Here is the website with the new proposed Massachusettes bill.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st02pdf/st02028.pdf
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Monday, August 3, 2009
MEDICINE AND HEALTH: Here's a second opinion
By Scott W. Atlas
Ten reasons why America’s health care system is in better condition than you might suppose. By Scott W. Atlas.
Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers, and academics beat the drum for a far larger government role in health care. Much of the public assumes that their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. Before we turn to government as the solution, however, we should consider some unheralded facts about America’s health care system.
1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.
2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality in Canada is 9 percent higher than in the United States, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher, and colon cancer among men is about 10 percent higher.
3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit from statin drugs, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, are taking them. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons, and 17 percent of Italians receive them.
4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate, and colon cancer:
Nine out of ten middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to fewer than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a Pap smear, compared to fewer than 90 percent of Canadians.
More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a prostatespecific antigen (PSA) test, compared to fewer than one in six Canadians (16 percent).
Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with fewer than one in twenty Canadians (5 percent).
5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report “excellent” health (11.7 percent) compared to Canadian seniors (5.8 percent). Conversely, white, young Canadian adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower-income Americans to describe their health as “fair or poor.”
6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long—sometimes more than a year—to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In Britain, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.
7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and British adults say their health system needs either “fundamental change” or “complete rebuilding.”
8. Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the “health care system,” more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared with only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).
9. Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain. An overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identify computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade—even as economists and policy makers unfamiliar with actual medical practice decry these techniques as wasteful. The United States has thirty-four CT scanners per million Americans, compared to twelve in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has almost twenty-seven MRI machines per million people compared to about six per million in Canada and Britain.
10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country. Since the mid- 1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to U.S. residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past thirty-four years did a scientist living in the United States not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.
Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and care for the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.
This essay appeared on the website of the National Center for Policy Analysis on March 24, 2009. An earlier version was published in the Washington Times.
Available from the Hoover Press is Power to the Patient: Selected Health Care Issues and Policy Solutions, edited by Scott W. Atlas. To order, call 800.935.2882 or visit www.hooverpress.org.
Scott W. Atlas is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of radiology and chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical School.
Ten reasons why America’s health care system is in better condition than you might suppose. By Scott W. Atlas.
Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers, and academics beat the drum for a far larger government role in health care. Much of the public assumes that their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. Before we turn to government as the solution, however, we should consider some unheralded facts about America’s health care system.
1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.
2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality in Canada is 9 percent higher than in the United States, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher, and colon cancer among men is about 10 percent higher.
3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit from statin drugs, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, are taking them. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons, and 17 percent of Italians receive them.
4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate, and colon cancer:
Nine out of ten middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to fewer than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a Pap smear, compared to fewer than 90 percent of Canadians.
More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a prostatespecific antigen (PSA) test, compared to fewer than one in six Canadians (16 percent).
Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with fewer than one in twenty Canadians (5 percent).
5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report “excellent” health (11.7 percent) compared to Canadian seniors (5.8 percent). Conversely, white, young Canadian adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower-income Americans to describe their health as “fair or poor.”
6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long—sometimes more than a year—to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In Britain, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.
7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and British adults say their health system needs either “fundamental change” or “complete rebuilding.”
8. Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the “health care system,” more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared with only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).
9. Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain. An overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identify computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade—even as economists and policy makers unfamiliar with actual medical practice decry these techniques as wasteful. The United States has thirty-four CT scanners per million Americans, compared to twelve in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has almost twenty-seven MRI machines per million people compared to about six per million in Canada and Britain.
10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country. Since the mid- 1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to U.S. residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past thirty-four years did a scientist living in the United States not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.
Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and care for the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.
This essay appeared on the website of the National Center for Policy Analysis on March 24, 2009. An earlier version was published in the Washington Times.
Available from the Hoover Press is Power to the Patient: Selected Health Care Issues and Policy Solutions, edited by Scott W. Atlas. To order, call 800.935.2882 or visit www.hooverpress.org.
Scott W. Atlas is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of radiology and chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical School.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Revenge of the ‘Shoe Bomber’
The terrorist sues to resume his jihad from prison. The Obama administration caves in.
By DEBRA BURLINGAME
Last May at the National Archives, President Barack Obama warned that “more mistakes would occur” if Congress continued to politicize terrorist detention policy and the closure of Guantanamo Bay. “[I]f we refuse to deal with those issues today,” he predicted, “then I guarantee you, they will be an albatross around our efforts to combat terrorism in the future.”
On June 17, at the Administrative Maximum (ADX) penitentiary in Florence, Colo., one of those albatrosses, inmate number 24079-038, began his day with a whole new range of possibilities. Eight days earlier, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Denver filed notice in federal court that the Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) which applied to that prisoner—Richard C. Reid, a.k.a. the “Shoe Bomber”—were being allowed to expire. SAMs are security directives, renewable yearly, issued by the attorney general when “there is a substantial risk that a prisoner’s communications, correspondence or contacts with persons could result in death or serious bodily injury” to others.
Reid was arrested in 2001 for attempting to blow up American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami with 197 passengers and crew on board. Why had Attorney General Eric Holder decided not to renew his security measures, kept in place since 2002?
According to court documents filed in a 2007 civil lawsuit against the government, Reid claimed that SAMs violated his First Amendment right of free speech and free exercise of religion. In a hand-written complaint, he asserted that he was being illegally prevented from performing daily “group prayers in a manner prescribed by my religion.” Yet the list of Reid’s potential fellow congregants at ADX Florence reads like a Who’s Who of al Qaeda’s most dangerous members: Ramzi Yousef and his three co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui; “Millennium bomber” Ahmed Ressam; “Dirty bomber” Jose Padilla; Wadih el-Hage, Osama Bin Laden’s personal secretary, convicted in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombing that killed 247 people.
In December 2008, the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss Reid’s lawsuit. It cited the example of ADX inmate Ahmed Ajaj as an illustration of “the dangers inherent in permitting a group of inmates, of like mind in their opposition to the United States, to congregate for a prayer service conducted in a language not understood by most correctional officers.”
While imprisoned for passport fraud in 1992, Ajaj assisted in the plans to destroy the World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993, making phone calls to Ramzi Yousef and speaking in code to elude law enforcement monitoring. Ajaj tried to get his “training kit” to Yousef, which included videotapes and notes he had taken on bomb-making while attending a terrorist camp on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
Reid’s own SAMs on correspondence had been tightened in 2006 after the shocking discovery that three of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers at ADX, not subject to security directives, had sent 90 letters to overseas terrorist networks, including those associated with the Madrid train bombing. The letters, exhorting jihad and praising Osama bin Laden as “my hero of this generation,” were printed in Arabic newspapers and brandished like trophies to recruit new members.
When setting restrictions on inmate religious practice, the Bureau of Prisons need only meet a reasonableness standard, a very low bar in the case of Muslim terrorists. Justice would easily have prevailed against Reid’s lawsuit; nevertheless it dropped the security measures on Reid after he missed 58 meals in a hunger strike that required medical intervention and forced feeding in April.
On July 6, Justice Department lawyers informed the court that Reid will be given a “new placement” in a “post-SAMs setting.” Whether that entails stepped down security in a different unit or transfer to a less secure facility, the Bureau of Prisons won’t say, and Justice refuses to comment.
Mr. Obama likes to observe that “no one has escaped from supermax,” but if Reid is moved from ADX Florence, he will be the first convicted terrorist to use the First Amendment to sue his way out.
What drove the Obama administration’s decision to cave in to Reid’s demands? The president after all has repeatedly pitched supermax and the federal prison system as a secure alternative to Guantanamo, citing the fact that it handles “all manner of violent and dangerous criminals.” Yet the last thing he needs, as his administration engages in its hasty effort to shut Gitmo down by a fast-approaching deadline, is for lawyers and human-rights activists to use a hunger-striking, near-death prisoner to launch a propaganda campaign fashioned right out of the Gitmo detainees’ playbook. Lawyers who shamelessly compared Gitmo to Nazi concentration camps would think nothing of casting supermax as the next “symbol of America’s shame” and a “rallying cry for our enemies.”
From the outset of his administration, Mr. Obama has been trying to thread the needle between national security policy and his ideological affinity with civil liberties lawyers and human-rights activists, meeting with and consulting them prior to making detainee-related decisions. Though his executive order shutting Guantanamo closely followed the blueprint provided by Human Rights First, leaders of key organizations were stunned when he revealed in an awkward, off-the-record meeting the day before his public announcement at the National Archives that he planned to continue President George W. Bush’s policy of preventive detention.
Michael Ratner, whose human rights organization, the Center for Constitutional Rights, filed the first successful detainee lawsuit in 2002, called Mr. Obama’s proposed U.S. detention scheme a “road to perdition” and nothing more than a plan to “repackage Guantanamo.” Leaders of the so-called Gitmo bar appear poised to launch a flurry of legal challenges the moment the last departing detainee’s feet touch U.S. soil.
In January, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado issued a statement saying that conditions at supermax are “simply another form of torture” worse than Gitmo which “make a mockery of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’” Last month, the ACLU filed a civil lawsuit mirroring Reid’s religious rights claim on behalf of two terrorism inmates held at the Communications Management Unit inside a medium security prison in Terre Haute, Ind.
One of those inmates is Enaam Arnaout, a Syrian-born U.S. citizen serving a 10-year sentence for diverting Muslim charity money to militant Islamic groups in Bosnia and Chechnya. The other, Randall Royer, is serving 20 years for his role recruiting young Muslims in the “Virginia Jihad Network,” a group that used paintball games in 2000-2001 to train for holy war.
Mr. Obama has repeatedly suggested that the security challenge of bringing more than 100 trained and dangerous terrorists onto U.S. soil can be solved by simply installing them in an impenetrable fortress. This view is either disingenuous or naïve. The militant Islamists at Guantanamo too dangerous to release believe that their resistance behind the wire is a continuation of holy war. There is every reason to believe they will continue their jihad once they have been transported to U.S. soil where certain federal judges have signaled a willingness to confer upon them even more rights.
The position of civil rights activists with regard to these prisoners is plain. “If they cannot be convicted,” says ACLU lawyer Jameel Jaffer, “then you release them.”
Meanwhile, in order to appease political constituencies both here and abroad, the Obama administration is moving full steam ahead, operating on the false premise that giving more civil liberties to religious fanatics bent on destroying Western civilization will make a difference in the Muslim world. In a letter sent to his father as he began his hunger strike, Reid provided a preview of how he will exercise his newly enlarged free speech rights, calling Mr. Obama a “hypocrite” who is “no better than George Bush.” His lawsuit remains active while the Department of Justice works out a settlement that satisfies the man who declared, “I am at war with America.”
Ms. Burlingame, a former attorney and a director of the National September 11 Memorial Foundation, is the sister of Charles F. “Chic” Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines Flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
By DEBRA BURLINGAME
Last May at the National Archives, President Barack Obama warned that “more mistakes would occur” if Congress continued to politicize terrorist detention policy and the closure of Guantanamo Bay. “[I]f we refuse to deal with those issues today,” he predicted, “then I guarantee you, they will be an albatross around our efforts to combat terrorism in the future.”
On June 17, at the Administrative Maximum (ADX) penitentiary in Florence, Colo., one of those albatrosses, inmate number 24079-038, began his day with a whole new range of possibilities. Eight days earlier, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Denver filed notice in federal court that the Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) which applied to that prisoner—Richard C. Reid, a.k.a. the “Shoe Bomber”—were being allowed to expire. SAMs are security directives, renewable yearly, issued by the attorney general when “there is a substantial risk that a prisoner’s communications, correspondence or contacts with persons could result in death or serious bodily injury” to others.
Reid was arrested in 2001 for attempting to blow up American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami with 197 passengers and crew on board. Why had Attorney General Eric Holder decided not to renew his security measures, kept in place since 2002?
According to court documents filed in a 2007 civil lawsuit against the government, Reid claimed that SAMs violated his First Amendment right of free speech and free exercise of religion. In a hand-written complaint, he asserted that he was being illegally prevented from performing daily “group prayers in a manner prescribed by my religion.” Yet the list of Reid’s potential fellow congregants at ADX Florence reads like a Who’s Who of al Qaeda’s most dangerous members: Ramzi Yousef and his three co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui; “Millennium bomber” Ahmed Ressam; “Dirty bomber” Jose Padilla; Wadih el-Hage, Osama Bin Laden’s personal secretary, convicted in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombing that killed 247 people.
In December 2008, the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss Reid’s lawsuit. It cited the example of ADX inmate Ahmed Ajaj as an illustration of “the dangers inherent in permitting a group of inmates, of like mind in their opposition to the United States, to congregate for a prayer service conducted in a language not understood by most correctional officers.”
While imprisoned for passport fraud in 1992, Ajaj assisted in the plans to destroy the World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993, making phone calls to Ramzi Yousef and speaking in code to elude law enforcement monitoring. Ajaj tried to get his “training kit” to Yousef, which included videotapes and notes he had taken on bomb-making while attending a terrorist camp on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
Reid’s own SAMs on correspondence had been tightened in 2006 after the shocking discovery that three of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers at ADX, not subject to security directives, had sent 90 letters to overseas terrorist networks, including those associated with the Madrid train bombing. The letters, exhorting jihad and praising Osama bin Laden as “my hero of this generation,” were printed in Arabic newspapers and brandished like trophies to recruit new members.
When setting restrictions on inmate religious practice, the Bureau of Prisons need only meet a reasonableness standard, a very low bar in the case of Muslim terrorists. Justice would easily have prevailed against Reid’s lawsuit; nevertheless it dropped the security measures on Reid after he missed 58 meals in a hunger strike that required medical intervention and forced feeding in April.
On July 6, Justice Department lawyers informed the court that Reid will be given a “new placement” in a “post-SAMs setting.” Whether that entails stepped down security in a different unit or transfer to a less secure facility, the Bureau of Prisons won’t say, and Justice refuses to comment.
Mr. Obama likes to observe that “no one has escaped from supermax,” but if Reid is moved from ADX Florence, he will be the first convicted terrorist to use the First Amendment to sue his way out.
What drove the Obama administration’s decision to cave in to Reid’s demands? The president after all has repeatedly pitched supermax and the federal prison system as a secure alternative to Guantanamo, citing the fact that it handles “all manner of violent and dangerous criminals.” Yet the last thing he needs, as his administration engages in its hasty effort to shut Gitmo down by a fast-approaching deadline, is for lawyers and human-rights activists to use a hunger-striking, near-death prisoner to launch a propaganda campaign fashioned right out of the Gitmo detainees’ playbook. Lawyers who shamelessly compared Gitmo to Nazi concentration camps would think nothing of casting supermax as the next “symbol of America’s shame” and a “rallying cry for our enemies.”
From the outset of his administration, Mr. Obama has been trying to thread the needle between national security policy and his ideological affinity with civil liberties lawyers and human-rights activists, meeting with and consulting them prior to making detainee-related decisions. Though his executive order shutting Guantanamo closely followed the blueprint provided by Human Rights First, leaders of key organizations were stunned when he revealed in an awkward, off-the-record meeting the day before his public announcement at the National Archives that he planned to continue President George W. Bush’s policy of preventive detention.
Michael Ratner, whose human rights organization, the Center for Constitutional Rights, filed the first successful detainee lawsuit in 2002, called Mr. Obama’s proposed U.S. detention scheme a “road to perdition” and nothing more than a plan to “repackage Guantanamo.” Leaders of the so-called Gitmo bar appear poised to launch a flurry of legal challenges the moment the last departing detainee’s feet touch U.S. soil.
In January, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado issued a statement saying that conditions at supermax are “simply another form of torture” worse than Gitmo which “make a mockery of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’” Last month, the ACLU filed a civil lawsuit mirroring Reid’s religious rights claim on behalf of two terrorism inmates held at the Communications Management Unit inside a medium security prison in Terre Haute, Ind.
One of those inmates is Enaam Arnaout, a Syrian-born U.S. citizen serving a 10-year sentence for diverting Muslim charity money to militant Islamic groups in Bosnia and Chechnya. The other, Randall Royer, is serving 20 years for his role recruiting young Muslims in the “Virginia Jihad Network,” a group that used paintball games in 2000-2001 to train for holy war.
Mr. Obama has repeatedly suggested that the security challenge of bringing more than 100 trained and dangerous terrorists onto U.S. soil can be solved by simply installing them in an impenetrable fortress. This view is either disingenuous or naïve. The militant Islamists at Guantanamo too dangerous to release believe that their resistance behind the wire is a continuation of holy war. There is every reason to believe they will continue their jihad once they have been transported to U.S. soil where certain federal judges have signaled a willingness to confer upon them even more rights.
The position of civil rights activists with regard to these prisoners is plain. “If they cannot be convicted,” says ACLU lawyer Jameel Jaffer, “then you release them.”
Meanwhile, in order to appease political constituencies both here and abroad, the Obama administration is moving full steam ahead, operating on the false premise that giving more civil liberties to religious fanatics bent on destroying Western civilization will make a difference in the Muslim world. In a letter sent to his father as he began his hunger strike, Reid provided a preview of how he will exercise his newly enlarged free speech rights, calling Mr. Obama a “hypocrite” who is “no better than George Bush.” His lawsuit remains active while the Department of Justice works out a settlement that satisfies the man who declared, “I am at war with America.”
Ms. Burlingame, a former attorney and a director of the National September 11 Memorial Foundation, is the sister of Charles F. “Chic” Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines Flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Obama's '47 Million Uninsured' Claim Is False
President Barack Obama claimed during his Wednesday night press conference that there are 47 million Americans without health insurance.
A simple check with the U.S. Census Bureau would have told him otherwise.
Obama said: "This is not just about the 47 million Americans who have no health insurance."
That assertion conflicts with data in the Census Bureau report "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007." The report was issued in August 2008 and contains the most up-to-date official data on the number of uninsured in the U.S.
The report discloses that there were 45.65 million people in the U.S. who did not have health insurance in 2007.
However, it also reveals that there were 9.73 million foreigners — foreign-born non-citizens who were in the country in 2007 — included in that number. So the number of uninsured Americans was actually 35.92 million.
And of those, "there were also 9.1 million people making more than $75,000 per year who did not choose to purchase health insurance," CNSNews stated in a report based on the Census Bureau data.
That brings the number of Americans who lack health insurance presumably for financial reasons down less than 27 million.
The Census Bureau report also shows that the number of people without insurance actually went down in 2007 compared to the previous year — from 47 million to 45.65 million — while the number with insurance rose from 249.8 million to 253.4 million.
The next Census Bureau report disclosing health insurance data, with 2008 numbers, is scheduled to be released in August, and could figure in the healthcare reform debate.
A simple check with the U.S. Census Bureau would have told him otherwise.
Obama said: "This is not just about the 47 million Americans who have no health insurance."
That assertion conflicts with data in the Census Bureau report "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007." The report was issued in August 2008 and contains the most up-to-date official data on the number of uninsured in the U.S.
The report discloses that there were 45.65 million people in the U.S. who did not have health insurance in 2007.
However, it also reveals that there were 9.73 million foreigners — foreign-born non-citizens who were in the country in 2007 — included in that number. So the number of uninsured Americans was actually 35.92 million.
And of those, "there were also 9.1 million people making more than $75,000 per year who did not choose to purchase health insurance," CNSNews stated in a report based on the Census Bureau data.
That brings the number of Americans who lack health insurance presumably for financial reasons down less than 27 million.
The Census Bureau report also shows that the number of people without insurance actually went down in 2007 compared to the previous year — from 47 million to 45.65 million — while the number with insurance rose from 249.8 million to 253.4 million.
The next Census Bureau report disclosing health insurance data, with 2008 numbers, is scheduled to be released in August, and could figure in the healthcare reform debate.
Still No Apology, Obama Offers a Beer
Posted By Bobby Eberle On July 27, 2009 at 7:06 am
Barack Obama may have tried to divert attention from his falling popularity or his troubled health care bill by commenting on the arrest of his friend Henry Louis Gates, but I don't think this is the attention he had in mind. By saying the police acted "stupidly," without even knowing the facts in the case, Obama showed that he is never too shy to get involved in questions of race, especially if it allows him to rant about how bad some people in this country still have it.
Except for groups such as the Congressional Black Caucus, Obama's comments have been soundly criticized. Yet, he has still not apologized publicly to Police Sgt. James Crowley, who, by all accounts, acted professionally and "by the book" in responding to a call by a neighbor regarding a possible break-in at Gates' home. Instead, Obama has invited Gates and Crowley to share a beer with him at the White House. How lovely... Throw out a comment about how racist America still is and then make light about it by inviting folks over for a beer.
For a review of the incident involving Gates and Crowley, please see my previous posting in The Loft.
As FOXNews.com reports, "President Obama's highly anticipated sit-down with Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley and Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. over some brews is expected to take place early this week, administration officials said Sunday."
The blowup has dominated national attention just as Obama tries to marshal public pressure to get Congress to push through health care overhaul legislation ... and as polls show growing doubts about his performance.
Obama walked back his comments Friday at a surprise appearance at a White House daily briefing and announced he had spoken with Crowley on the phone and invited him to the White House for a beer with Gates. Gates accepted the invitation later that day.
"This has been ratcheting up, and I obviously helped to contribute ratcheting it up," Obama said of the racial controversy on Friday. "I want to make clear that in my choice of words, I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department and Sgt. Crowley specifically. And I could've calibrated those words differently."
Calibrated those words differently??? How about using the bully pulpit to apologize to Sgt. Crowley for your ridiculous comments? Obama's statement at last Wednesday's press conference was so far off base, it really makes you wonder what's going on. The Crowley-Gates incident had nothing to do with the police using racial profiling. In this case, the officer was responding to a call by a neighbor. However, in his comments, Obama brought up how Blacks and Hispanics have traditionally been profiled. This has nothing to do with the case!
As CNSNews.com reports, members of the Congressional Black Caucus have stepped in and are saying that "the recent arrest of a black professor for disorderly conduct was a case of 'racial profiling' and that President Barack Obama's remarks at his Wednesday night press conference saying the police had acted 'stupidly' was an apt description."
Give me a break! These are the types of comments, both by Obama and the caucus that do more to hurt race relations than ANYTHING Sgt. Crowley did.
And just who is Professor Henry Louis Gates? Here's an example of what he had to say back in 1996 regarding "white, racist institutions." Note his comments about then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
If a police officer is investigating a call about a possible break-in, then how about letting the police officer do his job rather than calling him a racist. Are the police only allowed to arrest white people?
What is so frustrating is that Obama was said by the media to be the first "post racial" president. Yet, he does more to divide America based on race than any I've witnessed. His comments keep us looking backward rather than to a better future. And now he wants folks over for a beer? What happens when he makes his next stupid comment or blasts another person for doing his or her job? Have a pizza party?
Barack Obama may have tried to divert attention from his falling popularity or his troubled health care bill by commenting on the arrest of his friend Henry Louis Gates, but I don't think this is the attention he had in mind. By saying the police acted "stupidly," without even knowing the facts in the case, Obama showed that he is never too shy to get involved in questions of race, especially if it allows him to rant about how bad some people in this country still have it.
Except for groups such as the Congressional Black Caucus, Obama's comments have been soundly criticized. Yet, he has still not apologized publicly to Police Sgt. James Crowley, who, by all accounts, acted professionally and "by the book" in responding to a call by a neighbor regarding a possible break-in at Gates' home. Instead, Obama has invited Gates and Crowley to share a beer with him at the White House. How lovely... Throw out a comment about how racist America still is and then make light about it by inviting folks over for a beer.
For a review of the incident involving Gates and Crowley, please see my previous posting in The Loft.
As FOXNews.com reports, "President Obama's highly anticipated sit-down with Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley and Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. over some brews is expected to take place early this week, administration officials said Sunday."
The blowup has dominated national attention just as Obama tries to marshal public pressure to get Congress to push through health care overhaul legislation ... and as polls show growing doubts about his performance.
Obama walked back his comments Friday at a surprise appearance at a White House daily briefing and announced he had spoken with Crowley on the phone and invited him to the White House for a beer with Gates. Gates accepted the invitation later that day.
"This has been ratcheting up, and I obviously helped to contribute ratcheting it up," Obama said of the racial controversy on Friday. "I want to make clear that in my choice of words, I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department and Sgt. Crowley specifically. And I could've calibrated those words differently."
Calibrated those words differently??? How about using the bully pulpit to apologize to Sgt. Crowley for your ridiculous comments? Obama's statement at last Wednesday's press conference was so far off base, it really makes you wonder what's going on. The Crowley-Gates incident had nothing to do with the police using racial profiling. In this case, the officer was responding to a call by a neighbor. However, in his comments, Obama brought up how Blacks and Hispanics have traditionally been profiled. This has nothing to do with the case!
As CNSNews.com reports, members of the Congressional Black Caucus have stepped in and are saying that "the recent arrest of a black professor for disorderly conduct was a case of 'racial profiling' and that President Barack Obama's remarks at his Wednesday night press conference saying the police had acted 'stupidly' was an apt description."
Give me a break! These are the types of comments, both by Obama and the caucus that do more to hurt race relations than ANYTHING Sgt. Crowley did.
And just who is Professor Henry Louis Gates? Here's an example of what he had to say back in 1996 regarding "white, racist institutions." Note his comments about then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
If a police officer is investigating a call about a possible break-in, then how about letting the police officer do his job rather than calling him a racist. Are the police only allowed to arrest white people?
What is so frustrating is that Obama was said by the media to be the first "post racial" president. Yet, he does more to divide America based on race than any I've witnessed. His comments keep us looking backward rather than to a better future. And now he wants folks over for a beer? What happens when he makes his next stupid comment or blasts another person for doing his or her job? Have a pizza party?
Barack Obama Insults Innocent Police Officer
Picture this: Your neighbor's house has been broken into in the past. Today, you look out your window, and you see someone breaking into it again. You call 911. The police arrive, go into the house, and confront the man who was breaking and entering. The man claims he lives there and his front door was "jammed"; when the officer asks for his identification, the man (who is African-American) begins screaming at the officer (who is White) and accusing him of being a "racist" for questioning him. The officer tells him to calm down, and when the man doesn't, the officer arrests him -- not for breaking and entering, but for disorderly conduct.
Sounds pretty straightforward, right? Case closed...
...Unless the man is a friend of President Barack Obama.
This incident, as you've probably heard, actually happened. The place was Cambridge, MA. The man was Prof. Henry Louis Gates, Jr., a prominent scholar at Harvard University known for past radical and racially-charged speeches -- and a long-time friend of President Obama. And the arresting officer was Sgt. James Crowley, a decorated police officer who has even taught other policemen how to avoid any sort of racial profiling.
Obama could have stayed completely out of this incident... but instead, he chose to INSULT this police officer and inject accusations of RACISM into what should have been a local matter -- just because Gates was his friend. And now, Obama refuses to apologize!
This is OUTRAGEOUS!
Here are the facts: Prof. Gates had returned from China on Thursday to the Cambridge home that Gates rents from Harvard, and discovered his front door jammed. He opened his back door with his key and tried unsuccessfully from inside his home to open the front door. Eventually, Gates and his driver forced the door open from the outside.
A neighbor called 911 and reported seeing two black men trying to force open the front door. Sgt. Crowley was first to respond to the home, and asked Gates to step outside. Gates refused to step outside to speak with the officer, and when Sgt. Crowley told Gates that he was investigating a possible break-in, Gates opened the front door and exclaimed, "Why, because I"m a black man in America?" Sgt. Crowley, understandably, was quite surprised and confused with the behavior Gates exhibited toward him.
Gates eventually produced a Harvard identification card, prompting Crowley to radio for Harvard University Police. Gates followed the officer outside and continued to accuse him of racial bias. Amongst other egregious acts, Prof. Gates told Sgt. Crowley "I'll speak with your mama outside;" after Crowley warned the professor twice that he was becoming disorderly, the officer finally arrested Gates for "loud and tumultuous behavior in a public space." He was released from police custody Thursday evening after spending four hours at the police station, and the charges were dropped.
So what happened next? President Obama decided to "come to the rescue" of his old friend, at a prime-time press conference on Wednesday evening. After stating that, "Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here -- I don't know all of the facts involved in this local police response incident," he went on to say that "the Cambridge Police acted stupidly" when they arrested Gates. Then, he linked the arrest to racial profiling, saying that "there is a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately… race remains a factor in this society."
WHAT??? This incident had NOTHING to do with race or racial profiling -- it had EVERYTHING to do with a cop doing his duty, and a liberal professor with a racial chip on his shoulder disrespecting the very people he ought to be thanking for stepping up to protect his property!
This shouldn't be a surprise, though -- this is the same Prof. Gates who once gave a speech in which he used the N-word, railed against "racist historically white institutions in America" and accused Newt Gingrich of attempting to block blacks from entering the middle class.
And Barack Obama had the audacity to defend Gates, and attack Sgt. Crowley!
Barack Obama has had a chance to apologize; but instead, he gave one of his typical weasel-word statements: "in my choice of words I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt. Crowley specifically and I could have calibrated those words differently." Then his White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, announced that "the president regrets that the media have gotten all worked up over the controversy and been distracted from other more substantive issues such as health care."
What? "I could have calibrated those words differently"? It's somehow everyone else's fault, and not Obama's? How "calibrating" words like these: "I acted stupidly when I insulted the Cambridge Police Department and Sgt. Crowley, and I apologize for doing so."
Is that so hard?
It's not like Barack Obama doesn't know HOW to apologize -- he recently spent quite a who lot of time apologizing for the United States itself, all over the world! Niles Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation, even put together a "Top 10 Obama Apologies" list recently:
Apology to Europe: Speech in Strasbourg, France, April 3
Apology to the Muslim world: Interview with Al Arabiya, January 27.
Apology to the Summit of the Americas: Address to the Summit of the Americas, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, April 17.
Apology at the G-20 Summit of World Leaders: News conference in London, April 2.
Apology for the War on Terror: Speech in Washington, D.C., May 21.
Apology for Guantanamo in France: Speech in Strasbourg, France, April 3.
Apology for America before the Turkish Parliament: Speech to the Turkish Parliament, Ankara, Turkey, April 6.
Apology for U.S. Policy toward the Americas: Editorial "Choosing a Better Future in the Americas," April 16.
Apology for the Mistakes of the CIA: Remarks to CIA employees at Langley, Va., April 29.
Apology for Guantanamo: Speech in Washington, D.C., May 21.
Apparently, Barack Obama can apologize to everyone in the world... except the decorated police sergeant he deliberately insulted last week.
Barack Obama obviously needs a little "help" in being reminded how to apologize -- and we've got a GREAT way to get that "help" going!
Barack Obama should not be given some sort of "free pass" for his outrageous remarks against a decorated police officer, just because it was his friend who was arrested for his own stupid remarks and behavior. Thankfully, there are Members of Congress who agree.
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) has introduced a House resolution demanding Obama retract and apologize for the remarks he made about Cambridge Police Sergeant James Crowley. The draft of the resolution reads:
Whereas on July 16, 2009, Cambridge, Massachusetts Police Sergeant James M. Crowley responded to a 911 call from a neighbor of Harvard University Professor Henry Louis ("Skip") Gates, Jr. about a suspected break-in in progress at his residence, which had been broken into on a prior occasion;
Whereas on July 22, 2009, in responding to a question during a White House press conference President Barack Obama stated: "Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all of the facts involved in this local police response incident";
Whereas President Obama proceeded to state Sergeant Crowley "acted stupidly" for arresting Professor Gates on charges of disorderly conduct;
Whereas, as a former Constitutional Law Professor, President Obama well understands that all Americans are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and their actions should not be prejudged prior to being fully and fairly judged by an appropriate and objective authority after due process;
Whereas, President Obama's nationally televised remarks may likely detrimentally influence the full and fair judgment by an appropriate and objective authority after due process regarding this local police response incident and, thereby, impair Sergeant Crowley's legal and professional standing in relation to said incident; and
Whereas, President Obama appeared at a daily White House Press briefing on July 24, 2009 to address his denouncement of Sergeant Crowley and stated: "I could have calibrated those words differently" but "I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his home to the station."
Whereas, President Obama's refusal to retract his initial public remarks and apologize to Sergeant Crowley and, instead, reiterate his accusation impugning Sergeant Crowley's professional conduct in the performance of his duties; Now therefore be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
Calls upon President Obama to retract his initial public remarks and apologize to Cambridge, Massachusetts Police Sergeant James M. Crowley for having unfairly impugned and prejudged his professional conduct in this local police response incident.
This is exactly the "kick in the pants" that Barack Obama needs right now to show him that the American people are watching him, and that he can't get away with these kinds of lies and racially-charged insults.
This whole incident isn't about "racial profiling." This is about working Americans versus Harvard educated elites; post racial Americans versus race baiters; and law abiding citizens and law enforcement officials versus those who think they are above the law.
Comedian Bill Cosby, asked about President Obama"s statement on a Boston radio interview, summed up the situation succinctly, saying, "If I'm the president of the United States, I don't care how much pressure people want to put on it about race, I'm keeping my mouth shut."
President Obama needs to apologize for impugning the professional conduct of Cambridge, Massachusetts Police Sergeant James M. Crowley.
Sounds pretty straightforward, right? Case closed...
...Unless the man is a friend of President Barack Obama.
This incident, as you've probably heard, actually happened. The place was Cambridge, MA. The man was Prof. Henry Louis Gates, Jr., a prominent scholar at Harvard University known for past radical and racially-charged speeches -- and a long-time friend of President Obama. And the arresting officer was Sgt. James Crowley, a decorated police officer who has even taught other policemen how to avoid any sort of racial profiling.
Obama could have stayed completely out of this incident... but instead, he chose to INSULT this police officer and inject accusations of RACISM into what should have been a local matter -- just because Gates was his friend. And now, Obama refuses to apologize!
This is OUTRAGEOUS!
Here are the facts: Prof. Gates had returned from China on Thursday to the Cambridge home that Gates rents from Harvard, and discovered his front door jammed. He opened his back door with his key and tried unsuccessfully from inside his home to open the front door. Eventually, Gates and his driver forced the door open from the outside.
A neighbor called 911 and reported seeing two black men trying to force open the front door. Sgt. Crowley was first to respond to the home, and asked Gates to step outside. Gates refused to step outside to speak with the officer, and when Sgt. Crowley told Gates that he was investigating a possible break-in, Gates opened the front door and exclaimed, "Why, because I"m a black man in America?" Sgt. Crowley, understandably, was quite surprised and confused with the behavior Gates exhibited toward him.
Gates eventually produced a Harvard identification card, prompting Crowley to radio for Harvard University Police. Gates followed the officer outside and continued to accuse him of racial bias. Amongst other egregious acts, Prof. Gates told Sgt. Crowley "I'll speak with your mama outside;" after Crowley warned the professor twice that he was becoming disorderly, the officer finally arrested Gates for "loud and tumultuous behavior in a public space." He was released from police custody Thursday evening after spending four hours at the police station, and the charges were dropped.
So what happened next? President Obama decided to "come to the rescue" of his old friend, at a prime-time press conference on Wednesday evening. After stating that, "Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here -- I don't know all of the facts involved in this local police response incident," he went on to say that "the Cambridge Police acted stupidly" when they arrested Gates. Then, he linked the arrest to racial profiling, saying that "there is a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately… race remains a factor in this society."
WHAT??? This incident had NOTHING to do with race or racial profiling -- it had EVERYTHING to do with a cop doing his duty, and a liberal professor with a racial chip on his shoulder disrespecting the very people he ought to be thanking for stepping up to protect his property!
This shouldn't be a surprise, though -- this is the same Prof. Gates who once gave a speech in which he used the N-word, railed against "racist historically white institutions in America" and accused Newt Gingrich of attempting to block blacks from entering the middle class.
And Barack Obama had the audacity to defend Gates, and attack Sgt. Crowley!
Barack Obama has had a chance to apologize; but instead, he gave one of his typical weasel-word statements: "in my choice of words I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt. Crowley specifically and I could have calibrated those words differently." Then his White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, announced that "the president regrets that the media have gotten all worked up over the controversy and been distracted from other more substantive issues such as health care."
What? "I could have calibrated those words differently"? It's somehow everyone else's fault, and not Obama's? How "calibrating" words like these: "I acted stupidly when I insulted the Cambridge Police Department and Sgt. Crowley, and I apologize for doing so."
Is that so hard?
It's not like Barack Obama doesn't know HOW to apologize -- he recently spent quite a who lot of time apologizing for the United States itself, all over the world! Niles Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation, even put together a "Top 10 Obama Apologies" list recently:
Apology to Europe: Speech in Strasbourg, France, April 3
Apology to the Muslim world: Interview with Al Arabiya, January 27.
Apology to the Summit of the Americas: Address to the Summit of the Americas, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, April 17.
Apology at the G-20 Summit of World Leaders: News conference in London, April 2.
Apology for the War on Terror: Speech in Washington, D.C., May 21.
Apology for Guantanamo in France: Speech in Strasbourg, France, April 3.
Apology for America before the Turkish Parliament: Speech to the Turkish Parliament, Ankara, Turkey, April 6.
Apology for U.S. Policy toward the Americas: Editorial "Choosing a Better Future in the Americas," April 16.
Apology for the Mistakes of the CIA: Remarks to CIA employees at Langley, Va., April 29.
Apology for Guantanamo: Speech in Washington, D.C., May 21.
Apparently, Barack Obama can apologize to everyone in the world... except the decorated police sergeant he deliberately insulted last week.
Barack Obama obviously needs a little "help" in being reminded how to apologize -- and we've got a GREAT way to get that "help" going!
Barack Obama should not be given some sort of "free pass" for his outrageous remarks against a decorated police officer, just because it was his friend who was arrested for his own stupid remarks and behavior. Thankfully, there are Members of Congress who agree.
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) has introduced a House resolution demanding Obama retract and apologize for the remarks he made about Cambridge Police Sergeant James Crowley. The draft of the resolution reads:
Whereas on July 16, 2009, Cambridge, Massachusetts Police Sergeant James M. Crowley responded to a 911 call from a neighbor of Harvard University Professor Henry Louis ("Skip") Gates, Jr. about a suspected break-in in progress at his residence, which had been broken into on a prior occasion;
Whereas on July 22, 2009, in responding to a question during a White House press conference President Barack Obama stated: "Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all of the facts involved in this local police response incident";
Whereas President Obama proceeded to state Sergeant Crowley "acted stupidly" for arresting Professor Gates on charges of disorderly conduct;
Whereas, as a former Constitutional Law Professor, President Obama well understands that all Americans are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and their actions should not be prejudged prior to being fully and fairly judged by an appropriate and objective authority after due process;
Whereas, President Obama's nationally televised remarks may likely detrimentally influence the full and fair judgment by an appropriate and objective authority after due process regarding this local police response incident and, thereby, impair Sergeant Crowley's legal and professional standing in relation to said incident; and
Whereas, President Obama appeared at a daily White House Press briefing on July 24, 2009 to address his denouncement of Sergeant Crowley and stated: "I could have calibrated those words differently" but "I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his home to the station."
Whereas, President Obama's refusal to retract his initial public remarks and apologize to Sergeant Crowley and, instead, reiterate his accusation impugning Sergeant Crowley's professional conduct in the performance of his duties; Now therefore be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
Calls upon President Obama to retract his initial public remarks and apologize to Cambridge, Massachusetts Police Sergeant James M. Crowley for having unfairly impugned and prejudged his professional conduct in this local police response incident.
This is exactly the "kick in the pants" that Barack Obama needs right now to show him that the American people are watching him, and that he can't get away with these kinds of lies and racially-charged insults.
This whole incident isn't about "racial profiling." This is about working Americans versus Harvard educated elites; post racial Americans versus race baiters; and law abiding citizens and law enforcement officials versus those who think they are above the law.
Comedian Bill Cosby, asked about President Obama"s statement on a Boston radio interview, summed up the situation succinctly, saying, "If I'm the president of the United States, I don't care how much pressure people want to put on it about race, I'm keeping my mouth shut."
President Obama needs to apologize for impugning the professional conduct of Cambridge, Massachusetts Police Sergeant James M. Crowley.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Chris Matthews Wrong on Obama Birth Certificate
Wednesday, July 22, 2009 6:33 PM
By: Jim Meyers
MSNBC's Chris Matthews got into a heated exchange with a congressman on his show Tuesday as he revisited the question of President Barack Obama's birth certificate — or lack of one.
Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif., is a co-sponsor of the so-called "birther bill," which would require future presidential candidates to provide a copy of their original birth certificates.
“Birthers” are those who believe Obama is not qualified to be president, based on a belief that he was not born in the United States.
Campbell is not a “birther” and never has claimed that Obama was born outside the United States or should be disqualified from being president.
On the show, Matthews seemingly undermined claims by some that Obama never has released his birth certificate, producing what Matthews said was a true copy of it.
But Matthews made a false claim. Obama never has released his actual birth certificate. He has released another document, which state authorities often provide in lieu of a birth certificate, called a certification of live birth.
Matthews on Tuesday said Campbell was "playing to the crazies" by supporting the "crazy" bill, and the congressman shot back that it was all about "putting the matter to rest."
Matthews also accused Campbell of "feeding the wacko wing of your party," and held up what he called a copy of the supposed Obama birth certificate.
Case closed?
The indisputable fact is that Obama has not released his birth certificate, which the state of Hawaii issues for all citizens born there.
Instead, his campaign has released only his certification of live birth from the state of Hawaii, which is a document that offers a summarized version of the birth certificate.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, GOP nominee Sen. John McCain quickly released his birth certificate when liberal bloggers raised questions about his eligibility to be president. McCain was born at a military hospital in Panama.
Obama likewise could put the matter to rest by releasing his actual birth certificate, which would show, among other things, the place of his birth and the doctor who performed the birth procedure. This information is not provided on the certification of live birth.
As it stands, Obama is the only president in history whose birthplace is unknown to the public – a fact that would be stated on the actual birth certificate. Interestingly, his family has mentioned two different hospitals in Hawaii as the place of birth.
The fact that Obama has refused to release his actual birth certificate does not mean conspiracy theorists are right when they claim he was born in Kenya and therefore not eligible to be president. Investigators who have reviewed the claims have found no evidence Obama was born outside of Hawaii.
But Obama’s refusal to release his birth certificate does mean that Obama remains one of America’s most mysterious and opaque presidents ever.
Obama, for example, has not released many other documents regarding his public and private life.
Many of these documents were sought by reporters, who easily acquiesced when Obama said he would not release them – though most presidential candidates release them as a perfunctory matter.
Among the key documents that Obama continues to shield from the public:
Obama released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hand, released what he said was his complete medical file, totaling more than 1,500 pages.
Obama refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois. Nor did he produce correspondence, such as his schedules of appointments or letters from lobbyists, from his days in the Illinois state Senate.
Obama did not release his client list as an attorney or his billing records. He maintained that he performed only a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June 2008 but did not release billing records that would prove this assertion.
Obama ignored requests for his records from Occidental College, where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia University.
Obama’s campaign refused to give Columbia, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Former President George W. Bush and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry all released their college transcripts.
Obama did not agree to the release of his application to the Illinois State Bar, which would have cleared up intermittent allegations that his application may have been inaccurate.
Obama did not release records from his time at Harvard Law School.
During the presidential campaign, McCain’s campaign released a full list of all online donors. Obama’s campaign still has not released the names of those who donated at least one-third of the $750 million he raised.
Ironically, Obama accused the Bush White House of being "one of the most secretive administrations in our history," and chided then-Sen. Hillary Clinton for not releasing her White House schedules.
Chris Matthews, get your facts straight and demand full disclosure — that’s the best way to keep an honest government.
By: Jim Meyers
MSNBC's Chris Matthews got into a heated exchange with a congressman on his show Tuesday as he revisited the question of President Barack Obama's birth certificate — or lack of one.
Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif., is a co-sponsor of the so-called "birther bill," which would require future presidential candidates to provide a copy of their original birth certificates.
“Birthers” are those who believe Obama is not qualified to be president, based on a belief that he was not born in the United States.
Campbell is not a “birther” and never has claimed that Obama was born outside the United States or should be disqualified from being president.
On the show, Matthews seemingly undermined claims by some that Obama never has released his birth certificate, producing what Matthews said was a true copy of it.
But Matthews made a false claim. Obama never has released his actual birth certificate. He has released another document, which state authorities often provide in lieu of a birth certificate, called a certification of live birth.
Matthews on Tuesday said Campbell was "playing to the crazies" by supporting the "crazy" bill, and the congressman shot back that it was all about "putting the matter to rest."
Matthews also accused Campbell of "feeding the wacko wing of your party," and held up what he called a copy of the supposed Obama birth certificate.
Case closed?
The indisputable fact is that Obama has not released his birth certificate, which the state of Hawaii issues for all citizens born there.
Instead, his campaign has released only his certification of live birth from the state of Hawaii, which is a document that offers a summarized version of the birth certificate.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, GOP nominee Sen. John McCain quickly released his birth certificate when liberal bloggers raised questions about his eligibility to be president. McCain was born at a military hospital in Panama.
Obama likewise could put the matter to rest by releasing his actual birth certificate, which would show, among other things, the place of his birth and the doctor who performed the birth procedure. This information is not provided on the certification of live birth.
As it stands, Obama is the only president in history whose birthplace is unknown to the public – a fact that would be stated on the actual birth certificate. Interestingly, his family has mentioned two different hospitals in Hawaii as the place of birth.
The fact that Obama has refused to release his actual birth certificate does not mean conspiracy theorists are right when they claim he was born in Kenya and therefore not eligible to be president. Investigators who have reviewed the claims have found no evidence Obama was born outside of Hawaii.
But Obama’s refusal to release his birth certificate does mean that Obama remains one of America’s most mysterious and opaque presidents ever.
Obama, for example, has not released many other documents regarding his public and private life.
Many of these documents were sought by reporters, who easily acquiesced when Obama said he would not release them – though most presidential candidates release them as a perfunctory matter.
Among the key documents that Obama continues to shield from the public:
Obama released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hand, released what he said was his complete medical file, totaling more than 1,500 pages.
Obama refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois. Nor did he produce correspondence, such as his schedules of appointments or letters from lobbyists, from his days in the Illinois state Senate.
Obama did not release his client list as an attorney or his billing records. He maintained that he performed only a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June 2008 but did not release billing records that would prove this assertion.
Obama ignored requests for his records from Occidental College, where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia University.
Obama’s campaign refused to give Columbia, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Former President George W. Bush and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry all released their college transcripts.
Obama did not agree to the release of his application to the Illinois State Bar, which would have cleared up intermittent allegations that his application may have been inaccurate.
Obama did not release records from his time at Harvard Law School.
During the presidential campaign, McCain’s campaign released a full list of all online donors. Obama’s campaign still has not released the names of those who donated at least one-third of the $750 million he raised.
Ironically, Obama accused the Bush White House of being "one of the most secretive administrations in our history," and chided then-Sen. Hillary Clinton for not releasing her White House schedules.
Chris Matthews, get your facts straight and demand full disclosure — that’s the best way to keep an honest government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
