Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Critics blast cooperative coverage of president's health plan


WND

MEDIA MATTERS



'ABC News is in danger of becoming a propaganda organ for Obama'


By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily



Suggestive overlay of ABC News logo over Obama campaign logo, posted on one critic's website

Critics are blasting ABC News for its plan to televise blanket coverage of Barack Obama's health care reform initiative, voicing concern that "the media and government [have] become one" and that the network is "virtually turning over news programming to the Obama government" for "a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda."


The media ethics furor stems from ABC News' announcement that next week the network will devote hours of news coverage to the president's plan, televise a primetime "town hall" discussion on the topic called "Questions for the President: Prescription for America" and anchor its nightly "World News" program from inside the White House.


Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay was doubly incensed that ABC News reportedly rejected a Republican request to be allowed a response.


"As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue," McKay wrote in a letter to ABC News President David Westin.


McKay's letter detailed that in addition to the primetime town hall special, ABC News has also announced its "Good Morning America," "World News," "Nightline" and web news "will all feature special programming on the president's health care agenda."


"I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda," McKay wrote. "The Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime."


Roger Hedgecock, chairman of the Radio America Free Speech Foundation, suggested ABC News is endangering true freedom of the press by "virtually turning over news programming that night to the Obama government."


"This 'special' will feature Obama government officials promoting the president's proposal for government health care. No opposing views are allowed on the program," Hedgecock wrote in a statement. "For ABC News to present only the Obama government side of this important issue would betray the public interest in a free press."


Further, Hedgecock declared, "ABC News is in danger of becoming a propaganda organ for the Obama government."

Conservative Principles of Health Care Reform: The Road Ahead

by the Honorable Michael B. Enzi

Heritage Lecture #1124

I want to thank the Heritage Foundation for hosting this event. The topic today is "Conservative Principles of Health Care Reform: The Road Ahead," but before I discuss the road that hopefully lies ahead, I would like to discuss the road we are on.


Today, our nation's health care system travels a dead-end road. When I introduced 10 steps to reform our health care system almost two years ago,[1] I noted that because of our health care crisis, literally every American stood a heartbeat away from devastation. The problem has only worsened.


The Problem


The state of our health care system poses the single greatest long-term domestic threat to America's stability, and responsibly reforming this system poses the single greatest challenge to our nation's policymakers in more than a generation. Two years ago, I said that we needed comprehensive health reform. And today, I say it again. I agree with President Obama, millions of Americans, and many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle: The time for reforming our health care system is now.


Our current rate of health care costs is simply unsustainable. Health insurance premiums for the average American family have nearly doubled since 2000. As a nation, our total spending on health care has more than doubled as a share of gross domestic product over the last 30 years. Health care economists agree that, absent reform, this trend will only accelerate over the coming decades.


Spiraling costs are also forcing more employers to cut back or drop the health insurance coverage they offer to their employees. The United States currently has the largest percent of its population uninsured of any industrialized nation. And as recent unemployment numbers show a rise to nearly 9 percent, we are sure to face a growing number of uninsured in the coming months.


We are headed down this unsustainable path because most of the incentives built in to the current system are designed to raise costs. Both in the area of health insurance and in medical services, we currently operate under a system that promotes inefficiency, encourages waste, and invites fraud.


If we stay the course and do nothing new with our nation's health care system, we threaten the American Dream. Our future entitlement obligations will grow, people will pay even more money, and they will receive less care. They will have to fill out more forms and wait longer to get the tests and see the doctors they need to see. There will be fewer doctors, nurses, and health care professionals to take care of an increasing number of patients.


We must reform our health care system, and the time to act is now.


So both sides of the aisle agree on the problem. Now, to some people that might not seem like much, but when you consider the other policy issues being discussed like card check, global climate change, and enhanced interrogation techniques, sometimes agreeing on the problem is a bipartisan accomplishment in and of itself. So now let's talk about solutions.


The Solutions


Let me be clear: I want to support a bipartisan health care reform bill. I also believe that it is possible to get broad bipartisan support behind such a bill. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, higher incomes, lower incomes&--it doesn't matter. We all worry about health care, and if we are committed to finding real solutions, then we will find some that we can agree on.


There never has been a bill with as many moving parts that affect as many people. To get a workable solution, it will require the effort of every member of the Senate. If we can't come up with a plan that can garner the support of at least 75 or 80 Senators, this institution will not have the confidence of the American people, and the plan will fail.


I am working hard with the chairmen and ranking members and other key members of the relevant committees to see what we can achieve. I believe that such a bill would have the following elements...

Why Obama wants to hide birth certificate


between the lines Joseph Farah


© 2009

Since I began my quixotic campaign to uncover Barack Obama's birth certificate, many have asked me about the president's possible motives for hiding it with such tenacity and diligence.


I think there are many plausible motives:

  • Perhaps something in that birth certificate, if it indeed exists, would contradict assertions Obama has made about his life's story. These might even involve his true parental heritage. Without a real birth certificate, no one really knows who his parents were. So it is ridiculous even to speculate about whether citizenship could be conferred upon him by his mother, when we don't know for sure who his mother is.

  • Perhaps it reveals a foreign birth, as Hawaii allowed for in 1961 while still issuing the "certification of live birth" we have seen posted on his website.

  • Or perhaps it will show just what Obama has claimed all along – a birth in Hawaii to two officially non-citizen parents, for the purpose of establishing "natural born citizenship" under the Constitution.

What do I mean by that last possibility?


Well, as you know, in 2008, the Senate of the United States held hearings to determine if one of the presidential candidates fulfilled the requirement of being a "natural born citizen." It wasn't Barack Obama. It was John McCain, who was born on a U.S. military base overseas to two U.S. citizens.


Start your own eligibility billboard campaign in your neighborhood with WND's new yard signs, asking: "Where's the Birth Certificate?"


On April 10 of last year, two senators, both Democrats, Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, introduced a resolution into upper house expressing a sense of the Senate that McCain was indeed a "natural born citizen."


It's interesting what Leahy had to say on the subject: "Because he was born to American citizens (emphasis added), there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the U.S. Senate."


And, indeed it was. It was also, interestingly, the only such hearing held by the Congress on the subject of "natural born citizenship" and its application to the 2008 presidential race. Why was that interesting? Because everyone involved in this process knew – or should have known – that the life story told by Barack Obama would raise far more doubts about his eligibility than McCain's.


Notice Leahy did not say one parent citizen would qualify a child for "natural born citizenship." He indicted it would take two to tango.


He did so again at a Judiciary Committee hearing April 3, when he asked then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, a former federal judge, if he had any doubts about McCain's eligibility to serve as president.


"My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen," Chertoff responded – again underlining the fact that both parents would need to be citizens.


And what did Leahy say to that? "That is mine, too."


By the way, Obama voted for this resolution, so he obviously agrees with the definition of what constitutes a "natural born citizen" – the offspring of two U.S. citizens.

Are you freer today than you were before Obama?

WND Exclusive
WND FREEDOM INDEX POLL

Survey shows grave concerns by Americans about Big Brother



© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Editor's note: This is the first of a series of monthly "Freedom Index" polls conducted exclusively for WND by the public opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.


WASHINGTON – Nearly half of all adults in America believe there has been a decrease in personal freedom under the Obama administration, which signals a significant degree of alarm across a wide swath of the population, the WND "Freedom Index" Poll finds.


Significant percentages of Americans see their personal freedom diminishing under President Obama and even fear speaking their minds, expressing their political and religious views and freely associating with others because of potential retribution by government, the scientific survey conducted by Wenzel Strategies found.


The poll was conducted June 6–10 using an automated telephone technology

calling a random sampling of listed telephone numbers nationwide. It included 22 questions and carries a 95 percent confidence interval. The survey included 790 adult respondents. It carries a margin of error of +/– 3.5 percentage points.

Probe launched in suspicious firing of inspector general


WND
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL

Senator blasts Obama administration:
'Intimidation or retaliation cannot be tolerated'



By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily



Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa

In the wake of the White House's highly controversial firing of an independent inspector general, one U.S. senator is demanding answers and justification, requesting records that extend even to the Office of the First Lady.


As WND reported, President Obama fired Gerald Walpin, the inspector general in charge of rooting out corruption in the AmeriCorps program, shortly after Walpin called for action against a prominent Obama supporter, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who had misappropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal grants.


Walpin told WND he didn't think the timing of his firing was a coincidence, and indeed, he said, "I was fired for doing my job."


Radio host Rush Limbaugh accused the administration of breaking the law by firing Walpin, attributing it to "political cronyism" and declaring, "Alberto Gonzales as attorney general fired a couple of U.S. attorneys. He took hell for it. This is bigger. Inspectors general are supposed to be completely above politics."


Today, according to a report in the Washington Examiner, U.S. Senator Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has demanded both an explanation from the administration and evidence of its dealings with Walpin.


"I am very concerned about the appearance that the I.G.'s communication with my office about this matter may have contributed to his removal," wrote Grassley, referring to reports Walpin had filed with Congress over Johnson's case. "Inspectors general have a statutory duty to report to Congress. Intimidation or retaliation against those who freely communicate their concerns to members of the House and Senate cannot be tolerated."