Archive for September 18th, 2009

Do Nothing Out of Selfish Ambition

Friday, September 18th, 2009

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.

Philippians 2:3-4 (New International Version)

Gail Gartrell, Great-Aunt to Sarah and Amina Said, Comments on Patricia Owens’ (Girl’s Mother) Interview

Friday, September 18th, 2009

Patricia Owens, mother to Sarah and Amina Said, the two teen girls “honor killed” by their father in January of 2008, in Dallas, was interviewed on a a Dallas TV station yesterday (see our post about the interview here).
Gail Gartrell, great-aunt to the girls sent me this email with comments concerning Patricia’s (also called ‘Tissie’ by many in her family) interview.

Amina and Sarah Said

Today, as I write to you, I do so with very mixed feelings. Tissie, has finally admitted that Amina and Sarah’s murders were honor killings; however, she only admits this fact while dodging other facts pertaining to her involvement.

I am saddened that she did not admit that Sarah indeed, called her only minutes after Yasser left with the two girls! It seems she has developed amnesia about the phone call she refused to answer from Sarah. Well, it was she who told about this phone call and then told me, ” I do not know why I did not answer her call.” “She called only ten to fifteen minutes after Yasser had left with them.” Now, listen, this has bothered me since Tissie told me this as I truly believe Sarah called because Amina had been shot by this time! I say this because of the difference in rigormortis. Amina, had much more rigormortis than Sarah which firmly points out that Amina died before Sarah. Then, Sarah’s wounds were inflicted slowly, intentionally aimed so she would not die fast…Yasser [tortured] Sarah bullet by bullet! Now, given the fact that Tissie, had supposedly ran with the girls because Yaser was going to kill them, why would she let these girls go anywhere with him? Why would she not take an incoming phone call from one of the girls only minutes after he left with them? You see, this just does not make sense…especially, if you are a mom!

Although I thank God for her admitting about the why of [their] deaths and calling them what they truly were, Tissie needs to tell the entire truth! I know she fears implicating herself but, she is involved in that she brought them back by lying to them and I will never believe that Sarah wanted to truly come back to finish school! It only takes one time of having a gun waved in your face to create terror and these girls knew Yasser would kill them! Why then, would Sarah choose school over her life and Amina’s? She wouldn’t have! I feel Tissie did much dodging to keep herself safe.

I listened very carefully, I watched Tissie’s body language as she answered Bud Gillett’s questions and the one thing which kept bothering me was the fact that she was vague about issues with Yasser. In fact, she basically denies the sexual abuse and there are court documents to prove this happened! I know that Amina and Sarah, as young as they were the day I kept them while Tissie went to file about this sexual abuse, talked to me about the sexual abuse! So, I think I will take the words from Amina and Sarah over Tissie’s! She should be angry about the sexual abuse too and I was just shocked when she acted like it did not happen!

There are so many holes I can punch in her guarded words, but I will leave much of this in the hands of God. God knows all of the horrors the girls went through and He knows who victimized these precious girls and why! I may never live to see true justice for these girls. But I know that justice will come as God is a God of love and of justice!

Rest sweetly in the arms of the ONE true God as He will bring light into the dark world you girls were forced to call home. Never will these girls ever be but” a memory” to me.

We must make sure that these girls and other victims of Muslim “honor killings” never become just “a memory” to us.

See below for previous post:

  • Honor Killing in Dallas
  • “The Story is Bigger Than an Honor Murder in Dallas or What Happens in Dallas Stays in Dallas; Who Knew?” by Dr. Phyllis Chesler
  • “Human Sacrifice in Dallas: No One Saved These Girls” by Dr. Phyllis Chesler
  • “Raging Muslim Taxi Drivers in North American Cities” by Dr. Phyllis Chesler
  • “Murderous Mothers. The Hidden Female Face of Honor Killing” by Dr. Phyllis Chesler
  • “Still Dead in Dallas. An Update on the Double Honor Murders” by Dr. Phyllis Chesler
  • FBI Calls Dallas Murder Case an ‘Honor Killing,’ Upsetting Muslim Group
  • Gail Gartrell, Great-Aunt to Sarah and Amina Said, Speaks About The “Honor Killing” Part 1.
  • Gail Gartrell, Great-Aunt to Sarah and Amina Said, Speaks About The “Honor Killing” Part 2.
  • Gail Gartrell, Great-Aunt to Sarah and Amina Said, Speaks About The “Honor Killing” Part 3.
  • Gail Gartrell, Great-Aunt to Sarah and Amina Said, Speaks About The “Honor Killing” Part 4.
  • America’s Most Wanted to Air Segment on Said Sisters “Honor Killing”.
  • America’s Most Wanted Airs Said Sisters “Honor Killing”, Caves to Political Correctness.
  • Gail Gartrell, Great-Aunt to Sarah and Amina Said, Interviewed on Anniversary of “Honor Killing”.
  • America’s Most Wanted to Air Segment on Yaser Said for Said Sisters “Honor Killing”.
  • Celebration Of Life For Amina and Sarah Said – Honor Killed by Their Father”.
  • Mother of Amina and Sara Said Breaks Her Silence, Wants Justice for the Girls.
  • Wanted by the FBI
    Please be on the lookout for Yaser Abdel Said, who “honor killed” his daughters, Sarah and Amina Said. If you think you have seen him, please contact authorities immediately.

    Mother of Amina and Sara Said Breaks Her Silence, Wants Justice for the Girls

    Friday, September 18th, 2009

    We have often wondered why Amina and Sara Said’s mother, Patricia Owens (or ‘Tissie’, a nickname for her used by many in her family) didn’t take a more vocal role in this situation. This behavior didn’t make sense. Her children had been viciously “honor” killed by their own father, her husband of many years. Was she afraid that the same fate awaited her or, God forbid, was she just uncaring? Some even speculated that she took an active role in delivering the teens to their father. Law enforcement has, of course, cleared her of any wrongdoing in this situation, but still, her silence was baffling.

    Amina and Sarah Said

    Yesterday, in what I would consider to be her finally breaking her silence, Patricia stated in an interview that “justice needs to be served for Amina and Sara.”
    Why it took over a year for her to do this, I’m not sure.

    Gail Gartrell, the great-aunt to the girls, has certainly been much more vocal, and as an extension, has challenged Patricia to take a more active role in championing the cause of bring Yasser to justice. Gail believes that Patricia’s role in the murders was not nearly as innocent as it may appear on the surface. At best, Gail believes that Patricia stood by and allowed this to happen when she could have taken the girls away and stayed away.

    We have many post about this and I invite you to read each one. We’ll have Gail’s comments as soon as possible. We still don’t have any idea how this is going to end, other than to say that God will deal out Justice in the end. I am glad though that Patricia has finally decided to break her silence and take a more active role in championing her murdered girls; her “honor killed” girls.

    LEWISVILLE (CBS 11 / TXA 21) ― An honor killing. That’s how the mother of two girls murdered in their father’s taxicab last year describes their deaths.

    Amina and Sara Said’s father, Yasser Said, is wanted for capital murder for allegedly shooting them 11 times on New Year’s Night 2008.

    “Justice needs to be served for Amina and Sara,” Patricia Owens said in an exclusive interview with us today. “I’m here to get the word out on honor killing and justice for Amina and Sara.”

    And, referring to her ex-husband, she said, “I want him to be caught; I want him to be punished for what he did to the girls. They did not deserve that.”

    Owens cried and wiped away tears throughout the interview.

    Patricia Owens says the biggest mistake of her life was to bring her daughters back to their Lewisville home. She had previously left Texas out of fear of their father, her then-husband Yasser Said.

    ”That was the stupidest thing I could ever do,” she observed. “If I would’ve known he was going to do that I would’ve killed him.”

    Owens says their father was offering the girls a night out on January 1, 2008. Amina had even come home from a friend’s house. “Amina said she was hungry and he said he was going to take them to eat,” Owens said, “and the next thing I knew the Lewisville Police was at my door.”

    The officers were there to notify her of a 911 call that had come into Irving Police, in which one of her daughters screamed she was being shot.

    Owens believes Yasser Said must have had help to escape and to stay on the run.

    Asked if she had helped Said in any way, she denied it. “No! No. How could I cover for somebody who killed my kids?” she asked.

    But she does feel guilty about their deaths: “I feel totally responsible. Because I’m their mother, and it’s my job to protect them,” she said. “And I let them go with an evil man that took their life away.”

    Original Link.

    Dr. Phyllis Chesler weighs in on the interview:

    The mother who lured her two young daughters, Sarah and Amina, to their tragic deaths at the hand of their father, Yaser Said, now regrets what she did. Downplaying her own role, or rather, insisting that she is innocent, Patricia (“Tissy”) Owens calls the murder of her daughters an “honor killing” by an “evil man.” Despite years of paternal child abuse at home, “Tissy” now insists that she had no idea that Yaser was actually going to kill the girls whom he sexually and physically abused and whose “too Western” ways enraged him.

    Sarah and Amina refused to marry older, unknown men from Egypt in arranged marriages. They had American ways, academic ambitions, and Christian friends, including Christian boyfriends. Unthinkable! And, like Rifqa Bary, they knew they were in danger and so they ran away. Their mother sweet talked them back home. They were dead within hours. Their father has never been found.

    My guess? “Tissy” is angry that Yaser never sent for her—and that she has also lost her son, Islam, who has mainly been living with his paternal uncles or perhaps with his father. She is alone. She has no one. Perhaps she wants some attention—and the media is only to ready to provide “Tissy” with that for another fifteen minutes of infamous fame.

    Here is the issue and it is one that I raise in my book Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman. Are female collaborators guilty, morally if not criminally, in the crimes committed by their husbands, boyfriends, or by their male business associates toward even more vulnerable women and children? Was the battered Hedda Nussbaum guilty in the death of Lisa Steinberg, the five-year-old allegedly adopted daughter who was tragically and repeatedly abused and then finally beaten to death by Joel Steinberg?

    Is “Tissy” likewise responsible? Are the wives who don’t ask and don’t tell anyone, including themselves, about their husbands’ sex slaves, also morally and criminally liable? If not, why not?

    See below for previous post:

  • Honor Killing in Dallas
  • “The Story is Bigger Than an Honor Murder in Dallas or What Happens in Dallas Stays in Dallas; Who Knew?” by Dr. Phyllis Chesler
  • “Human Sacrifice in Dallas: No One Saved These Girls” by Dr. Phyllis Chesler
  • “Raging Muslim Taxi Drivers in North American Cities” by Dr. Phyllis Chesler
  • “Murderous Mothers. The Hidden Female Face of Honor Killing” by Dr. Phyllis Chesler
  • “Still Dead in Dallas. An Update on the Double Honor Murders” by Dr. Phyllis Chesler
  • FBI Calls Dallas Murder Case an ‘Honor Killing,’ Upsetting Muslim Group
  • Gail Gartrell, Great-Aunt to Sarah and Amina Said, Speaks About The “Honor Killing” Part 1.
  • Gail Gartrell, Great-Aunt to Sarah and Amina Said, Speaks About The “Honor Killing” Part 2.
  • Gail Gartrell, Great-Aunt to Sarah and Amina Said, Speaks About The “Honor Killing” Part 3.
  • Gail Gartrell, Great-Aunt to Sarah and Amina Said, Speaks About The “Honor Killing” Part 4.
  • America’s Most Wanted to Air Segment on Said Sisters “Honor Killing”.
  • America’s Most Wanted Airs Said Sisters “Honor Killing”, Caves to Political Correctness.
  • Gail Gartrell, Great-Aunt to Sarah and Amina Said, Interviewed on Anniversary of “Honor Killing”.
  • America’s Most Wanted to Air Segment on Yaser Said for Said Sisters “Honor Killing”.
  • Celebration Of Life For Amina and Sarah Said – Honor Killed by Their Father”.
  • Pelosi: Health Reform Rhetoric Reminiscent of Violence in ’70s

    Friday, September 18th, 2009

    You’ve got to be kidding me!! Is Pelosi totally out of her mind?? I think the answer speaks for itself and is a resounding “YES!!”

    WASHINGTON – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that the anti-government rhetoric over President Barack Obama’s health care reform effort is troubling because it reminds her of the violent debate over gay rights that roiled San Francisco in the 1970s.

    Anyone voicing hateful or violent rhetoric, she told reporters, must take responsibility for the results.

    “I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, suddenly speaking quietly. “This kind of rhetoric was very frightening” and created a climate in which violence took place, she said.

    Former San Francisco Supervisor Dan White was convicted of the 1978 murders of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk, a gay rights activist. Other gay rights activists and others at the time saw a link between the assassinations and the violent debate over gay rights that had preceded them for years.

    During a rambling confession, White was quoted as saying, “I saw the city as going kind of downhill.” His lawyers argued that he was mentally ill at the time. White committed suicide in 1985.

    Pelosi is part of a generation of California Democrats on whom the assassinations had a searing effect. A resident of San Fransisco, Pelosi had been a Democratic activist for years and knew Milk and Moscone. At the time of their murders, she was serving as chairwoman of her party in the northern part of the state.

    On Thursday, Pelosi was answering a question about whether the current vitriol concerned her. The questioner did not refer to the murders of Milk or Moscone, or the turmoil in San Francisco three decades ago. Pelosi referenced those events on her own and grew uncharacteristically emotional.

    “I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made,” Pelosi said. Some of the people hearing the message “are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume,” she said.

    “Our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe,” she added. “But I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.”

    Pelosi’s office did not immediately respond to a request for examples of contemporary statements that reminded the speaker of the rhetoric of 1970s San Francisco.

    The public anger during health care town hall meetings in August spilled into the House last week when South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson shouted “You lie!” at Obama, the nation’s first black president, during his speech. On a largely party-line vote, the House reprimanded Wilson.

    The tone of the protests has sparked a debate over whether the criticism of Obama, the nation’s first black president, is really about his race. Former President Jimmy Carter has said he thinks the vitriol is racially motivated, but Obama does not believe that, a White House spokesman said.

    Asked about Pelosi’s remarks Thursday, House Republican Leader John Boehner said he hasn’t seen evidence that any of the public anger could lead to violence. And he took issue with Carter’s remarks.

    “I reject this resoundingly,” Boehner told reporters, noting that he and other Republicans called Obama’s election last year a defining moment for the nation. “The outrage that we see in America has nothing to do with race,” Boehner said. “It has everything to do with the policies that he is promoting.”

    Original Link.

    Jen Rast at the Scriptorium had these comments about Nan’s speech:

    We’ve all seen how many people get arrested at your typical left wing protest, especially during the height of the BDS saturated Bush years. However, on 9/12, when nearly two million conservative leaning Americans gathered in Washington D.C. to protest President Obama, there wasn’t a single arrest. Not one.

    So, what does Speaker of the House Pelosi conclude from the civility and human decency displayed at “right wing” protests? At a press conference today, she broke down in tears and warned all of us of the inevitable right wing violence that is just around the corner. Through tears, she recalled the 1970’s protests in San Fransisco that lead to the murder of several state senators, comparing it to the angry voices of today’s anti-Obama “teabaggers”. Can I just say that Nancy Pelosi is an irrational moron. She does, however, have the Alinsky tactic of smearing your opponent and accusing them of being dangerous down pat. I guess she forgot about the property damage, intimidation, and threats that her liberal friends subjected Californians to after the vote on Proposition 8. Just like we’re seeing at the Tea Parties all over the country, right? No?

    While many of the far left nutjobs will eat this up and spread it far and wide, I find it hard to believe that the average American is going to buy into the belief that their neighbors and friends are really dangerous terrorists who are going to plunge the United States into chaos. I wouldn’t be surprised, though, if Homeland Security isn’t stepping up their internet surveillance and data mining operations with every idiotic statement like this.

    I think I’ve figured out what “civil debate” really means when the Democrats suggest we return to it. It means, shut up unless you agree with the President, and if you criticize any of his policies you’re either a rabid racist, or a home grown terrorist. So much for the First Amendment.

    Right on, Jen.

    Sunstein, Obama’s Regulatory Czar: Obama, Not Courts, Should Interpret Law

    Friday, September 18th, 2009

    Obama continues to surround himself with the radical elements he can find.

    JERUSALEM – The interpretation of federal law should be made not by judges but by the beliefs and commitments of the U.S. president and those around him, according to President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.

    “There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him,” argued Sunstein.

    This statement was the central thesis of Sunstein’s 2006 Yale Law School paper, “Beyond Marbury: The Executive’s Power to Say What the Law Is.” The paper, in which he argues the president and his advisers should be the ones to interpret federal laws, was obtained and reviewed by WND.

    Sunstein debated the precedent-setting 1803 case, Marbury v. Madison, which determined it is “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

    He lamented multiple recent examples of U.S. presidents interpreting law only to have their interpretations overturned by the Supreme Court.

    “Why is the executive not permitted to construe constitutional ambiguities as it sees fit?” asks Sunstein. “The simplest answer is that foxes are not permitted to guard henhouses … but who is the fox?”

    He concludes “the executive should usually be permitted to interpret (law) as it reasonably sees fit.”

    “The allocation of law-interpreting power to the executive fits admirably well with the twentieth-century shift from common law courts to regulatory administration if the governing statute is ambiguous,” he writes.

    Sunstein is not shy about expressing his radical beliefs in papers and books, although many of his controversial arguments have received little to no news media attention or public scrutiny.

    Earlier this week, WND first reported Sunstein drew up in an academic book a “First Amendment New Deal” – a new “Fairness Doctrine” that would include the establishment of a panel of “nonpartisan experts” to ensure “diversity of view” on the airwaves.

    WND also reported Sunstein proposed a radical new “bill of rights” in a 2004 book, “The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever,” in which he advanced the radical notion that welfare rights, including some controversial inceptions, be granted by the state.

    WND has learned that in April 2005, Sunstein opened up a conference at Yale Law School entitled “The Constitution in 2020,” which sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year.

    Sunstein has been a main participant in the movement, which openly seeks to create a “progressive” consensus as to what the U.S. Constitution should provide for by the year 2020. It also suggests strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.

    Just before his appearance at the conference, Sunstein wrote a blog entry in which he explained he “will be urging that it is important to resist, on democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party.”

    In his book, Sunstein laid out what he wants to become the new bill of rights, which he calls the Second Bill of Rights:

    Among his mandates are:

    * The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

    * The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

    * The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

    * The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in
    an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

    * The right of every family to a decent home;

    * The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

    * The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

    * The right to a good education.

    On one page in his book, Sunstein claims he is “not seriously arguing” his bill of rights be “encompassed by anything in the Constitution,” but on the next page he states that “if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself.”

    Later in the book, Sunstein argues that “at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America’s constitutive commitments.”

    Original Link.

    Ahmadinejad Denies Holocaust, Says Israel “Has No Future”

    Friday, September 18th, 2009

    Nuclear want-to-be Ahmadinejad is at it again. Meanwhile the world sits on it’s hands and does nothing to stop this madman. Pathetic.

    In an apparent sign of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his ruling party flexing their muscles ahead of next week’s UN General Assembly, the hard-line leader again denied the Holocaust, while two top reformists were attacked in Teheran.

    Tens of thousands of Iranian government supporters and dozens of opposition activists poured out onto the streets of the capital for coinciding marches marking Quds Day – an annual event dedicated to condemning Israel and expressing support for the Palestinians. Quds is Arabic for Jerusalem.

    Addressing government supporters, Ahmadinejad called the Holocaust “a false pretext to create Israel.”

    He said that “confronting the Zionist regime is a national and religious duty,” and that Israel “has no future.”

    At the scene of the opposition march, a group of Iranian hard-liners attacked the car of former presidential candidate Mir Hussein Mousavi forcing him out of the area, according to AFP and Mousavi’s Web site.

    They also attacked reformist former president Mohammad Khatami while he was marching with the opposition supporters at the anti-government rally.

    reformist Web site cited witnesses as saying the attackers pushed Khatami to the ground. It said opposition activists rescued him and quickly repelled the assailants.

    Khatami has sided with the opposition in the post-election crisis that has gripped Iran. Another reformist Webs site says his turban was disheveled and he was forced to leave the march.

    The opposition insisted on holding its own protest, despite warnings by the clerical establishment against anti-government rallies.
    There has not been a mass opposition demonstration since mid-July, when authorities cracked down heavily on the opposition.

    On Thursday, Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard warned opposition protesters against holding anti-government demonstrations, saying that if they attempted “any sort of violation and disorder” they will encounter “strong confrontation.”

    Original Link.

    Another Textbook Battle in TX – Christmas Tossed?

    Friday, September 18th, 2009

    Unbelievable how the liberal mind works…

    Kelly Shackelford, president of Plano-based Liberty Legal Institute, says the Texas State Board of Education is currently reviewing social studies curriculum. He explains that in a suprising move the writing committee, in its review of religious holidays, has decided to replace Christmas and Rosh Hashana with the Hindu holiday of Diwali.

    “Some of this stuff is really getting out of hand,” says Shackelford, “and I think the people are going to take it back into their own hands and say, cut it out we are not replacing Christmas with Diwali. I hope and expect that will be the result, but right now that’s what we’ve got.”

    The Board faced another major battle earlier this year with science standards and the teaching of strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. Many concerned citizens made their voices heard, and the strengths and weaknesses component was not dropped from teaching requirements. In fact, it was strengthed.

    Original Link.

    FOX News Poll: Are Obama’s Opponents Racists?

    Friday, September 18th, 2009

    Well, most of us knew the race card would be used with this president in order to stop opposition to his policies. No surprise here at all. Of course, logical, thinking people know that it’s not racism at all, but that doesn’t keep the race baiters from doing what they do best.

    Is it racism or an honest disagreement? In recent days, some — including former President Jimmy Carter — have suggested there is a racial element behind opposition to President Obama and his policies. Most Americans, however, don’t see it that way: 65 percent think opposition to Obama’s policies is based on honest disagreements, while 20 percent say it is mostly motivated by racism.

    Black voters are twice as likely to say the opposition is motivated by race (63 percent cite racism as the reason for opposition and 27 percent say it is based on honest disagreements), while most white voters — 71 percent — say the opposition comes from honest disagreements.

    Majorities of Republicans (87 percent) and independents (69 percent) think opposition to Obama’s policies is based on honest disagreements. Among Democrats, 48 percent say honest disagreements and 34 percent say it is motivated by racism.

    Original Link.

    House Democrats to Wilson: Apologize or Face Censure

    Friday, September 18th, 2009

    OK, Congressman Wilson shouldn’t have yelled “you lie” at Obama in that setting, but the Dems need to let this drop, especially since it is clear that Obama was indeed lying. Check this out:

    “House Minority Leader John Boehner said Thursday that, according to a Congressional Research Service report, illegal immigrants would indeed be covered, defending Wilson’s assertion even though he called the manner in which he delivered it ‘inappropriate’.”

    On the House floor where President Obama spoke just a half-day earlier, two words shouted by a Republican congressman reverberated louder than the finer points of the health care debate.

    House Democrats seized on House rules Thursday to demand South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson offer a high-profile apology to President Obama for shouting, “You lie,” during the president’s health care address.

    Wilson called the White House shortly after Obama’s speech to say he was out of line. The White House said early Thursday that the president accepted the apology.

    But that did not put the issue to rest, and House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, also of South Carolina, asked Wilson to apologize on the House floor in front of his colleagues. The final vote of the day was held open by Democrats to give him an opportunity to do so, but he refused.

    Democrats threatened to censure Wilson absent such an apology. So far they have not done it — but even though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said earlier that a censure was not being considered, her top deputies kept it in the mix.

    House leaders debated future disciplinary steps against Wilson at a weekly closed-door strategy session in Pelosi’s office Thursday.

    “I want Mr. Wilson to come to the floor of the House and apologize,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. He indicated that House leaders did not reach a conclusion on sanctioning Wilson.

    “We need to figure out what to do,” said one senior member of the leadership team. Another high-level House source suggested that lawmakers didn’t want to let Wilson’s transgression go unpunished “because of the magnitude” of the accusation directed at Obama.

    But Wilson has tried to put the genie back in the bottle after he drew immediate, widespread and bipartisan criticism Wednesday. Shortly after the speech ended, Wilson issued a written apology and spoke with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to say he was sorry.

    Obama on Thursday extended his forgiveness.

    “I’m a big believer that we all make mistakes. He apologized quickly and without equivocation, and I’m appreciative of that,” Obama told reporters.

    In the face of persistent criticism, Republicans started to come to Wilson’s defense.

    South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham told FOX News that Wilson should not be judged on those two words.

    “He corrected his mistake. His mouth spoke before his mind,” said Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., chief deputy whip.

    Wilson’s outburst immediately followed Obama’s statement: “There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

    House Minority Leader John Boehner said Thursday that, according to a Congressional Research Service report, illegal immigrants would indeed be covered, defending Wilson’s assertion even though he called the manner in which he delivered it “inappropriate.”

    White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs insisted Thursday that illegal immigrants would be prohibited from buying into a health insurance exchange created by the federal government.

    Wilson said Thursday he wants to have a “civil discussion” on health care, calling his comments “spontaneous.”

    Democrats are walking a fine line in deciding whether to pursue a censure. While some Democrats want to punish Wilson, others are worried the action could distract from the health care reform effort.

    Obama hinted at that view when asked about Wilson Thursday.

    “I do think that, as I said last night, we have to get to the point where we can have a conversation about big, important issues that matter to the American people, without vitriol, without name-calling,” he said. “The media can always be helpful by not giving all the attention to the loudest or shrillest voices and try to stay a little bit more focused on the issues at hand.”

    Original Link.

    ‘Public Option’ Unlimited But Paid For, Leaving Number-Crunchers Perplexed

    Friday, September 18th, 2009

    More lies from the White House are exposed here. Sorry Oboe, fuzzy accounting doesn’t work in real life. Maybe it’s time you actually told us the truth for once.

    Health care policy researchers are contradicting President Obama’s claim that a government-run health insurance program would be self-sufficient and could rely on premiums, saying it’s not possible to insure up to 30 million people with better coverage and reduce costs at the same time.

    “The numbers don’t hold up,” Grace Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, a think tank devoted to health policy, said Thursday.

    In his case to the joint session of Congress Wednesday night, Obama cited the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to contend that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up for a so-called public option.

    The July report by the CBO projected that 6 million people would enroll in a government-run program, considerably fewer than the 100 million estimated by The Lewin Group, a health care policy research group, or the 47 million predicted by the left-leaning Urban Institute.

    The CBO offered its figure as part of an evaluation of one of the four congressional health bills floating through Congress right now. Asked whether a public plan would draw a significant number of Americans covered by private insurance, the congressional budget arm acknowledged that larger companies were not included in the assumptions.

    The CBO added that because several factors are uncertain, “estimating enrollment in the public plan is especially difficult.”

    Speaking Thursday, Obama repeated his claim that the cost of the plan — estimated at $900 billion over 10 years — will not add to the deficit. He also said that slowing the growth of health care costs will reduce the deficit by $4 trillion “over the long term.”

    “That’s real money,” he said of the $90 billion per year price tag. “But it’s far less than we’ve spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.”

    At a separate event, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters that half the bill “will be paid for by squeezing excesses out of the system” by finding $500 billion in reduced waste, fraud, abuse and redundancy. The rest will be paid for in pay-as-you-go funding and cuts in other spending.

    “Squeeze it out of the system, and that means out of the providers and the rest as well,” she said.

    She added that despite the price tag, there’s no limit on the help people will receive.

    “There’s a cap on what you pay in in premiums. There’s no cap on what you receive back,” Pelosi added.

    Turner said a self-sustaining model will depend, among other things, on the cost of the premiums and who’s eligible. She added that in his assessment, the president doesn’t account for the initial $7 billion to $8 billion of taxpayer money it may cost to launch the plan or whether taxpayers would bail out the public plan if it falls into financial trouble.

    “There’s too many unknowns to make a claim like that,” she said of the president’s estimates.

    The renewed push for new health care legislation came as the Census Bureau reported Thursday that the number of people without health insurance rose to 46.3 million in 2008, up from 45.7 million in 2007. The bureau’s total was attributed to a continuing erosion of employer-provided insurance as a result of job losses. The number also includes illegal immigrants whom Obama insists are not covered under his proposed plan.

    Robert Moffit, director of the Center of Health Policy Study at the conservative Heritage Foundation, expressed doubt that a public plan would or could be self-reliant.

    “I don’t know what government program is self-sufficient,” Moffit told “It’s conceivable. It’s theoretically possible. You can imagine an alternative universe not run by [Democratic House leaders] Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer where such a thing exists. But on planet Earth, it’s highly unlikely.”

    Moffit also questioned the purpose of having a public plan if less than 5 percent of Americans enrolled.

    “Why would we need it?” he asked. “You’re not keeping private insurers honest. At the end of the day, that is the elephant giving birth to the flea.”

    Original Link.