Posts Tagged ‘endorsed’

Why Aren’t The Ground Zero Mosque ‘Religious Freedom’ Liberals Celebrating The Koran Burning?

September 9, 2010

Better put your mats down.

Not your Muslim prayer mat, but your roll-on-the ground-laughing-at-liberals mat.

Mocking liberals for their massive hypocrisy can be a dangerous sport; you don’t want to hurt yourself laughing at them by falling on the hard ground.  Take precautions.

We’ve been told by the American left – including Obama – over and over and over again that the Ground Zero mosque issue was a “religious rights” issue.  You may or may not like what the Cordoba Initiative is doing building a mosque as close as possible to Ground Zero, but they have the right to do it, and if you don’t celebrate their “religious freedom,” you’re a bigot.

Conservatives have been saying over and over again that it isn’t and never was about “religious rights” or “religious freedom.”  We’ve said that we recognize that they’ve got the right to build; but that just because you’ve got the right to do something doesn’t mean you should do it.

I wrote this the last time I dealt with this issue:

This isn’t about freedom of religion, and it isn’t about the Constitution.  It’s about right and wrong.

Let me give you an example of what I’m saying.  In this country, I have every right to go into a black establishment and repeatedly shout the N-word at the top of my lungs.  I have the right to go into a black church wearing a white robe and a white pointy hat.  But I shouldn’t do it.  And all rights aside, I’m profoundly wrong if I do do it.

On the Democrats’ morally idiotic defense of the mosque, the fact that the Muslims have a right to build it means therefore ergo sum that they should build it, and that anyone who disagrees is “intolerant” or is violating the Constitutional rights of the Muslims.

But that is every bit as stupid as my walking down the street pointing out every single black person and shouting the N-word, and then telling anyone who criticizes me for doing it that they are enemies of the Constitution.

And, of course, the only reason I’m wearing that white robe and that pointy hat is for “community outreach.”  You see, I want to create a “racial dialogue.”

So how DARE you criticize me.  Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll put my pointy hood back on and be on my way.  I have some black people to go shout at.

But the left were too fundamentally morally stupid to understand that.  Teaching liberals good ethics is like teaching cockroaches differential equations; they’re just not very good pupils.

An all-too-typical liberal moral moron wrote in the Huffington Post:

“The core American ideal of religious freedom has been put at risk…  These protests, diatribes, and campaigns against Park51 violate the ideals of religious freedom to which our country has long aspired.”

And then he proceeds to lecture us on the First Amendment.

Which is exactly what the Ground Zero mosque protest isn’t about, of course.

I will be looking forward to reading this guy’s column angrily demanding that we all support Pastor Terry Jones’ Koran burning day and lecture the left that if they don’t support it, they are all a bunch of religious bigots and freedom-hating anti-Constitutionalists.  But I’m not holding my breath.

Because I’d pass out.  And probably miss my roll-on-the ground-laughing-at-liberals mat.

Sarah Palin Twittered her view that the Ground Zero mosque should be moved because it represented an “unnecessary provocation” that “stabs hearts,” and that it should be rejected by Muslims “in the interest of healing.”  And the despicable, vile left demonized her for it, and made her “the face of intolerance” for taking a very legitimate moral stand.

Now we’ve got Pastor Terry Jones and his in-your-face Koran burning day.  And what are the left saying but that it is an “unnecessary provocation” that “stabs hearts” and should be rejected by Christians “in the interest of healing.”

Because hypocrisy defines the left; it is what they are to the core of their shriveled souls.

Where’s Obama to endorse the controversial plan to burn Korans? Where is that little weasel now to tell us “that a nation built on religious freedom must allow it”?  I want our moral coward in chief to be consistent for just once in his life.

And where’s the ACLU flocking to Florida and making sure nobody interferes with Pastor Terry Jones and his team of Koran burners?  I mean, my Lord, these people celebrated the rights of Nazis to march through a town filled with Nazi Holocaust death camp survivors.  With that kind of company, can’t they give a Koran-burner just a little love?

This nutjob Pastor Terry Jones has a tiny little congregation of just 50 lunatics.  And yet the way the Obama administration is going after them, you’d think they were the ones who were way ahead of schedule developing the nuclear bomb, rather than Iran.

Attorney General Eric Holder is calling the Koran burning “idiotic and dangerous.”  But this same slimeball was out with the rest of the left celebrating the Muslims’ right to build that Ground Zero mosque which was the VERY DAMN THING that provoked this pastor to start showing that Korans burn at Fahrenheit 451.

Why does the left only care about the feelings and fear the provoking of Muslims?  Maybe if they had a functioning brain cell they’d think twice about that idiocy.

Hillary Clinton and her State Department went even farther, calling American citizens “un-American” for their participation in this exercise of the same religious freedoms and First Amendment rights they were celebrating when Muslims were sticking their thumbs in Americans’ eyes.

General Petraeus found it necessary to tell us that this act could provoke a response against our soldiers.  But where was either he or anyone anywhere on the left worrying that the Muslim Ground Zero mosque could provoke a response by Americans, and that it therefore it shouldn’t be built there?

And just who is more depraved and intolerant: the guy who burns a Koran, or the guy who commits an act or mass acts of murder because someone burned a book?

I don’t doubt that Petraeus is right, that the Koran burning would incite terrorists.  But on the other hand, you kind of have to laugh at this line of reasoning, too.  I can just see Al Qaeda saying, “We only kind of hated Americans when we flew passenger planes into their biggest buildings and murdered 3,000 of them.  But now we REALLY hate them!”

In all actuality, the fact that we’re worried about what Muslims will likely do just goes to demonstrate that the actual intolerant people are the very Muslims that the left has so ardently supported.  And if they’re as violent and evil as the left are now warning us about due to this Koran burning, then maybe we shouldn’t be encouraging these people to come to our country and burn mosques as close as possible to a Muslim act of mass murder just 10 years ago.

For the record, I think this Pastor and his “flock” are profoundly wrong for burning Korans.  Because – unlike the liberals, I am actually consistent.  I think it is wrong for Muslims to build a mosque right next to Ground Zero because it was nothing more than a provocation that resolves nothing, and I think this Koran burning would be a provocation that resolves nothing.

I don’t mind being labeled as “anti-Islam,” because I don’t believe for a second that “Islam is a religion of peace.”  It is, rather, a religion that boasts, “We will win, because we love death more  than you love life.”  But I am most definitely NOT anti-Muslim.  I’ve talked with quite a few Muslims, and generally found them engaging and polite.  If I saw a Muslim being assaulted I would come to his or her aid and help.  And if I saw a Muslim’s property being vandalized I would call the police.

I think Islam is evil, and I believe that we should document its evil teachings and its evil deeds.  But I don’t think that we should just insult Muslims with meaningless symbolic gestures merely for the sake of provoking them.  Which is why I earlier called Terry Jones a “nutjob” and his congregation “lunatics.”

On the other hand, the one thing Terry Jones and his band are accomplishing is demonstrating how vile liberals and most Democrats are.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, New York Maybor Bloomberg, and many other liberals have endorsed and supported the Ground Zero mosque.  And now they have now provoked at least one man (and probably others) to commit outrageous acts.  Americans overwhelmingly oppose this provocation.

Liberals are hypocrites to argue that the provocative Ground Zero mosque is a legitimate exercise of religious freedom and First Amendment rights, but that the provocative Koran Burning day is not.  And they are moral cowards for cheering the mosque which deliberately provokes Americans, but crying over the provocation of Muslims via the Koran burning.

If you support the Ground Zero mosque, I hope you support the Koran burning with every bit as much zeal.  But personally, I think you’re a moral idiot.

P.S. Speaking of true moral idiocy in the most blatantly morally idiotic sense of the word, Hillary Clinton’s State Department just came out with the following statemen comparing Pastor Terry Jones with the 9/11 terrorists:

“We hope that between now and Saturday, there’ll be a range of voices across America that make clear to this community that this is not the way for us to commemorate 9/11. In fact, it is consistent with the radicals and bigot – with those bigots who attacked us on 9/11.”

Only a liberal could be so profoundly stupid and fundamentally depraved to compare burning some books to murdering 3,000 innocent human beings.

Advertisements

Moral Fool And Moral Weakling: Obama Weighs In On Ground Zero Mosque Before Wavering

August 16, 2010

As usual, Barry Hussein has talked himself into a pretzel.  And the twisted shape suits him.  It appears to go off in every direction, but leads nowhere.

In this case, Obama was for that mosque before he was against it.

He doesn’t support it (or at least he doesn’t not support it???):

Obama wades into New York mosque debate – again
By Ross Colvin Ross Colvin   – August 14, 2010

PANAMA CITY, Florida (Reuters) – President Barack Obama said on Saturday he supported the right of Muslims to build a cultural center near the site of the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York City but would not comment on the “wisdom” of such a move.

Obama’s comments came after his remarks at a White House event on Friday in which he appeared to offer his backing for the construction of a center called Cordoba House near the site known as “Ground Zero” in lower Manhattan.

Americans in both political parties, including many New Yorkers, object to the project.

Obama’s comments on Friday drew criticism from conservatives and others, and the president sought to clarify them during a trip to Florida on Saturday.

“I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there,” Obama told reporters while visiting the U.S. Gulf Coast.

“I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.”

On Friday, Obama said he believed Muslims had the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in the country.

“That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances,” he said.

Before he did support it.

From ABC News:

Closing Argument: Obama Endorses Islamic Community Center Near Ground Zero
August 13, 2010 9:34 PM

This evening, President Obama endorsed the controversial plan to build an Islamic community center near Ground Zero in New York City.

Obama thinks that everyone in the country is some kind of moron.  And he can say one thing, and then say another thing, and only he can tell the difference.

From the Associated Press:

Obama Comes Out in Favor of Allowing Mosque Near Ground Zero
Published August 13, 2010
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — After skirting the controversy for weeks, President Barack Obama is weighing in forcefully on the mosque near ground zero, saying a nation built on religious freedom must allow it.

“As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country,” Obama told an intently listening crowd gathered at the White House Friday evening to observe the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

“That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances,” he said. “This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.”

The White House had not previously taken a stand on the mosque, which would be part of a $100 million Islamic community center two blocks from where nearly 3,000 people perished when hijacked jetliners slammed into the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001. Press secretary Robert Gibbs had insisted it was a local matter.

It was already much more than that, sparking debate around the country as top Republicans including Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich announced their opposition. So did the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil rights group.

Obama elevated it to a presidential issue Friday without equivocation.

While insisting that the place where the twin towers once stood was indeed “hallowed ground,” Obama said that the proper way to honor it was to apply American values.

Democrats have been moral idiots for the last forty years.  And Barack Obama has stomped his foot all the way down to the floorboard toward moral idiocy.

I watch Fox News regularly.  I hear what the Republicans and the conservatives have been saying.  I’ve heard what Sarah Palin has said and what Newt Gingrich has said.

None of them are saying that the Muslims who want to build this “community outreach center” don’t have the legal right to build it.  What they are saying is that the Muslims shouldn’t build it if they actually want any genuine community “outreach.”

It isn’t “outreach.”  It’s “outrage.”

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf claims that this “community center” “will serve as the platform to launch a broader vision of Muslim-West harmony and interdependence.”  That clearly isn’t anywhere even remotely true.

This isn’t about freedom of religion, and it isn’t about the Constitution.  It’s about right and wrong.

Let me give you an example of what I’m saying.  In this country, I have every right to go into a black establishment and repeatedly shout the N-word at the top of my lungs.  I have the right to go into a black church wearing a white robe and a white pointy hat.  But I shouldn’t do it.  And all rights aside, I’m profoundly wrong if I do do it.

On the Democrats’ morally idiotic defense of the mosque, the fact that the Muslims have a right to build it means therefore ergo sum that they should build it, and that anyone who disagrees is “intolerant” or is violating the Constitutional rights of the Muslims.

But that is every bit as stupid as my walking down the street pointing out every single black person and shouting the N-word, and then telling anyone who criticizes me for doing it that they are enemies of the Constitution.

And, of course, the only reason I’m wearing that white robe and that pointy hat is for “community outreach.”  You see, I want to create a “racial dialogue.”

So how DARE you criticize me.  Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll put my pointy hood back on and be on my way.  I have some black people to go shout at.

And yet Democrats who argue that I should have no right to criticize the inappropriateness of building a mosque celebrating a religion immediately adjacent to a site that was destroyed with huge loss of life in the name of that decision refuse to extend that same principle to their fellow citizens as they repeatedly demonized Tea Party people who were merely exercising their Constitutional rights.

Now, I don’t have to explain this to people who have moral common sense.  But if I actually want to create a community, or to create a racial dialogue, I don’t set up a gigantic act of offense to the very people I claim to be reaching out to.  There’s something profoundly wrong with this picture.

And building what is essentially a mosque (or are they going to build a synagogue and a church in this “community center” so that Jews and Christians cans worship there, too?) clearly incites rather than heals.

Maybe, instead of building a mosque as close as possible to Ground Zero, this “outreach” could focus on building a synagogue as close as possible to Mecca, instead.

The Reuters article points out that:

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll showed Americans across the political spectrum opposed the project being built near the New York site.

The survey, released on Wednesday, showed nearly 70 percent of Americans opposed it, including 54 percent of Democrats, 82 percent of Republicans and 70 percent of independents.

Seventy percent of Americans don’t feel any “community” from this community center.  They feel outraged.

Which is why the next paragraphs that follow that demonstration that the American people are opposed to the construction of this “community center” are true:

U.S. House Republican leader John Boehner called Obama’s “endorsement” of the center’s construction near Ground Zero troubling.

“The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn’t necessarily make it the right thing to do,” Boehner said in a statement. “This is not an issue of law, whether religious freedom or local zoning. This is a basic issue of respect for a tragic moment in our history.”

Gary Bauer, president of the conservative non-profit group “American Values,” said Obama’s comments showed the president had lost touch with his fellow citizens.

This latest decision is proof positive that the President does not understand the values and sentiments of the American people, especially while we are still at war around the world with jihadists,” Bauer said in a statement.

The American people understand the difference between the fact that the Muslims who own the property have a right to build, and the fact that it is an outrage for Muslims to build a mosque near the site where a group of Muslims acting in the name of Islam and shouting “Allahu Akbar!” murdered 3,000 innocent Americans in a cowardly attack.

This “outreach center” should not be built near Ground Zero.  Build it somewhere else.  The American people have been very tolerant regarding the building of more than 3,000 mosques in the United States.  The fact that radical Muslim – and their useful idiot liberal apologists – are now arguing that they have the right to build a mosque so close to a scene of Islamic jihadist massacre is a profound demonstration of which side is intolerant.  Especially since Islamic countries refuse to allow Christians to build a single church in their countries, let alone 3,000 of them.

And there are questions.  So many questions.  Who is paying for this “community center”?  Can we know for certain that this center is not being funded with radical Islamist money for radical Islamist purposes?  No.  We don’t get to know.

And what about the man – Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf – who is behind this center?  Is the man who refused to even acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization someone we want behind such a huge venture?  Do we want the man who said that American policies were an ‘accessory’ to the crime of 9/11, and who said “Osama bin Laden is made in the USA,” to be the American face of Islam as a result of this center?

Particularly when we find that this man says one thing to Americans audiences, and quite a different thing to Islamic audiences?

For that we searched Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf’s own words – in the Arabic and not what he says in English to the western media. It should shock every American to find out that Faisal Abdul Rauf stated to the popular Islamic media Hadiyul-Islam (www.hadielislam.com) on May 26th, 2010 in an article by Sa’da Abdul Maksoud. In it he states that an Islamic state can be established regardless of the government being a kingdom or democracy.  In another article titled “I do not believe in religious dialogue” should alarm the ardent skeptic on the mindset of the Islamic visionary who advocates establishing Islamic lobbies throughout the West.

He also admitted that “[In the West] they have separation of church and state, this of course does not exist in any Muslim country. About 99% refuse to separate religion from state and many call for establishing an Islamic Caliphate.”

Cordoba” refers to the Muslim conquest of Spain.  And how is naming this “the Cordoba Initiative” and “the Cordoba House” anything other than Islamic triumphalism, in celebration of the successful 9/11 attack?  Add to that the historic Muslim tradition of building a mosque on top of every place of victory (i.e., 9/11 as a victory for Islam and a defeat for Christendom), and we’ve got a problem.

Do we want an Imam to represent Muslims in America who favors Shariah Law?  Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf DOES support Shariah Law in America.

Do you want to see the face of Sharia Law?  Here it is:

And no decent American wants that evil taking root here.

So does Obama do?  Other than twist himself into a pretzel in endorsing the mosque that he doesn’t endorse?  He foots the bill to make this extremely questionable imam his emissary representing the interests of the American people.  When this man represents the exact opposite of American interests.

There are good Muslim leaders out there.  Faisal Abdul Rauf is not one of them.

Barack Obama is a fool.  And nearly 70% of the American people understand that as regards to this issue.  Obama is as fundamentally twisted about this issue as he was about Gitmo when he demonized it and idiotically promised he would close it no later than January 2010.  He is a moral idiot and a moral weakling.  He is a disgrace to this country.  And until he day he is gone, we are living in “God damn America.”

Even Harry Reid is breaking with Obama and publicly stating that this mosque is a terrible idea.  That should tell you something.

Primary Day Presidential Approval Poll Points To Vicious Anal Rape Awaiting Democrats

May 20, 2010

Now, I know, the headline is kind of confusing.  Most Democrats love nothing more than a nice anal raping.  So liberals will come here thinking, “Oh, good!”

But, trust me, they won’t enjoy the one that’s coming in November.

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Wednesday, May 19, 2010

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 25% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19. Today’s rating is the lowest earned by the president since the passage of his health care proposal two months ago (see trends).

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has seen his advantage over Republican hopefuls shrink dramatically following a New York Times accusation that he exaggerated his Vietnam military service. Against Linda McMahon, Blumenthal’s lead is down to just three points.

John McCain still leads in his primary battle, but his level of support is hovering just over 50%.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters now support offshore oil drilling. That’s up from 58% right after the oil spill began in the Gulf of Mexico but down eight from a peak of 72% support in March.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president’s performance. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.  Those figures also reflect the weakest ratings for the president since the health care bill became law. The Rasmussen Reports Media Meter shows that media coverage of the President has been 52% positive over the past week.

A month ago, Rasmussen Reports became the first firm to show Joe Sestak closing the gap on Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. With other firms showing Specter ahead by twenty points or more, our poll showing a toss-up was described as an “outlier” and “well outside the lines of existing polling in the race.” As in Massachusetts, it turns out that the Rasmussen poll was simply the first to capture the changing dynamic of the race. The final Rasmussen poll on the race showed Sestak winning by five. He won by eight.

In the general election, the latest polling shows Sestak in a very close race with Pat Toomey.

In Arkansas, the latest polling shows Republican John Boozman holding a wide lead over whichever Democrat wins the run-off. In Kentucky, Rand Paul also starts out ahead. Rasmussen Reports will release updated polling for Pennsylvania, Arkansas, and Kentucky in the near future.

(More Below)

Fifty-five percent (55%) would like to see an immigration law like Arizona’s for their own state. Most voters (56%) also favor repeal of the recently passed health care law.

Obama used to lead chants saying, “Fired up!  Ready to go!”  And now the people who WANT to fire Obama have a 19-point advantage over the people who want to keep him.  Do you have any idea what a tsunami of righteous anger is going to wash over Democrats?

55% of American voters want to see the Arizona immigration law that Obama has repeatedly and falsely demonized in their own state.  And 56% of voters want to see Obama’s signature ObamaCare repealed.  What has this man done but either screw the American people or fail to lead?

Obama’s response to the fact that Americans overwhelmingly support the Arizona law?  Ratchet up his illegitimate demonization of Arizona.

And as we speak, 68% of Americans want offshore drilling.  It’s only a matter of time before they realize what an amoral weasel Obama has been with drilling, basically being against it before he was for it before he was against it again.

Obama endorsed slimeball Arlen Specter, who has now been officially rejected by Democrats after previously having being totally rejected by Republicans.  Like Specter himself, nobody wants Obama.  He is now at least 0-for-4 in endorsing candidates who then got dumped by voters.  He couldn’t be more radical, or more out of touch with the American people.

From the AP:

WASHINGTON – Voters rejected one of President Barack Obama’s hand-picked candidates and forced another into a runoff, the latest sign that his political capital is slipping beneath a wave of anti-establishment anger.

Sen. Arlen Specter became the fourth Democrat in seven months to lose a high-profile race despite the president’s active involvement, raising doubts about Obama’s ability to help fellow Democrats in this November’s elections.

The first three candidates fell to Republicans. But Specter’s loss Tuesday to Rep. Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania’s Democratic senatorial primary cast doubts on Obama’s influence and popularity even within his own party — and in a battleground state, no less.

And the guy who defeated Obama’s handpicked candidate Specter has all but stated that the Obama administration offered him an illegal bribe to drop out of the race and let Specter win.

[Update, Sunday, May 23: The UPI has an article out today which clearly states that Joe Sestak claims the White House did in fact offer him a job if he pulled out of the race against Arlen Specter.  End update].

Thanks to Obama’s utterly failed policy that even Hillary Clinton said would fail hideously, Iran WILL have nuclear weapons, and will “fundamentally transform” the Middle East into a terrifying nightmare-awaiting bloodbath-status.  And Obama is so occupied with his failure regarding Iran that he has demonstrated himself to be completely unfit to deal with North Korea.

An international report has just determined that North Korea sank – in an aggressive and unprovoked act of war – a South Korean navy ship.  This is clearly an escalation of aggression that rivals anything the communist nation has committed since the end of the Korean War.

How has Obama done anything but miserably fail with this regime?

And thanks to spending which dwarfs anything ever seen before in the history of the human race, Barack Obama has lost any and all leverage with China to do anything about either crisis.

It is hard to imagine how Obama could have failed worse.

The American people are furious.  And they are going to take it out on Democrats who couldn’t deserve it more.

Obama Lies About AARP Endorsement At Bogus Town Hall Event

August 12, 2009

Obama has told so many lies regarding health care that it is positively unreal.  But here’s yet another:

Rachel Martin and Jake Tapper report:

President Obama today suggested that the health care reform legislation for which he’s pushing has been endorsed by the American Association of Retired Person.

“We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors,” the president said.

At another point he said: “Well, first of all, another myth that we’ve been hearing about is this notion that somehow we’re going to be cutting your Medicare benefits.  We are not.  AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay?

The problem?

The AARP hasn’t endorsed any plan yet.

The country’s largest advocacy group for Americans over 50 issued a statement after the event saying, “While the President was correct that AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate.”

AARP is a lot less likely to be rushing in to endorse anything after getting their heads bit off by their own membership:

Last week, AARP officials speaking at a forum in Dallas walked out after several seniors interrupted the meeting with critical questions and comments.

Some AARP members say they are so outraged that they’ve taken to tearing up their membership cards and firing off heated letters to the organization’s CEO.

Recent polling by FOX News shows seniors, many of whom are on Medicare, don’t want a major overhaul — 93 percent rate their current coverage as good or excellent, and 56 percent say they oppose the creation of a government-run option for all Americans.

Other groups representing seniors say they aren’t surprised by the recent backlash.

“We get letters every single day from people that are very upset about this bill and about the AARP supporting it,” said Stuart Barton, president of the American Seniors Association. “So I don’t blame them for coming back and saying they are going to tear up their AARP cards.”

It’s understandable that many members would get the mistaken impression that AARP is backing the ObamaCare plan, given their frankly weaselly behavior as they waffled one way under White House pressure, and then waffled the other under their memberships’ pressure.  But they don’t have a massive White House staff to sort out the actual facts, and they aren’t expected to be held accountable the way the President of the United States of America is to be held accountable.

President Obama is supposed to tell the truth; not advance falsehoods.

Obama is trying to say, “Seniors don’t have to be worried because AARP wouldn’t endorse a plan that hurts seniors.”

And number one, even AARP’s own members clearly don’t accord AARP that much integrity and good will.  And number two, AARP HASN’T endorsed Obama’s plan.  So I guess we’re back to, “Seniors should be worried.”

An older woman at Arlen Spector’s town hall today said:

I’m sick of the lies.  I don’t like being lied to.  I don’t like being lied about.

But the Democrats just keep lying, and keep lying about the people who they’re lying to.

We get Obama attending a phony, controlled, choreographed town hall filled with plants even as his attack dogs demonize protesters as being “plants” and saying things like:

“I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter”

when he is on record having said:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.”

and he is on the record as having said:

“The very first promise I made on this campaign was that as president I will sign a universal health care plan into law by the end of my first term in office.”

It’s one thing for a president to say one thing, admit his mistake, tell the American people that he has changed his mind, and then specifically tell us what he will do and what he will now not accept.  But that’s not what our weasel-in-chief does; rather, he lies about what he’s in fact said without ruling the previously-said thing out.  Instead, concerned citizens are left to worry about whether the president was lying earlier, or whether he’s lying now.  An they have every reason to believe he’s lying now.

Obama said:

Well, the — I’ve seen some of those signs. (Laughter.)  Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here.  The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for “death panels” that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t — it’s too expensive to let her live anymore.  (Laughter.)  And there are various — there are some variations on this theme.

But, again, Obama just dismissively laughs off something that is actually quite serious.

Maybe he shouldn’t have told a woman regarding her aged but healthy mother:

“Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.”

He won’t pull the plug on grandma; he’ll just withhold lifesaving surgery and give her a pain pill.  It’s not active euthanasia – at least not yet; it’s passive euthanasia.  But grandma ends up just as dead.

During an October debate with John McCain, Obama said, regarding his foreign policy:

Let me tell you who I associate with. On economic policy, I associate with Warren Buffett and former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. If I’m interested in figuring out my foreign policy, I associate myself with my running mate, Joe Biden or with Dick Lugar, the Republican ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Those are the people, Democrats and Republicans, who have shaped my ideas and who will be surrounding me in the White House.”

So when we want to know what Obama wants in his foreign policy, we have to look at who he is associating with, and who he is surrounding himself with in the White House.  And Barack Obama has surrounded himself with some people who hold some pretty terrifying ideas concerning health care.

Obama has to explain why he appointed Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel as both his health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and as a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.  Emanuel has said JUST THIS YEAR:

“When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuatedThe Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.”

He explained:

Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.”

Dr. Emanuel has said:

Many commentators note that 27 to 30 percent of the Medicare budget is spent on the 5 percent of Medicare patients who die each year.

“Many have linked the effort to reduce the high cost of death with the legalization of physician-assisted suicide…. Decreasing availability and increasing expense in health care and the uncertain impact of managed care may intensify pressure to choose physician-assisted suicide” and “the cost effectiveness of hastened death is as undeniable as gravity. The earlier a patient dies, the less costly is his or her care.”

And he has said:

Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.

Then there is Cass Sunstein, whom Barack Obama appointed to the position of Regulatory Czar.  Sunstein wrote in the Columbia Law Review in January 2004:

“I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

Barack Obama’s Regulatory Czar explained:

“If a program would prevent fifty deaths of people who are twenty, should it be treated the same way as a program that would prevent fifty deaths of people who are seventy? Other things being equal, a program that protects young people seems far better than one that protects old people, because it delivers greater benefits.”

Let us not forget Obama’s director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, John Holdren, who has openly advocated forced abortions and sterilizations as a population growth solution.  Seriously, is it a stretch that he likewise supports the passive euthanasia advocated by Emanuel and Sunstein to control population growth?

I am willing to entertain the notion that the final health care bill will not include “death panels.”  But, given the people Obama has appointed who are serving as architects of the health care legislation, he certainly shouldn’t get the benefit of the doubt.  Because these men whom Obama appointed have written some very frightening things that very much suggest a “death panel.”  Ezekiel,  Sunstein, and Holdren are just three very real Obama officials who have written some very real things that would entail the very real deaths of many very real American citizens.

And Obama’s mockingly laughing at “death panels” is not very funny given his appointments of Ezekiel Emanuel and Cass Sunstein.  Mr. Obama, don’t you dare mock us for being afraid over the writings of men that you appointed.

The prospect of bureaucrats having more power to make more decisions over more vital aspects of peoples’ lives is frightening.  It should not be glossed over.  Obama and Democrats assuring us that they won’t accept any plan that creates a deficit when the plan they left behind in August creates another trillion dollars in deficits (and probably many times that, given the CBO’s tendency to massively underestimate costs) is frightening.  And nonchalant promises don’t hold any water.  Assuring Americans that a “public option” won’t push people into government care when the bill in fact does the exact opposite is immoral.

And Democrat politicians who casually dismiss these issues and others are the reason for all the anger.  People are realizing that there lives may literally be at stake – and they are in absolutely no mood to be played with.