Kiss the Guitar Player

Gustav Klimt: Tree of Life

Gustav Klimt (July 14, 1862February 6, 1918) was an Austrian Symbolist painter and one of the most prominent members of the Vienna Art Nouveau (Vienna Secession) movement. His major works include paintings, murals, sketches and other art objects, many of which are on display in the Vienna Secession gallery. Klimt’s primary subject is the female body, and his works are marked by a frank eroticism. His pencil drawings, which are very numerous, have been regarded by many as his greatest legacy.

Klimt took annual summer holidays on the shores of Attersee and painted some of the landscapes he saw there.

At Litzlberg, there is a small island château, which Gustav Klimt frequently visited during the summer.

Schloss Kammer am Attersee. Gustav Klimt, 1910.


Due to its steady winds and clean water quality, Attersee is famous for attracting sailors and swimmers alike. During the season numerous sailing competitions are held.

One of the most cherished winds on Attersee is the so-called “Rosenwind” meaning “breeze of roses”. It is an easterly wind that crosses a castle’s rose garden and fills the air across the lake with the smell of roses.

The best time to visit Attersee is during spring, summer and autumn.

Because of the lake’s size and despite the cold temperatures during winter the lake rarely freezes. The last time the lake was entirely covered with ice was in the late 1940s, when people were seen skating and riding motorcycles across the thickly frozen surface of the lake.



BTW if you click on green arrow, will link to page for that song.


Uploaded by on Feb 24, 2010

Klimt string quartet kiss the quitarplayer



96 Responses to “Kiss the Guitar Player”

  1. blessedistruth Says:

    I’ll add to this later.

    I’m still trying to figure out and I’m very tired, so it’s slow going.

    But music is cool!

  2. blessedistruth Says:

  3. blessedistruth Says:

    More Like This:

  4. sisterrosetta Says:

    US intelligence officials contacted by The Long War Journal said there is no indication that Hakeemullah was killed either during or after the Jan. 14 airstrike. “We’ve seen no evidence he was killed, nor do we hear chatter of a leadership crisis in the Taliban ranks,” a senior official said. The Pakistani military, which has reported Hakeemullah killed multiple times in the past, is hesitant to confirm the current report of Hakeemullah’s death. “I don’t have the confirmation, my sources have not confirmed it, whether he is dead or alive,” Major General Athar Abbas, the military’s top spokesman told reporters.

  5. sisterrosetta Says:

    The philosophical direction Mr. Brown intends to take remains to be seen, but even his fellow Republicans said he could not compile a heavily conservative voting record and expect to be re-elected in Massachusetts in 2012 when his partial term ends.Ms. Snowe, typically a favorite target of Democrats as they try to build a 60-vote bloc to break filibusters, said that Republicans representing Democratic states – or vice versa – tend to push the debate toward the middle to appease their diverse political constituencies.”Having those countervailing voices really creates the inclination and propensity for drafting centrist-based positions,” Ms. Snowe said.Even talking about a comeback is enough to energize Northeastern Republicans, who hope they have survived the worst and can now rebuild.

    Cannot get snowe and Collins on board?

    Perhaps repubs should call dems party of no

  6. blessedistruth Says:

    The Steady Erosion of Women’s Rights in Egypt: A Photographic Story

    These photos, sent by my good friend Tareq Heggy, speak volumes about the politicization of the Islamic Veil. In the 1950s, Cairo University graduates were not veiled. By the twenty first century, the veiling of educated women was fully underway.

  7. blessedistruth Says:

    Sen. Tom Carper, a centrist Democrat from Delaware who played an active role in Senate healthcare talks, said he would reach out to House Democratic centrists to persuade them to vote for the Senate-passed bill along with a sidecar.

    “We’ve had some conversations with some of them already,” he said.

    Senate sources said that Democratic leaders would wait for political consternation caused by the Massachusetts special election to settle down before making a renewed push.

    During the State of the Union address, Obama urged lawmakers to give the proposal a second look.

    “As temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we’ve proposed,” he said.

    Democrats have essentially given up on the prospect of persuading just one Senate Republican to vote for the pending legislation.

    “I think it’s a bridge too far,” said Carper, a member of the Finance Committee who spent months trying to win Republican support for a broad reform bill.

  8. blessedistruth Says:

    The Dems are The Party of No — It’s my way or the highway!

    “he would reach out to House Democratic centrists to persuade them to vote for the Senate-passed bill along with a sidecar”

    I think the plan is to pass the reconciliation sidecar first, which would require only 50 votes.

    Does Pelosi really believe she can get the ball rolling in the House?

    Since reconciliation instructions were a part of FY 2010 budget, Dems have a limited window to push this through.

    Hopefully, Blue Dogs won’t go along with this.

  9. blessedistruth Says:

    Beautiful images, but I think you have to save to desktop to view.


  10. blessedistruth Says:

    Actually I think you can open or save.

    Really worthwhile.

  11. sisterrosetta Says:

  12. sisterrosetta Says:

  13. sisterrosetta Says:

    By regenerating “closed timelike curves” (bending spacetime so time loops back on itself) we’re finding it “just as easy to move backwards in time as well as forward,” Anderson explained.Currently countries such as Japan, China, and especially India have been experimenting with time technologies, Anderson reported. Through a device called the Temporal Tremor Detector (TTD), his team is able to track such experiments by observing disruptions in the spacetime fabric, he said. As time technology becomes further developed, moral and ethical issues are arising, he pointed out. Benefits of the technology include accurate historical studies of the past, but on the negative side, we could experience “Time Wars,” with deliberate destruction of parts of the timeline. Anderson advocated for more transparency and disclosure of the technology, so the public can have input on how it’s used. Website(s):

  14. sisterrosetta Says:

  15. blessedistruth Says:

    Video from foxnews article above. Bill asked if I’d seen it. I hadn’t. He said footage very similar to what we both saw while houseboating up on Lake Powell.

  16. blessedistruth Says:

    Joining Art Bell for the entire 4-hour program, physicist Dr. David Anderson discussed the state of time technology from his research, as well as other labs around the world.

  17. blessedistruth Says:

    More Like This:

  18. blessedistruth Says:

    Gregg: Obama’s ‘Drunken Sailor’ Budget [Robert Costa]

    “Yes, there are a few fiscally-responsible ideas being proposed, but they’re not enough.

    For example, with the spending freeze, I say go for it, but we should be doing a hard freeze starting this year.

    And when it comes to spending cuts, we should be aiming at the programs and entitlements that spend the most money — the big-dollar numbers.”

    What would Gregg like to see instead?

    “First, repeal TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), since the administration is using it as a piggybank, and put that money toward debt reduction.

    Second, rescind stimulus spending after 2010.

    Third, stop trying to reduce Medicare spending in order to create major new health-care entitlements.”

    Gregg would also like to see “broad-based tax cuts to create economic activity, and talk from the president about discipline on his tax-credit proposal.”

    “All in all, this budget is an unnecessary and dramatic increase in the size of government that will add innumerable new programs,” he says.

    “We need to be a solvent country that can pay back its debt and this is not a start.

    We will be offering amendments in the Senate, and I hope to get some bipartisan support to discipline our fiscal health.

    I think there will be some responsible votes on the other side of the aisle who will agree.”

  19. blessedistruth Says:

    Senator Gregg did his best to prevent passage of Obama’s FY 2010 budget, which included the reconciliation instructions for health care.

    We didn’t listen to him then, hopefully we’ll listen as the FY 2011 budget is being deliberated.

  20. blessedistruth Says:

    The Slow Death March Of Health Care Reform

    By: David Dayen Monday February 1, 2010 9:45 am

    What are the options?

    There’s the reconciliation sidecar, which ConservaDems worry would look like “changing the rules” for how bills get passed, which says more about poor Democratic messaging skills than the rules themselves.

    Using reconciliation is a perfectly legitimate approach to solve budgetary differences between the chambers, and the instructions on such a strategy were offered in the House and the Senate months ago.

    Now, the ConservaDems are getting cold feet – but since any reconciliation bill would only need 50 votes, the real tragedy is that anyone in leadership is listening to them.

    (ConservaDems are getting cold feet? Let’s hope so.)

    The second idea proffered by Cooper sounds far, far worse:

    However, moderates tossed around the idea of striking an agreement with the House to make the fixes in future legislation, Cooper said.

    Attaching fixes to future must-pass bills is an idea that has been floating around Democratic circles.

    (This what Dick Morris alluded to.)

    Asking the House to pass the Senate bill raises concerns from progressives, moderates and good-government Democrats, Cooper said.

    That. and it cannot be done.

    Nobody trusts the Senate to hold to their word to make later changes.

    And the Stupak Dems won’t pass the Nelson compromise.

    It’s not going to happen.

    So, barring some leadership, health care reform will indeed fade away, despite having passed both houses of Congress.

    The ramifications of the signature Democratic strategy just withering, as we head into the 2010 midterms?

    I think that’s clear.

    (Pessimistic conclusion from a lefty)

    (I’ve long maintained that the HCR put forth by Obama — Reid — Pelosi was more about a power grab than anything else. If the Dems truly cared about helping the truly needy, they’d compromise with moderates and get something done. Instead it would appear they’re going to grab their ball and go home.)

    (It would appear Reid and Pelosi cannot muster the votes. I’m adopting a wait-and-see attitude.)

  21. blessedistruth Says:

    JACKIE JUDD: Mary Agnes, since the President’s State of the Union address last week, he clearly shifted the focus away from health care reform towards jobs and the economy, but in the background what’s been going on?

    What kind of discussions have been taking place among Democratic leaders and Republicans also about the future of this?

    MARY AGNES CAREY: Right. I think the President and Democrats remain committed to health care reform.

    They know they need to move to jobs and they need to move the economy.

    That’s why the President focused so much of his State of the Union the first half hour or so on economy, on jobs, before he moved to health care, but negotiations are continuing on health care reform.

    In the Senate and the House, Democratic leaders are trying to look at this strategy still of having the House pass the Senate Health Care Bill with a reconciliation package, but it is very difficult.

    They are trying to understand what can go in reconciliation and what cannot and

    there are some Senate moderates, Blanche Lincoln, Evan Bayh who are saying, they are Democrats, who might be a little nervous about this reconciliation approach.

  22. blessedistruth Says:

    February 1, 2010

  23. sisterrosetta Says:

    Senatus blog tweets that Sens. Lindsey Grahamn (R., S.C.), Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.), Joe Lieberman (I., Conn.), Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark.) and John McCain (R., Ariz) will introduce a bill tomorrow that cuts funds for federal trials of 9/11 conspirators.

  24. sisterrosetta Says:

    Unless this time is different – which so far has not been the case – yesterday’s financial crisis could easily morph into tomorrow’s government debt crisis.In previous cycles, international banking crises have often led to a wave of sovereign defaults a few years later. The dynamic is hardly surprising, since public debt soars after a financial crisis, rising by an average of over 80 per cent within three years. Public debt burdens soar owing to bail-outs, fiscal stimulus and the collapse in tax revenues. Not every banking crisis ends in default, but whenever there is a huge international wave of crises as we have just seen, some governments choose this route.We do not anticipate outright defaults in the largest crisis-hit countries, certainly nothing like the dramatic de facto defaults of the 1930s when the US and Britain abandoned the gold standard. Monetary institutions are more stable (assuming the US Congress leaves them that way). Fundamentally, the size of the shock is less. But debt burdens are racing to thresholds of (roughly) 90 per cent of gross domestic product and above. That level has historically been associated with notably lower growth.While the exact mechanism is not certain, we presume that at some point, interest rate premia react to unchecked deficits, forcing governments to tighten fiscal policy. Higher taxes have an especially deleterious effect on growth. We suspect that growth also slows as governments turn to financial repression to place debts at sub-market interest rates.

  25. sisterrosetta Says:

    Link for above article

  26. sisterrosetta Says:

    Bipartisan hcr

    Good article

  27. sisterrosetta Says:

    And he believes that Republicans and Democrats share common goals. “I don’t believe this debate is about whether or not we should take care of everybody in American who can’t afford health insurance,” he said in an interview on Sunday. “Republicans and Democrats agree we have to give everybody in America basic coverage.” He added: “There is agreement on both sides that we have to figure out how to get a system in place that covers all Americans. And there’s a debate about how to do it.” Mr. Shadegg, for instance, is a strong supporter of allowing health insurers to sell policies across state lines and has introduced a bill to that end (PDF).  The Democrats’ legislation also seeks to permit the sale of insurance across state lines, but Mr. Shadegg believes there are substantial flaws in the Democrats’ proposal because it would require too much federal regulation. The Senate bill also would require state legislatures to pass a law to allow policies to be sold across state lines, a step that Mr. Shadegg said is redundant and unnecessary. Mr. Shadegg said his own proposal would set federal requirements for solvency of insurance plans and would allow beneficiaries to appeal denials of claims. Democrats say stronger regulation is required to prevent insurance companies from writing policies in the states with the thinnest requirements for basic health coverage and the weakest consumer protections, and then turning around and selling them everywhere, giving beneficiaries the least coverage for their money.           Mr. Obama, in a question-and-answer session with House Republicans last week, used this issue as an example of how he and other Democrats have considered many Republican ideas but disagree about how best to implement them. Mr. Shadegg quickly put out a statement insisting that the president “got his facts wrong.” Still, it is difficult to see why a deal could not be reached on this point.

    One of several good suggestions from above article

  28. sisterrosetta Says:

    Mr. Shadegg has also proposed expanding state high-risk insurance pools as a way of helping cover people who are otherwise denied benefits. The Democrats’ legislation includes money for a temporary expansion of the pools until new rules kick in that would bar insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Mr. Shadegg said that on this point, too, the Democrats were going about things all wrong. But he also noted that Republicans agree that no one should be denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions. That’s a much bigger agreement than the comparatively minor disagreement over how to expand high-risk pools.

  29. sisterrosetta Says:

    Still, there are Republicans outside of the leadership who are serious about improving the American health care system and mitigating the severe risks that rising health care costs pose to the nation’s economic security and stability. Some, like Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, are also retiring and may have more flexibility to negotiate with Democrats. Others, like Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, have been inhibited by the need to run for re-election. Some are physicians, like Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Representative Tom Price of Georgia. And many tend to be experts on the nation’s finances, like Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee. In private conversations, with reporters or with colleagues, all of these lawmakers acknowledge that their efforts to work on health care have been hampered by Republican leaders in both chambers of Congress who are focused on the political ground game.

    Yes exactly right!

    To be fair dems are hampered too by reid and pelosi

  30. sisterrosetta Says:

    So a banker with a health policy worth $40,000 a year gets $40,000 in tax-free income, while someone who is self-employed gets no such break. (When Mr. McCain proposed eliminating the tax exemption for health benefits, his campaign estimated that it would raise $3.6 trillion over 10 years, which he would have used to provide tax credits to defray the cost of health insurance for all Americans. That $3.6 trillion is more than three times the 10-year cost of the Democrats’ legislation.) The excise tax that Senate Democrats proposed on high-cost, employer-sponsored health insurance policies is a step toward limiting the tax exemption.

  31. blessedistruth Says:

    A number of Republicans have put forward legislation that would end the tax exemption altogether.

    So has Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, who proposed a bill (PDF) together with Senator Bob Bennett, Republican of Utah.

    Mr. Wyden, who believes that health care legislation should do still more to increase choices for people who get insurance through their employers, has long been one of the leading optimists on Capitol Hill when it comes to the question of Democrats and Republicans cooperating on health care.

    Many Republicans have criticized a deal reached between the White House and labor groups to blunt the impact of the excise tax on generous union-sponsored insurance policies.

    But that criticism might be tempered if the legislation called for eventually phasing out the tax exemption for employer-provided health benefits.

    Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin has proposed legislation that would replace the tax exemption for employer-provided health benefits with a tax credit (PDF) to offset the cost of health insurance for all Americans.

    Mr. Coburn has introduced a similar bill in the Senate.

    Democrats will surely argue that the tax credit proposed by Mr. Ryan, slightly more than $5,700 per family, is nowhere near sufficient to cover the cost of even a bare-bones health insurance plan.

    The average cost of a family health plan is now about $13,000 annually.

    But the underlying concept of his proposal — tax credits to help people purchase private coverage — is similar enough to the subsidies that Democrats have proposed in their legislation to provide an opening for negotiation.

  32. blessedistruth Says:

    Individual Mandate

    Many Republicans abhor a provision in the Democrats’ legislation that requires virtually every American to obtain insurance or pay financial penalties for failing to do so — a so-called individual mandate.

    Some Republicans, instead, have proposed

    a system of automatic enrollment

    by which

    any uninsured American seeking medical care would be entered into a computer system and, provided they qualify, signed up for a government-subsidized health plan.

    Would Democrats go along if such automatic enrollment were not optional but mandatory for anyone seeking care who could not pay their doctor or hospital bill on the spot?

    What if it were coupled with incentives to get people to visit the doctor for an annual physical, or to enroll in a prevention and wellness program?

  33. blessedistruth Says:

    Dems can either keep pointing the accusatory finger at “The Party of No” or get down to the people’s business. I’ve quoted extensively from this excellent article which should have been written long ago. My only criticism is what took you so long?!


    There are many other areas that seem ripe for compromise.

    The Democrats know that their legislation does not do enough to limit frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits.

    The Republicans know that the Democrats’ legislation takes important steps toward helping small businesses afford health coverage for their workers.

    And Republicans know that many of the fears they have raised about cuts to Medicare services for the elderly are overblown — Republicans are usually the ones to point out the need to eliminate waste and inefficiency.

    The legislation already includes some ideas to help bridge these gaps.

    Many states have programs to insure some low-income adults who do not otherwise qualify for Medicaid.

    And Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington, has proposed allowing states to expand such programs, which would likely be far more appealing to Republicans than a pure expansion of Medicaid, which is one of the flashpoints in the legislative divide.


    Many of these issues have already been debated, a number of them in private talks among a small bipartisan group of senators on the Finance Committee who worked for months trying to draft a compromise health care measure.

    (My question is why would moderates in the Senate go out on a limb on this, if there isn’t a sufficient number in the House to pass a compromise bill? Especially if Speaker Pelosi is not on board?)

  34. blessedistruth Says:

    Well, at least Bloomberg picked up the story.

  35. blessedistruth Says:

    “Leadership” blog (Quick, someone send this link to Reid and Pelosi!)

  36. sisterrosetta Says:

  37. blessedistruth Says:

    Rep. Paul Ryan’s daring budget proposal

    Consider the fury that Republicans turned on Democrats for the insignificant cuts to Medicare that were contained in the health-care reform bill, or the way Bill Clinton gutted Newt Gingrich for proposing far smaller cuts to the program’s spending.

    This proposal would take Medicare from costing an expected 14.3 percent of GDP in 2080 to less than 4 percent.

    That’s trillions of dollars that’s not going to health care for seniors.

    The audacity is breathtaking.

    But it is also impressive.

    I wouldn’t balance the budget in anything like the way Ryan proposes.

    His solution works by making care less affordable for seniors.

    I’d prefer to aggressively reform the system itself so the care becomes cheaper, even if that causes significant pain to providers.

    I also wouldn’t waste money by moving to a private system when the public system is cheaper.

    (Blah, blah, blah.)

    But his proposal is among the few I’ve seen that’s willing to propose solutions in proportion to the problem.

    Whether or not you like his answer, you have to give him credit for stepping up to the chalkboard.


  38. blessedistruth Says:

    You can find details here:

  39. blessedistruth Says:

    Paul Ryan, Wisconsin’s First District Congressman and Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, discusses the Washington’s approach to tackling our fiscal and economic challenges.

    “We’re seeing the rhetoric of fiscal discipline, but not the follow through on the policy. The debt and deficit are just getting out of control. The Administration is still pumping through billions upon trillions of new spending. That does not grow the economy. If borrowing and spending all of this money led to more jobs, we’d be at full employment. ”

    “This is a good difference between our two approaches on policy. We don’t think taking all of this money out of the private economy up to Washington and spending it through Washington is the way to create jobs. We believe we should keep that money in the economy.”

  40. blessedistruth Says:

  41. blessedistruth Says:

    From GOP Retreat in Baltimore:

    REP. PAUL RYAN (R-WIS.): Mr. President, first of all, thanks for agreeing to accept our invitation here. It is a real pleasure and honor to have you with us here today.

    OBAMA: Good to see you.

    Is this your crew right here, by the way?

    RYAN: Yes, this is my daughter Liza, my sons Charlie and Sam, and this is my wife Janna.

    OBAMA: Hey, guys.

    RYAN: Say “hi” to everybody.


    I serve as the ranking member of the Budget Committee, so I want to talk a little budget, if you don’t mind.

    OBAMA: Yes.

    RYAN: The spending bills that you have signed into law, the domestic and discretionary spending has been increased by 84 percent. You now want to freeze spending at this elevated level beginning next year. This means that total spending in your budget would grow at 300ths of 1 percent less than otherwise. I would simply submit that we could do more and start now.

    You’ve also said that you want to take a scalpel to the budget and go through it line by line. We want to give you that scalpel. I have a proposal with my home state senator, Russ Feingold, a bipartisan proposal, to create a constitutional version of the line- item veto.


    The problem is we can’t even get a vote on the proposal.

    So my question is, why not start freezing spending now? And would you support a line-item veto and helping us get a vote on it in the House?

    OBAMA: Let me respond to the two specific questions, but I want to just push back a little bit on the underlying premise, about us increasing spending by 84 percent.

    Now, look, I talked to Peter Orszag right before I came here, because I suspected I’d be hearing this — I’d be hearing this argument.

    The fact of the matter is that most of the increases in this year’s budget, this past year’s budget, were not as a consequence of policies that we initiated, but instead were built in as a consequence of the automatic stabilizers that kick in because of this enormous recession.

    So the increase in the budget for this past year was actually predicted before I was even sworn into office and had initiated any policies. Whoever was in there, Paul — and I don’t think you’ll dispute that — whoever was in there would have seen those same increases because of, on the one hand, huge drops in revenue, but at the same time people were hurting and needed help. And a lot of these things happen automatically.

    Now, the reason that I’m not proposing the discretionary freeze take into effect this year, retro — we prepared a budget for 2010, it’s now going forward — is, again, I am just listening to the consensus among people who know the economy best.

    And what they will say is that if you either increased taxes or significantly lowered spending when the economy remains somewhat fragile, that that would have a de-stimulative effect and potentially you’d see a lot of folks losing business, more folks potentially losing jobs. That would be a mistake when the economy has not fully taken off.

    That’s why I’ve proposed to do it for the next fiscal year. So, that’s point number two.

    With respect to the line-item veto, I actually — I think there’s not a president out there that wouldn’t love to have it. And, you know, I think that this is an area where we can have a serious conversation. I know it is a bipartisan proposal by you and Russ Feingold.

    I don’t like being held up with big bills that have stuff in them that are wasteful but I’ve got to sign because it’s a defense authorization bill and I’ve got to make sure that our troops are getting the funding that they need.

    I will tell you, I would love for Congress itself to show discipline on both sides of the aisle. I think one thing that, you know, you have to acknowledge, Paul, because you study this stuff and take it pretty seriously, that the earmarks problem is not unique to one party, and you end up getting a lot of pushback when you start going after specific projects of any one of you in your districts, because wasteful spending is usually spent somehow outside of your district. Have you noticed that? The spending in your district tends to seem pretty sensible.

    So I would love to see more restraint within Congress. I’d like to work on the earmarks reforms that I mentioned in terms of putting earmarks online, because I think sunshine is the best disinfectant. But I am willing to have a serious discussion on the line-item veto issue.

    RYAN: OK. I’d like to walk you through it, because we have a version we think is constitutional . . .

    OBAMA: Let me take a look at it.

    RYAN: I would simply say that automatic stabilizer spending is mandatory spending. The discretionary spending, the bills that Congresses signs — that you sign into law, that has increased 84 percent. So . . .

    OBAMA: We’ll have a — we’ll have a longer debate on the budget numbers there, all right?

  42. blessedistruth Says:

    February 2, 2010

  43. sisterrosetta Says:

    As it turns out, Senate Democrats may not be able to force healthcare legislation through the chamber on a simple majority vote.Republicans say they have found a loophole in the budget reconciliation process that could allow them to offer an indefinite number of amendments.Though it has never been done, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) says he’s prepared to test the Senate’s stamina to block the Democrats from using the process to expedite changes to the healthcare bill.Experts on Senate procedural rules, from both parties, note that such a filibuster is possible. While reconciliation rules limit debate to 20 hours, senators lack similiarconstraints on amendments and could conceivably continue offering them until 60 members agree to cut the process off.Another option for Democrats would be to seek a ruling by the parliamentarian that Republicans are simply filing amendments to stall the process. But such a ruling could taint the final healthcare vote and backfire for Democrats in November.Or  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could use a tactic similar to the so-called nuclear option to quash the GOP tactics.If those options failed, and Reid couldn’t convince a single Republican to vote with his 59-member conference, Democrats might be forced to consider withdrawing the healthcare bill.A Democratic leadership aide confirmed to The Hill that the options outlined in this articlee are correct.

  44. sisterrosetta Says:

    Link for above article

  45. sisterrosetta Says:

    Parliamentarian Alan Frumin could rule Republican amendments after a certain number out of order. But he could also allow the GOP amendments, since they are not expressly barred.If Frumin ruled with Republicans, Reid would be in a difficult position. He could either pull the bill off the floor or he could appeal the ruling of the parliamentarian.With a simple majority of 51 votes, Reid could overturn the ruling of the chair and set a Senate precedent that amendments must be limited to within reason. This tactic would be similar to the so-called nuclear option Senate Republicans considered using in 2005 to overrule Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees.

    Why not just compromise to get to 60 votes?

  46. sisterrosetta Says:

    in Tuesday’s Illinois primary. Democrats were choosing their candidate to try to keep Obama’s Senate seat. Republicans were looking for a standard-bearer able to take it. The turnout numbers were scary for the Democrats. As Jon Chait noticed, “GOP primary turnout is up 11 percent over 2004. Democratic turnout has dropped 29 percent.” That’s what elections looks like in a world where 59 Senate Democrats give up on health-care reform. The base gives up and stays home. And come the day after the election, those Senate Democrats will find themselves spending plenty of time home, as well.

    Ezra Klein

    Ezra the democrats cannot do this alone nor should they

  47. blessedistruth Says:

    Yet Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) said in a statement that the money “should not be used as a slush fund for the president’s other priorities.”

    “The TARP program should end immediately, and, as the TARP law requires, all repaid funds should be used to reduce our staggering debt burden, not used in a way that will add to it,” Gregg said.

    Obama this week sent a $3.8 trillion budget to Congress that forecasts at least a decade of massive deficits. At the same time, he has announced a three-year spending freeze on domestic programs and has proposed slashing 121 projects.

    He is expected to issue an executive order that will create a bipartisan fiscal commission to look at getting spending under control. Yet he pointed out that seven Republicans who initially supported a similar idea in Congress later voted against it.

  48. blessedistruth Says:

  49. blessedistruth Says:

    Judd Gregg is a hero of mine.

  50. blessedistruth Says:


    (Good thing I’m not a conspiracy theorist!)

  51. blessedistruth Says:

    the “secret space program” ???

    (I dunno, but why is his website being censored?)

    In the latter half of the show, C2C Science Advisor Richard C. Hoagland reacted to Obama’s budget plan that would scrap NASA’s return to the moon, and connected this decision to the Norway Spiral. The ending of the space program as we know it is a “stunning development,” and was possibly brought about by the “secret space program” who presented the Norway Spiral as a kind of “blackmail” message to Russia and the United States, he explained.

    Hoagland, working with a number of researchers, determined that the Norway Spiral wasn’t simply caused by a Russian Bulava missile malfunction, but rather it was a demonstration of a Torsion or Tesla-styled weapon that was able to grab the missile like a tractor beam. Referencing the work of Joseph Farrell, he theorized that a kind of Nazi International, started by escapees from Germany after WWII, could be behind the secret space program, and advanced torsion weaponry. For more, see his Hoagland’s extensive report, A “Nobel Torsion Message” Over Norway? Part III.

  52. blessedistruth Says:

    More Like This:

  53. blessedistruth Says:

  54. blessedistruth Says:

    Ezra Klein interviews Paul Ryan

    Rep. Paul Ryan: ‘Rationing happens today! The question is who will do it?’

    EK So there are a couple of folks out there who do this. You, Wyden, Pete Stark, who feel safe enough to propose big things. But how do you deal with the fact that nobody is wrong about the political benefits of this stance of full opposition? Republicans are doing well at it this year. Democrats did it nicely in 2006. No one is wrong about this. You and I agree that market incentives matter. And the market of elections pushes against cooperation.

    PR This is my 12th year. If I lose my job over this, then so be it. In that case, I can be doing more productive things. If you’re given the opportunity to serve, you better serve like it’s your last term every term. It’s just the way I look at it. I sleep well at night.

    EK Then let’s back up to the Senate bill. Some of the things in that bill, like exchanges and redoing the market, are in your bill. I know you don’t agree with it. But if you were paring it back, what would you keep?

    PR The whole premise of it is wrong, in my opinion. It’s to have a more government-centric system

    EK What’s government-centric about it exactly?

    PR You’re erecting a bureaucracy to determine how this happens. Federalizing the regulation of health insurance in Washington. You’re having a person design how insurance can be sold. You’re mandating people buy it. It will stifle innovation and competition in health care. If we were talking about Wyden’s plan, I could give 15 things I like. But this isn’t that.

    EK Let me ask you about the regulation piece of this. Insurance is a complex product. People get sold stuff that just plain doesn’t work and they don’t know it till it catches them. The Senate bill doesn’t design plans in a granular way. But it sets the minimum for it.

    PR I agree with that. In the Patient’s Choice Act, we do an actuarially equivalent minimum in each exchange that’s equal to the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Standard Option.

    EK But that’s how the Senate bill works, too. It’s an actuarial value.

    PR I’m more familiar with the House bill. But the Senate bill goes a lot further than that. You need to define what insurance is. I agree with that. But what we’re trying to achieve here is a system in which the patient is the driver of it, not government bureaucrats.

    EK Let me back you up on that, though.

    PR I gotta get going in one minute, I apologize.

    EK Final question. You agree that we need to define what insurance is. In the Senate bill, you’ve got an actuarial value for insurance and patients come and decide which plan to purchase. I look at the bill, and I’m more of a big government guy, and it looks like an application of market principles to me. Where in that exchange transaction do you find the heavy hand of the government?

    PR We set up state-based exchanges. You don’t have to participate in the exchange if you don’t want to. You don’t have to sell it in the exchange if you don’t want to. I don’t want a closed system that will gravitate towards more government control. I want it to be decentralized that has regulatory competition and market competition. You can be in or out of the exchange, which keeps everybody honest. That to me is very important.

  55. blessedistruth Says:

    The Patient’s Choice Act

  56. blessedistruth Says:

  57. blessedistruth Says:

    Obama’s aunt fighting deportation in court

  58. blessedistruth Says:

    Gregg: Obama in ‘campaign mode’

    “He clearly appears to be in campaign mode right now, and maybe he’s trying to capture the populist fervor out there that got Scott Brown elected,” Gregg said, referring to the upset GOP Senate win in Massachusetts last month. “There’s an edge to his comments.”

    Gregg also suggested Obama is straining his credibility by continuing to remind audiences of the economic situation he inherited from the Bush administration.

    “How long can you make the argument when you’re president, that you’re going to blame somebody else?” Gregg said. “Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that said, ‘The Buck Stops Here.’ Somebody might want to put that sign on (Obama’s) desk to remind him what the president’s role is.”

  59. blessedistruth Says:

    A growth lesson from China

    By George F. Will

    Two large possibilities anticipated by Robert Fogel, a Nobel Prize-winning economist.

    They concern the rise of American health spending and the even more dramatic rise of China’s economy.

    Writing last September for the online journal the American, published by the American Enterprise Institute, Fogel warned that spending on health care is going to surge, for two reasons:

    By living longer, Americans will become susceptible to more health problems.

    By becoming richer they will be able to purchase more biotechnologies that make health interventions more effective.

    “The financial per capita [health care] burden at age 85 and older,” Fogel wrote, “is nearly six times as high as the burden at ages 50-54” and

    “the financial burden of health care for ages 85 and older is over 75 percent higher per capita than at ages 75-79.”

    A century ago, “the burden of chronic diseases among elderly Americans was not only of greater severity but began more than 10 years earlier in the life cycle than it does today.”

    But the severity of afflictions increases and the cost of preventing further deterioration increases with age:

    “Five years before the year of death, annual health cost is virtually the same as all annual Medicare costs per capita.

    By the second year before death the cost has risen by about 60 percent, and

    in the year of death the annual cost exceeds the average by more than four times.

    Indeed, expenditures on persons during their last two years of life account for 40 percent of all Medicare expenditures.”

    The 20th century radically reduced deaths due to acute infectious diseases, which were concentrated in infancy and early childhood.

    In 1900, more than 33 percent of all deaths were of children under 5; today they are less than 2 percent.

    In 1900, deaths of persons 65 and older were only 18 percent of all deaths; today they are 75 percent.

    This demographic destiny might entail starving every other sector of society — including national defense, at great cost to America’s international standing.

    It had better not, given what Fogel argues in another essay, this one in the current issue of Foreign Policy.

    It carries the headline “$123,000,000,000,000.”

    Fogel’s subheadline is: “China’s estimated economy by the year 2040. Be warned.”

    He expects that by 2040 China’s GDP will be $123 trillion, or three times the entire world’s economic output in 2000.

    He says China’s per capita income will be more than double what is forecast for the European Union.

    China’s 40 percent share of global GDP will be almost triple that of the United States’ 14 percent.

    Fogel finds many reasons for this, including the increased productivity of the 700 million (55 percent) rural Chinese.

    But he especially stresses “the enormous investment China is making in education.”

    While China increasingly invests in its future, America increasingly invests in its past: the elderly.

    China’s ascent to global economic hegemony could be slowed or derailed by unforeseen scarcities or social fissures.

    America’s destiny is demographic, and therefore is inexorable and predictable, which makes the nation’s fiscal mismanagement, by both parties, especially shocking.

  60. blessedistruth Says:

    Economists React: Jobs Report Has More Good Than Bad

    More problematic is the continued surge in temporary hiring. A leading indicator in the past, this category has become a leading employer instead. Perhaps once the health care debate is settled some of these jobs will swap into permanent employment, but in the meantime firms are willing to take on workers but not at the expense of benefits on the way in or severance on the way out. The long duration of this recession may also be creating an army of permanently unemployable, a group of forgotten men (and women) – a legacy problem from the 1930s. –Steven Blitz, Majestic Research

    The big truth of today’s report is not that the job market improved, which it did not. The big truth is that with downward revisions to previous employment reports, there were more jobs lost than had previously estimated. Furthermore, there was also a very large decrease in the number of unemployed workers by 378,000, as most of these people became “permanent job losers,” according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In other words, this is not a positive employment report. Clearly, a job-less recovery is occurring. –Jason Schenker, Prestige Economics

    All in all, we see encouraging signs of progress in labor market conditions and expect to see much better payroll performance (ex-census) in coming months. The census worker effect was only +9,000 (vs an expected +25,000). This will become a more important special factor over the course of coming months and should peak in May at an estimated +425,000 on a monthly change basis (or +700,000 on a level basis). These workers will disappear from payrolls over the second half of the year.–David Greenlaw, Morgan Stanley

  61. blessedistruth Says:

    U.S. jobs data, which showed U.S. employers unexpectedly cut 20,000 in January, but the unemployment rate surprisingly fell to a five-month low of 9.7 percent.

    “Today’s U.S. jobs report for the month of January provided a significant surprise to the downside, with a drop in the number of U.S. jobs in January by 20,000,” said Jason Schenker, president, Prestige Economics, LLC, Austin, Texas.

    “The big truth of today’s report is not that the job market improved, which it did not. The big truth is that with downward revisions to previous employment reports, there were more jobs lost than had previously estimated,” he said.

  62. blessedistruth Says:

    Know Your Enemy


    Sister’s story

    Sister’s story

    They attached a bomb to my sister Nahida. They tied rectangular pieces to both her arms, and a black strip was wrapped around both her legs.

    Then they connected the whole thing. She told my brother the bomb was heavy and she could not walk.

    He said she would be comfortable once she was sitting down in the car.

    They gave her medicine. But she was crying very loud for my mother. She kept going to her and hugging her. When my sister looked down at the bomb, she shivered.

    Then my brother and my father started beating my mother, and they were shouting: “Why you are distracting the girl from her mission?”

    I heard my sister saying: “Where is Meena? I want to see her.” But I didn’t have the strength. My heart couldn’t take it.

    My mother fainted when they put her in the car. My brother said my sister’s attack was in Afghanistan.

    I always think about my sister. She was healthy and a very nice girl. She was younger than me, but she was wiser. My mother used to tell me that I was an idiot, but she was very wise.

    Long War Journal

  63. blessedistruth Says:

    From AgNoStIc MuSliM

    The actions of these animals are a little more than mere ‘crimes’.

    This is unimaginable depravity. What can possess men to take innocent children, drug them, brainwash them and strap bombs onto them? Even worse, what can possess men to do this to their own children?

  64. blessedistruth Says:

    Well, maybe Obama has a point. The press “corps” does resemble a “corpse.”

    A body of persons acting together or associated under common direction: the press corps.

    Too bad Obama didn’t think to ask for the derivation of “corps.”

    Had he known “corps” was from the French, he might have surmised that the French have way too many silent letters!

    [French, from Old French, from Latin corpus, body; see kwrep- in Indo-European roots.]

  65. blessedistruth Says:

    Mark Steyn on Barack Obama’s own currency he’s devauling – his words

    BHO: One such translator was American of Haitian descent, representative of the extraordinary work that our men and women in uniform do all around the world. Navy Corpseman Christian Bouchard, and lying on a gurney aboard the USNS Comfort, a woman asked Christopher where do you come from? What country? After my operation, she said I will pray for that country. And in Creole, Corpseman Bouchard responded in Tanzini.

    HH: All right, stop for a second. Mark Steyn, I’m glad he’s recognizing the corpsman, but he can’t pronounce corpsman.

    And not only that, it makes me think he never, ever rehearses anything.

    MS: No, I think that’s true. I mean, I think corpseman is the new zombie superhero, isn’t he, coming out in the big James Cameron movie.

    That’s what corpseman is. But this guy, I think you’re right. He wings everything.

    And that’s why he spends so much time speaking to so little good.

    I mean, this is, apart from the fact that it’s kind of revealing culturally in a broad sense, it typifies the Obama method.

    I said about that appearance of his with Martha Coakley a couple of days before the Massachusetts election, I said he went to the trouble of flying in to phone it in, which is what he did.

    He went to the trouble of going all the way to Massachusetts, but then he had nothing to say when he got there.

    It’s the same thing in Copenhagen with his pathetic Olympics pitch.

    And I think it does come to this thing where he just says fire up the teleprompter, and I’ll come in and wing it.

  66. blessedistruth Says:

    Ezra Klein interviews Paul Ryan

    Speaking of Paul Ryan, I wanted to say a few words on a part of our interview that didn’t attract much notice. Namely, this exchange:

    EK When you talk about making people more powerful, that brings up some questions about the employer market. In theory, the employer market is big enough to have this effect. It’s big enough to work like a real market. But we both agree it’s not a real market, and even more, that you should end the exclusion. Where we part is on the question of who has the power. I’d say consumers don’t have the power. You’ll give consumers buying power. But I’d look at decisions power. And the real power there lies with doctors. I don’t do anything without a doctor telling me to do it. How does this change the doctor’s behavior?

    PR What I also have in this bill is the health-care services commission. It is a system whereby all these stakeholders in health care – providers, doctors, insurers, consumer groups, hospitals, unions – all come up with standard metrics that are standardized that we hold for price and quality and best practices. It’s a lot different than a comparative effectiveness approach. This way, the consumer sees who’s good and who’s bad. I think we need to make a big reach towards transparency.


    To make this a bit clearer, comparative effectiveness review is where the government spends a lot of money commissioning research into the relative effectiveness of different treatments.

    That way, when your doctor is deciding whether to prescribe surgery or physical therapy for your back, he has plenty of evidence with which to make his decision.

    To a degree that people don’t really appreciate, medicine has way too little information today.

    What Ryan is talking about is a way to evaluate hospitals against one another.

    His vision would make it easy to compare prices, practices, success rates and so forth.

  67. blessedistruth Says:


    February 04, 2010

    Paul Ryan on debt ceiling increase: “A proud moment” for Speaker Pelosi?

  68. blessedistruth Says:

    Paul Ryan

    “Madame Speaker, if we don’t tackle this problem, it’s going to tackle us.”

    “The Speaker of the House came and just said something to the effect that this was a proud moment – a happy occasion – a bill she’s really excited about. The bill we’re about to vote on, Madame Speaker, raises the national debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion. Even if I were a supporter of this bill, I wouldn’t be proud of it…This, Madame Speaker, is a fiscal charade.

    “Real people, from both parties, need to step up and solve this problem. I’ve thrown out a few ideas of my own. I hope other Republicans and Democrats do the same. Because Madame Speaker, if we don’t tackle this problem, it’s going to tackle us.

    “Our constituents sent us here to be a part of the solution, and not a part of the problem. We know irrefutably we’re going to bequeath this mountain of deficit and debt onto the next generation. Both of our parties share in the blame. No one party corners a virtue on fiscal responsibility. But we’re going to together have to come down here and fix this problem once and for all, and this doesn’t do it. This bill raises the debt limit by $1.9 trillion. It’s a fiscal cop-out so that we can talk tough in the election about how we did this and that, while we bequeathed the next generation an inferior standard of living.

    “I didn’t come here to make sure that my three kids are going to have a life that’s worse off than ours. Nobody here wants that, so let’s get this fixed, defeat this bill, come together, and exercise real fiscal discipline. The American people are not under-taxed – we overspend.”

  69. blessedistruth Says:

    Less than a week after the One singles out Paul Ryan for praise, his party’s attack machine is in full-throated attack.

    Last Friday, Rep. Paul Ryan looked like President Barack Obama’s new Republican best friend. The president showered praise on everything from his substantive budget proposal to his family during the now-legendary question-and-answer session with House Republicans.

    But rather than opening a hopeful new avenue for bipartisanship, the White House and Hill Democrats quickly went to work ripping apart Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Future” — which Obama himself said he had read.

    Democrats accused the Wisconsin Republican of trying to privatize Social Security, cut taxes for the rich and increase them for the middle class. Medicare would be allowed to “wither on the vine.” Here we go again, Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) said Thursday of Ryan’s proposal. On Capitol Hill, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag deconstructed the plan, saying it would address long-term fiscal problems but in a way that many policymakers might find “objectionable” because it would shift risks and costs onto individuals and their families.

    In just a week, Ryan had gone from being seen as the smart conservative whom Obama might take seriously to being seen as the symbol of how Democrats believe Republicans would dismantle the social safety net if the GOP took control of Congress.

    Republicans believe the criticism was a setup….

  70. blessedistruth Says:

    WaPo: Hey, a Republican budget plan actually cuts the deficit

    Ryan faces an uphill battle to get his proposals into a bill, let alone getting a floor vote.

    But Ryan, who has been offering alternatives on health-care reform for months

    (which comes as part of the bill discussed in this article),

    at least has received some media coverage on those efforts.

    If the Democrats don’t want to address Republican alternatives, it will be harder for them to excuse themselves by claiming alternatives don’t exist.

    That is why a Question Time forum would be valuable to everyone — and probably why we won’t see another one, unless Obama drops so far in the polls that he needs to get another momentary bump.

  71. blessedistruth Says:

    Momentary Bump seems to have disappeared — although it is troubling how malleable some in the middle appear to be.

    1 Date
    2 Presidential Approval Index
    3 Strongly Approve
    4 Strongly Disapprove
    5 Total Approve
    6 Total Disapprove

    1 02/05/2010
    2 -12
    3 28%
    4 40%
    5 46%
    6 53%

    (46 — 53 Wow, not good for Obama!)

  72. blessedistruth Says:

  73. blessedistruth Says:

    Cirque du Soleil contacted my son about playing this show. He’s one of three. I wanted to share his audition tape but it includes personal info so I can’t.

    He should find out this weekend.

    Break a leg!

  74. blessedistruth Says:

  75. blessedistruth Says:

    Probably my favorite Cirque show, so far.

    See also:

    Gosh! When I look at these old posts, it seems as if Cindy is still among us. And of course she is. In fact, I do believe she is here with me right now!

  76. blessedistruth Says:

    Paul Ryan, Lone Wolf? [Robert Costa]

    “I’m trying to encourage people to jump in the pool with me,” Ryan said ruefully. “I’m in there alone right now.”

    Beyond the details of Ryan’s plan or its politics is the larger point.

    As Ryan told me earlier this week, Obama’s budget “is about more than specific programs or policies — it is really about the American idea, and whether we want to move towards a European-style welfare state.”

    The roadmap, he said, is part of offering voters “a choice of two futures” and detailing, in policy terms, how the GOP believes that “the individual is the nucleus of American life, and [Democrats] see the government in that role.”

    That’s the true importance of his plan.

  77. blessedistruth Says:

    How to get the country to solvency on entitlements

    By George F. Will
    Sunday, February 7, 2010

    Ryan’s map connects three destinations: economic vitality, diminished public debt, and health and retirement security.

    To make the economy — on which all else hinges — hum, Ryan proposes tax reform.

    Masochists would be permitted to continue paying income taxes under the current system.

    Others could use a radically simplified code, filing a form that fits on a postcard.

    It would have just two rates: 10 percent on incomes up to $100,000 for joint filers and $50,000 for single filers; 25 percent on higher incomes.

    There would be no deductions, credits or exclusions, other than the health-care tax credit (see below).

    Today’s tax system was shaped by sadists who were trying to be nice: Every wrinkle in the code was put there to benefit this or that interest.

    Since the 1986 tax simplification, the code has been recomplicated more than 14,000 times — more than once a day.

    At the 2004 Republican convention, thunderous applause greeted George W. Bush’s statement that the code is “a complicated mess” and a “drag on our economy” and his promise to “reform and simplify” it.

    But his next paragraphs proposed more complications to incentivize this and that behavior for the greater good.

    Ryan would eliminate taxes on interest, capital gains, dividends and death.

    The corporate income tax, the world’s second-highest, would be replaced by an 8.5 percent business consumption tax.

    Because this would be about half the average tax burden that other nations place on corporations, U.S. companies would instantly become more competitive — and more able and eager to hire.

    Medicare and Social Security would be preserved for those currently receiving benefits or becoming eligible in the next 10 years (those 55 and older today).

    Both programs would be made permanently solvent.

    Universal access to affordable health care would be guaranteed by refundable tax credits ($2,300 for individuals, $5,700 for families) for purchasing portable coverage in any state.

    As persons younger than 55 became Medicare-eligible, they would receive payments averaging $11,000 a year, indexed to inflation and pegged to income, with low-income people receiving more support.

    Ryan’s plan would fund medical savings accounts from which low-income people would pay minor out-of-pocket expenses.

    All Americans, regardless of income, would be allowed to establish MSAs — tax-preferred accounts for paying such expenses.

    Ryan’s plan would allow workers younger than 55 the choice of investing more than one-third of their current Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts similar to the Thrift Savings Plan long available to, and immensely popular with, federal employees.

    This investment would be inheritable property, guaranteeing that individuals will never lose the ability to dispose of every dollar they put into these accounts.

    Ryan would raise the retirement age.

    If, when Congress created Social Security in 1935, it had indexed the retirement age (then 65) to life expectancy, today the age would be in the mid-70s.

    The system was never intended to do what it is doing — subsidizing retirements that extend from one-third to one-half of retirees’ adult lives.

    Compare Ryan’s lucid map to the Democrats’ impenetrable labyrinth of health-care legislation.

    Republicans are frequently criticized as “the party of no.”

    But because most new ideas are injurious, rejection is an important function in politics.

    It is, however, insufficient.

    Fortunately, Ryan, assisted by Republican Reps. Devin Nunes of California and Jeb Hensarling of Texas, has become a think tank, refuting the idea that Republicans lack ideas.

  78. blessedistruth Says:

    Tea Party Nation held its first national convention. Angela McGlowan and Joseph Farah spoke about Tea Party movement issues.

  79. blessedistruth Says:

    Farah: ‘Government wants to be your 1 and only god’

    Warns tea party’s success only measured by reclaiming nation’s cultural institutions

    After the speech, Birmingham, Ala., resident Lee Puckett chimed in on the eligibility issue.

    “You don’t act like there’s something to hide if there’s nothing to hide,” he said. “It’s a very simple fix to show it. Why would you spend more than a million dollars to hide something? Why wouldn’t you just show it?”

    Husband and wife Ruby and Denny Spann, tea partiers who live just west of Nashville, said they learned quite a bit from Farah’s speech.

    “I learned that we’re going backward in this country every day,” Denny told WND. “We’ve created such a debt that it’s almost impossible to get out of. With the people who are here and the things that are happening, I think there’s going to be a turnaround.”

    Ruby added, “We’ve traveled to many countries, and we live in the most wonderful country there is. We’ve had a lot of people over the years who are just ruining it. I think a lot of us didn’t realize it could happen.”

    “Enough is enough,” she said gently as tears welled in her eyes. “It’s got to turn around.”

  80. blessedistruth Says:

    Farah said he admits to being “obsessed with the Constitution.” He said every journalist who practices the profession under its protections and every officeholder who takes an oath to uphold it should have a similar admiration and respect for the founding document – especially President Obama.

    “I think seriously of its eligibility requirements for president,” he said. “I admit it.”

    Farah discussed the eligibility issue, explaining to the crowd that the president refuses to produce documents proving he meets the Constitution’s natural-born citizen requirement.

    Each time he brought the issue up, the crowd cheered wildly, whistled and applauded.

    “Some people say it’s not important where Barack Obama was born,” he said. “Some think the Constitution is just an archaic old document. … It’s the glue that holds us together, that binds us to the people as a nation-state, and we abrogate and abuse it at our great peril.”


    “Some people say it’s not important where Barack Obama was born”

    (The powers that be (or were) decided they just weren’t going to “go there.” And there’s little we can do about it. Some on the left and even Obama himself now are using the issue to demonize the “tea baggers” and Republicans in general. Maybe it is time to just “Let it be.”)

  81. blessedistruth Says:

  82. blessedistruth Says:

  83. blessedistruth Says:

    Just enjoy one another. That is the main thing.

  84. sisterrosetta Says:

    To: Syncro Breitbart is correct; it is not a winning issue. If the goal is to defeat Hussein’s agenda, prattling on and on about his birth certificate is not going to move the electorate in that direction. 10 posted on 02/06/2010 10:26:13 AM PST by Recovering_Democrat

    Free republic

  85. blessedistruth Says:

    Replies to Recovering_Democrat

    Birthers are pissed and I don’t blame them.

    Instead of “You’re out of your fucking minds and hurting the party!”

    How about, “You may be on to something here, but no one will cover it. The truth may never be revealed, so please back off.”

  86. blessedistruth Says:

    More “birthers” articles

  87. blessedistruth Says:

    Good Times with pissant

    To: Talkradio03

    Erick Erickson slams Farah, From Redstate: “I was profoundly disappointed to hear Joseph Farah of World Net Daily hijack the convention and try to treat the birther issue as legitimate. Yesterday, I spent a lot of time talking about the meaning of the tea party”

    WHo the F*** died and made you Queen of the tea party agenda, Mrs. Erickson

    8 posted on Saturday, February 06, 2010 4:26:46 PM by pissant

    To: pissant

    Redstate hates Palin and was against the tea party before he was for it. Enough said.

    23 posted on Saturday, February 06, 2010 4:41:42 PM by Brimack34

  88. blessedistruth Says:

  89. blessedistruth Says:

  90. blessedistruth Says:

    Outrage erupts after Farah questions Obama’s citizenship at tea party

    After declaring that it’s “really great to be around like-minded folks,” conservative journalist and editor of WorldNetDaily Joseph Farah launched into a ten-minute spiel about President Obama’s citizenship (or, in his mind, possible lack thereof) during the National Tea Party Convention on Friday.

    The speech, which drew applause from those in attendance, has disappointed and infuriated many conservatives — including some who attended the convention — hoping for a civil tone.

    Farah, who has said that the issue of the president’s citizenship “is not going to go away, and it will drive a wedge in an already divided public,” seems to have driven a wedge into an already divided tea party movement.

    Among those disappointed was Andrew Breitbart, who blasted Farah after the speech:

    “It’s self-indulgent, it’s narcissistic, it’s a losing issue…It’s a losing situation. If you don’t have the frigging evidence — raising the question?

    You can do that to Republicans all day long. You have to disprove that you’re a racist!

    Forcing them to disprove something is a nightmare….We have a lot of strong arguments to be making, and that is a primary argument.

    That is an argument for the primaries that did not take hold.

    The arguments that these people right here are making are substantive arguments.

    The elections in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts were all won not on birther, but on substance.”

  91. blessedistruth Says:

    WND’s Joseph Farah puts the birther movement back in the spotlight

    Conservatives argue about birtherism at Tea Party convention

  92. blessedistruth Says:

    Good Question

    Why do you think Obama brought up the eligibility issue at the National Prayer Breakfast?

    He was just poking fun at delusional birthers

    It was a joke, nothing more

    A lot of the attendees were religious conservatives, and the birther issue has been big among them

    I’ll be glad when the right wing quits making a federal case out of everything coming out of the president’s mouth

    He says what his teleprompter tells him to say

    It was a slam at many of those present, since he coupled it with the questioning of his faith

    It was a sincere comment evidencing his understandable offense over the unfair charges

    It reveals the issue has his attention … and he’s worried

    There’s no way he would have mentioned it unless it was an issue of concern for him and his team

    After the Massachusetts debacle, he’s trying to defuse the issue by defending himself, since staying silent hasn’t worked

    It’s a trick – he’s dangling birther bait out there hoping conservatives will bite, so his allies in the press can ridicule and isolate them

    By referencing citizenship instead of constitutional eligibility, he was deflecting the real question and attempting to frame any future discussion

    He wouldn’t have had to mention the issue if he’d released his long-form birth certificate months ago

    This issue is a problem for him because it will come back with a vengeance when he files to run for a second term

    He made a Freudian slip


  93. blessedistruth Says:

    Obama acknowledges his problem

    Joseph Farah

    Posted: February 08, 2010

    “Most mainstream politicians have dismissed questions about whether Obama is a citizen.”

    Again, it is misconstrued as a debate over whether he is a “citizen” rather than a “natural-born citizen.” If you are on the “right side” of this issue, you are part of the “mainstream.” If you are not, like half the country, according to polls, you are evidently part of the fringe.

    Look for Obama to employ his successful laugh line again going forward for the next three years. What else can he do? It’s clear he is never going to do the one thing that could possibly settle the matter – release his long-form birth certificate. For some reason, he prefers to protect its secrecy like the crown jewels.

    He’s got a problem, all right.

    It’s not my problem. It’s his.

    I’m delighted by his problem.

    It’s one that won’t go away.

    It becomes a bigger problem for him every day, despite the “mainstream” media’s best efforts to minimize it.

    Just remember which news agency focused the nation’s attention on this issue – like a laser beam. There’s only one. Just remember who elevated this story to national prominence despite an onslaught of ridicule and antipathy unleashed by competitors.

    Do you believe me when I tell you Obama is hiding something?

    Where’s the birth certificate?

  94. blessedistruth Says:

    To: Question Liberal Authority

    We, the thinking public, can only guess why he doesn’t release the documents. There is inherent danger in our guessing his motives.
    My belief still stands. Conservatives are being set up to look like fools with our association with the lunatic fringe.

    Not that I am saying anyone, yourself included, is part of that group. Everyone has the right to self-identify their spot on the “Birth Certificate Continuum”

    35 posted on Monday, February 08, 2010 11:18:55 AM by SoftballMominVA

    To: SoftballMominVA

    Conservatives are being set up to look like fools with our association with the lunatic fringe.

    Only if you allow the press to decide who is a “fool” and who is the “lunatic fringe”.

    I agree that, politically, the conservatives have bigger fish to fry. However, I don’t see anything wrong with simply acknowledging the fact that there are gaps in Obama’s historical record, and that he being extremely unhelpful in filling those gaps.

    I disagree with Farah that the Tea Party movement is all about the birth certificate. I agree with Breitbart that his resources are limited and he needs to choose his battles wisely. But I disagree with anyone who says this is “settled science” and that there is no question about Obama’s parentage.

    39 posted on Monday, February 08, 2010 11:30:57 AM by Question Liberal Authority

    To: Question Liberal Authority

    I don’t see anything wrong with simply acknowledging the fact that there are gaps in Obama’s historical record, and that he being extremely unhelpful in filling those gaps.
    You hit the heart of the issue square on the head. I’d love to see groups move away from the birth certificate and demand the same level of transparency required of other Presidents. The American public doesn’t even know what his grades were at Harvard – can you imagine if Bush had refused to release his grades at Yale?

    42 posted on Monday, February 08, 2010 11:36:36 AM by SoftballMominVA

  95. blessedistruth Says:

    Everyone has the right to self-identify their spot on the “Birth Certificate Continuum”

    I like that.

    As much as I’d like to trust Obama, he does seem to talk out of both sides of his mouth.

    Why do you think Obama brought up the eligibility issue at the National Prayer Breakfast?

    I’d love to know the answer to that question.

    There is the reason he wants fair-minded people to take away from it.

    Then there is the real reason.

  96. blessedistruth Says:

    New Thread:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: