Scandals and Questions............pick one

1. NSA Spying
2. Fast and Furious
3. Benghazi's unanswered questions
4. IRS' unanswered questions and the stalling on information release.
5. Affordable Care Act's never having been read and now being changed without Congress

Which would you say is the worst affront to our Constitution?

I was thinking how much the word SCANDAL is used even by the leftwing media for so much of Obama's presidency.  Weird.

Z

Obama and Holder

Boy, if this doesn't feel like the truth, huh?
Z

Obama will revisit his CAIRO SPEECH? OH, my GOSH..........

Get a load of THIS.  Do you ever get the feeling that Obama blames Americans for the rift with muslims?  I understand that he's apparently trying to build bridges and make muslims less angry at us, but....don't you figure the 'average muslim' on the street is thinking "GeeeZ, muslim nuts killed 3000 Americans and their president's trying to make US feel better about THEM?"   Check these Obama phrases from his speech out:

"Forcefully returning to a theme he sounded last year in visits to Turkey and Egypt, Obama said: "I have made it clear that America is not and never will be at war with islam ... Those who want to build must not cede ground to terrorists who seek to destroy."
Reaching out to the Islamic world, Obama said efforts to build trust and peace are showing promise but are still clearly incomplete.
"Relations between the United States and Muslim nations have been frayed over many years. As president, I have made it a priority to begin to repair these relations," Obama said.
He said both sides have a choice: either "be defined by our differences and give in to a future of suspicion and mistrust" or "do the hard work of forging common ground and commit ourselves to the steady pursuit of progress." 

Here's another clip from the end of the linked article:

China and Germany, however, have suggested that the U.S. Federal Reserve's announcement last week that it would in effect print $600 billion to buy longer-term U.S. Treasury bonds over the next eight months — in an effort to drive down interest rates and stimulate the U.S. economy — had further driven down an already weak dollar, worsening global trade tensions.

Of course, they're probably absolutely right.  I wish so much that he would LISTEN.

Tell me something, what would you like Obama to tell muslim audiences in muslim countries?  Pretend you're him (now, now....I said "pretend"), and tell us in COMMENTS what you think would be important for him to say.  ("I quit" doesn't count :-)

geeeeeeeeZ

OINK! This is HUGE, folks...Sherrod and Breitbart; a NEW SLANT

I was just sent this email....I found it attributed to a blogger called ABRAXAS who writes for undercoverage.net, a blog you might want to check out. Skim through the top stuff, you know most of it, but MAKE SURE YOU CLICK ON THE LINK IN PINK and READ THE REST! DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS, BUT I THINK IT'S WELL WORTH YOUR ATTENTION. Here goes:

Andrew Breitbart is a media genius.
He proved it originally with his brilliant handling of the ACORN ‘hooker’ scandal which he skillfully manipulated so that the corrupt media was forced, against its will, to broadcast corruption in one of Obama’s most powerful political support groups. But Breitbart’s handing of that affair is nothing compared to his brilliant manipulation of the Shirley Sherrod ‘white farmer’ scandal.

It all began last Monday, July 22, 2010. As the country watched in horror, Breitbart released a snippet of a tape on his “Big Government” site which showed an obscure black female official of the Dept. of Agriculture laughing to a roomful of NAACP members about how she’d discriminated against a destitute white farmer and refused to give him the financial aid he desperately needed.

As she smirked to the room, she’d sent him instead to a white lawyer – ‘one of his own kind’ – for help.
The black woman was Shirley Sherrod – and almost immediately she became the center of a firestorm of controversy which exploded throughout the country.

Within a day of the release of that infamous tape, the head of the Dept. of Agriculture, spurred on by Obama, demanded – and received – Sherrod’s resignation.

Breitbart had won.

But then seemingly Breitbart’s actions began to explode in his face.

As Sherrod screamed in protest, FOX News released the entire text of her speech last March to the NAACP.
And there on tape Sherrod was shown supposedly repenting of her racism against a white farmer and instead championing his fight to win funds to keep his farm afloat.

Within hours of that entire tape being revealed, the entire world turned against Andrew Breitbart.
Conservatives throughout the country were enraged that he’d endangered their reputations by releasing a ‘doctored’ tape.
Breitbart, they thundered, had dealt a fatal blow to the conservative media.

I confess that I also was horrified at what I saw as the clumsiness and stupidity of Breitbart in ‘doctoring’ a tape to make a supposedly innocent woman look guilty. But now I discover I have been as guilty of haste to judgment of Breitbart as the Dept. of Agriculture was of Ms. Sherrod.

Only now am I realizing the real purpose for Breitbart’s release of that tape snippet. It was to allow him to cunningly trick the media into exposing one of the most shocking examples of corruption in the federal government – a little known legal case called “Pigford v. Glickman”.

Check it yourself at:
http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/07/27/pigford-v-glickman-86000-claims-from-39697-total-farmers/?singlepage=true

“In 1997, 400 African-American farmers sued the United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that they had been unfairly denied USDA loans due to racial discrimination during the period 1983 to 1997.”
The case was entitled “Pigford v. Glickman” and in 1999, the black farmers won their case.
The government agreed to pay each of them as much as $50,000 to settle their claims.

But then on February 23, 2010, something shocking happened in relation to that original judgment: In total silence, the USDA agreed to release more funds to “Pigford”.

The amount was a staggering...... $1.25 billion. This was because the original number of plaintiffs – 400 black farmers – had now.... swollen in a class action suit to include a total of 86,000 black farmers throughout America.

There was only one teensy problem:

The United States of America doesn’t have 86,000 black farmers!

According to accurate and totally verifiable Official USDA 2007 Census census data, the total number of black farmers throughout America is only 39,697. Hmmm... by the Official USDA 1992 Census data the US had only 18,816 black farmers!!
Oops!
Well, gosh – how on earth did 39,697 explode into the fraudulent 86,000 claims?
And how did $50,000 explode into $1.25 billion? Well, folks, you’ll just have to ask the woman who not only spearheaded this case because of her position in 1997 at the “Rural Development Leadership Network” but whose family received the highest single payout (approximately $13 million) from that action – Shirley Sherrod.
Oops again!

Yes, folks. It appears that Ms. Sherrod had just unwittingly exposed herself as the perpetrator of one of the biggest fraud claims in the United States – a fraud enabled solely because she screamed racism
at the government and cowed them into submission. And it gets even more interesting.

Ms. Sherrod has also exposed the person who aided and abetted her in this race fraud. As it turns out, the original judgment of “Pigford v. Glickman” in 1999 only applied to a total of about 16,000 black farmers.
But.... in 2008, a junior US Senator got a law passed to reopen the case and allow more black farmers to sue for funds. The Senator was Barack Hussein Obama.

Because this law was passed in dead silence and because the woman responsible for spearheading it was an obscure USDA official, American taxpayers did not realize that they had just been forced in the midst of a worldwide depression to pay out more than $1.25 billion to settle a race claim.

But Breitbart knew. And last Monday, July 22, 2010, he cleverly laid a trap which Sherrod – and Obama + his cronies– stumbled headfirst into which has now resulted in the entire world discovering the existence of this corrupt financial judgment.

As for Ms. Sherrod? Well, she’s discovering too late that her cry of ‘racism’ to the media which was intended to throw the spotlight on Breitbart has instead thrown that spotlight on herself – and the huge corruption.

Sherrod has vanished from public view. Her ‘pigs’, it seems, have come home to roost.
Oink!
But the perpetrator of that law passed in dead silence leading to unlawful claims & corruption..... is still trying to fool all of US.

Z: Some of the style of the piece seems mildly excitable or hyperbolic but the LINK IN PINK, halfway down the article, has the facts and figures and I urge you to see that. You can't PUT enough lipstick on THIS pig of a story. Trouble is, nobody really IS hearing it, are they. That the mainstream media's not covering this is, well....how shocked can we be? I guess that, today, by now, I'd have to say ...."normal", right?

BS REMOVERS ...help a friend!

"Even works on a Prius!" I just had to post this..thanks, Imp!

Voter Fraud and Intimidation........details you should know

IF OBAMA DOESN’T WANT TO NEUTER YOUR VOTE, WHY IS HE ACTING LIKE IT?

By our friend and commenter Deborah at Bayside

It’s a good rule of thumb that if you want more of something you make it easy. Want MORE bad behavior? Make it easy to get away with. Like voter fraud.

Journalist John Fund addressed this in his book Stealing Elections and has written a new primer on the gathering storm of election fraud that threatens our democracy, How the Obama Administrations Threatens to Undermind Our Elections.

The US Civil Rights Commission is investigating Obama’s shocking dismissal of the voter intimidation case against the Black Panthers in Philadelphia. Fund, in a recent interview with Dennis Prager, probed voting abuses sanctioned by the Obamians.

Red Alert!! A tsunami is coming.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 says you can’t intimidate or impede people from voting. It’s usually enforced for infringing minority rights. But not always. When a black political boss in Mississippi was throwing people off the rolls because he didn’t like the way they voted, the Justice Dept. shut him down.

Is Obama actually obstructing the Civil Rights Commission?

Fox News reported on 7-6-10 “it's unclear how far the Commission will get [in the Panther investigation]. The Commissioners want to hear from Christopher Coates, the former chief of the Justice Department's voting section, but the commission claims the Justice Department is blocking Coates from testifying about why the case was dropped.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/06/ex-official-accuses-justice-department-racial-bias-black-panther-case/

Why is Coates important and credible? His roots are as an ACLU attorney, and he’s one of the most celebrated civil rights attorneys - ever. According to Fund “he cracked down on all kinds of voting intimidation cases in the South.” He headed the DOJ’s Voting Rights Section and intended to pursue the Black Panther case. Even the very left American Prospect makes that clear: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_battle_for_voting_rights.

But Coates was transferred from Washington DC to Charleston SC and away from voting civil rights cases this January.

Why does his “exile to Siberia” matter? John Fund reports the Commission has an arcane rule: you can't subpoena anyone over 50 miles from Washington DC. And now Coates is conveniently outside that limit. So – unless he quits his job like Adams - he can't be subpoenaed to shed light on the machinations in the Obama DOJ.

Which brings us to Round 2: the Motor Voter Law. And Julie Fernandes.*

Motor Voter is federal law. The DOJ enforces it. It requires postcard registration in every state. The opportunity for easy cheating is rampant. So at least it requires states to purge their voter rolls of ineligible names - dead people, felons, illegals, moved aways, absentees who don’t exist, etc.

So why has the Obama administration said they're "never going to tell the states or sue the states saying that you have to clean up your voter rolls” to quote Fund?

Obama's Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes spilled the beans. "We're not interested in those kind of cases” she said. “What do they have to do with helping increase minority access and turnout? We want to increase access to the ballot, not limit it."

Her idea of "access' to the ballot is letting a bunch of ineligible voters stay on the rolls? For “access” to what? Rampant cheating! What else could possibly be inferred? That’s quite the opposite of “access to the ballot” Missy! When you swamp clean votes with dirty ones you deny my “access” as a legitimate voter to be heard fairly. Ms. F is a smart cookie. Do you think this has escaped her notice?

She’s one of the Obama appointees who shut down the Panther case. Her bio claims she “successfully led the civil rights community's effort to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act of 1965.” Oh – that’s the one that says you can’t intimidate or impede people from voting. Yet former DOJ attorney Christian Adams testified before the US Civil Rights Commission that she announced at a policy meeting "the voting section will not bring any other cases against blacks and other minorities." Yikers! It’s 1965 all over again.

Our voting rights are in serious jeopardy with the likes of bad apples like this.

Want to see the enemy in action? Watch her torture reason beyond recognition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL0SFqFfEE8

Want MORE voter fraud? Make it easy to get away with.

>> Change – the kind Obama believes in, apparently.

*These driveby attorneys don’t just come out of nowhere. Like termites, they’ve been eating away at the structure for years. Fernandes’ lefty pedigree includes: - Senior policy analyst and senior counsel at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.Focused on policy development and advocacy in the areas of voting rights among others.- Worked for the DOJ under the controversial Bill Lann Lee (remember him?). Focused on voting rights, among others.- Special Assistant to President Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council.

THANK YOU, Deborah at Bayside....your research and having put this together as you did is enlightening and should be read by every American. Alas, it will not, and this whole nightmare will be swept under the carpet like so much else these days.

Z

The scariest Obama administration story yet:

The fact that the Black Panther case was dropped is so staggeringly scary that I don't know what to say other than "This is a DEMOCRACY? ...when voters CAN be intimidated IF it's a Black guy intimidating a WHITE guy?" Please see the interviews in my videos HERE if you haven't heard the details of this story. If you haven't time to see all 3 videos, make SURE you watch the bottom one...the liberal civil rights attorney who tells the unbiased, unpartisan TRUTH about Obama and Holder's Dept of "Justice"; The mainstream media's barely covered it. If at all?
I'd really like someone to take Holder's side on this.....I'd really like to see the argument.
(thanks, Bubba) x
z

Obama and other Democrat politicians....A STARK contrast to other administrations?

In case some of you missed seeing this on TV Wednesday night, please watch this.....you only have to watch into the third minute to get your nose full (as they say in Germany), believe me. Is THIS awful, belittling sarcasm what we need to help our country? Do any constituents deserve this treatment, especially thoughtful constituents intensely worried about illegal immigration?
Then we have Obama talking about "calling their bluff" about Republicans. What kind of talk is that from a President of these United States? Let's not talk content this time, that's a whole other post, but let's talk ATTITUDE, DECORUM, DIGNITY. And I believe he said this in Toronto in front of the world; is this helpful?










California Congressman Pete Stark addresses people worried about the border. Obama addressees people about the economy. These are really important subjects Americans are very worried about, why can't the Democrats address the people better than this? Whether you're a Bush fan or not, please find an example of his using demeaning sarcasm or thug talk ... I'd like to see that. I don't believe it exists. Even Democrats will admit he took a terrible beating by the left constantly...yet he held his tongue, even when the Dixie Chicks insulted our country IN EUROPE! Bush's comment was ''the Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind,'' adding, ''they shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out. You know, freedom is a two-way street," to which Maines of the Dixie Chicks responded with "he's a dumb F...," to which he had no public response. Martin Sheen called Bush's quote 'bullying!' You think Sheen thinks Congressman Stark is a bully? (smile)
Why must Democrats like Stark and our own President do what they do? Like when Joe the Plumber got SO hosed for only asking a polite question, and like the custard guy who Biden called a "smart a$$"... WHY?
z (thanks, Mustangxx)

Oil Leases CONTINUING in the Gulf.................

Have YOU heard about the information below ? HERE is the full PRESS RELEASE about a lawsuit regarding the MMS's continued lease of deep water drilling...here are bits of it:

ATLANTA –

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) continues to approve new leases after the Deepwater Horizon explosion that give British Petroleum and other companies the right to drill even more deepwater wells in the Gulf of Mexico under the same inadequate oversight that led to the current oil spill, according to a new legal challenge filed by the Southern Environmental Law Center and Defenders of Wildlife. The groups say current policies create an incentive to allow drilling even in the face of evident risks because once a lease is issued by MMS, the U.S. government is obligated to pay the lessee either the fair market value of the lease or the amount spent to obtain the bid plus costs and interest if the government cancels the lease or refuses to allow drilling. MMS approved new leases for deepwater tracts as recently as June 10 under the same lax oversight complicit in the current Gulf spill. “MMS quietly granted oil companies the right to drill 198 more deepwater wells as if the spill wasn’t devastating the Gulf,” said Derb Carter, senior attorney and director, Carolinas Office, Southern Environmental Law Center. “If it’s too deep to stop a spill, it’s too deep to drill. BP is under criminal investigation for its explosion and dumping millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf, yet MMS approved 13 new leases for BP to drill in deepwater without any better oversight.” The groups’ lawsuit challenges MMS approval of leases, including 198 deepwater leases, in the Central Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon explosion on April 20 and ongoing spill. In a legal claim added on June 10 to an ongoing lawsuit in federal court, the groups allege that MMS failed its legal responsibility after the explosion and spill to reconsider its 2008 conclusions that the sale of the deepwater leases and future oil drilling would have no potential significant impact to the environment and no detailed environmental review was required. .......Despite President Obama’s moratorium on new deepwater wells, MMS approved the leases as it did the Deepwater Horizon rig—under the same inadequate environmental review, requiring no failsafe spill preventions, and with insufficient spill response plans—all of which led to the ongoing Gulf oil spill. Now news reports say the President is considering cutting short his moratorium on new deepwater wells due to increasing pressure from oil companies.

I am all for drilling...as are the residents of our Gulf Coast...and there probably aren't any FAILSAFE spill preventions but shouldn't they be CLOSE?... and shouldn't there be sufficient spill response plans? Have you heard this on the news? Should the media be reporting on this, too!?
z (thanks, Martha)

Barack is no fool

By WAYNE ALLYN ROOT: Obama's agenda: Overwhelm the system

Rahm Emanuel cynically said, "You never want a crisis to go to waste." It is now becoming clear that the crisis he was referring to is Barack Obama's presidency.

Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.

Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.
-- Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?
-- Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."
-- Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.
-- Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.
-- Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.
-- Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.
With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.
Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme -- all devised by my Columbia University
college classmate Barack Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan.Wayne Allyn Root was the 2008 Libertarian Party vice presidential nominee and serves on the Libertarian National Committee.
z

Obama won't be at Arlington Cemetery........and I just added new info on Obama you might like to see, I sure did...it says a LOT about him

Obama's Visit Back Home Leaves Chicagoans Guessing is the title of THIS STORY:

May 25, 2010 9:31 AM (my article quotes are in italics)

WASHINGTON -- The news that President Barack Obama and his family will return to Chicago for the Memorial Day weekend has triggered a guessing game.

Where will they dine? What will they do for fun? With the Sox on the road and the Blackhawks skating into the Stanley Cup finals, might the first family ditch its predictable pastimes -- basketball, golf and tennis -- and go to the United Center for hockey?"

"Where will they DINE?" Is that a joke? Isn't it odd? I felt a wave of sadness when I saw that our president won't be at Arlington and Chicagoans care WHERE HE'S DINING in their city? It made me feel so badly for America that her President is taking his family to his hometown on Memorial Day instead of doing the traditional wreath laying at Arlington. He's sending Joe Biden instead. But, of course, Obama will be visiting a cemetery in Chicago, as this says:

According to a White House official, the Obamas will arrive Thursday and stay until Monday, when Obama will participate in a Memorial Day ceremony at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery in Elwood. The veterans' cemetery is about 50 miles south of Chicago.

I guess that ought to do it for me, but I'm feeling a little odd about it and I am quite sure I'd feel odd about it if a Republican president did this, too. Maybe they have and maybe it's my bias showing....but it feels BAD. He was there last year, see my image above, but with all the sentiment against Obama these days, with his numbers so down, his allegiance to this country that many feel is questionable, wouldn't you think this would be one weekend he could have sucked it up and attended this event that so honors all of our fallen heroes? Does he care what anybody thinks?

z (thanks for the scoop, major...when I saw your comment, I thought you were joking, but, alas...)

UPDATE Wed. morning; Please visit THIS BLOG, "Another Black Conservative"...he has an amazing piece with information I hadn't heard about Obama and how he relates behind closed doors with the Republicans. You won't want to miss that. (and it's a good blog, a very good blog)

z

Obama said these things!?

I look at my sitemeter now and again and like to see what people are reading....someone was just reading this post of mine from May, 2008 and I thought I had to repost it, my first repost ever...but an important one.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 REPOST:

"....animosity against my mother's race"? WHAT, Obama?

In Obama's Own Words

from his own books....

This guy wants to be our President and control our government. He also talks about unifying everyone. Does this sound like one who really wants to unify? Pay close attention to the last comment.

From Dreams of My Father:

-'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

-'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mothers race.'
-'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

-'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

-'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

From Audacity of Hope:

-'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

Do you all remember this information? An American president with quite some different feelings from previous presidents, huh? So, more than a year into his presidency, have you felt he still adheres to these statements?
z

Busting Health Care by the Rand Corporation and Michael Tanner

Obama's Health Care Promises Already Busted By Michael Tanner

The ink was barely dry on President Obama's signature before the RAND Corporation released a report concluding that not only would the hard-won health care package fail to curb premium increases, but the bill would drive premiums up as much as 17 percent for young people.

This should not have been a surprise: the Congressional Budget Office had already warned that the bill would do almost nothing to reduce future premium hikes. And when New York implemented the same time of insurance reforms in the 1980s, it led to a nearly $500-per-year increase in premiums for young people. But somehow, the media didn't pay much attention.

And of course, back during the health care debate, no presidential speech was complete without a promise that "if you have health insurance today and you like it, you can keep it." But the Congressional Budget Office now says that as many as 10 million workers will lose their current insurance under the bill. Some of those will have to buy new insurance through the government-run exchanges. Millions more will be thrown onto Medicaid.

In addition, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies reports that half of seniors enrolled in the Medicare Advantage program will lose their coverage under that program and be forced back into traditional Medicare.

And how many times did President Obama criticize the United States for having the highest health care spending in the world? Well, the government's chief actuary released his report on the bill recently, showing that the bill will actually increase health care spending by $311 billion over the next 10 years.

At the same time, the actuary warns that promised future spending cuts, particularly those for Medicare, are unlikely to occur.

"The longer-term viability of the Medicare reductions is doubtful," wrote Richard Foster, chief actuary of the Medicare and Medicaid systems. What cuts do occur could have a severe impact on the quality of health care. As many as 15 percent of hospitals and other institutions could be forced out of business, according to the report, "possibly jeopardizing access to care" for millions of Americans.

With spending going up and future savings likely to fall short of promises, we can expect higher deficits and, of course, higher taxes. The most recent estimates suggest that the taxes already in the bill will likely end up costing middle-class workers and small businesses an extra $1,000 per year.

Now the most recent report from the Congressional Budget Office warns that nearly 4 million Americans, nearly three-quarters of them middle-class workers, will be hit with fines for failing to meet the government's mandate. Those penalties will average nearly $1,000 per person in 2016.

All this, and the health care "reform" law is merely a month old.
Perhaps this is why nearly 56 percent of American voters now favor repealing the bill.

This episode provides a lesson, not just for health care reform, but for the Obama administration's policies more generally. When critics of the health care bill raised these concerns during the debate, they were accused of "fear mongering." It was said that they were "opposed to reform," or were in the pockets of the insurance industry.

Now, as the administration presses forward with its other initiatives, including financial regulation and energy taxes, the same modus operandi is in action. Those who raise questions are derided as opposing "reform" and siding with the banks, energy companies, or whoever the enemy of the day is. The bills need to be rushed through. There is no time for real debate.

But maybe, just maybe, the first month of ObamaCare should serve as a lesson: Legislate in haste; repent in leisure.
Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.

Obama says "judges are ignoring the WILL OF CONGRESS"....is he KIDDING?

Huffington Post carried THIS STORY and it should show us just how little this president really understands about the courts system. It completely surprised me (yes, even ME) that he could say things like this, for one thing, and that nobody'd pick it up in the mainstream media or at FOX...did any of you hear he said any of this?:

The title of the linked story is "OBAMA SUPREME COURT WARNING; 'CONSERVATIVE' JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IS 'WHAT YOU'RE NOW SEEING'

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama, preparing to make his second nominee to the Supreme Court, warned Wednesday of a "conservative" brand of judicial activism in which the courts are often not showing appropriate deference to the decision of lawmakers.

Obama made clear that his views on judicial restraint are not the only basis he will use in choosing his next nominee for the high court, a decision expected over the next few weeks.

But his comments underscore just how much he thinks courts are being vested with too much power and are overruling legislative will, a factor that will influence his nominee choice.

Obama already has openly criticized the Supreme Court for a January ruling – one led by the court's conservative members – that allowed corporations and unions to spend freely to influence elections. Obama has vowed to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens with a like-minded justice who will not let powerful interests crowd out voices of ordinary people.

On Wednesday, when asked about judicial activism as he spoke with reporters aboard Air Force One, Obama spoke of judges who ignore the will of Congress and the democratic process, imposing judicial solutions instead of letting the political process solve problems. (Z: did he REALLY SAY THIS? WHAT?)

"In the '60s and '70s, the feeling was, is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach," Obama said. "What you're now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error."

He said the notion of judicial restraint should apply to liberal and conservative jurists. Instead, the president said arguments over original intent and other legal theories end up giving judges a lot of power – sometimes more power than elected representatives have.

Obama said judges should presume that the laws produced by the House and Senate and state legislatures should get "some deference as long as core constitutional values are observed."

HAS HE TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN THAT WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION? Is anybody LISTENING TO HIM and waking up to what he's saying? Judges are supposed to pay attention to the will of congress when deciding cases? WHAT???

As for my image of the gavel and flag...it might as well be Obama's shoe ON the flag...z

ng processe

Obama speaks to the U of Michigan today...PLEASE don't miss reading what he said:

I DON'T BELIEVE I HAVE EVER PUBLISHED ANYTHING THIS LONG OR THIS IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE TO READ, IT'S LONG BUT WORTH IT...if you don't have much time, please read what I've highlighted in black, red, and blue........! (UPDATE: HERE is AP/Yahoo's article on it...worth reading for the bias)

Below is the text of President Obama's speech at the University of Michigan Commencement, as prepared for delivery. Also, below, are Z's highlights and comments in blue.....

It is great to be here in the Big House, and may I say "Go Blue!" I thought I'd go for the cheap applause line to start things off. (UPDATE: Z: I don't believe he'd say "Go Blue" if he read my comments in blue which I made blue without having remembered he'd said this!! By the way, I hope my sarcastic remarks don't get me on some list)

Good afternoon President Coleman, the Board of Trustees, faculty, parents, family, friends, and the class of 2010. Congratulations on your graduation, and thank you for allowing me the honor to be a part of it. And let me acknowledge your wonderful governor, Jennifer Granholm, your mayor, John Hieftje, and all the Members of Congress who are here with us today. (Z: the "wonderful" was included because she's rumored to be on his short list for SCOTUS nominees. I felt sorry for Mayor Hieftje, who must have felt just a little less wonderful after he wasn't singled out that way, huh?)

I am happy to join you all today, and even happier to spend a little time away from Washington. Don't get me wrong - it's a beautiful city. And it sure is nice living above the store; can't beat the commute. It's just that sometimes, all you hear in Washington is the clamor of politics - a noise that can drown out the voices of the people who sent you there. So when I took office, I decided that each night, I would read ten letters out of the thousands sent to us every day by ordinary Americans - a modest effort to remind myself of why I ran in the first place. (Z: "I was elected, and anybody disagreeing is just 'clamor' and 'noise'")

Some of these letters tell stories of heartache and struggle. Some express gratitude, and some express anger. Some call me an idiot, which is how you know I'm getting a good sample. And some of the letters make you think, like the one I received last month from a kindergarten class in Virginia.

The teacher of this class instructed the students to ask me any question they wanted. One asked, "How do you do your job?" Another asked, "Do you work a lot?" Somebody wanted to know if I wear a black jacket or if I have a beard - clearly getting me mixed up with that other guy from Illinois. And then there was my favorite: "Do you live next to a volcano?"

But it was the last question in the letter that gave me pause. The student asked, "Are people being nice?"

Well, if you turn on the news today - particularly one of the cable channels - you can see why even a kindergartener would ask this question. We've got politicians calling each other all sorts of unflattering names. Pundits and talking heads shout at each other. The media tends to play up every hint of conflict, because it makes for a sexier story - which means anyone interested in getting coverage feels compelled to make the most outrageous comments. (Z: Right off the bat..the campaign speech and insulting half of America and disregarding the rancor at msnbc or CNN...Why was it okay for Bush to get called HITLER by Dick Durbin and Keith Ellison, to only name one horrid insult? I don't remember Obama complaining then...?)

Now, some of this can be attributed to the incredibly difficult moment in which we find ourselves as a nation. When you leave here today, you will search for work in an economy that is still emerging from the worst crisis since the Great Depression. You live in a century where the speed with which jobs and industries move across the globe is forcing America to compete like never before. You will raise your children at a time when threats like terrorism and climate change aren't confined within the borders of any one country. And as our world grows smaller and more connected, you will live and work with more people who don't look like you or think like you or come from where you do.

These kinds of changes and challenges cause tension. They make people worry about the future and sometimes they get folks riled up.(Z: his implication being that that cable channel's type of people don't LIKE diverse people who don't come from where you do, this is why we have tension)

In fact, this isn't a new phenomenon. Since the days of our founding, American politics has never been a particularly nice business - and it's always been a little less gentle during times of great change. A newspaper of the opposing party once editorialized that if Thomas Jefferson were elected, "Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced." Not subtle. Opponents of Andrew Jackson often referred to his mother as a "common prostitute," which seems a bit over the top. Presidents from Teddy Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson have been accused of promoting socialism, or worse. And we've had arguments between politicians that have been settled with actual duels. There was even a caning once on the floor of the United States Senate - which I'm happy to say didn't happen while I was there.

The point is, politics has never been for the thin-skinned or the faint-of-heart, and if you enter the arena, you should expect to get roughed up. (Z: then why is he often so defensive in public about the slightest criticism? He couldn't even take a question from Joe the Plumber)

Moreover, democracy in a nation of more than three hundred million people is inherently difficult. It has always been noisy and messy; contentious and complicated. We have been fighting about the proper size and role of government since the day the Framers gathered in Philadelphia. We have battled over the meaning of individual freedom and equality since the Bill of Rights was drafted. As our economy has shifted emphasis from agriculture to industry to information and technology, we have argued and struggled at each and every juncture over the best way to ensure that all of our citizens have a shot at opportunity. (Z: So, you see? There's nothing unusual....no matter WHAT WE do, no matter where we're taking America, taking over companies and setting salaries and taking over health care, and telling you what you can and cannot eat, etc etc... this is business as usual!)

So before we get too down on the current state of our politics, we need to remember our history. The great debates of the past all stirred great passion. They all made some angry. What is amazing is that despite all the conflict; despite all its flaws and frustrations, our experiment in democracy has worked better than any other form of government on Earth.

On the last day of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was famously asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got - a Republic or a Monarchy?" And Franklin gave an answer that's been quoted for ages: "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Well, for more than two hundred years, we have kept it. Through revolution and civil war, our democracy has survived. Through depression and world war, it has prevailed. Through periods of great social and economic unrest, from civil rights to women's rights, it has allowed us slowly, and sometimes painfully, to move towards a more perfect union.

And now the question for your generation is this: how will you keep our democracy going? At a moment when our challenges seem so big and our politics seem so small, how will you keep our democracy alive and well in this century?

I'm not here to offer some grand theory or detailed policy prescription. But let me offer a few brief reflections based on my own experiences and the experiences of our country over the last two centuries.

First, American democracy has thrived because we have recognized the need for a government that, while limited, can still help us adapt to a changing world. On the fourth panel of the Jefferson Memorial is a quote I remember reading to Sasha during our first visit there. It says, "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but...with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times." (Z: First, picture him reading that to a little girl? Secondly, ..well, keep reading.....that 'institution' he's getting to is, basically, the constitution.)

The democracy designed by Jefferson and the other founders was never intended to solve every problem with a new law or a new program. Having thrown off the tyranny of the British Empire, the first Americans were understandably skeptical of government. Ever since, we have held fast to the belief that government doesn't have all the answers, and we have cherished and fiercely defended our individual freedom. That is a strand of our nation's DNA.(Z: imagine? the term 'individual freedom' coming from HIM?)

But the other strand is the belief that there are some things we can only do together, as one nation - and that our government must keep pace with the times. When America expanded from a few colonies to an entire continent, and we needed a way to reach the Pacific, our government helped build the railroads. When we transitioned from an economy based on farms to one based in factories, and workers needed new skills and training, our nation set up a system of public high schools. When the markets crashed during the Depression and people lost their life savings, our government put in place a set of rules and safeguards to make sure that such a crisis never happened again. And because our markets and financial system have evolved since then, we're now putting in place new rules and safeguards to protect the American people. (Z: So, you SEE? This country needed government THEN and it NEEDS IT NOW! Never mind what the government did to delay recovery from the Depression. And, if all of this is SO GREAT, why is stimulus money NOT being spent as it was in the CCC and WPA? Where is that 'shovel ready'??)

This notion hasn't always been partisan (Z: What, to "protect the American people? Is this notion now partisan?!). It was the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, who said that the role of government is to do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves. He would go on to begin that first intercontinental railroad and set up the first land-grant colleges. It was another Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who said that "the object of government is the welfare of the people." He is remembered for using the power of government to break up monopolies, and establishing our National Park system. Democrat Lyndon Johnson announced the Great Society during a commencement here at Michigan, but it was the Republican president before him, Dwight Eisenhower, who launched the massive government undertaking known as the Interstate Highway System.(Z: "Republicans did BIG GOVERNMENT STUFF, WHY CAN'T I? How can Republicans nag about that NOW?")

Of course, there have always been those who've opposed such efforts. They argue that government intervention is usually inefficient; that it restricts individual freedom and dampens individual initiative. And in certain instances, that's been true. For many years, we had a welfare system that too often discouraged people from taking responsibility for their own upward mobility. At times, we've neglected the role that parents, rather than government, can play in cultivating a child's education. Sometimes regulation fails, and sometimes its benefits do not justify its costs. (Z: How I WISH he believed this)

But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad. One of my favorite signs from the health care debate was one that read "Keep Government Out Of My Medicare," which is essentially like saying "Keep Government Out Of My Government-Run Health Care." For when our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it conveniently ignores the fact in our democracy, government is us. We, the people, hold in our hands the power to choose our leaders, change our laws, and shape our own destiny. (Z: There was a big laugh as he talked about that sign obviously from a Tea Party..he chuckled and waited and grinned and got the audience laughing, too........he wouldn't dare talk about the myriad of signs that were thoughtful and clever)

Government is the police officers who are here protecting us and the service men and women who are defending us abroad. Government is the roads you drove in on and the speed limits that kept you safe. Government is what ensures that mines adhere to safety standards and that oil spills are cleaned up by the companies that caused them. Government is this extraordinary public university - a place that is doing life-saving research, catalyzing economic growth, and graduating students who will change the world around them in ways big and small. (Z: "SO, Government is GOOD and you will love big government")

The truth is, the debate we've had for decades between more government and less government doesn't really fit the times in which we live. We know that too much government can stifle competition, deprive us of choice, and burden us with debt. But we've also seen clearly the dangers of too little government - like when a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly led to the collapse of our entire economy.

So what we should be asking is not whether we need a "big government" or a "small government," but how we can create a smarter, better government. In an era of iPods and Tivo, where we have more choices than ever before, government shouldn't try to dictate your lives. But it should give you the tools you need to succeed. Our government shouldn't try to guarantee results, but it should guarantee a shot at opportunity for every American who's willing to work hard. (Z: this copy of the speech left out his comment about iPods and Tivos..."I don't understand any of that...I HAVE TWENTY-THREE YEAR OLDS FOR THAT")

The point is, we can and should debate the role of government in our lives, but remember, as you are asked to meet the challenges of our time, that the ability for us to adapt our government to the needs of the age has helped make our democracy work since its inception.

The second way to keep our democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate. These arguments we're having over government and health care and war and taxes are serious arguments. They should arouse people's passions, and it's important for everyone to join in the debate, with all the rigor that a free people require.

But we cannot expect to solve our problems if all we do is tear each other down. You can disagree with a certain policy without demonizing the person who espouses it. You can question someone's views and their judgment without questioning their motives or their patriotism. Throwing around phrases like "socialist" and "Soviet-style takeover;" "fascist" and "right-wing nut" may grab headlines, but it also has the effect of comparing our government, or our political opponents, to authoritarian, and even murderous regimes. (Z: Clever of him, isn't it, to throw in 'right-wing nut'? And, he sure does like to deflect the fact that many Americans, (MANY) do think he's taking us into socialism, but "that's 'just silly' and I'm priming these kids to think it's silly, too!!" big grin)

Again, we have seen this kind of politics in the past. It's been practiced by both fringes of the ideological spectrum, by the left and the right, since our nation's birth.

The problem with it is not the hurt feelings or the bruised egos of the public officials who are criticized.

The problem is that this kind of vilification and over-the-top rhetoric closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It undermines democratic deliberation. It prevents learning - since after all, why should we listen to a "fascist" or "socialist" or "right wing nut?" It makes it nearly impossible for people who have legitimate but bridgeable differences to sit down at the same table and hash things out. It robs us of a rational and serious debate that we need to have about the very real and very big challenges facing this nation. It coarsens our culture, and at its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response.(Z: Perhaps, if he WOULD sit fairly, and actually listen to the Right instead of all those close-doored meetings in the senate, House, etc., we COULD bridge differences? Is he kidding with this? Does he think these graduates don't read? has he seen Pelosi and Reid and their power grabs? Oh, ya..never mind..these grads are so indoctrinated they can't see two sides of anything)

So what can we do about this?

As I've found out after a year in the White House, changing this type of slash and burn politics isn't easy. And part of what civility requires is that we recall the simple lesson most of us learned from our parents: treat others as you would like to be treated, with courtesy and respect.

But civility in this age also requires something more.

Today's twenty-four seven echo chamber amplifies the most inflammatory soundbites louder and faster than ever before. It has also, however, given us unprecedented choice. Whereas most of America used to get their news from the same three networks over dinner or a few influential papers on Sunday morning, we now have the option to get our information from any number of blogs or websites or cable news shows.

This development can be both good and bad for democracy. For if we choose only to expose ourselves to opinions and viewpoints that are in line with our own, studies suggest that we will become more polarized and set in our ways. And that will only reinforce and even deepen the political divides in this country. But if we choose to actively seek out information that challenges our assumptions and our beliefs, perhaps we can begin to understand where the people who disagree with us are coming from.

This of course requires that we all agree on a certain set of facts to debate from, and that is why we need a vibrant and thriving news business that is separate from opinion makers and talking heads. As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." (Z: Yes, Mr. Obama, just WHERE ARE the young investigative journalists who should be looking into your background, who paid for Harvard for you, the truth about your relationships, the truth about your Chicago experiences, the truth about your czars...I could go on and on and so could most of America.........where ARE the young kids who used to believe in investigating the slightest stories which smacked of confusion or lies? But, then, without them because they're too indoctrinated, you slam those who DO have the guts to raise questions, criticize, to raise objection with facts and figures.......)

Still, if you're someone who only reads the editorial page of The New York Times, try glancing at the page of The Wall Street Journal once in awhile. If you're a fan of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, try reading a few columns on the Huffington Post website. It may make your blood boil; your mind may not often be changed. But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship.

So too is the practice of engaging in different experiences with different kinds of people. For four years at Michigan, you have been exposed to diverse thinkers and scholars; professors and students. Do not narrow that broad intellectual exposure just because you're leaving here. Instead, seek to expand it. If you grew up in a big city, spend some time with some who grew up in a rural town. If you find yourself only hanging around with people of your race or your ethnicity or your religion, broaden your circle to include people who've had different backgrounds and life experiences. You'll learn what it's like to walk in someone else's shoes, and in the process, you'll help make this democracy work.(Z: Does he really believe there's been DIVERSE THINKING in U of Michigan's classrooms? Is he THIS out of touch?!:-)

The last ingredient in a functioning democracy is perhaps the most basic: participation.

I understand that one effect of today's poisonous political climate is to push people away from participation in public life. If all you see when you turn on the television is name-calling; if all you hear about is how special interest lobbying and partisanship prevented Washington from getting something done, you might think to yourself, "What's the point of getting involved?" (Z; I'm thinking those Tea Party parents are setting some pretty good examples to their kids about participation in public life....)

The point is, when we don't pay close attention to the decisions made by our leaders; when we fail to educate ourselves about the major issues of the day; when we choose not to make our voices and opinions heard, that's when democracy breaks down. That's when power is abused. That's when the most extreme voices in our society fill the void that we leave. That's when powerful interests and their lobbyists are most able to buy access and influence in the corridors of Washington - because none of us are there to speak up and stop them.(Z: Who's he mean here by "most extreme voices?" Oh...and, oops....does he realize how buying access and influence in Washington is BIpartisan?)

Participation in public life doesn't mean that you all have to run for public office - though we could certainly use some fresh faces in Washington. But it does mean that you should pay attention and contribute in any way that you can. Stay informed. Write letters, or make phone calls on behalf of an issue you care about. If electoral politics isn't your thing, continue the tradition so many of you started here at Michigan and find a way to serve your community and your country - an act that will help you stay connected to your fellow citizens and improve the lives of those around you.

It was fifty years ago that a young candidate for president came here to Michigan and delivered a speech that inspired one of the most successful service projects in American history. And as John F. Kennedy described the ideals behind what would become the Peace Corps, he issued a challenge to the students who had assembled in Ann Arbor on that October night:

"...[O]n your willingness to contribute part of your life to this country...will depend the answer whether a free society can compete. I think it can."

This democracy we have is a precious thing. For all the arguments and all the doubts and all the cynicism that's out there today, we should never forget that as Americans, we enjoy more freedoms and opportunities than citizens in any other nation on Earth. We are free to speak our mind and worship as we please; to choose our leaders and criticize them if they let us down. We have the chance to get an education, work hard, and give our children a better life. (Z: too much to comment on here, plus it's too upsetting to think some of the grads in the audience there actually believe he believes this...or that those voices of criticism have been respected or that he honestly thinks criticism of leaders is a good thing, even criticism toward him)

None of this came easy. None of it was preordained. The men and women who sat in your chairs ten years ago and fifty years ago and one hundred years ago - they made America possible. And there is no guarantee that the graduates who will sit here in ten or fifty or one hundred years from now will enjoy the same freedoms and opportunities that we do. America's success has never been a given. Our nation's destiny has never been certain. (Z:, actually, it was pretty well a given until very recently, Mr. Obama..and some of us believe it was 'preordained')

What is certain - what has always been certain - is our ability to shape that destiny. That is what makes us different. That is what makes us American - our ability at the end of the day to look past all of our differences and all of our disagreements and still forge a common future. That task is now in your hands, as is the answer to the question posed at this university half a century ago about whether a free society can still compete.

If you are as willing, as past generations were willing, to contribute part of your life to the life of this country, then I, like President Kennedy, still believe we can. Congratulations on your graduation. May God Bless You, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Z: I watched the whole thing live. I'm sorry you couldn't see the big toothsome grins, the pauses for the laughs he expected from this DIVERSE and OPEN MINDED GROUP after words like "right wingers." The speech was A CAMPAIGN SPEECH....He might as well said "I JUST DON'T GET WHY EVERYBODY DOESN'T LIKE ME. I JUST DON'T THINK THAT PEOPLE WITH DUMB POSTERS LIKE THAT ONE ABOUT MEDICARE ARE STANDING UP FOR THINGS THEY BELIEVE, DOING JUST WHAT I URGED THESE GRADS TO DO...TO 'PARTICIPATE IN PUBLIC LIFE', 'PAY ATTENTION', 'CONTRIBUTE ANY WAY YOU CAN'...NO, THEY'RE JUST STANDING IN MY WAY, DON'T YOU ALL SEE THAT? REPUBLICANS USED TO BELIEVE IN BIG GOVERNMENT, TOO....THEY'RE ONLY PARTISAN NOW WHEN THEY OBJECT OVER SEEING MY ADMINISTRATION BUYING COMPANIES, SETTING SALARIES, TAKING OVER HEALTHCARE AND ENERGY........DON'T THEY SEE THAT IT'S PARTISAN NOT TO GO ALONG WITH MEEEE! MORE PEOPLE SHOULD LISTEN TO MSNBC AND SEE MY SIDE, THAT SHOULD KNOW THAT 'PARTICULAR CABLE CHANNEL' I SINGLED OUT IN THIS SPEECH IS WRONG AND OLBERMANN IS RIGHT!"

I give up...this speech made me very emotional but not the kind of emotional I used to get when I heard graduation speeches from past presidents....not when I felt like that president loved America and loved those kids and actually did encourage open minds and diverse education in college classrooms and honoring all ways of thinking.........no, I didn't feel emotional like that at all.

What do you think of the speech?

UPDATE 3pm EST: I was stunned to see my sitemeter had so many reading this post and checked to see that Google's listed my blog as the first blogger to carry his speech....I hope we can get some good conversation here in the comments section...I'll delete any incivility ASAP but would like to know if anybody didn't think this sounds like a campaign speech or if he might not have wanted to discuss JOBS instead criticism of BIG GOVERNMENT since Michigan's one of the most hard-hit states for unemployment. Of course, many think that BIG GOVERNMENT is the solution to NO JOBS and, let's face it, government (very sadly) is the biggest employer, isn't it? Maybe, in Obama's eyes, this WAS the right speech to make, particularly in Michigan? I guess that verifies my opinion of the speech.

z