Today in an interview with Maria Celeste on Telemundo’s Al Rojo Vivo, ousted CNN anchor Lou Dobbs denied ever erroneously claiming that undocumented immigrants are bringing leprosy to the United States. Instead he attacked Celeste for bringing up reports that he aired on his show in the past. From interview (translated from Spanish):
DOBBS: Let’s be very clear: I did not support that report, in fact we corrected that report. And secondly, in fairness to me, I never said a word about leprosy and undocumented immigrants as you call them. My correspondent on our broadcast ad-libbed…obviously she was wrong. My only declaration in response to that report was one word: “incredible.”
CELESTE: You were also confronted with this erroneous information by Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes and you said that you supported 100% of what you had said on the show, and that you were the managing editor of the program, and in your show, everything that was said was factual….
DOBBS: Maria, in the interest of fairness, would you like to tell your audience how long ago that report was?
CELESTE:That was a few years ago…
DOBBS: No, Maria, that was four years ago…
CELESTE: It doesn’t matter how many years ago, you never retracted…This is your opportunity to clarify that and once and for all put it to rest doing whatever you choose to do — an apology, a retraction — whatever you feel most comfortable with.
Watch it:
Despite the fact that Dobbs did in fact state that “the invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of many Americans,” he refused to issue a retraction or apology on Telemundo.
However, Dobbs did tell the Latino community that he is one of its “greatest friends,” and he wants to work with them. He defended himself on the show by explaining that he is not “an enemy of Latinos,” but rather that the far-left has characterized him as such with its propaganda. The CBS website shows the 60 Minutes segment that aired in 2007.
Today, a new birther billboard went up above Wolf Automotive off I-70 in Wheat Ridge, Colorado. The sign has a picture of President Obama wearing a turban, asking, “President or Jihad?” and exhorting, “Wake up America! Remember Fort Hood”:
ThinkProgress spoke with Phil Wolf, the owner of the car dealership. He said that the billboard is his personal project because he believes the American people have a right to know the facts about the president:
I’m probably like a lot of other people that have asked the question, I want to know who our president is. And to date, I don’t think I know, I don’t think a lot of people know, I don’t think it’s ever been asked — answered. [...]
When this Fort Hood massacre occurred, and I saw the response of our Commander in Chief to this unbelievable, politically correct, nonsense — to me it was just enough. And I wanted to bring a little bit more attention to this thing, because to me it just wasn’t getting addressed.
Wolf added that he and the staff at his dealership have been receiving a significant number of death threats in response to the billboard. “I never expected people to threaten to kill us,” he told us. “I never expected people to harm my employees. … I’ve had people leave the office today — they’re terrified.”
Wolf also denied that the billboard is making a “racist comment,” calling such a notion “absolutely hilarious” and pointing out that in the presidential election, he wrote in the name of conservative Alan Keyes.
In the past, Wolf’s billboard has featured other birther designs, as well as regular advertisements for cars. Wolf denied that the billboard has any affiliation with WorldNetDaily, which has sponsored other birther signs around the country.
ProgressNow Colorado has launched a campaign asking people to boycott Wolf’s business.
Recently, the Liz Cheney-founded right-wing advocacy group Keep America Safe released a mini-documentary that features several residents of Standish, Michigan, speaking out against a possible transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay to a prison in the city. The video ominously warns that the transfer would turn the town into “Guantanamo North” and claims that Standish residents are dead set against moving Guantanamo detainees to their city. Watch it:
Yet, as the Plum Line’s Greg Sargent reports, the video poorly represents the views of the residents of Standish. He interviewed Standish City Manager Michael Moran, who dismissed Liz Cheney’s “fearmongering” and said the documentary was “off base“:
Standish’s City Manager tells us that local leaders and residents want the facility, and dismissed Cheney’s efforts as “fearmongering.” Cheney is “certainly not representing the views of our community,” the City Manager, Michael Moran, told our reporter, Amanda Erickson.
While some local residents do appear to have expressed mixed feelings or opposition to the plan, Moran says that they’re an isolated minority that Ms. Cheney’s video elevates out of proportion in a way that’s “off base.”
The truth is, the residents of Standish — like the residents of Thomson, Illinois — aren’t afraid of housing terrorism suspects on U.S. soil. Last month, the Standish City Council voted 6-0 in support of a resolution asking the federal government to relocate Guantanamo prisoners to their city. Moving detainees to the city would help keep their prison facility open, which would guard against “the loss of the 350 jobs provided by the [jail].”
On Wednesday, a group of women GOP lawmakers held a press conference to denounce a new recommendation by the federal Preventive Services Task Force that women receive mammograms less frequently. “This is how rationing begins,” said Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). “This is the little toe in the edge of the water.”
“Women in particular may lose a great deal of clout in decision making,” said Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). “We don’t know how far government will go in this bureaucracy,” she added, noting that they “want to empower women” and “want to have all the data on the table so individuals can make the best decision they can.”
On MSNBC this afternoon, Dr. Nancy Snyderman took Blackburn to task for getting the “public health message lost in the politics.” “Now, there’s nothing that came out of this panel recommending rationing,” said Snyderman. “Just a prudent use of screening tests.” When Blackburn tried to claim that the guidelines meant “bureaucrats deciding what they’re going to allow,” Snyderman pointed out that Blackburn was acting as a “bureaucrat” standing between patients and “the best possible evidence”:
BLACKBURN: It is troubling also that another of our colleagues has said many times, we. And that we means bureaucrats deciding what they’re going to allow.
SNYDERMAN: But you’re one of those bureaucrats. You’re my bureaucrat!
BLACKBURN: But I’m not, no. And you see, I don’t think a bureaucrat should be between a patient and a doctor. See, I don’t want to be that bureaucrat.
SNYDERMAN: Excuse me, I think that’s exactly where you are right now.
Watch it:
As the Washington Independent’s Mike Lillis notes, the concern of the congresswomen about rationed mammograms is especially ironic considering that they oppose legislation that “would require insurance companies that cover diagnostic mammograms also to cover routine, annual breast cancer screenings for all women 40 and older.”
Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin was in Indiana yesterday for a book-signing at a Borders store. One thousand lucky fans with wristbands to meet Palin stood in the rain all day waiting for her to arrive. However, Palin quit the event before she had the chance to sign all the books, leaving 100 supporters out in the cold:
“I’m very disappointed. I think it was very rude. She could have at least apologized, and she didn’t even do that,” said Teresa Hedrick. [...]
“We bought two books from Borders to have our receipt and our wristband to get it signed tonight,” said one woman. “My books are going back to Borders tomorrow.”
“We gave up our entire workday, stayed in the cold. My kids were crying,” said one man. “They went home with my wife. She was out here in the freezing cold all day. I feel like I don’t want to support Sarah.“
People who didn’t get to meet Palin “went home only with a piece of paper with Palin’s signature.” Video from the event shows angry wristband-holders loudly booing Palin and yelling, “Sign our books!” and “Quittin’ on the job!” Watch it:
(HT: Ben Smith)
Yesterday, Republican members of the House Immigration Reform Caucus (HIRC) dedicated a three and a half hour long pseudo-hearing in a nearly empty room in the Rayburn building to spewing their “well-worn rhetoric about the hordes of illegal aliens destroying the American way of life.” During the event, “American Jobs in Peril: The Impact of Uncontrolled Immigration,” Rep. Steve King (R-IA) seemed to suggest that the U.S. should rid itself of its immigrant workers because, back in the good ‘ol days, high school “football stars” could get good-paying jobs not because they were qualified to work at them, but rather, because “they knew someone”:
Thirty years ago in the packing plants there in that town — which I do call my hometown — you had to know somebody to get a job. And I can remember looking at the football stars on our football team that graduated back in those years in the mid to late 60s and thinking:
“Those guys will get the best-paying jobs at the beef plant. They can just take their degree and go out and get a job — if they know someone. If they don’t, they won’t get the job. Well I can’t do that because I’m not tall enough or strong enough.”
But today it’s entirely different.
Watch it:
King attributes the end of cronyism in the meatpacking industry and the deterioration of wages and working conditions to undocumented immigrants. The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), which has represented meatpackers for almost a hundred years, has a different take about the sequence of events.
Back in March, Center for Immigration Studies Senior Fellow Jerry Kammer — who was also a panelist at the event — offered an interpretation of the industry’s history similar to King’s, minus the football players. The UFCW was quick to point out that Kammer’s misinterpreted and manipulated “data to reach a totally biased and flawed conclusion” and demonstrated a “complete lack of understanding about the history of the meatpacking industry.” They also provided their own account of what happened:
Immigrants worldwide have been essential in strengthening the U.S. meatpacking industry, by organizing around increased wages and improved industry standards. But during the ‘80’s, something happened. Consolidation, mergers, and company-induced strikes helped drive down wages for meatpackers. During the strikes, companies aggressively recruited strike breakers-not immigrants but individuals who came from the decimated farm industry-to cross the picket lines.
Many of these workers soon realized something: these jobs were tough. Too tough to perform at the wages companies were offering. So, they left. But the damage was done. And the UFCW has been fighting to rebuild wages and standards for these jobs ever since.
In direct reference to yesterday’s event, UFCW’s Director of Civil Rights and Community Action, Esther Lopez, commented, “Given their [King and his allies] terrible track record on worker issues, it really is the height of hypocrisy that they are now trying to portray themselves as champions of workers.”
The House Immigration Reform Caucus (HIRC) is a group of (mostly Republican) representatives founded by former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) with the mission of stopping “the explosive growth in illegal immigration,” “reversing the growth in legal immigration,” and halting “amnesties.” The forum featured panelists from two of the three organization which “stand at the nexus of the American nativist movement,” and are often referred to as part of the “Nativist Lobby.”
Fired Up! Missouri points out that the Lafayette County Republican Central Committee is highlighting a new billboard in the state with steps for a “citizens guide to revolution of a corrupt government“:

This billboard replaces one that warned that the socialist “Obama-Nation” is “coming for you.” It’s unclear who the owner of the billboard is, but the first one was the work of a “Missouri businessman.” (HT: Oliver Willis)
Earlier this month, the Church of Latter Day Saints made headlines when it threw its support behind a measure in Salt Lake City that barred “landlords and employers from discriminating based on sexuality,” making it the first city in Utah to adopt the gay rights measure. Now, the Mormon Church is backing a similar statewide bill, enlisting the help of a variety of lawmakers to help get it passed. One such lawmaker is Sen. Chris Buttars (R), who, despite his adamant support for an earlier proposition that banned same-sex marriage, does believe that sexual orientation deserves protection from employer and landlord abuse. However, while explaining his opposition to allowing same-sex couples to adopt children, he told the press that while he doesn’t “mind” gays, he doesn’t want them “stuffing it down [his] throat all the time“:
BUTTARS: I meet with the gays here and there. They were in my house two weeks ago. I don’t mind gays. But I don’t want ‘em stuffing it down my throat all the time. Certainly not in my kid’s face.
Watch it:
In the past, Buttars has said that gay men and women are “the greatest threat to America going down.” “I believe they will destroy the foundation of the American society,” he said in February. “In my mind, it’s the beginning of the end. … Sodom and Gomorrah was localized. This is worldwide.” Last year, the NAACP called for his resignation because of his comments about a controversial bill: “This baby is black, I’ll tell you,” said Buttars. “This is a dark and ugly thing.”
On Fox and Friends this morning, the hosts discussed a recently released Fox News poll that measures the favorable opinions that Americans have about former Alaska governor Sarah Palin and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The poll found that 47 percent of respondents had a favorable opinion of Palin while only 28 percent had a favorable opinion of Pelosi.
“Also, 61 percent of you feel that governor Sarah Palin, former governor, has been treated unfairly by the mainstream media,” commented Steve Doocy. Co-host Gretchen Carlson suggested that Pelosi’s numbers are low even though she doesn’t get much “scrutiny” because “if you’re a conservative woman, you get more attacks“:
CARLSON: It’s interesting because even though that number shows that Pelosi has a much higher unfavorable rating, you don’t, you don’t at least hear as much about the scrutiny of Nancy Pelosi as you did about Sarah Palin. And that may go back to that whole age old argument that if you’re a conservative woman, you get more attacks than if you have liberal points of view.
Watch it:
The contention that the media treats conservative women worse than liberal women is conventional wisdom on the right. But Carlson’s claim that scrutiny of Nancy Pelosi is under the radar is surprising considering her own network’s often times downright mean treatment of the first female speaker of the House:
– On the November 10 edition of Fox and Friends, for instance, radio host Laura Ingraham said that “Pelosi basically did everything except sell her own body” to pass health care reform.
– On Nov. 4 on the O’Reilly Factor, Dennis Miller said Pelosi had a “sub-reptilian intellect” and likened her face to a “lizard laying on a hot rock.”
– On October 30, Fox and Friends laughingly re-enacted protesters calling for Pelosi to “burn in hell.”
– On October 21, Bill O’Reilly mocked Pelosi, saying, “If there wan’t Botox involved, with all due respect, there might have been more expression” on her face.
– On August 6, Glenn Beck joked about putting poison in Pelosi’s wine.
– On May 20, Hannity guest Jay Thomas said, “I think if you waterboarded Nancy Pelosi, she wouldn’t admit to plastic surgery.”
– On May 19, Dennis Miller called her a “train wreck” and a “shrieking harridan magpie.”
On Fox, a progressive woman like Pelosi doesn’t just get “scrutiny,” she gets insults.
Saying that critics are “understating the criminal justice system’s capacities,” two top Bush Justice officials came out in support of Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other Guantanamo detainees in federal court. Writing in the Washington Post, Jim Comey, former deputy attorney general and U.S. attorney in Manhattan, and Jack Goldsmith, a former assistant attorney general who now teaches at Harvard Law School, wrote that the move is “unlikely to make New York a bigger target” and that civilian courts are a proven venue for terror trials:
[T]here is no question about the legitimacy of U.S. federal courts to incapacitate terrorists. Many of Holder’s critics appear to have forgotten that the Bush administration used civilian courts to put away dozens of terrorists, including “shoe bomber” Richard Reid; al-Qaeda agent Jose Padilla; “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh; the Lackawanna Six; and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was prosecuted for the same conspiracy for which Mohammed is likely to be charged. Many of these terrorists are locked in a supermax prison in Colorado, never to be seen again.
In terrorist trials over the past 15 years, federal prosecutors and judges have gained extensive experience protecting intelligence sources and methods, limiting a defendant’s ability to raise irrelevant issues and tightly controlling the courtroom.
Comey and Goldsmith are hardly the first conservatives to support Holder’s faith in the U.S. justice system. In a joint statement prepared by the Constitution Project, David Keene, founder of American Conservative Union, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, and former representative and presidential candidate Bob Barr wrote Sunday, “We are confident that the government can preserve national security without resorting to sweeping and radical departures from an American constitutional tradition that has served us effectively for over two centuries. … The scare-mongering about these issues should stop.”
Yesterday, the House Oversight and Government Reform committee held a hearing on the implementation of the Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus. Republican members invited former GOP Majority Leader Dick Armey, who now leads the corporate front group FreedomWorks, to testify as their expert witness. After listening to Armey argue at length about the merits of even having any government intervention in the economy, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) asked him if he supported the unemployment compensation provisions of the bill. Armey said he might, but conceded that he had not read that portion of the bill. Van Hollen then extracted a confession that Armey had not even read the bill at all, even though he was appearing as an expert and repeatedly goes before the press to criticize the stimulus:
VAN HOLLEN: Let me ask you think. You keep saying ‘if there were,’ did you read the Economic Recovery bill?
ARMEY: No I didn’t. I had no reason to read it, I wasn’t voting on it.
VAN HOLLEN: You’re commenting on it an awful lot, both here and in the press, about the Economic Recovery bill. We ask members of Congress to read it when they vote on it and are considering it. You’ve said a lot about it, so I’m a little surprised that you have not read it. [...] It seems to me we owe it to people we are communicating with we have an understanding an read the information.
Watch it:
Ironically, as part of an effort to obstruct and derail the bill, Armey launched an online petition called “ReadTheStimulus.org.” In another bit of irony, although he postures as a fierce ideological opponent of the stimulus, Armey actually worked as a lobbyist to help businesses gain from the stimulus. According to disclosures, he was paid to lobby on behalf of Cape Wind Associates and the Medicines Company on the stimulus. His son, Scott Armey, who runs his own lobbying shop, has also worked with businesses to gain stimulus funds.

“The tea party movement has become so rife with internal feuding over philosophy, strategy and money that some supporters fear it will disintegrate before realizing its full potential,” Politico reports. “Some of these groups may burn out, but this is part of this entrepreneurial process and the competition is good,” said Adam Brandon, vice president of communications for FreedomWorks.
“The Obama administration won’t announce its new comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan until after Thanksgiving,” a White House official confirmed to Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin. “Observers and experts close to the discussions see it as the White House’s attempt to stage a full and controlled rollout over the week beginning November 30.”
A new survey by the Mortgage Bankers Association finds that nearly 1 in 10 homeowners with mortgages was at least one payment behind in the third quarter of the year. The delinquency rate is the highest since the association started keeping records in 1972.
The U.S. military says the vast majority of the 700 detainees at the prison at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan “could eventually be released because they’re fighting more for money than ideology.” Brig. Gen. Mark Martins said that 10 to 20 percent of the inmates at Bagram are considered hard-core or “irreconcilable” Taliban fighters.
“The U.S. Army will allow the media limited coverage of Sarah Palin’s appearance at Fort Bragg, but will bar reporters from interviewing her or her supporters on the post,” reports the AP. “A Fort Bragg spokesman initially said the Army would ban the media from Palin’s book signing next week, fearing it would turn into political grandstanding against President Barack Obama.”
Earlier this month, News Corp. president Rupert Murdoch said that President Obama made “a very racist comment” when Obama inserted himself into the July spat between Prof. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Officer Jim Crowley. Murdoch also said Fox News host Glenn Beck “was right” to say Obama is a “racist” with a “deep-seated hatred for white people.” Today on Capitol Hill, Media Matters’ staffers asked Murdoch to be more specific about what “racist” comments Obama allegedly made, but Murdoch denied he had made the charge:
MMFA: Mr. Murdoch, can you be more specific about what racist comments the President allegedly made?
MURDOCH: I denied that absolutely. I don’t believe he’s a racist.
“But you said that he made racist statements,” the staffer noted as Murdoch walked away. Watch it:
Shortly after Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) agreed to drop his opposition to President Barack Obama’s nominee for Ambassador to Brazil, interim Sen. George LeMieux (R-FL) decided to pick up where DeMint left off. DeMint had been blocking Thomas Shannon’s nomination over the Obama’s policy on the coup in Honduras; LeMieux, on the other hand, is accusing the former Bush nominee of being soft on Cuba.
According to an anonymous Republican aide, LeMieux is delaying Shannon’s confirmation over the role he played in initiating talks with Cuba on migration and direct mail service when he was Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs under the Obama administration. Yet while many suggest that LeMieux is trying to “burnish his Cuba credentials to help Crist,” he may not realize that Shannon’s actions were largely motivated by an effort to “bridge the gap” between Cuban Americans and their relatives in Cuba. The Obama administration has allowed Cuban Americans to visit their family members and lifted limits on money transfers to Cuban relatives, all while keeping in place long-standing trade restrictions. While still in office, Martinez chose to describe the developments as “good news for Cuban families separated by the lack of freedom in Cuba.”
Curiously, a new report recently revealed that wealthy supporters of the U.S. embargo against Cuba have contributed almost $11 million to members of Congress since 2004 and have been largely successful in blocking efforts to weaken sanctions against Castro’s government. In the meantime, long-time Republican Cuban Americans “drift[ed] to Obama” during the 2008 elections.
LeMieux was nominated and confirmed as Assistant Secretary by a Republican president and Republican-dominated Congress in 2005. Up until Obama’s inauguration, Shannon was working under an administration that approached Cuba with a heavy iron fist and often referred to Castro’s government as part of the infamous “axis of evil.”
Holding up Shannon’s nomination means the U.S. has limited diplomatic relations with the largest and most economically robust country in Latin America. Brazil also ranks fifth among the world’s most populated countries.
Mississippi Gov. and Repulican Governors Association (RGA) President Haley Barbour (R) attracted attention on Wednesday for praising former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, saying that she’s “a heck of a lot smarter than she gets credit for.” But that doesn’t necessarily mean Barbour thinks she’s ready to run for president. Today on MSNBC, Chris Matthews repeatedly asked Barbour if he thought Palin was qualified to be president. In response, Barbour would stop, stumble, and muster out weak statements like, “Constitutionally, she sure is” or “I don’t know anything that disqualifies her from being president” (perhaps subtle winks to the birther community that believes Obama is unconstitutionally unqualified?). Watch it:
While governor, Palin was not accepted into the inner circle of the RGA’s leadership, and Barbour never seemed very impressed with her self-proclaimed foreign policy expertise.
The newest far-right craze is an anti-Obama slogan that is making its way onto t-shirts, bumper stickers, mugs, and even teddy bears: “Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8,” which reads, “Let his days be few; and let another take his office.” The meme is also taking off on Twitter, with conservatives calling it “hilarious.” Commentators have noted that it’s unclear whether the intent is to hope for an end to Obama’s time in office — or an end to his life. But a look at the lines in the rest of the psalm hint at the latter:
Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labor.
Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children.
Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
Let them be before the LORD continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.
Diana Butler Bass at Beliefnet explains that Psalm 109 is one of the “imprecatory” prayers, “a lament in the form of petition to destroy one’s enemies.” While perhaps intended to be a joke, she notes that the psalm actually “entreats God to destroy the president”:
It is the personal prayer of an individual, someone who has been dealt an injustice by another–and usually more powerful–person. The words of Psalm 109 are those of deep agony, the longings of a victim for retribution and justice. This psalm is considered one of the most difficult of all the psalms–full of violent images of vengeance and death.
Quite a few of the “Pray for Obama” items are being sold at CafePress.com, although many of them have been taken off of the site (here’s a cached version of some of them). Cafe Press representative Margene H. told ThinkProgress that while the site took down some of the “Pray for Obama” items today, it is now in the process of reinstating them:
We initially pulled the Psalm 109:8 content from our products today because broader media dialog indicated that these designs potentially suggested violence towards the president. Based on current public discourse and further review of the actual content, we have determined that it is fair political commentary and we are in the process of reinstating this merchandise. As with all of our content, these designs will continue to be reviewed and if at any time their meaning is construed as advocating violence we will revisit our decision.
On Tuesday, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow spoke with “Patience With God” author Frank Schaeffer, who said that while the psalm was “frightening” in a secular context, it’s even “more threatening” in a biblical context.
President Obama’s FY2010 budget eliminated funding for abstinence-only education and school districts are increasingly moving away from such programs because they have proven to be ineffective at reducing teen pregnancy. However, Newsweek reports that the recently released Senate health care bill restores some funding for abstinence-only programs, inserted by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), which seems to be “a slight concession to the Senate’s social conservatives”:
Their provision would restore a program called Title V, which, since the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, has allocated a yearly $50 million in grants to abstinence-only education programs. Obama let the program lapse in June, leaving some abstinence-only groups in dire straits. So in September, Sen. Orrin Hatch offered an amendment to restore Title V via heath-care reform, which (much to the outrage of liberal groups) just squeaked through the Senate Finance Committee with a 12–11 vote. A similar amendment, offered in the House by Rep. Terry Lee from Nebraska, died in committee.
If the Senate language survives reconciliation, the Title V program will be extended through 2014. This will not, however, bring abstinence funding back to the levels of the past decade. In 2008, Title V grants accounted for just under 25 percent of the federal abstinence budget (the rest of the budget came from other abstinence-only funding sources not restored in the Senate bill, including Community Based Abstinence Education Grants and the Adolescent Family Life Act).
Funding for comprehensive sex education is also in the bill. Sec. 2953 also provides “$75 million per year through FY2014 for Personal Responsibility Education grants to States for programs to educate adolescents on both abstinence and contraception for prevention of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS.”
In April 2007, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that the war in Iraq was “lost” and that the surge was “not accomplishing anything.” Conservatives and war hawks ripped into Reid for the comment, calling it “reckless,” “disturbing” and “playing to the worst elements of the antiwar left.”
One of the fiercest critics of Reid’s Iraq war stance was former senator Fred Thompson, who accused him of “encouraging our enemies”:
But Reid’s comments are not meant for logical analysis. He proclaimed the war lost some time ago, and the surge as a failure even before the additional troops were on the ground. The problem is that every one of Reid’s comments I’ve noted here has also been reported gleefully by Al Jazeera and other anti-American media. Whether he means to or not, he’s encouraging our enemies to believe that they are winning the critical war of will.
But now Thompson is singing a different tune on the appropriateness of declaring an American war “lost.” In a commentary on his radio show today, Thompson declared that the Afghanistan war “has been lost”:
“It really doesn’t matter how President Obama divides the Afghan baby, how he splits the difference between McChrystal and Biden. Because the war has been lost,” Thompson said on his radio show today. “I say this because of one sad and simple fact. The president does not have the will and determination to do what’s necessary to win it. His heart’s not in it, and never has been. The Taliban knows it. Al Qaeda knows it. Our allies know it. And the American people know it.
“Our enemies are now emboldened and our friends are discouraged. We cannot prevail if the American people are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary for an extended effort. The case has not been made to them to justify this effort. The case can only be made by the president. This president is unable or unwilling to make that case,” Thompson said.
Listen here:
According to Thompson’s own logic, his declaration of defeat today — “whether he means to or not” — is “encouraging our enemies to believe that they are winning the critical war of will.”
One of the worst abuses of the private health insurance industry is its practice of denying claims to pay for necessary care for patients. This practice has become so rampant in the industry that a recent study by the California Nurses Association found that a whopping 21 percent of all insurance claims filed in the first half of 2009 in the state of California were denied by insurers.
As the story of six-year-old Madison Leuchtmann of Franklin County, MO, demonstrates, even children are victims of this insurance company abuse. Madison was born with bilateral atresia, which means she lacks ear canals in both ears. In order to hear, she wears a special device on a headband that allows her to make out sounds. Despite her disability, Madison is at the top of her kindergarten class and is slowly learning to read.
Yet Madison, due to her growth, will soon require a new hearing implant to be able to recognize sounds. Her hearing and speech therapist warns that “if she doesn’t get her implants by age seven, she’s not going to be able to blend her words. … She won’t be able to hear herself [talk].” Madison’s pediatrician, Dr. Randall Clary, also insists that without the implant, the girl may never be able to hear again.
Unfortunately, the Leuchtmann’s family insurer, Cigna, has issued “one denial after another,” flatly refusing to cover the $20,000 bill for the implant. In a written statement to the local news station Fox 2, Cigna explained, “It is not unusual for commercial benefit plans to exclude hearing assisted devices,” prompting Dr. Clary to angrily respond, “This is obviously medically necessary. You have a child that has no ear canals!” Dr. Clary also told Fox 2 that he sees these sort of denials “on a weekly basis.” Watch Fox 2’s report:
The United States is the only developed country without a universal, cradle-to-the-grave health care system. In no other developed country would a girl be on “the verge of never hearing again” because a for-profit insurance company decided that its bottom line was more important than keeping a child from going deaf.
Last night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) released the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, legislation which merged the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee’s bill with the Finance Committee’s bill. According to preliminary analysis from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the joint legislation will cost $848 billion over 10 years and reduce the deficit by $130 billion over 10 years. This morning on Fox & Friends, host Steve Doocy added the gross total cost of the coverage provisions to the amount by which the bill would reduce the federal budget deficit ($130 billion, but Doocy used an earlier estimate of $127 billion) to argue that the bill would cost taxpayers “close to a trillion dollars.” Watch it:
While expanding coverage to 31 million Americans would cost $848 billion over 10 years, the cost of these coverage expansions would be more than offset by a combination of new revenue and spending changes. After the $848 billion is paid off, the bill invests the remainder — $130 billion — into deficit reduction. Doocy is double-counting the cost of the bill to taxpayers. Imagine the following scenario: you drive to the supermarket and purchase a gallon of $10 laundry detergent with a $20 bill. According to Doocy’s logic, the cost of your detergent is not $10, but rather $30!