Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise

Rappel du premier message :

Bonjour Biloulou

Il me semblait que cette nouvelle plairait!

Tea Party Express Arrives for 'March on Washington' to Protest Government Spending

FreedomWorks Foundation, a conservative organization led by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, has organized several groups from across the country for the Saturday event, dubbed a "March on Washington."



FOXNews.com

Saturday, September 12, 2009

The Tea Party Express -- a gathering of activists protesting what they view as out-of-control spending by an expanding federal government -- is arriving in the nation's capital Saturday.

Demonstrators have filled Freedom Plaza and Pennsylvania Avenue in downtown Washington. They are waving U.S. flags and holding signs reading "Go Green Recycle Congress," "I'm Not Your ATM" and "Obamacare makes me sick."

Some men are dressed in colonial costumes with tri-colored hats.
Protesters plan to march later to the U.S. Capitol.

FreedomWorks Foundation, a conservative organization led by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, has organized several groups from across the country for the Saturday event, dubbed a "March on Washington."

The demonstration is part of the so-called Tea Party Movement that gathered steam in April to protest tax policies. And Saturday's event is the culmination of a 34-city, 7,000-mile bus tour that began Aug. 28 in Sacramento, Calif. The "partiers" have cited a host of grievances and demands, such as a call for any health care reform to create more competition and be guided by market principles, not a government-run plan.

Organizers say they anticipate tens of thousands of proponents of limited government to attend. They say it will be the largest group of fiscal conservatives to ever gather in Washington.

The rally comes on the heels of heated town halls held during the congressional August recess when some Democratic lawmakers were confronted, disrupted and shouted down by angry protestors who oppose President Obama's plan to overhaul the health care system.

"I can't figure out to save me what [Mr. Obama and the Democrats] are trying to accomplish, unless they want socialism," 73-year-old Joseph Wright, a retired paper-mill worker, told The Wall Street Journal.

Wright rode from Tallahassee, Fla., to Washington this week on one of the many chartered buses bringing in demonstrators from states as far-flung as Massachusetts and Arkansas.
The White House on Friday claimed it was unaware of the planned rally.

"I don't know who the group is," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters with a shrug.
But a House leadership aide has warned fellow Democrats that up to 2 million demonstrators could turn out.

"It looks like Saturday's event is going to be a huge gathering, estimates ranging from hundreds of thousands to 2 million people," Doug Thornell, an aide to Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., wrote in a memo obtained by FOXNews.com.

But conservatives believe the memo is ploy to inflate expectations for the turnout anticipating that it will fall short.

"It's an old political tactic to get out in front and make wild projections and when they're not met, claim their opponents don't have the juice," said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, one of the organizers of the rally.

Wall Street Journal

SEPTEMBER 11, 2009, 4:29 A.M. ET

Medicare for Dummies

Contradictions worthy of the Marx Brothers.


The thing about the bully pulpit is that Presidents can make the most fantastic claims and it takes days to sort the reality from the myths. So as a public service, let's try to navigate the, er, remarkable Medicare discussion that President Obama delivered on Wednesday. It isn't easy.

Mr. Obama began by depicting a crisis in the entitlement state, noting that "our health-care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers," especially Medicare. Unless we find a way to cauterize this fiscal hemorrhage, "we will eventually be spending more on Medicare than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health-care program is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close."

On this score he's right. Medicare's unfunded liability—the gap between revenues and promised benefits—is currently some $37 trillion over the next 75 years. Yet the President uses this insolvency as an argument to justify the creation of another health-care entitlement, this time for most everyone under age 65. It's like a variation on the old Marx Brothers routine: "The soup is terrible and the portions are too small."


Associated Press
President Barack Obama addresses a joint session of Congress on Wednesday, Sept. 9, 2009.

As astonishing, Mr. Obama claimed he can finance universal health care without adding "one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period," in large part by pumping money out of Medicare. The $880 billion Senate plan he all but blessed this week would cut Medicare by as much as $500 billion, mainly by cutting what Mr. Obama called "waste and abuse." Perhaps this is related to the "waste and abuse" that Congresses of both parties have targeted dozens of times without ever cutting it.

Apparently this time Mr. Obama means it, though he said this doesn't mean seniors should listen to "demagoguery and distortion" about Medicare cuts. That's because Medicare is a "sacred trust," and the President swore to "ensure that you—America's seniors—get the benefits you've been promised."

So no cuts, for anyone—except, that is, for the 24% of senior beneficiaries who are enrolled in the Medicare Advantage program, which Democrats want to slash by $177 billion or more because it is run by private companies. Mr. Obama called that money "unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies—subsidies that do everything to pad their profits but don't improve the care of seniors."

In fact, Advantage does provide better care, which is one reason that enrollment has doubled since 2003. It's true that the program could be better designed, with more competitive bidding and quality bonuses. But Advantage's private insurers today provide the kind of care that Mr. Obama said he would mandate that private insurers provide for the nonelderly—"to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventative care."

Advantage plans have excelled at filling in the gaps of the a la carte medicine of traditional Medicare, contracting with doctors and hospitals to coordinate care and improve quality and covering items such as vision, hearing and management of chronic illness. If seniors in Advantage lose this coverage because of the 14% or 15% budget cut that Mr. Obama favors, well, that's "waste and abuse."

Mr. Obama did also promise to create "an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead." That kind of board is precisely what has many of the elderly worried about government rationing of treatment: As ever-more health costs are financed by taxpayers, something will eventually have to give on care the way it has in every other state-run system.

But Mr. Obama told seniors not to pay attention to "those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut, especially since some of the folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past and just this year supported a budget that would essentially have turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program."

This is a partisan swipe at one of the best GOP ideas to rationalize the federal budget, despite Mr. Obama's accusations that his opponents want to do "nothing." This reform would get Medicare out of the business of spending one out of five U.S. health dollars, and instead give the money directly to seniors to buy insurance to encourage them to be more conscious of cost and value within a limited budget. Democrats would rather have seniors dance to decisions made by his unelected "commission of doctors and medical experts."

Mr. Obama also called for "civility" in debate even as he calls the arguments of his critics "lies." So in the spirit of civility, we won't accuse the President of lying about Medicare. We'll just say his claims bear little relation to anything true.

Je trouve une grande utilité à ce fil qui permet de lire dans le texte des opinions émanant de personnalités américaines sur leur Nation ou sur le reste du monde pour peu que certaines plumes publiées ici se souviennent qu'il puisse exister.

Mais la lecture depuis des mois me devient de plus en plus pesante à force de n'être alimentée que de brûlots bien polis, de pamphlets à peine déguisés, de diabolisation assénée de manière lourdingue et de réflexions négatives alimentant un dénigrement perpétuel des dires et faits de la présidence des E-U.

C'est pénible quand ce n'est ridicule, à tout le moins lassant.

A quand des textes moins partisans et de temps à autre un aperçu des articles de presse mieux disposés, à la limite neutres, envers une présidence que les citoyens des E-U peuvent s'honorer d'avoir élue. En parcourant tous les billets d'ici on se demande même si les E-U méritent un grand bonhomme comme le Président actuel.

Je conclus en tartinant mon inculture par cette citation de Goethe sur son lit de mort "Mehr Licht"*. Personnellement je me contenterais de plus d'air.
*Plus de lumière

Je trouve une grande utilité à ce fil* qui permet de lire dans le texte des opinions émanant de personnalités américaines sur leur Nation ou sur le reste du monde pour peu que certaines plumes publiées ici se souviennent qu'il puisse exister.

Mais la lecture depuis des mois me devient de plus en plus pesante à force de n'être alimentée que de brûlots bien polis, de pamphlets à peine déguisés, de diabolisation assénée de manière lourdingue et de réflexions négatives alimentant un dénigrement perpétuel des dires et faits de la présidence des E-U.

C'est pénible quand ce n'est ridicule, à tout le moins lassant.

A quand des textes moins partisans et de temps à autre un aperçu des articles de presse mieux disposés, à la limite neutres, envers une présidence que les citoyens des E-U peuvent s'honorer d'avoir élue. En parcourant tous les billets d'ici on se demande même si les E-U méritent un grand bonhomme comme le Président actuel.

Je conclus en tartinant mon inculture par cette citation de Goethe sur son lit de mort "Mehr Licht"*. Personnellement je me contenterais de plus d'air.
*Plus de lumière

--------

Mon cher Eddie:

Voila qui a l'avantage d'etre franc. Permettez-moi de l'etre tout autant.

La presque totalite des articles postes ici en francais concernant Barack Obama ne lui est que favorable, les media et sites francophones ne reprenant regulierement que les articles americains des grands quotidiens, ceux-ci defendant majoritairement l'"agenda" de Barack Obama, et/ou ne relatant pas ou peu les faits meme de grande importante (Van Jones) risquant de porter atteinte a l'image du gouvernement en place. C'est tout de meme bien Helen Thomas qui parle de manipulation de la presse.

Je pourrais vous dire que personne ne vous oblige a lire ce fil car il a l'avantage d'etre facile a eviter (comme le sont celui d'OmbreBlanche "le monde selon Barack", qui semble lui vous plaire... , celui de Jack "Good Morning, Israel", et les nombreux fils de Moussa). Je pourrais egalement rappeler que rien ne vous empeche de poster des articles pro-Obama, ce ne sont pas eux qui manquent (bien evidemment, avec le risque de faire doublon avec ceux d'OmbreBlanche), mais ce ne serait peut-etre pas tres poli ni tres elegant de ma part, alors j'expliquerai seulement que je tente ici de donner toute une partie de l'information qui ne filtre pas dans les media francais (je le repete OmbreBlanche rapportant le reste).

Toutefois, j'insiste sur le fait que rien de ce qui est poste ici n'est irreverencieux envers la presidence ni le president personnellement. On ne peut pas en dire autant de ce que vous avez pu ecrire au sujet de Pres. Sarkozy. Mais, c'etait fait avec tant de style que je vous le pardonne, meme si je ne l'appreciais pas beaucoup. Que dire de ce que vous avez pu ecrire sur Pres. Bush 43...

Les Etats Unis vivent une periode tumultueuse, la socialisation de ceux-ci n'est pas appreciee par une grande majorite des Americains qui ne la souhaite pas et beaucoup le font savoir (des dizaines de milliers hier a Washington, et pas des extremistes du tout...) et franchement, le soutien "exterieur" de celle-ci m'use profondement d'autant que ce ne sont pas ces personnes qui en subiront les consequences.

J'ai toujours poste des messages qui derangent* mais je ne les pique pas sur des sites extremistes "a la FG" mais sur le Wall Street Journal, le Washington Post, le New York Times, FOX News entre autres. Il m'a toujours semble qu'ici, on pouvait avoir un avis different de la majorite, il se peut que les temps changent apres tout.

* en particulier en 2002/2003, preparation de la guerre enIrak, et sauf erreur, en 2006, le scandale du programme de l'ONU et la "presence" de la France au milieu de celui-ci (certains avaient fait de leur mieux pour me faire taire)

-------

Quant a l'air, une participante avec laquelle vous partagez les idees apres avoir critique longuement le gouvernement Bush a compare l'arrivee de Barack Obama et de son parti a respirer un bol d'air frais. Il est plus qu'evidemment que ce bol n'a pas ete rempli dans les hautes Alpes et je le fais savoir.

J'espere que ces explications "cordiales" feront comprendre un peu mieux le pourquoi de mes messages.

Protests present GOP with tricky task
By KENNETH P. VOGEL & ALEX ISENSTADT | 9/12/09 9:47 PM EDT


Saturday. Photo: AP

The "Taxpayer March on Washington" proved that conservatives can turn out in impressive numbers to protest the direction of the Democratic-led federal government, but it also presented Republicans with a tricky task in figuring out how to marshal the energy on display on the Mall Saturday.

The ability to channel the wide-ranging frustrations expressed by speaker after speaker may determine whether beleaguered conservatives will be able to create a movement rivaling that which liberals used to help power Democrats back into the majority in the 2006 congressional elections and Barack Obama into the White House last year.

The sentiments expressed Saturday, however, suggest Republicans can’t necessarily count on the tens of thousands of protesters who turned out in Washington – and at simultaneous rallies in Dallas, Denver, Quincy, Ill., and other cities and towns across the nation – to make inroads in the 2010 congressional midterm elections and, later, to mount a stiff challenge to President Obama’s 2012 reelection effort.

Many marchers displayed little allegiance to Republicans, and some were openly hostile, contending that that when the party controlled Washington until 2006, the federal government spent recklessly.
"When Republicans were in power, they acted like everyone else," said marcher Debi Bohannon of Oklahoma City.

"Personally, I don’t feel like [Republicans] are standing up and fighting hard enough,” said Jim Bryant, an aviation consultant from Trenton, Georgia. “I want them to stand up for truth, honesty, and personal freedoms.”

The protestors, whose numbers were in the tens of thousands, though no definitive estimate was available Saturday evening, aired grievances on issues ranging from the bank and auto bailouts to Obama’s push to overhaul the nation's health system to concerns about perceived erosion of First and Second Amendment rights.

Still, most of their fire was aimed at Democrats, and some of their sentiments bordered on extremist rhetoric that could do the GOP more harm than good. As the march, which began at Freedom Plaza, a park close to the White House, neared the U.S. Capitol, it was difficult to miss the signs protesting Obama’s health plan, declaring “Bury Obamacare with Kennedy” or featuring grizzly images of aborted fetuses. And there were widespread accusations from attendees that Obama isn’t American-born – a charge from which the mainstream of the Republican Party has sought to distance itself.

But as the last of the protesters scattered Saturday evening, leaving the Mall silent, organizers expressed confidence that the march would help re-center the Republican Party around fiscally conservative themes with widespread appeal.

“My message is: your roots are lower taxes, less government, and freedom. Why don’t you lead with those issues?” said Adam Brandon, a spokesman for FreedomWorks, the small-government, anti-tax organization chaired by former House Republican Leader Dick Armey that sponsored the protest.

Brandon touted the text-messaging system FreedomWorks deployed on Saturday to gauge protestors’ top issues, explaining the group would use the information to organize activists around those issues by congressional district in the run-up to the 2010 election, a similar technique to one used by Obama’s own tech-savvy presidential campaign.

After Saturday’s showing, the grassroots local activists who form the heart of the so-called Tea Party movement hold more of the cards than either the Republican Party or the conservative groups that bolster it, asserted GOP strategist Craig Shirley.

“Could the Republican National Committee turn out 50,000 people on the mall?” asked Shirley, who has a forthcoming book, “Rendezvous with Destiny; Ronald Reagan and the Campaign that Changed America,” chronicles how Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign re-centered the GOP around a strong national defense and fiscal conservatism.

“Really the tea party is in the position to dictate terms to the Republican Party. So the question for the Tea Party people is do they say, ‘A pox on all their houses,’ and possibly investigate starting a third party – a populist, anti-big government, anti-Wall Street party – or do they try to take over the Republican Party, starting at the county and state level?”

Still, Shirley suggested that in order for the movement to have a lasting impact on American politics, it needs to embrace an agenda, rather than just oppose the Democratic one. “At some point, that will come,” he predicted.

Only a handful of GOP lawmakers were on the roster of rally speakers – and those that did were conservatives like South Carolina Sen. Sen. DeMint, and Reps. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Mike Pence of Indiana, and Tom Price of Georgia.

The common thread among the speakers, both the politicians and the leaders of various conservative groups, many of them with a libertarian tilt, was an assertion of American decline, and that the assembled protesters were the nation’s best hope of correcting course and reconnecting with its traditional values. But the values varied from speaker to speaker, with many concerned about fiscal failings, while others stressed individual rights and others warned of a descent into Socialism and a loss of the “American way.”

Most all of them, though, portrayed the assembled as the first line of defense against these varied national ailments. Rep. Blackburn told the crowd that “You have been called to serve liberty and to defend the futures of our children and grandchildren,” and Rep. Price told them that “"a new generation of patriots has emerged. You are those patriots."

Republican Party leaders seemed optimistic Saturday that they could harness the energy, which first emerged as widespread in February, when tens of thousands turned out to Tea Party protests around the country, leading to a larger turnout at Tax Day Tea Parties on April 15, and attracting even more attention this summer, when angry constituents turned out in droves to during the recently concluded congressional summer recess to voice their displeasure with their federal lawmakers.

“If the Republican Party will carry the banner for the people who are here today, I think the majority of Americans will come with us and I just hope the rest of the Republicans here in congress will be smart enough to see that,” Sen. DeMint told Fox News television host Glenn Beck – who has emerged as perhaps the star of the movement – during a special Saturday afternoon broadcast timed to coincide with the march.

DeMint, whose political action committee was a co-sponsor of the march, told Beck before his speech, “I really do believe that in 2006 and 2008, Republicans didn't just lose our right to govern, we lost our way. I mean, we lost those elections because we walked away from the principles that had drawn hundreds of thousands of people in the nation's capitol, to the tea parties all across the country and town hall meetings.”

But Beck seemed unconvinced, telling DeMint and Rep. Pence, who appeared with DeMint on Beck’s show via satellite before speaking to the rally – that the national Republican Party had yet to reach “a pivot point.”

“I’m a recovering alcoholic,” said Beck, “and I can tell you the moment I said ‘enough. I have to change my life or I will die.’ And I have not seen that from the Republican Party.”

Americans, Beck said, believe that Republicans have lost their way and that – even when they oppose Obama’s plans – they are doing so for political motivations, not philosophical ones.

“I don't care who you vote for. I really don't,” Beck said in introducing DeMint and Pence. “Vote for Republicans, Vote for a Democrat. I think, quite frankly, you vote for either of them right now, and you still haven't gotten it. And, they are both taking us into a land of gigantic government where they control everything through corruption and everything else.”

Perhaps nothing better illustrates the difficulty Republicans will have in winning over the Tea Party activists than their adulation of Beck, whose fiery populist rhetoric often attracts controversy.

At Saturday’s rally, some waved “Glenn Beck for President” signs and many activists attribute the idea for – and energy behind – the marches to Beck. During a March broadcast, he unveiled what he called The 9-12 Project in which he urged viewers to try to recreate the united America that emerged the day after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

“It’s not about politics,” Beck said during the March broadcast. “You actually believe in something. And you thought for a while there your politicians did as well. And now you kind of realize well, maybe they don’t.”

As they marched today, the activists -- who chanted, “We own the dome,” while pointing at the Capitol -- sounded that same note.

“We used to be Republicans,” said Helen Benson of Jacksonville, Florida. “We didn’t like John McCain. The media liked John McCain.”

“They’re certainly not listening – Democrats or Republicans,” said Steve Cobb, who made it to Washington from Cordelle, Georgia with his wife, Sylvia.

dans l'actualité américaine, il n'y a pas que des gens qui protestent contre obama
il y a aussi des gens qui leur prédisent l'avenir météo et savoir s'ils pourront barbecuter le wikènd prochain
et c'est pas facile

(et encore je n'ai pas tout telecharge!!!)

Bonjour Jam

Reuters
Tennis champ curses at official on match point in the U.S. Open semifinals, threatening to shove a ball down her throat in tirade that resulted in a win for Kim Clijsters.

Ca, c'est elegant... Ca rappelle les beaux jours de McEnroe!

Oui... mais bon, c'est FOXNews...

FOX News, voui, mais pris sur Reuter tout de meme, Biloulou

Reuter, c'est bon, hein? (pas que j'en rafole moi-meme mais bon )

Bonjour Dame Sylvette !

(Hé hé hé )

Bonjour Biloulou !

EddieCochran a écrit:

Je trouve une grande utilité à ce fil qui permet de lire dans le texte des opinions émanant de personnalités américaines sur leur Nation ou sur le reste du monde pour peu que certaines plumes publiées ici se souviennent qu'il puisse exister.

Mais la lecture depuis des mois me devient de plus en plus pesante à force de n'être alimentée que de brûlots bien polis, de pamphlets à peine déguisés, de diabolisation assénée de manière lourdingue et de réflexions négatives alimentant un dénigrement perpétuel des dires et faits de la présidence des E-U.

C'est pénible quand ce n'est ridicule, à tout le moins lassant.

A quand des textes moins partisans et de temps à autre un aperçu des articles de presse mieux disposés, à la limite neutres, envers une présidence que les citoyens des E-U peuvent s'honorer d'avoir élue. En parcourant tous les billets d'ici on se demande même si les E-U méritent un grand bonhomme comme le Président actuel.

Je conclus en tartinant mon inculture par cette citation de Goethe sur son lit de mort "Mehr Licht"*. Personnellement je me contenterais de plus d'air.
*Plus de lumière

Ouf ! Une bouffee d'air.......
Cela me donnera l'occasion de revenir sur ce fil de temps en temps.

Une participante me prie de re-transmettre : L'air actuel n'est peut etre pas d'une purete cristalline, mais il a toujours l'avantage d'etre moins nauseabond qu'avant.


Ce qui est amusant cependant, c'est la periode tumultueuse et des dizaines de
milliers hier a Washington, et pas des extremistes du tout.... sur lesquels on s'apitoie. Pourquoi pas ?
Et je pense aux plus de cent mille americains, a Washington faisant savoir a 43 qu'ils ne voulaient pas de ce qu'il leur imposait........Ils ont ete critiques, descendus. Mais c'etait peut etre une bande d'extremistes apres tout......... !

Ah si ca devient une simple dispute d'air plus ou moins viscie, je ne vais pas me battre pour si peu, j'abandonne, oui, le gouvernement en place est le plus fort!

ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) intenterait un proces au jeune cineaste pour avoir oser, par l'intermediaire d'une camera cachee, demontre a 2 occasions que les employes de cette organisation lui avait donne a lui et a sa jeune assistante (s'etant presentes comme un proxenete et une prostituee desireux d'ouvrir une maison close pour mineures d'Amerique du Sud) tous les renseignements necessaires pour obtenir un pret gouvernemental et pour payer moins d'impots (en declarant 3 des jeunes filles a leur charge). Selon ACORN, le film aurait ete retouche electroniquement. (Je rappelle tout de meme que les 4 personnes sur la video ont tout de meme ete renvoyees par la direction)

ACORN est une organisation nationale supposee aidee les minorites desheritees, elle est accusee dans plusieurs etats d'avoir falsifie des listes electorales, inscrivant des personnes qui n'auraient pas du l'etre, d'autres plusieurs fois, etc...

Barack Obama est le grand defenseur de cette organisation, il en a ete l'un des avocats et s'etait assure qu'elle aiderait au recensement (meme apres les allegations de fraude fiscale) - elle vient heureusement d'etre evince du projet.

Toujours FOX News, hein, ben oui....

Filmmaker Demands Apology From ACORN for Claiming Undercover Video 'Doctored'

James O'Keefe and friend Hannah Giles posed as a pimp and prostitute looking to evade the IRS and apply for an illegal housing loan for a brothel. The sting operation caught four ACORN workers in the Baltimore and Washington, D.C., offices appearing to offer their help.

FOXNews.com
Sunday, September 13, 2009

a suivre....

========

Inside Obama’s Acorn

Esperant un CHANGEment... peu on su/voulu lire et ecouter.

========

Une anecdote: cet ete, nous avons rencontre pour dejeuner un couple de notre famille en vacances en Ecosse (ils resident normalement sur la cote est americaine et ont vote pour Barack Obama). Il y a quelques annees, ils avaient parle de prendre leur retraite dans leur pays d'origine. Lorsque nous leur avons demande si c'etait toujours leur souhait, le monsieur a repondu, Oh non, franchement, je ne pourrais jamais supporter la vie ici, les reglementations... c'est bien trop a gauche...

Je ne suis pas certaine qu'ils aient encore realise l'ampleur du CHANGEment qui est en train de descendre, que dis-je de s'abattre sur les Etats Unis, CHANGEment largement calque sur l'Europe.

Au sujet de Joe Wilson (qui, lors du discours de Barack Obama, s'etait ecrie: "Vous mentez", a deja presente des excuses au president (par respect a l'institution), c'est assez. Toutefois, des menaces par des Democrates de passer une resolution contre lui serait en cours.

No more Joe Wilson apologies
By JOHN BRESNAHAN | 9/13/09 7:39 PM EDT

A defiant Rep. Joe Wilson says he has no plans to make further apologies to President Barack Obama or House Democrats, setting up a showdown this week on sanctioning the South Carolina Republican for yelling out “You lie!” during Obama’s speech to Congress last week.

House Democratic leaders, especially Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), are outraged with Wilson’s conduct and are pushing a “resolution of disapproval” against him. Democrats are planning for a floor vote this week, possibly as early as Tuesday, unless Wilson takes some action first to head it off.

But Wilson said Sunday that he has already apologized to Obama and plans no further public contrition, even if it means formal condemnation from the House majority.

Wilson accused Democratic leaders of “playing politics” and using the incident to distract from the real issue — the cost and sweep of the Democratic health reform package and whether it covers illegal immigrants — by focusing on his comments.

“I am not going to apologize again. I apologized to the president on Wednesday night,” Wilson said during an appearance on “Fox News Sunday.” “I apologized one time. The apology was accepted by the president and the vice president, who I know. I’m not apologizing again.”

...

Airliner bomb plotters jailed for life
Three men convicted of plotting to bomb airliners flying from Britain to North America with liquid explosives hidden in soft drink bottles are jailed for life in London. The ringleader, Abdulla Ahmed Ali, must serve at least 40 years before he is eligible for parole, the judge said. full story

POLL: Obama's Speech Doesn't Turn the Tide

ABC News-Washington Post Poll: 48 Percent Approve Obama's Handling Health CareANALYSIS By GARY LANGER
Sept. 14, 2009

Bottom-line views on health care reform have stabilized but failed to improve since President Obama addressed the nation, leaving him with a continued challenge in selling his plan to a public that remains skeptical about its benefits and costs alike. (ABC News Photo Illustration)

Obama shows some improvement. He's stanched his losses, shored up his base and gained on a few specifics. But his speech was no game-changer: Americans in this ABC News/Washington Post poll divide by 48-48 percent on his handling of the issue and by 46-48 percent on the reform package itself, both essentially the same as their pre-address levels.

Click here for PDF with charts and questionnaire.

More continue to think reform will worsen rather than improve their own care, costs and coverage.
There's still a nearly even split on whether it'll improve care for most people in general. More think it'll weaken rather than strengthen Medicare. And nearly two-thirds think it'll boost the already vast federal deficit.

Perhaps worst for the president, in interviews following his nationally televised address to a joint session of Congress, Americans by 54-41 percent say that the more they hear about health care reform, the less they like it. And while he still leads the Republicans in Congress in trust to handle reform, he's lost 7 points in this measure, and they've gained 9, since June.

...

Allez pour faire plaisir a Eddie et parce que c'est trop drole (ou presque) quand on a suivi de pres les agissements de la gauche quand Pres. Bush43 etait a la Maison Blanche!

Lies
by [url=http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/bios/hendrik_hertzberg/search?contributorName=hendrik hertzberg]Hendrik Hertzberg[/url]
September 21, 2009

After the tea-partying, town-meeting-disrupting, pistol-packing mensis horribilis of August, more than a few commentators complained, as one of them put it, that “Obama should have seen it coming.” No one doubted that the current attempt to overhaul America’s uniquely wasteful and unjust system of health insurance and non-insurance would touch off the kind of demagogic, misleading attacks that have greeted every past attempt at ambitious reform, successful (Medicare) and unsuccessful (all the rest) alike. The plan is socialism; government bureaucrats will choose your doctor and prescribe your treatments; the economy will be ruined; taxes will crush you—all that and more was to be expected. But the predominant tone of opposition to the emerging Democratic health-care proposals, and to the President personally, came as a surprise to the White House and a profound shock to many who voted for Barack Obama last November.

.....



Des petites natures ces ultra-liberaux, ils ont le droit d'etre dans l'opposition quand un president Republicain est a la Maison Blanche mais se vexent que ceux qui ne partagent pas leur avis le fassent savoir lorsque un Democrate est au pouvoir!

Ben oui, quoa, comment les opposes aux idees de Barack Obama (dont beaucoup, apparemment ne se considerent meme pas ou plus comme des Republicains) on-ils pu ne pas etre touches par la "Grace" ou au moins n'ont pas la courtoisie de se taire et puis, et puis, quoa? ils n'ont meme pas de chef! On croit rever!

Des petites natures, des naifs et des elithistes, ces ultra-liberaux, oui!

Le pire est qu'il faille au moins leur donner quelque chose: la sincerite de leurs sentiments, car enfin oui, ils sont sinceres: ils n'en reviennent pas!

Op-Ed Columnist

The Ghosts of 1994
By ROSS DOUTHAT
Published: September 13, 2009

There are obvious parallels between Barack Obama’s push for health care reform and Bill Clinton’s ill-fated attempt 16 years ago. In both cases, an apparent legislative juggernaut hit a wall of public skepticism. Both presidents saw their poll numbers wilt in the summertime heat. Both White Houses staged a September address to Congress in an effort to regain the political initiative.

We know how the story turned out last time. Clinton’s popularity, temporarily boosted by his September speech, quickly sank again. Health care reform withered on the vine. Public anger with Washington boiled higher. And Newt Gingrich’s Congressional Republicans swept into power the following fall.

The long shadow of that 1994 drubbing helps explain why Democrats will probably end up passing something called “health care reform” before the year is out, the better to avoid their party’s Clinton-era fate.

But Frank Luntz, the pollster behind Gingrich’s Contract With America, thinks they may have the wrong early-1990s parallel in mind.

When I asked him about the lessons of 1994, Luntz — whose latest book, “What Americans Really Want ... Really,” is pitched to a bipartisan audience — happily rattled off the parallels between that era and this one: anxiety about deficits, furious distrust of Washington, growing doubts about a Democratic president.

But Luntz insisted that in the run-up to the ’94 election, “it wasn’t the health care debate that was driving the anger; it was the crime bill.”

That piece of legislation, which mixed stricter sentencing laws with more money for prison-building and more financing for police, was supposed to cement Clinton’s reputation as a tough-minded centrist.

Instead, the crime bill became a lightning rod for populist outrage. The price tag made it seem fiscally irresponsible. (Back then, $30 billion was real money.) The billions it lavished on crime prevention — like the infamous funding of “midnight basketball” — looked liked ineffective welfare spending. The gun-control provisions felt like liberalism-as-usual.

“Every day that the Republicans delayed the bill,” Luntz remembers, “the public learned more about it — and the more they learned, the angrier they got.”

That’s exactly what’s been happening now. The health care push has opened up arguments about abortion, euthanasia and illegal immigration that the Democrats would rather avoid. At the same time, it’s become the vessel for a year’s worth of anxieties about bailouts, deficits and Beltway incompetence.

This August’s town-hall fury wasn’t just about the details of health care. Neither were the anti-Obama protests that crowded Washington over the weekend. They were about the Wall Street bailout, the G.M. takeover, the A.I.G. bonuses, and countless smaller examples of middle-income Americans’ “playing by the rules,” as Luntz puts it, “and having someone else benefit.”

The bad news for Democrats is that actually passing a health care bill could further enflame these anxieties. Clinton’s crime bill passed Congress by substantial margins, when all was said and done. But the anger that the debate had summoned up didn’t go away — and Gingrich’s Republicans were there to reap the benefits.

The good news for Democrats, though, is that if they pass an unpopular health care bill soon, they’ll have plenty of time to change the subject. Clinton signed the crime bill in September 1994, just two months before the Republican landslide. If health care reform passes Congress this autumn, there will still be almost a year until voters head to the polls.

The even better news for Democrats is that they aren’t up against Newt Gingrich this time. Gingrich was an ideological figure, but he was savvy enough to grasp the essentially nonideological character of the public’s anger in 1994. The Contract With America, remembered as a right-wing document by liberals and conservatives alike, was actually a model of center-right incrementalism, with every bullet point carefully crafted to appeal to the voters who went for Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996.

Today’s anger has a similarly Perotista cast. It burns hottest, obviously, on the Beck-watching, Limbaugh-listening right. But it’s disaffected independents, as much as doctrinaire conservatives, who have pushed Obama’s approval numbers steadily southward.

This August’s town-hall fury wasn’t just about the details of health care. Neither were the anti-Obama protests that crowded Washington over the weekend. They were about the Wall Street bailout, the G.M. takeover, the A.I.G. bonuses, and countless smaller examples of middle-income Americans’ “playing by the rules,” as Luntz puts it, “and having someone else benefit.”

The bad news for Democrats is that actually passing a health care bill could further enflame these anxieties. Clinton’s crime bill passed Congress by substantial margins, when all was said and done. But the anger that the debate had summoned up didn’t go away — and Gingrich’s Republicans were there to reap the benefits.

The good news for Democrats, though, is that if they pass an unpopular health care bill soon, they’ll have plenty of time to change the subject. Clinton signed the crime bill in September 1994, just two months before the Republican landslide. If health care reform passes Congress this autumn, there will still be almost a year until voters head to the polls.

The even better news for Democrats is that they aren’t up against Newt Gingrich this time. Gingrich was an ideological figure, but he was savvy enough to grasp the essentially nonideological character of the public’s anger in 1994. The Contract With America, remembered as a right-wing document by liberals and conservatives alike, was actually a model of center-right incrementalism, with every bullet point carefully crafted to appeal to the voters who went for Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996.

Today’s anger has a similarly Perotista cast. It burns hottest, obviously, on the Beck-watching, Limbaugh-listening right. But it’s disaffected independents, as much as doctrinaire conservatives, who have pushed Obama’s approval numbers steadily southward.

“It isn’t a right-left thing,” Luntz says. “It’s not that people are pro- or anti-government.” They just feel the government has spent the last year giving them the shaft, and they’re worried it’s about to happen again.

But as long as the Republican Party is defined by its most juvenile ideologues (think Joe Wilson) and its most transparent panderers (think Michael Steele), it’s hard to see the party capitalizing on this angry centrism the way the Gingrich revolutionaries did.

As Luntz observes, “it’s not enough to set the stage — you have to maximize the revolt.” And this time, the Democrats may be luckier in their opponents.

Paul Krugman is off today.

Nous verrons bien.

Ont-ils deja oublie la facon dont Pres. Bush 43 a ete traite? Ou font-ils semblant? C'etait OK pour Bush par pour Obama?

A bout de ressources, la carte raciale va-t-elle etre ressortie comme pendant la campagne electorale?

Democrats see race factor for Barack Obama foes
By JONATHAN MARTIN | 9/14/09 5:05 AM EDT



The whispers among some of his allies: that those who loathe Obama are driven in part by racism. Demonstrators are shown during a rally at Freedom Plaza in Washington on Saturday. Photo: Reuters

AUSTIN – Eight months into Barack Obama’s presidency, as criticism of his administration seems to reach new levels of volume and intensity each week, the whispers among some of his allies are growing louder: That those who loathe the nation’s first African-American president, and especially those who would deny his citizenship, are driven at least in part by racism.

It’s a feeling that’s acutely felt among those supporters of Obama who are themselves minorities. Conversations with Democrats at an otherwise upbeat Democratic National Committee fall gathering here, an event largely devoted to party housekeeping, reflected a growing anger at what many see as a troubling effort to delegitimize Obama’s hold on the office.

“As far as African-Americans are concerned, we think most of it is,” said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), when asked in an interview in between sessions how much of the more extreme anger at Obama is based upon his race. “And we think it’s very unfortunate. We as African-American people of course are very sensitive to it.”

Johnson is a somewhat-reserved, nine-term member of Congress, more gracious southern lady than racial bomb-thrower. She enjoyed a warm personal relationship with fellow Texan George W. Bush when he was in the White House and fondly recalled their ability to get along, divergent politics aside.

But she said the disdain for this president, especially sharp in her home state, had reached a point where it had become necessary to speak out.

“It’s hurting the spirit of this country,” Johnson said, citing concerns about what the rest of the world may think about a powerful nation where a significant segment of the population does not accept their elected leader as legitimate.

Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.), chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, agreed with his colleague that elements of the opposition can’t accept the reality of a black president.

“There’s a very angry, small group of folks that just didn’t like the fact that Barack Obama won the presidency,” Honda said, adding: “With some, I think it is [about race].

Said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) about the race factor: “There are some issues that have been swept under the rug and we’re not witnessing them come out.”

But it's still a sensitive enough issue that the party doesn’t broach it directly.

Virginia Governor and Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine used a speech Friday to single out those conservative critics whose hostility toward President Obama goes deeper than just opposing his policies — but without mentioning that which many in his party believe drives the anger.

“Republican leaders…rose up to say that he did not deserve honorary degrees from colleges that were giving him degrees last spring, members of Congress, Republican members of Congress, are spreading bogus rumors about where the president was born, and they whipped up opposition all across this country when President Obama wanted to give a speech to our nation’s schoolchildren to tell them to take responsibility, study hard and stay in school,” Kaine said here at the party’s fall meeting.

He demurred when asked later whether this often-personal criticism is rooted in contempt for a president who happens to be black.

Other Democrats, not as constrained by the office they hold, are more outspoken about what they see as the racism aimed at Obama.


“We think all of it is!” exclaimed Gwen Dawkins, a Democratic activist from Michigan and retired state employee when asked to what degree the fervent opposition to Obama was driven by his skin color.

Dawkins also touched on a common, if mostly privately-held, frustration in the African-American community—that with exceptional difficulties at home and abroad, Obama is bearing a significantly heavier burden than most presidents and his naysayers would prefer him to founder so as to validate their fears about a black president.

“Black people have lived under white presidents since day one,” Dawkins observed, “So would you give him a chance?”

.....

Ou est le rapport?


==========

Pour rappel: Obama en Joker n'est en fait que la copie de Bush en Joker (a la rigueur, je trouve que ca peche pas manque d'originalite) (et pourtant...)

... et un troisieme "cas"

Republican Lawmakers Turn Up the Heat on ACORN

A growing number of Republican lawmakers are calling for congressional hearings and IRS audits of ACORN following the release of three videotapes showing employees at the community organization assisting a purported "pimp" and "prostitute" in obtaining housing.

By Joshua Rhett Miller

FOXNews.com

Monday, September 14, 2009

A growing number of Republican lawmakers are calling for congressional hearings and IRS audits of ACORN following the release of three videotapes that show the group's employees offering advice to a "pimp" and a "prostitute" on how to skirt the law.

Rep. Steve King, R-IA, said a video released Monday that shows filmmaker James O'Keefe, 25, and Hannah Giles, 20, getting advice from ACORN employees in Brooklyn, N.Y., on how to launder their earnings and avoid detection while running a prostitution business is "another reason to turn it up" on ACORN.

Four ACORN employees -- two in Baltimore and two in Washington -- were fired late last week after videos showed the "pimp" and "prostitute" getting similar advice in those cities. In those videos, O'Keefe and Giles told the ACORN workers that they intended to bring underage girls into the country to work as prostitutes.

...

Give It To Us Straight

Obama and his opponents aren't being honest. But neither is the public.

We cannot, it seems, have a candid national conversation on health care. President Obama's speech the other night was a brilliant performance, and it may improve prospects for congressional passage of his "reform." But no possible plan will fix the "health care problem" for all time. When Obama says that "I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last," he is indulging his ambition for a special place in history and illustrating why Americans don't discuss health care honestly.

.....
C 2009

Article interessant, qui tape sur les doigts de tous, et donc meme sur ceux de Barack Obama, ce qui est surprenant de la part de Newsweek, mais il n'y est pas mentionne l'eventuele transfert de Medicare du niveau federal a celui des etats. (les gouverneurs ayant deja avise qu'ils ne seraient pas en mesure de faire face a de telles depenses!)

Surveillez bien c'est le nouveau mot d'ordre. La majorite silencieuse, Michael Moore en parlait dans le message d'Ombre et ca devrait continuer!!!

A New Silent Majority? White House Says Health Care Protesters Not in Mainstream

Just as Richard Nixon built a crushing victory in the 1972 presidential election on the so-called Silent Majority -- those supposedly well-behaved Americans who did not protest their government -- the current administration seems to be pushing the argument that its support is broad-based and quietly minding its own business.

FOXNews.com

Monday, September 14, 2009

A majority of Americans oppose the Democrats' health care reform plans, polls show. Tens of thousands of demonstrators hit the streets of Washington Saturday to protest the federal government. And summer town hall meetings were marked by the outbursts of noisy constituents confronting their lawmakers over health care reform.

In response, the Obama administration has called this discontent "manufactured," misguided and out-of-touch with the mainstream.

So is the administration banking on its own "Silent Majority?"

Just as President Richard Nixon built a crushing victory in 1972 on the so-called Silent Majority -- those supposedly well-behaved Americans who did not protest their government -- the current administration seems to be pushing the argument that its support is broad-based and quietly minding its own business.

"A quiet plurality," is how Georgetown University professor Stephen Wayne put it, declining to invoke the specific term for the divisive politics of the Nixon administration.

Whether the Obama administration enjoys, or will soon enjoy, such a plurality is unclear. Public opinion continues to shift. But the administration is claiming that support all the same.

"I don't think it's indicative of the nation's mood," senior adviser David Axelrod said Sunday when asked about the weekend demonstrations, suggesting that the "tea party" protesters are not in the mainstream and not in the majority.

"My message to them is, they're wrong," Axelrod said. *

....

Wayne, echoing the view of several prominent senators, said that in order to build that majority Obama and his Democratic allies are probably going to have to drop the so-called "public option."
Until then, Wayne said the protesters are "large enough not to be dismissed" -- though he said protesters in any setting, on any issue, usually represent a minority activist community.

Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, which organized the Saturday protest in Washington, objected to Axelrod's comments.

"This thing was massive," he said of the protest, estimating at least hundreds of thousands of people participated.

"I've never seen a White House with such apparent disdain for civic participation in the public debate," Kibbe said. "Whatever you think the polling numbers are, the direction they're moving in seems pretty unified."

* C'est par pour dire mais je vais le dire quand meme, lorsqu'il y avait des manifestations anti-Bush, George disait toujours que c'etait ca la democratie: les gens devaient pouvoir s'exprimer.

Entre autres, Mr. Axelrod dit aux manifestants qu'ils ont tort.
Et toc! Ca doit faire partie du CHANGEment!

Suite a la parution des videos dont il a ete question dans les messages precedents, le Sénat a vote (83 a 7) la cessation du financement des prets immobiliers accordes par ACORN aux membres de communites ayant de faibles revenus (financement prevu dans l'actuel projet de loi de credits)

Des prets donc pour lesquels l'etat federal prend la responsabilite, comparable a Fannie Mae et Freddie Mac mais avec des exigences/standards de dossiers moins importantes.

Senate Votes to Cut Off ACORN Housing Funding

The amendment, offered by Sen. Mike Johanns, passed in a vote of 83 to 7 and prohibits the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now from receiving funds from the current Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. It marks the third time this year Republicans tried to block the organization from federal funding.
FOXNews.com

Monday, September 14, 2009

The Senate voted to cut off ACORN Housing funds following the release of three videotapes that show employees of the activist group advising a "pimp" and "prostitute" on how to break the law.

The amendment, offered by Nebraska Republican Sen. Mike Johanns, passed in a vote of 83 to 7 and prohibits the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now from receiving funds from the current Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. It marks the third time this year Republicans tried to block the organization from federal funding.

The latest vote comes on the heels of the release of hidden-camera videos showing workers in three separate ACORN housing offices apparently helping a couple posing as a pimp and prostitute evade the IRS and apply for an illegal housing loan for a brothel.

ACORN Housing Corporation received $1.6 million to provide housing services to low-income communities in this fiscal year, ending Sept. 30, according to USASpending.gov, a federal government Web site for tracking government grants.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development Grants has given $8.2 million to ACORN in the years between 2003 and 2006, as well as $1.6 million to ACORN affiliates.

It wasn't immediately clear whether the offices shown in the videos had received any of ACORN's federal grant money for housing services.