We must KILL Obamacare, before Obamacare can start killing us. Literally.
Peter

Sources:
AP - Obama may get more specific about health overhaul
OPNTalk - Proponent For Obamacare Now Opponent

Government To Take Control Of the Internet?

Of course they say it is NOT what it is.

Hey folks,

Happy Monday to you. Yup. It's Monday, and I'm HERE! The Second one in a row. Last week I was talking about Back to School. This week, I'm only here for a specific reason. Our friend Irish Godfather sent this in to me at 10 pm last night. I'll be honest, I have been so focused on Obamacare and Cap and Tax, that this one ALMOST slipped right past me.

Now you all know that the Government is trying to do whatever they can to shut down Talk Radio. They are tired of YOU being educated on the realities of what they are doing. They do NOT want an educated Voting Citizenry. They miss those good old days of Back Room deals that are debated AFTER they accomplish what they want to do. Now, thanks to the New Media, you are learning about these things BEFORE they can get anything done, and YOU are stopping them.

Well, I and others, have also been warning you that it is not just Talk Radio that they have a problem with. It's also the Internet. Bloggers and others in the New Media, are working side by side with Talk Radio to do the same thing. So why would they NOT what to silence those opposing them Online as well. Well, they do want to. But how would they go about that? Here is one possibility. This is from Cnet News - Bill would give president emergency control of Internet by Declan McCullagh

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.

The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.

Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.

The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."

Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."

Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:

"The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response."

Unfortunately, I'm still waiting for an on-the-record answer to these four questions that I asked her colleague on Wednesday. I'll let you know if and when I get a response.

Of course they are going to say "To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false." Just like they are telling you what is in Obamacare, in black and white, is not there. Told you Olympia Snowe has to go. She is nothing but a RINO. A tool that the Left use to claim bipartisanship.

This is another "Back Room" move that we need to keep a VERY close eye on. This is also a reminder to all those that have said in the past, "Well, the 'Fairness Doctrine' will not effect me." If you use the Internet, They want control of this as well, it WILL effect you. Just like so many other things, they will simply call it something else. Needless to say, I'll be following THIS closely as well.
Peter

Sources:
Cnet News - Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

Back Room Open Again, Door Shut

Hey folks,

Happy Friday to you. OK, I’ll admit it. This was on the top of my little pile yesterday. Well, not THIS article, but pretty much one just like it. It was going to be the Daily Article yesterday. But then I thought to myself, "Who cares? This is going to be the same as the last one. We beat that one, we will prevail again." But then I saw this. From the AP-Senators vow to revive immigration bill By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

Senate leaders vowed Thursday night to revive stalled immigration legislation as soon as next week, capping a furious rescue attempt led by President Bush.

The decision, announced by Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and his Republican counterpart, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, envisions a final vote on the complex bill before lawmakers begin their Fourth of July vacation.

This bill was defeated by YOU. As a matter of fact, according the a Rassmusen poll this past Wednesday,

Just 20% of American voters want Congress to try and pass the immigration reform bill that failed in the Senate last week. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 51% would like their legislators to "take smaller steps towards reform" while 16% believe they should wait until next year. The survey was conducted on Monday and Tuesday night as the President was publicly attempting to rally support for the legislation.

According to this poll most Americans agree with me and what I have been saying from the start. Secure the boarder first. Pass a legislation that does that solely. There would be no outcry of injustice. The American people would accept it.

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters would favor an approach that focuses exclusively on "exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration." Support for the enforcement only approach comes from 84% of Republicans, 55% of Democrats, and 69% of those not affiliated with either major party.

Back to the AP

The legislation has generated intense controversy, particularly for provisions envisioning eventual citizenship for many of the estimated 12 million immigrants now in the country unlawfully. The bill also calls for greater border security and a crackdown on the hiring of illegal employees.

Critics of the measure succeeded in sidetracking it last week, and given their continued opposition, the decision to bring it back for additional debate does not necessarily portend passage.

WE stopped it once, we will do EVERYTHING we can to kill it off totally this time. Yes, most are opposed to it because it IS Amnesty. This is a bunch of bunk "The legislation has generated intense controversy, particularly for provisions envisioning eventual citizenship for many of the estimated 12 million immigrants now in the country unlawfully." As SOON as the President signs the bill they are legal. Forget the citizenship bunk. That is only if they WANT citizenship. If not, who cares? They are legal. There is no penalty, fines, or anything else. They are legal.

Reid and McConnell announced their plans in a brief, two sentence statement that capped days of private negotiations by key senators as well as Bush's personal involvement.

"We met this evening with several of the senators involved in the immigration bill negotiations," they said. Based on that discussion, the immigration bill will return to the Senate floor after completion" of an unrelated energy measure now undergoing debate.

There was no immediate reaction from the White House.

I’m surprised. The President is so gun hoe about this. Make NO mistake about it. This IS President Bush’s fault. This IS what he wants. It was dead. Now it is alive again in the back room, shaded from your eyes.

"We're going to show the American people that the promises in this bill will be kept," Bush said, two days after launching a personal rescue mission.

That is what most Americans are angry about Mr. President. We do NOT want the promises of amnesty kept.

Any agreement was ultimately subject to approval by Reid, who has said repeatedly it was up to Bush and Republicans to line up the votes needed to advance the measure if it was to be brought back to the Senate for debate. Reid, who has expressed misgivings about elements of the bill, sidetracked it last week after supporters gained only 45 of the 60 votes needed.

In other words, pressure, bribe, or just try to intimidate opponents to vote for it. As for what you think? Bringing back this bill?

Republicans accounted for only seven of the 45 votes, and Reid said earlier this week, "We'll move on to immigration when they have their own act together."

Bush's decision to personally announce support for the accelerated funding reflected concerns expressed by Republican senators at a closed-door meeting on Tuesday. Several told him their constituents doubted the government was capable of following through on a commitment to enforce immigration laws.

In a letter sent to Bush before the meeting, Georgia Republican Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson wrote, "This lack of trust is rooted in the mistakes made in 1986, and the continued chaos surrounding our immigration laws. Understandably, the lack of credibility the federal government has on this issue gives merit to the skepticism of many about future immigration reform."

That is just ONE problem. That is a BIG one, but that is just one.

Under the legislation as drafted, money for border enforcement would be collected gradually as illegal immigrants pay the fines and fees needed to achieve legal status. The letter asked Bush to secure the border before other elements of the immigration measure go into effect, and the president agreed in his remarks to the Associated Builders and Contractors.

{Laughing} THEY ARE NOT GOING TO PAY!

"One common concern is whether the government will provide the resources to meet the goals in the bill. They say, `It's fine to talk about it, are you actually going to do something?'" he said.

"To answer these concerns I support an amendment that will provide $4.4 billion in immediate additional funding for securing our borders and enforcing our laws at the work site," he said.

"By matching our benchmarks with these critical funds, we're going to show the American people that the promises in this bill will be kept."

OK, first, we HAVE the money. It’s THERE already. Build the fence or pass a bill to do JUST that, then we will talk about what to do with those here. Wait, I have a Senator that actually agrees with me? With us?

But Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who opposes the legislation, took a different view. "I appreciate the effort to fund border security, but there's simply no reason why we should be forced to tie amnesty to it. If the administration was serious about fulfilling the border security promises, then this funding should have been supported all along, not offered at the last minute to attract votes to a bad bill."

Way to go Jim. Pass a bill to secure the boarder. Then actually SECURE the boarder. After that, there can be no question that we believe or disbelieve you will do it. It would be done. Then the American people can be more open to talking about those here.

The problem is, we have heard all this before, we went from 3 million to now 12 to 20 million. We do not want to go from 12 to 20 million to 50 million. Prove you will and can secure the boarder. Then we will talk.

Doug and I had a debate on this issue in the comment section a little while back. Here is a solution to this whole mess that the 69 percent that are opposed to this, may be able to live with.

1- Secure the boarder first. Both physical and high tech fences.

2- Smart cards. An ID card that uses DNA, so that they cannot be faked.

3- Give them a chance to become registered. If they fail to do so, when we catch them, they are gone.

4- Commit a crime after you arrived here? You are GONE.

5- Evaluate all new REGISTERED immigrate case by case. If there is health issues, or criminal histories. Gone.

6= HUGH fines for business owners for hiring those without the ID. Possible Jail time for the Executives.

It doesn’t have to be hundreds or pages of dribble that noone understands. Where things hide really well in. Simple, to the point, and solves the problem. But I have a feeling this will be another amnesty bill. Don’t wait. Start calling and writing again NOW. Let them know, if you vote for this back room bill that grants amnesty, you are out. You will NEVER receive my vote again.
Peter

Source;

AP-Senators vow to revive immigration bill

Rasmussen -Poll: Voters Want Smaller Steps to Immigration Reform With Focus on Enforcement

OPN -Analysis and Comments On The Open Letter by Sen Mel Martinez